Employer, worker sanctioned for ‘sponsorship’ scheme

The Department of Labor has ordered a nonresident worker to leave the CNMI and barred an employer from hiring alien workers after both were allegedly found to be engaged in an elaborate “sponsorship” scheme.

Worker Marina S. Garnizo was given 20 days to leave the Commonwealth. Her employer, Carlos Borja, was sanctioned by being barred from employing any nonresident workers for a period of two years.

This came after their employment relationship was determined to be mere “sponsorship” rather than legitimate employment.

“Sponsorship” is a scheme where an employer receives compensation in exchange for his or her assistance in providing a nonresident with immigration and work status, which enables the alien to remain or engage in business in the CNMI. In other words, a nonresident involved in a sponsorship is employed on record, but does not actually perform the services stated in his or her contract.

Records showed that Garnizo has been employed as a houseworker by Borja since 1999. On Dec. 10, 2003, Borja filed an application to renew Garnizo’s employment as houseworker.

On Feb. 25, 2004, the department denied the application based on facts learned by an investigator for the Division of Immigration. The appeal followed.

At the hearing, Borja and Garnizo admitted that the worker has not actually worked as houseworker for the employer for more than one year. Instead, during at least the past year, Garnizo performed baby-sitting services for three or more families, “essentially running a day-care center on premises owned by…Borja,” Labor hearing officer Jerry Cody noted.

Garnizo also engaged in a business for profit by renting rooms in two houses owned by her employer. Borja’s property has three houses—one for Borja and two others sitting empty and available for rent.

Under an oral agreement between the two, Garnizo paid Borja $500 per month, and paid the utilities for the entire property. In exchange, Garnizo was allowed to rent rooms in the two houses to tenants for a fee. She was entitled to keep any rental proceeds as profit, so long as she paid the $500 monthly fee plus utilities.

At the same time, she performed baby-sitting services on the premises, also for profit.

Further, in order to maintain the fiction of the houseworker contract, Garnizo prepared and submitted Borja’s tax forms and made tax payments on Borja’s behalf to the Division of Revenue and Taxation on a regular basis.

On the tax forms, Garnizo fabricated the wage amounts she allegedly received from Borja for her “housekeeping” services.

“These wage payments were fictitious, as Borja did not pay Garnizo for many months or even years,” Cody added.

Also at the hearing, Borja and Garnizo argued as to whose idea it was to rent rooms in Borja’s houses.

“However, it was undisputed that neither party was forced into the arrangement. All participation was voluntary. The parties also admitted that Garnizo was not performing the houseworker services called for in the employment contract,” Cody said.