Jane Porter, IndyWeek, Feb. 7, 2025 "A man who identified himself as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent confronted two attorneys in the hallway of the third floor of the Wake...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box, Feb. 11, 2025 "Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which we analyzed in a previous blog , has now been temporarily enjoined and...
Monique Merrill, CNS, Feb. 10, 2025 "A coalition of refugees and agencies serving refugees are challenging President Donald Trump's executive order indefinitely pausing a refugee resettlement...
Georgetown Law, Feb. 11, 2025 "Today, the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious...
Perez Parra et al. v. Dora Castro "It is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation...
"For PERM practitioners, what is the practical take away lesson from Symantec? Does the fact that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional forms of recruitment mean that these additional forms of recruitment can indeed contain job requirements or duties which exceed the job requirements or duties listed on the ETA Form 9089? Can the three additional forms of recruitment contain requirements that are more restrictive than the minimum requirements listed on the ETA Form 9089? In footnote No. 4 to its decision in Symantec BALCA en banc mentioned that the CO, in his argument, relied on East Tennessee State University, 2010-PER-38 (Apr. 18, 2011) (en banc) where the Board concluded that an advertisement placed in fulfillment of an additional recruitment step must not include requirements not listed on the Form 9089, and stated that this conclusion is not binding upon the Symantec en banc Board as the issue was not raised or briefed by the parties, or necessary to the resolution of the appeal, and the Board did not analyze the scope of 656.17(f) in any depth. This could be seen as somewhat confusing to PERM practitioners. How can BALCA hold that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional recruitment steps but then fail to address the East Tennessee en banc decision stating that the additional recruitment steps must abide by 656.17(e)? Which en banc decision governs?
I think that PERM practitioners ought not to read too much into Symantec’s footnote No. 4. ..." - Cora-Ann V. Pestaina, Aug. 12, 2014.