International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese
616 F. Supp. 1387, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16403 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency's internal operational guideline is unlawful if it contravenes the plain language and legislative intent of a statute. A guideline permitting foreign nationals to perform skilled or unskilled labor under a B-1 "temporary visitor for business" visa is invalid because it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act's express prohibition of such labor in that category and circumvents the H-2 "temporary worker" visa's labor certification requirements designed to protect U.S. workers.
Facts:
- In early 1984, Homestake Mining Company of California (“Homestake”) began construction on its McLaughlin Gold Project in Lake County, California.
- Homestake's construction manager purchased a new gold ore processing system from Didier-Werke (“Didier”), a West German manufacturing company.
- The purchase agreement was contingent upon Didier's West German employees completing installation work on the system at the project site in California.
- In September 1984, Didier submitted B-1 "temporary visitor for business" visa petitions on behalf of ten of its West German employees.
- Relying on INS Operations Instruction 214.2(b)(5), U.S. consular officers approved the petitions and issued B-1 visas to the German workers.
- In January 1985, the German employees entered the United States and began performing technical bricklaying skills to install the interior linings of the system's autoclaves.
- International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen (“International Union”) represents masonry craftsmen who were allegedly qualified and available to perform this work.
Procedural Posture:
- The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen (“plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the INS (“federal defendants”) in U.S. District Court.
- Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order was denied.
- The court granted plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction, requiring the federal defendants to reclassify the visa status of the German workers pending a final decision.
- Homestake Mining Company of California was granted permission to intervene in the suit as a defendant-intervenor.
- All parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, bringing the case before the District Court for a decision on the merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Operations Instruction 214.2(b)(5), which allows foreign laborers to be classified as B-1 "temporary visitors for business" to install or service equipment sold by a foreign company, violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by contravening the express exclusion of "skilled or unskilled labor" from the B-1 category and circumventing the labor certification requirements for H-2 "temporary workers"?
Opinions:
Majority - Legge, District Judge.
Yes, INS Operations Instruction 214.2(b)(5) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plain language of the Act in section 101(a)(15)(B) unequivocally excludes an alien 'coming for the purpose of... performing skilled or unskilled labor' from the B-1 'temporary visitor for business' classification. The Operations Instruction directly contravenes this prohibition by authorizing B-1 visas for aliens coming to 'install, service, or repair' equipment, which constitutes skilled or unskilled labor. Furthermore, the instruction creates an unlawful bypass of the H-2 'temporary worker' visa process established in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which contains critical labor certification safeguards to protect American workers by ensuring foreign laborers are admitted only when qualified U.S. workers are unavailable. The legislative history of the Act confirms Congress's central purpose was to protect the domestic labor force, a policy frustrated by the challenged agency guideline. The agency's interpretation is not entitled to deference as it is inconsistent with the statutory mandate.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies judicial invalidation of an agency's long-standing interpretation of a statute where the interpretation conflicts with the statute's plain language and congressional intent. It reinforces the principle that an agency cannot create administrative loopholes that undermine a core legislative purpose, in this case, the protection of the domestic labor market. The ruling clarifies the strict distinction between permissible 'business' activities under a B-1 visa (e.g., negotiations, consultations) and impermissible 'labor.' Consequently, it forces employers seeking to bring foreign workers for hands-on installation, service, or repair work to utilize the more restrictive H-2 visa category, which requires demonstrating a lack of available U.S. workers.
