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
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

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
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

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 3:08-CV-1615-B / 3:08-CV-1551-B
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2009

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch

This case involves pre-enforcement constitutional challenges brought by two groups of plaintiffs (tenants and landlords) against the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, regarding an ordinance establishing a residential licensing scheme tied to federal immigration status. Plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated the Supremacy Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection. The City countered that plaintiffs lacked standing and the ordinance was a valid exercise of municipal authority. The court determined that both tenant and landlord plaintiffs had standing for most of their claims. Ultimately, the court found the ordinance to be an impermissible regulation of immigration and impliedly preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the City from enforcing Ordinance 2952.

Immigration LawFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseMunicipal OrdinanceResidential Licensing SchemeConstitutional LawStandingPermanent InjunctionSummary JudgmentLandlord-Tenant Law
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 11,926 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