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 A—Labor Certification Process for Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment in the United States (H-2B Workers)
An employer may apply for extensions of the period of employment in the following circumstances. A request for extension must be related to weather conditions or other factors beyond the control of the employer (which may include unforeseeable changes in market conditions), and must be supported in writing, with documentation showing why the extension is needed and that the need could not have been reasonably foreseen by the employer. The CO will notify the employer of the decision in writing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the CO will not grant an extension where the total work period under that Application for Temporary Employment Certification and the authorized extension would exceed 9 months for employers whose temporary need is seasonal, peakload, or intermittent, or 3 years for employers that have a one-time occurrence of temporary need. The employer may appeal a denial of a request for an extension by following the procedures in § 655.61. The H-2B employer's assurances and obligations under the temporary labor certification will continue to apply during the extended period of employment. The employer must immediately provide to its workers a copy of any approved extension.
Notes of Decisions
Aviles-Cervantes v. Outside Unlimited, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 480 (D. Maryland 2017).
“Defendant contends that United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations, if legally binding as the-Plaintiffs allege 6 , “requite DOL to resolve [Plaintiffs’] claims.” Id. Specifically, Defendant claims that “complaint, investigation, and administrative enforcement…”
G.H. Daniels III & Assocs., Inc. v. Perez, 626 F. App'x 205 (10th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “As a result, DOL concluded Daniels had (1) willfully misrepresented a material fact on its certification application in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 655.60 (a) (2008) and (2) substantially failed to meet a condition of the certification by placing H-2B workers outside the area of…”
Butler Amusements, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2025).
· cites it 2× “§ 1184 (c)(14)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 655.60 . If such a finding is made, the Administrator may “impose such administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per violation)” as “determine[d] to be appropriate.”
G.H. Daniels III & Assoc. v. Perez (10th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “As a result, DOL concluded Daniels had (1) willfully misrepresented a material fact on its certification application in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 655.60 (a) (2008) and (2) substantially failed to meet a condition of the certification by placing H-2B workers outside the area of…”
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.