ILNews

7th Circuit shoots down Homeland Security decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Homeland Security wrongly second-guessed the federal labor department in denying an application by a mental health residential care group – Hoosier Care Inc. – asking for labor certification and immigrant visas for two Filipinos, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

An eight-page opinion in Hoosier Care Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., comes from a decision last year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Hoosier Care, a non-profit organization that operates in both Illinois and Indiana, wanted to hire two Filipinos without American citizenship to be staff members to help take care of disabled adults and children at one of its Illinois facilities. They were to be "developmental disability specialists," the suit says. In order to hire them, the company had to first receive alien labor certification before being able to obtain immigrant visas for the pair.

The Department of Labor granted the certification after receiving information that the two met education requirements, but the Homeland Security ;s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency later rejected the petition to classify the two eligible for "employer-based" immigration status. An Illinois District Court ruled against Hoosier Care in its challenge of the decision.

However, the three judge panel – Judges Richard Posner, Ilana Rovner and Diane Sykes – reversed the decision and remanded it to the Department of Homeland Security for further proceedings, essentially arguing that the labor department has jurisdiction here and not homeland security officials.

In the decision, Judge Posner wrote, "But the Department of Homeland Security does not argue that in conducting such and investigation in this case it was simply doing the Labor Department 's work for it. If it wants to do that, it will have to change its regulations and probably also persuade Congress to change the statute."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT