Labor sued for denying request for more time to seek employer

An alien worker has brought the Department of Labor to court after her request for more time to find a new employer was denied, allegedly even when she already has found an employer.

Paulina A. Ramos, through counsel Stephen C. Woodruff, asked the Superior Court to set aside Labor Secretary Gil M. San Nicolas’ decision that affirmed the Labor administrative hearing officer’s order that denied her request for extension.

Ramos asked the court to set a briefing schedule for processing her appeal.

Labor requires displaced foreign national workers to register with the Labor Division of Employment Services and allows them 30 days to find new employers.

Labor’s policy and practice allow for an extension of time to transfer if the alien worker shows sufficient grounds to justify it.

According to Ramos’ complaint for judicial review, she was unable to find a new employer within the 30-day period and, on Oct. 23, 2008, she submitted a request for extension.

Between the time of her Oct. 23, 2008, submission and receipt of Labor’s response to that request almost two weeks later, Ramos found an employer who wanted to hire her. The prospective employer completed the required Employment Intent Form.

Woodruff stated that apparently solely on t he ground that it was one of three “identical form requests,” on Nov. 5, 2008, a Labor hearing officer issued an administrative order denying the extension request and ordered Ramos to make arrangements for her repatriation.

On Nov. 18, 2008, Ramos appealed the administrative order to the Labor Secretary. Ramos’ appeal brought to the Secretary’s attention that she has a prospective employer and included a copy of the EIF.

On March 17, 2009, the Labor Secretary affirmed the administrative order.

Woodruff said the form of the signature on this document suggests it was actually signed by someone other than San Nicolas. Accordingly, Woodruff said, the March 17 order is not valid.

This document, the lawyer pointed out, purports to affirm a denial of extension of time to transfer and further purports to order Ramos to “report to Labor Enforcement within 10 days of the date of this order for repatriation processing” and to “depart the CNMI within seven days of the delivery of the repatriation ticket.”

Woodruff asserted that the portion of the order directing the worker to report to Labor Enforcement within 10 days “for repatriation processing” is void as it derogates Ramos’ right to judicial review.

He said the portion of the order ordering the worker to depart the CNMI is void as it is outside Labor’s authority and a usurpation of the authority of Immigration.

The Secretary’s order, Woodruff said, gives no hint that the Secretary even read Ramos’ appeal. “It makes no mention of the fact that plaintiff had an employer and that a completed EIF had been included in the appeal documents,” Woodruff said.

Instead, the lawyer said, the Secretary summarily and arbitrarily affirmed the denial of the requested extension of time with the bald declarations that “extension of time to transfer is not a matter of right.”