Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
November 1, 2005, Argued ; April 10, 2006, Decided
Docket No. 04-5097-cv
[*171] JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge:
James Murray and Ruth Gould, the Appellants, came to the United States on nonimmigrant visas under the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program ("IPPCTP"), a program established by Congress. When their relationship with their American employer soured, the employer told Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. ("NGIT"), the Program Administrator of the IPPCTP, that Murray and Gould had never actually worked for [**2] him and that they were threats to national security. Based on these allegations, the Immigration and Naturalization [*172] Service ("INS") 1 detained Murray and Gould, and NGIT terminated them from the program. The INS initiated deportation proceedings based principally on NGIT's transmittal of the employer's accusations to the government. Appellants sued NGIT, upon a claim of injuries as a result of NGIT's alleged negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and breach of contract. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Allyne E. Ross, Judge) granted summary judgment to NGIT. This appeal followed.
[**3] In 1998, ] Congress enacted the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-319, 112 Stat. 3013 amending the Immigration and Nationality Act "to allow young people from disadvantaged areas of [Ireland] suffering from sectarian violence and high structural unemployment to enter the United States for the purpose of developing job skills and conflict resolution abilities in a diverse, cooperative, peaceful, and prosperous environment, so that those young people can return to their homes better able to contribute toward economic regeneration and the Irish peace process." Id. § 2(a)(1), 112 Stat. at 3013. To achieve this end, the program allots up to 4,000 nonimmigrant "Q-2" visas per year, id. § 2(a)(2), 112 Stat. at 3013, which allow their holders to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(Q)(ii).
The Department of State ("DOS") and the INS, who are responsible for general oversight and enforcement of the IPPCTP provisions, 22 C.F.R. § 139.1(b), issued regulations for the administration of the program in March of 2000. Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Interim Rule, [**4] 65 Fed. Reg. 14,764, 17,768 (Mar. 17, 2000) (codified at 22 C.F.R. pt. 139). ] The regulations delegate responsibility for day-to-day operation of the program to a Program Administrator ("PA"). 22 C.F.R. § 139.1(b). The day-to-day responsibilities of the PA include, inter alia, identifying job opportunities for program participants, recommending employers for participation in the program to the DOS, which has final authority for approving employers, id., and issuing letters of certification to aliens approved for the program. Id. § 139.4. NGIT was selected as the PA.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
444 F.3d 169 *; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8706 **; 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 513
JAMES MURRAY and RUTH GOULD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, - v.- NORTHROP GRUMMAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Allyne R. Ross, Judge) granting summary judgment to Appellees and dismissing Appellants' state tort law claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and breach of contract arising out of Appellants' participation in the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program, a federal program.
immunity, allegations, regulations, obligations, negligence claim, immigration, terminated, mediate, summary judgment, discretionary, investigate, contractor, conveying, employees, reinstate, government agency, national security, transmittal, sharing
Immigration Law, Types of Nonimmigrant Status, Exchange Visitors (J & Q Visas), Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Torts, Public Entity Liability, Immunities, Absolute Immunity, Negligence, Elements, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Contracts Implied in Fact, Contract Formation, Consideration, Preexisting Duties