INS v. Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights

7 Citing briefs

  1. Forest Service Employees For Environmental Ethics v. United States Forest Service et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 5, 2017

    Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. at 188; see also iMatterUtah v. Njord, 774 F.3d 1258, 1264 (10th Cir. 2014) (an as-applied challenge “tests the application of that [regulation] to the facts of a plaintiff’s concrete case.”).

  2. SALAS v. SIERRA CHEMICAL

    Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed May 28, 2013

    As noted previously, the Legislature’s purpose in enacting SB 1818 was to reaffirm that all workers in this state were equally ’ See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 99-682(I), at 46-49 (stating the purpose of IRCAis that of controlling immigration to the United States, mainly through enactment of employer sanctions), reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5662; H.R. Rep. No. 99-1000, at 85 (conference report on IRCA)(stating IRCA’s purposeis to effectively control unauthorized immigration to the United States), reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5840, 5840. * “IRCA ‘forcefully’ made combating the employment of illegal aliens central to ‘[t]he policy of immigration law.’” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137, 147, quoting INSv. National Centerfor Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. (1991) 502 U.S. 183, 194 and n.8. protected by California’s employmentand labor lawsregardless of immigration status, so as to ensure that unprincipled employers would have no reason to prefer undocumented persons over those who were work-authorized.”? Were undocumented workersto be left unprotected, or simply less protected, by the same lawsthat authorized workers enjoy, unethical employers would have every incentive to employ them knowingthat they could be underpaid, subjected to unlawful working conditions, discriminated against, and then fired — all with absolute impunity as far as state law was concerned.’ Such structure of unequalrights and remedies would, if anything, encourage employers to seek out unauthorized workers and thereby provide an economic inducementfor the behaviorthat Justice Breyer, in the context of the National Labor Relations Act, pointed to in his dissenting opinion in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137": To deny the Board the power to award backpay ... lower

  3. L-R et al v. Johnson et al

    MOTION for Reconsideration re Memorandum & Opinion

    Filed March 20, 2015

    ’” Id. at 313 (quoting I.N.S. v. Nat’l Center for Immig. Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194 (1991)). The Court continued, though, instructing that “as NCIR itself demonstrates, this does not mean that the Service must forswear use of reasonable presumptions and generic rules.”

  4. SALAS v. SIERRA CHEMICAL

    Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed May 28, 2013

    Hottman’s reversal was based on a conflict which the Court held to exist between an award of backpay to an undocumented employee and federal immigration policy, which hasat its core the denial of employmentto illegal aliens: As wehave previously noted, IRCA "forcefully" made combating the employmentofillegal aliens central to "the policy of immigration law." INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194, 116 L. Ed. 2d 546, 112 8. Ct. 551, and n. 8 (1991). It did so by establishing an extensive "employment verification system," § 1324a(a)(1), designed to deny employment to aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States, or (b) are not lawfully authorized to work in the 15 United States, § 1324a(h)(3).

  5. Louisiana Forestry Association Inc. et al v. Solis et al

    MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 08/20/2012. 08/20/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.

    Filed August 20, 2012

    Section 1182(p)(4)’s applicability is limited by the title of the section of which it is a part. See INS v. Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. 183, 189 (1991) (reading a generic term in light of more specific language contained in the title of the paragraph of which the generic term is a part). The section’s title makes clear that Congress intended for the four-tier system of calculating prevailing wages to apply to H-1B occupations, which require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields.

  6. United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed July 7, 2010

    See Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights v. INS, 913 F.2d 1350, 1368 (9th Cir. 1990) (rev’d on other grounds, 502 U.S. 183 (1991)) (emphasis in original). IRCA therefore embodied a “congressional policy choice [that was] clearly elaborated” in favor of sanctions only for the employer.

  7. Valle del Sol, et al, v. Whiting, et al.

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support

    Filed June 21, 2010

    See Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. INS, 913 F.2d 1350, 1368 (9th Cir. 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 502 U.S. 183 (1991) (“While Congress initially discussed the merits of fining, detaining or adopting criminal sanctions against the employee, it ultimately rejected all such proposals . . . Instead, it deliberately adopted sanctions with respect to the employer only. Congress quite clearly was willing to deter illegal immigration by making jobs less available to illegal aliens but not by incarcerating or fining aliens who succeeded in obtaining work.”)