C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 274a—CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS › Subpart A—Employer Requirements

8 C.F.R. § 274a.7

Pre-enactment provisions for employees hired prior to November 7, 1986 or in the CNMI prior to the transition program effective date

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

(a) For employees who are continuing in their employment and have a reasonable expectation of employment at all times (as set forth in 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(viii)), except those individuals described in 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(viii)(A)(7)(iii) and (b)(1)(viii)(A)(8):

(1) The penalty provisions set forth in section 274A(e) and (f) of the Act for violations of sections 274A(a)(1)(B) and 274A(a)(2) of the Act shall not apply to employees who were hired prior to November 7, 1986.

(2) The penalty provisions set forth in section 274A(e) and (f) of the Act for violations of section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Act shall not apply to employees who were hired in the CNMI prior to the transition program effective date as defined in 8 CFR 1.1.

(b) For purposes of this section, an employee who was hired prior to November 7, 1986 (or if hired in the CNMI, prior to the transition program effective date) shall lose his or her pre-enactment status if the employee:

(1) Quits; or

(2) Is terminated by the employer; the term termination shall include, but is not limited to, situations in which an employee is subject to seasonal employment; or

(3) Is excluded or deported from the United States or departs the United States under a grant of voluntary departure; or

(4) Is no longer continuing his or her employment (or does not have a reasonable expectation of employment at all times) as set forth in § 274a.2(b)(1)(viii).

[52 FR 16221, May 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 8613, Mar. 16, 1988; 55 FR 25935, June 25, 1990; 56 FR 41786, Aug. 23, 1991; 74 FR 55740, Oct. 28, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1989–2017 · leading case: Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California, 853 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California, 853 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 1324a(a)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a)(l). USA Waste hired Santillan in 1979, and even though he was fired in 2011, his reinstatement thereafter qualified him as a continuing employee, rather than a new employee.”
Mester Mfg. Co. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 879 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1989). “8 C.F.R. § 274a.7 (1988). However, the AU found that Mes-ter’s records showed that Castel-Garcia had quit in December 1986, and had been rehired in April 1987, thus removing his authorization.”
Dabone v. Thornburgh, 734 F. Supp. 195 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a). 13 . The government's argument that "an order had to be drafted and agreed upon by a majority of the members of the panel” also does not justify delay, in light of the fact that the order is merely a ready-made form with a few words crossed out and a few…”
Lueleni Maka, Dba Maka's Akamai Serv., & Maka's Akamai Serv. Inc. v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1990). “8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(b). Maka argues that Kapetaua was a grandfathered employee and therefore Maka was not subject to the requirements of the IRCA with respect to the hiring of Kapetaua.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a) — 1 case
Dabone v. Thornburgh, 734 F. Supp. 195 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a). 13 . The government's argument that "an order had to be drafted and agreed upon by a majority of the members of the panel” also does not justify delay, in light of the fact that the order is merely a ready-made form with a few words crossed out and a few…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a)(l) — 1 case
Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California, 853 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 1324a(a)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(a)(l). USA Waste hired Santillan in 1979, and even though he was fired in 2011, his reinstatement thereafter qualified him as a continuing employee, rather than a new employee.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(b) — 1 case
Lueleni Maka, Dba Maka's Akamai Serv., & Maka's Akamai Serv. Inc. v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1990). “8 C.F.R. § 274a.7(b). Maka argues that Kapetaua was a grandfathered employee and therefore Maka was not subject to the requirements of the IRCA with respect to the hiring of Kapetaua.”
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.