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 › Subpart B—Labor Certification Process for Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States (H-2A Workers)

20 C.F.R. § 655.101

Authority of the agencies, offices, and divisions in the Department of Labor

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

(a) Authority and role of the Office of Foreign Labor Certification. The Secretary has delegated authority to the Assistant Secretary for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), who in turn has delegated that authority to the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), to issue certifications and carry out other statutory responsibilities as required by 8 U.S.C. 1188. Determinations on an Application for Temporary Employment Certification are made by the OFLC Administrator who, in turn, may delegate this responsibility to designated staff, e.g., a Certifying Officer (CO).

(b) Authority of the Wage and Hour Division. The Secretary has delegated authority to the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) to conduct certain investigatory and enforcement functions with respect to terms and conditions of employment under 8 U.S.C. 1188, 29 CFR part 501, and this subpart (“the H-2A program”), and to carry out other statutory responsibilities required by 8 U.S.C. 1188. The regulations governing WHD's investigatory and enforcement functions, including those related to the enforcement of temporary agricultural labor certifications issued under this subpart, are in 29 CFR part 501.

(c) Concurrent authority. OFLC and WHD have concurrent authority to impose a debarment remedy pursuant to § 655.182 and 29 CFR 501.20.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Gaudencio Garcia-Celestino v. Consol. Citrus Ltd. P'ship, 843 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaudencio Garcia-Celestino v. Consol. Citrus Ltd. P'ship, 843 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (b)(1) (2006); 20 C.F.”
Eeoc v. Global Horizons, Inc, 915 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2019). “20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (b)(1) (2004). 1 The employer 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the version of the Department of Labor’s regulations in effect in 2004 and 2005, when the Growers contracted with Global Horizons to hire Thai workers through the H-2A program.”
Luc Chery v. Gordon Bowman, Ii, D/B/A Mount Clifton Fruit Co., 901 F.2d 1053 (11th Cir. 1990). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (c)(4). The Winchester office transmitted Bowman’s clearance orders to states — including Florida — that the Department of Labor determined were potential sources of farm labor.”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.P.R. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 1188 (a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 ; Vega v. Nourse Farms, Inc.”
Martinez-Bautista v. D & S PRODUCE, 447 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (b)(1). The employer, or an'agent of the employer, must file the application with the OFLC Administrator and submit a copy of the application to the local office of the State Workforce Agency (“SWA”).”
Vega v. Nourse Farms, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Mass. 1999). · cites it 3× “§ 1188 (a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 . Prior to Attorney General approval, the employer must successfully apply to the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) for certification that (A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing and qualified, and…”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n, 42 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.P.R. 1999). “20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (c)(4). The goal of the interstate clearance system is to find domestic workers who meet the grower’s needs.”
United Farm Workers v. Solis, 697 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2010). “20 C.F.R. § 655.101 . To ensure that the wages of U.”
Sejour v. Steven Davis Farms, LLC, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (N.D. Fla. 2014). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (b)(1) (1987). In this case, the H-2A farmwork-ers did work alongside domestic farm-workers.”
Seven Star, Inc. v. United States, 873 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1989). “§§ 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii) & 1184(c) and 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 . After the DOL denied the visas, the plaintiffs resubmitted their applications to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Los Angeles district office pursuant to 8 C.”
Farmer v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 4 F.3d 1274 (4th Cir. 1993). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (c). The Employment Security Commission is the Employment Service System’s North Carolina affiliate.”
Garcia v. Acosta (D.D.C. 2019). “See 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (“The determinations [shall be] made by the OFLC Administrator who, in turn, may delegate this responsibility to designated staff members; e.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 20 C.F.R. § 655.101(b)(1) — 1 case
Gaudencio Garcia-Celestino v. Consol. Citrus Ltd. P'ship, 843 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (b)(1) (2006); 20 C.F.”
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.