C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER V—EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 655—TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES

20 C.F.R. § 655.0

Scope and purpose of part

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subparts A, B, and C—(1) General. Subparts A, B, and C of this part set out the procedures adopted by the Secretary to secure information sufficient to make factual determinations of: (i) Whether U.S. workers are available to perform temporary employment in the United States, for which an employer desires to employ nonimmigrant foreign workers, and (ii) whether the employment of aliens for such temporary work will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. These factual determinations (or a determination that there are not sufficient facts to make one or both of these determinations) are required to carry out the policies of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), that a nonimmigrant alien worker not be admitted to fill a particular temporary job opportunity unless no qualifed U.S. worker is available to fill the job opportunity, and unless the employment of the foreign worker in the job opportunity will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

(2) The Secretary's determinations. Before any factual determination can be made concerning the availability of U.S. workers to perform particular job opportunities, two steps must be taken. First, the minimum level of wages, terms, benefits, and conditions for the particular job opportunities, below which similarly employed U.S. workers would be adversely affected, must be established. (The regulations in this part establish such minimum levels for wages, terms, benefits, and conditions of employment.) Second, the wages, terms, benefits, and conditions offered and afforded to the aliens must be compared to the established minimum levels. If it is concluded that adverse effect would result, the ultimate determination of availability within the meaning of the INA cannot be made since U.S. workers cannot be expected to accept employment under conditions below the established minimum levels. Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F. 2d 299 (5th Cir. 1976).

Once a determination of no adverse effect has been made, the availability of U.S. workers can be tested only if U.S. workers are actively recruited through the offer of wages, terms, benefits, and conditions at least at the minimum level or the level offered to the aliens, whichever is higher. The regulations in this part set forth requirements for recruiting U.S. workers in accordance with this principle.

(3) Construction. This part and its subparts shall be construed to effectuate the purpose of the INA that U.S. workers rather than aliens be employed wherever possible. Elton Orchards, Inc. v. Brennan, 508 F. 2d 493, 500 (1st Cir. 1974), Flecha v. Quiros, 567 F. 2d 1154 (1st Cir. 1977). Where temporary alien workers are admitted, the terms and conditions of their employment must not result in a lowering of the terms and conditions of domestic workers similarly employed, Williams v. Usery, 531 F. 2d 305 (5th Cir. 1976); Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F. 2d 299 (5th Cir. 1976), and the job benefits extended to any U.S. workers shall be at least those extended to the alien workers.

(b) Subparts D and E. Subparts D and E of this part set forth the process by which health care facilities can file attestations with the Department of Labor for the purpose of employing or otherwise using nonimmigrant registered nurses under H-1A visas.

(c) Subparts F and G. Subparts F and G of this part set forth the process by which employers can file attestations with the Department of Labor for the purpose of employing alien crewmembers in longshore work under D-visas and enforcement provisions relating thereto.

(d) Subparts H and I of this part. Subpart H of this part sets forth the process by which employers can file labor condition applications (LCAs) with, and the requirements for obtaining approval from, the Department of Labor to temporarily employ the following three categories of nonimmigrants in the United States: (1) H-1B visas for temporary employment in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability; (2) H-1B1 visas for temporary employment in specialty occupations of nonimmigrant professionals from countries with which the United States has entered into certain agreements identified in section 214(g)(8)(A) of the INA; and (3) E-3 visas for nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia for temporary employment in specialty occupations. Subpart I of this part establishes the enforcement provisions that apply to the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs.

(e) Subparts J and K of this part. Subparts J and K of this part set forth the process by which employers can file attestations with the Department of Labor for the purpose of employing nonimmigrant alien students on F-visas in off-campus employment and enforcement provisions relating thereto.

[43 FR 10312, Mar. 10, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 20507, June 1, 1987; 55 FR 50510, Dec. 6, 1990; 56 FR 24667, May 30, 1991; 56 FR 54738, Oct. 22, 1991; 56 FR 56875, Nov. 6, 1991; 57 FR 1337, Jan. 13, 1992; 57 FR 40989, Sept. 8, 1992; 69 FR 68226, Nov. 23, 2004; 73 FR 19947, Apr. 11, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Reymundo Mendoza v. Thomas Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reymundo Mendoza v. Thomas Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (a)(2) (“U.S. workers cannot be expected to accept employment under conditions below the established minimum levels.”
Garcia v. Frog Island Seafood, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D.N.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (3). Accordingly, under both programs, before filing a petition for non-immigrant workers with the Department of Homeland Security, an employer must first apply with the DOL for a certification that: (1) U.”
Gaxiola v. Williams Seafood of Arapahoe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 2d 117 (E.D.N.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), as well as by United States Department of Labor (“US-DOL”) regulations applicable to the temporary labor certification process, 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 et seq. and 8 C.F.R. § 214.”
United States v. Richard Dattner Architects, 972 F. Supp. 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). · cites it 3× “Thus, the most likely interpretation of plaintiffs claim is that defendant violated the INA and its regulations by submitting a fraudulent statement to the Secretary of Labor and hiring an alien when domestic workers were available.”
Alfaro-Huitron v. WKI Outsourcing Solutions, 982 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2020). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 ; see also Mendoza, 754 F.”
Aleutian Capital Partners v. Pizzella, 975 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2020). “” 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (a)(1). Those DOL regulations to which we have referred advance this goal by ensuring that H-1B Program employees are paid in a consistent and predictable manner.”
NAACP, Jefferson Cnty. Branch v. Donovan, 566 F. Supp. 1202 (D.D.C. 1983). · cites it 2× “tes to determine the AER and shall begin processing a proposed rule regarding AER methodology for the 1983 season for all affected states, and shall publish in the Federal Register the 1983 AER for all affected states no later than July 29, 1983; and it is further ORDERED that…”
Fidel Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Appellants urge us to distinguish Lopez on the ground that the plaintiffs in that case did not enter the United States under an H-2 permit or sue on a contract the terms of which were governed by the H-2 regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0 et seq. Even assuming appellants properly…”
NAACP v. Donovan, 558 F. Supp. 218 (D.D.C. 1982). “Pursuant to this mandate, the DOL has promulgated the regulations at issue here: 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0 to 655.00, 655.200 to 655.”
De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2008). “20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (a). The Department of Labor determined that an employer must provide “full-time” employment to its H-2B employees in order not to adversely affect those similarly-situated U.”
Mendoza v. Solis, 924 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D.D.C. 2013). “” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (e))). Additionally, H-2A employers are required to pay workers “at least twice monthly or according to the prevailing practice in the area of intended employment, whichever is more frequent.”
Maine State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Chao, 265 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “¶¶ 34-36 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (a)(2)). The regulations explain that “[i]f it is concluded that adverse effect would result, the ultimate determination of availability within the meaning of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] cannot be made since U.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 655.0(a)(2) — 3 cases
Williams v. Walsh (D.D.C. 2022).
Williams v. Walsh (D.D.C. 2022).
Williams v. Walsh (D.D.C. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.