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

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

Flores v. Amigon

Plaintiff Maria Flores sued her former employer, La Flor Bakery, for unpaid overtime wages under federal and state laws. During discovery, La Flor Bakery requested Flores' immigration documents, social security number, and passports, arguing this information was relevant to a defense based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Supreme Court decision, which it contended would preclude back pay for undocumented aliens. Flores filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that her immigration status was irrelevant to her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims and that disclosing such information would have an intimidating effect. The court, distinguishing Hoffman Plastic as applying to back pay for work not performed, found Flores' immigration status irrelevant to her claims for wages for work already completed. Consequently, the court granted Flores' motion for a protective order, concluding that the potential prejudice of disclosing her immigration status significantly outweighed any minimal probative value for the defense.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAImmigration Reform and Control ActIRCAundocumented workersback payovertime wagesprotective orderdiscoveryimmigration status
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barahona v. Trustees of Columbia University

Plaintiff, alleging personal injury from construction work and violations of Labor Law, initiated a lawsuit against the defendant. During discovery, the defendant sought authorizations and records pertaining to the plaintiff's immigration status, arguing its relevance to claims for future lost earnings. The plaintiff resisted, asserting irrelevance and potential prejudice. The court, referencing the New York Court of Appeals decision in Majlinger, affirmed that while undocumented status does not preclude recovery of lost wages, immigration status is a valid factor for a jury to consider in assessing future lost earnings. Consequently, the defendant's motion to compel the production of all requested immigration-related documents was granted.

DiscoveryImmigration StatusLost WagesFuture EarningsLabor LawCPLR 3122CPLR 3124CPLR 3126Motion to CompelPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angamarca v. Da Ciro, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Angamarea, an undocumented immigrant, filed a lawsuit against Da Ciro, Inc. and its principal, Ciro Verde, alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After returning to his native Ecuador, Angamarea sought to provide deposition and trial testimony remotely. Defendant Da Ciro moved to dismiss the claims due to Angamarea's failure to appear in person. The Court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, denied the motion, ruling that Angamarea's immigration status constituted compelling circumstances for remote testimony. The decision emphasized that employers cannot leverage an employee's immigration status as a defense to FLSA claims, especially when the status was known at the time of employment.

Undocumented ImmigrantRemote DepositionRemote TestimonyWage and Hour LawsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSouthern District of New YorkDiscovery
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. 92 Misc 2d 220
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1977

Nizamuddowlah v. Bengal Cabaret, Inc.

Plaintiff, an undocumented immigrant, was employed as a waiter by defendant Wadud's restaurant. Despite working for an extended period, the plaintiff was not paid his wages. He eventually obtained legal status and commenced an action under the Minimum Wage Act. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's illegal immigration status during most of his employment precluded recovery. The Supreme Court, Queens County, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court stating that an individual's status as an illegal alien does not bar recovery under the Minimum Wage Act, as the statute protects all employees and preventing unjust enrichment is crucial.

Illegal alien employmentMinimum Wage Actunpaid wagesunjust enrichmentlabor law violationsimmigration statusemployee rightsappellate reviewnonjury trialQueens County
References
1
Case No. ADJ 7762176
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant with an admitted industrial injury who was medically cleared for modified duty. The employer refused to rehire the applicant due to his inability to provide documentation of his legal U.S. work status, despite having available modified work. The applicant is receiving temporary disability benefits, which the employer seeks to terminate, arguing the applicant is partially disabled and his inability to work is due to immigration status, not the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge recommended denying the employer's petition, citing that California law extends all state protections to employees regardless of immigration status.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability BenefitsLegally EmployableModified DutyAlternate WorkImmigration StatusUndocumented WorkerLawfully EmployedSocial Security NumberIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. F & T International LLC

This case involves two undocumented construction workers, Gomez and Livicura, who were injured in a demolition accident on February 4, 2005. The property owner, F & T Int’l (Flushing, New York) LLC, and the general contractor, Top 8 Construction Corp., moved to compel further depositions of the plaintiffs regarding their immigration status and income tax returns to mitigate lost wage claims. The court, citing Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC, denied the defendants' motion, ruling that a worker's alien status is irrelevant for lost wage claims when no false documents were used. The court emphasized that the onus of verifying work authorization lies with the employer, not the employee, and highlighted the disingenuousness of employers raising immigration status concerns only after an injury, deeming it an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs.

Construction AccidentUndocumented WorkersLost Wages ClaimImmigration StatusEmployer SanctionsIRCAWorkers' RightsDemolition IndustryPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,157 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