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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This appeal concerns a breach of an employment agreement between Vintage Health Resources, Inc. and nurse James Jose R. Guiangan. Guiangan, recruited from the Philippines, resigned a year into his three-year contract. Vintage sued for breach, while Guiangan argued the contract was unenforceable due to unconscionability and public policy violations, citing Vintage's threats to report him to immigration officials. The trial court initially sided with Guiangan, but the appellate court reversed, finding unconscionability was not properly pled and the contract terms themselves were not unconscionable or against public policy, as the threats occurred after the contract was formed. The appellate court affirmed the injunction against Vintage for threatening employees but vacated the injunction regarding recruitment materials, remanding the case for consideration of Vintage's damage claim and Guiangan's counterclaims.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractUnconscionabilityPublic PolicyInvoluntary ServitudeImmigration ThreatsNurse RecruitmentInternational EmploymentAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defenses
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The case involves a challenge by ICE Agent Plaintiffs and the State of Mississippi against directives issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically the Morton Memorandum and the Napolitano Directive, which concern prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement and deferred action for certain undocumented immigrants (DACA). Plaintiffs argued that these directives compel them to violate federal statutes and their oaths of office, and impose fiscal costs on the state. The Court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and improper venue. The Court granted the motion to dismiss for the State of Mississippi due to speculative fiscal injury and for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to employment authorization due to lack of personal harm. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, finding they had standing due to the threat of adverse employment action for non-compliance. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

Immigration LawProsecutorial DiscretionDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Standing (Law)Motion to DismissFederal Court JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)Employment Authorization
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 337 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