CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. H-13-2170
Regular Panel Decision

Redeemed Christian Church of God v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

The Redeemed Church of God filed a lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Office's (AAO) decision to deny an I-360 Special Immigrant Religious Worker visa petition for Joel Onyema Uzoma. The AAO had denied the petition based on evidence that Uzoma engaged in unauthorized secular employment through multiple business activities, including the registration of "Heph Technology Services" and "Cute Apparels," and numerous computer purchase and transfer transactions to Nigeria. The Church argued that the AAO misinterpreted evidence and applied statutes too broadly, contending that Uzoma's activities were not "employment" but "secular activities" to help a friend, and should not preclude his visa. The court, sitting as an appellate tribunal, found that the AAO's decision was well-supported by the administrative record, detailing a rational connection between the facts and the decision, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court denied the Church's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Immigration LawReligious Worker VisaI-360 PetitionUnauthorized EmploymentAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative Procedure ActBurden of ProofAgency Deference
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Casillas

This case addresses the legality of a procedure employed by immigration inspectors in INS District 14, where they routinely obtain waivers of exclusion hearings from aliens seeking readmission to the United States. Plaintiff Leticia Sanchez Hernandez and a certified class argued that this practice violates federal immigration law, regulations, and the Fifth Amendment. The court found that immigration inspectors lack the statutory authority to solicit such waivers, as this power is exclusively reserved for immigration judges. The judgment highlighted concerns about whether aliens knowingly and voluntarily relinquish their rights, especially given the lack of safeguards and explanations regarding future hearing availability. Consequently, the court ordered the Immigration and Naturalization Service to cease these unlawful practices within District 14 and to notify affected individuals of their right to a proper hearing.

Immigration LawWaiversExclusion HearingsAlien RightsDue ProcessAdministrative ProcedureINS District 14Permanent Resident AliensPort of EntryImmigration Inspectors
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aliens for Better Immigration Laws v. United States

Plaintiffs, consisting of housekeepers, child-care workers, and Aliens for Better Immigration Laws, challenged a provision of the 1990 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. They argued that the reallocation of employment-based visas, which limited 'other workers' to 10,000 per year, violated their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by substantially extending their wait for permanent resident visas. The court applied a rational basis review, affirming Congress's broad power over immigration policy and finding the provision rationally related to the legitimate goal of prioritizing skilled workers. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not possess a protected property or liberty interest in working legally in the U.S. between labor certification and visa issuance. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Immigration LawDue ProcessFifth AmendmentVisa AllocationLabor CertificationEmployment-Based VisasSkilled WorkersUnskilled WorkersRational Basis ReviewJudicial Review of Legislation
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantwell v. Holder

Plaintiffs Sally and Paul Cantwell, along with their adopted son Samuel Alexander Edwards, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that refused to recognize a nunc pro tunc adoption order from the New York Family Court. The BIA and USCIS had denied Samuel's immigrant petition and adjustment of status application, arguing the adoption was not finalized before his 16th birthday, relying on Matter of Cariaga. The District Court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, reversed the BIA's decision. The court held that the BIA erred by not giving full faith and credit to the New York Family Court's nunc pro tunc order, which legally recognized Samuel's adoption prior to his 16th birthday despite being formally entered after. The court found the BIA's strict interpretation of the statute to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to Congress's intent to keep bona fide immigrant families united, and not entitled to Chevron deference.

Immigration LawAdoption LawNunc Pro Tunc OrderBoard of Immigration AppealsUSCISChevron DeferenceFull Faith and CreditJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawFamily Unification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendall v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Cyril Nathaniel Kendall, a lawful permanent resident from Guyana, faced deportation proceedings after convictions for rape and subsequent grand larceny and forgery charges. While detained at Rikers Island, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detainer was lodged against him. Kendall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the INS detainer prevented his release on bail and violated his constitutional rights. The Government moved to dismiss, arguing that Kendall was in state custody, not federal, and that an INS detainer merely served as a notice, not a basis for habeas jurisdiction. The District Court granted the Government's motion, dismissing Kendall's petition for lack of jurisdiction, asserting he remained in the custody of New York State officials.

Immigration LawHabeas CorpusFederal JurisdictionINS DetainerState CustodyRipeness DoctrineJudicial RestraintDeportation ProceedingsAggravated FelonyConstitutional Rights
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavan v. Drysdale

The petitioners, nonimmigrant aliens working as specialty cooks, challenged deportation orders after their L-1 visa extensions were denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS had based its denial partly on an interpretation of legislative history suggesting a three-year maximum stay for L-1 visa holders. The District Court found that the INS had misconstrued congressional intent regarding L-1 visa extensions, noting that further extensions might be warranted in certain cases. Consequently, the Court granted a writ of habeas corpus, cancelling the deportation proceedings and remanding the matter to the INS for reconsideration of the L-1 extension denials. Additionally, the INS was instructed to give due consideration to the petitioners' applications for adjustment to permanent resident status, especially since their visa priority date was current.

Immigration LawHabeas CorpusL-1 VisaVisa ExtensionDeportation ProceedingsDiscretionary AuthorityJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionAdjustment of StatusPermanent Resident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1991

Alkatabi v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiffs Christine and Hasan Alkatabi sued the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and several INS examiners, including Frank Lucas and John Marsh, alleging racial discrimination and Fifth Amendment violations. They claimed that the defendants caused undue delays in processing Mrs. Alkatabi's immediate relative petition for her husband, Hasan Alkatabi, a native of Yemen. The delays were attributed to issues with verifying Mr. Alkatabi's Yemen divorce decree and processing a separate "special agricultural worker" application. The United States District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that sovereign immunity protected the INS and official-capacity examiners, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent for individual-capacity claims. Subsequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reargument was denied.

Immigration LawRacial DiscriminationFifth AmendmentDue ProcessSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionQualified ImmunityINS
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Redeemed Christian Church of God v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses a challenge by The Redeemed Christian Church of God and Joel Onyema Uzoma against the USCIS's denial of an I-360 Petition for a special immigrant religious worker visa on Uzoma’s behalf, and the subsequent denial of their motion to reopen the case. The court dismissed Uzoma’s individual claims due to lack of standing. However, it denied USCIS’s motion for summary judgment and partially granted The Redeemed Christian Church’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the AAO abused its discretion by failing to properly consider all evidence, particularly testimonial evidence, when evaluating whether Uzoma engaged in secular employment. Consequently, the case is remanded to the USCIS for further investigation and a thorough re-evaluation of all submitted evidence.

Immigration LawReligious Worker VisaI-360 PetitionUSCISAdministrative Appeals Office (AAO)Judicial ReviewSummary JudgmentStandingAbuse of DiscretionRemand
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KCP Food Co., Inc. v. Sava

K.C.P. Food Co., Inc. appealed the denial of a sixth preference visa petition for Christoforos Bollas by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The District Director and Associate Commissioner denied the petition due to K.C.P.'s failure to demonstrate financial ability to pay the proffered wage, relying on the company's corporate tax return. K.C.P. argued the denial was an abuse of discretion, unsupported by evidence, and violated Fifth Amendment due process. The Court, presided over by Judge Leisure, found that the INS's decision was not an abuse of discretion, as K.C.P. failed to meet its burden of proof regarding financial capability and did not present additional evidence at the administrative level. The Court also dismissed the due process claim, stating K.C.P. had no acquired property interest. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the complaint.

Immigration LawVisa PetitionSixth Preference VisaAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsFinancial AbilityProffered WageCorporate Tax Return
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 121 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational