## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 4122 D URABL E M ANU FA CT UR I NG C O ., et al., P laint if fs -App el lants , v .
U NI T ED S TATE S D EPART MENT OF L A B OR, E MPL OY MEN TAN D T RAI NI NG A DM I NI S T RA T I ON, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C2782

—A my J . St . E ve, Judge
.
A RG UE D J UNE 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 18, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Fo u rt ee n u n re lat ed Il lin ois bus i ne ss es a nd fi fte ena l i en s sued the Em pl o y m en t an d Trai ni ng Ad m i ni str ati on o fthe Dep ar tm ent o fLabor ( “DO L”) and the Burea u of Citi zenshi p and I m m i gr ati on Services of the Dep artm en t of H om eland Secu rity (“D H S”),2 N o. 08

- 4122

Al tho ug h thi s pr ov i s i ons t a t e s tha tthe pe t i t i ons hou l d b e 1 fil ed w ith th e “A ttorn ey G en e r a l, ” th e au tho rity to ad jud icate i m m i gr antvi s a pe t i t i ons was t ra ns f er re d t o the Dir ec tor o fthe Bu reau ofCiti zenshi p and Im m igrat ion Se rvice s (an agency wi th i n DH S ) b y th e Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t y A c t o f 2 0 0 2 , P ub

. L. No. 1 0 7

- 2 9 6 , § 4 5 1 ( b) , 1 1 6 S t a t
. 2 1 3 5 , 2 1 9 6 ( c od i fi e d a t6 U. S

. C. § 27 1(b ))

. U nd er 6 U .S. C

. § 55 7, referenc e s i n f ed era l law to any agency or o fficer w hose functi ons have been tr ansferre d t o DHS s h a l l b e d e e me d t o r e f e r t o th e S e c r e t a r y o fDHS or otheroffici a l or com pon ent to wh ic h the functi ons were t r a ns f e r r e d. chal l engi ng a re gul ati on pro m ulg ate d by DOL thateff ecti vel y i nval i dated l abor cer ti fi cati ons that h ad bee n i ssued to the pla in ti ff s. Fo l l owing cro ss- m oti ons f or su m m ar y j udg m en t, the di st r i ctc o ur t entered j udg m en t i n f a v o r o fDO L a n d D HS

. T h e p l a i n t i ff s a p p e a l

. We a ffi r m.

I. U nd er§ 203(b) ( 3) ( A ) ( i ) and ( i i i ) o f t h e I m m i gr ati on and N ati onalit y Act, Congr ess has m ade ava i l abl e a nu m be r o fe m pl o y m en t-ba se d v i sa s f o r a l i en s who qu a l i fy a s s k i l l e d o r u ns k i l l e d wo r k e r s . 8 U. S

. C. § 1 153(b) ( 3) ( A ) ( i ) , ( i i i )

. A n em plo yerseek in g to hi re such a wo r k e r may fi l e a v i s a pe t i t i o n ( c a l l e d a F o r m I

- 140 Peti ti on f orIm m i gr ant W or ker, 8 C.F

. R. § 204. 5( a) ) with D H S on t h e a lien ’s b eh alf. Id. § 1154 ( a) ( 1) ( F)

. Bef or e a 1 vi sa m ay be i ssued, h ow eve r, the Se cre tar y o fLabor m ust hav e i ssued a l aborcer ti fi cation in co nfo rm i ty w i th 8 U .S.C . § 11 82 (a)( 5)(A )(i). Id. § 1153 ( b) ( 3) ( C). T h at sect i on pro vi des as f ol l ows:N o. 08

- 4122 3

S ee 7 1 F ed . R eg . 76 5 6 -6 0 (F eb ru a ry 13 , 20 0 6 ). 2 S ee72 F ed . R eg . 27,94 6 (M a y 17 , 20 0 7 ). 3 Any al i en who se ek s to en te r th e Uni te d S ta te s f o r the p u rp os e o f p er fo r m i n g s kille d or u n sk illed lab or is inad m issible, un less t he Secretary of Lab or has d eterm i n e d a n d c e r t i fi e d t o th e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e a nd t he Att o r ne y Ge neral tha t ( I ) the r e ar e no t su ffi ci en t w or ke rs w h o a re ab le, w illing , qu alifie d (or e q u ally qu ali fi ed in th e case of an ali en de scribed i n clau se (i i) ) and avai l abl e a t the ti m e ofappli cati on f ora vi sa an d a d m i ssi on t o the Unite d Sta tes and at the pl ace w here the al i en i s to perf or m such s ki l l ed orunski l l ed l a b o r, a nd ( I I ) the e mpl o y men t o f s uc h a l i e n wi l l not adv er sel y a ff ec t th e wag es a nd wor k i ngc o ndi ti o ns o fwo r k e r s i n the Uni t e d S t a t e s s i mi l a r l y e mpl o y e d. Id. § 1182 (a)( 5)(A )( i) (I )- (I I ). Bas ed o n tha t st atut e, DOL ha s pr o m ul g at ed r egul at i o ns per ta i ni ngt o the l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o n pr o ce ss . 2 0 C. F
. R. §§ 6 56

. 1-

. 41

. Pr ev i o us l y, wi tho ne e xc ept i on not r el ev an t he r e, § 6 56

. 30 pr o vi ded th ata ppr o ve d l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns w er e “ val i d i nd efi ni tel y. ” Id. § 65 6. 30 ( a) ( 20 06 )

. F o l l o wi ng not ice and com m en t rulem aking p roced ure s, how ever, 2 § 65 6.3 0 w as am ended on M ay 17, 20 07 ( w i th an eff ecti ve date o fJ uly16 , 20 07) to pro vi de: 3 F o r c e r t i fi c a t i o ns r e s ul t i ngfr o m a pp l i c a t i o ns fi l ed und e r thi s p a r ta nd 2 0 CF R pa r t6 5 6 i n e ff e c tp r i or t o Mar c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , the f o l l o wi nga pp l i e s : ( 1 ) An a pprove d perm anent l aborcertificati on g ra nted on o r4 N o. 08

- 4122 after J uly 16, 2007 exp ires i f not f ile d i n su p p ort of a F o r m I

- 14 0 pet i ti o n wi ththe De par tmento fHomel an d S ec ur i tywi th i n 1 80 c al en darda y s o fthe da te the D e p a r t me n t o f L a b o r g r a n t e d th e c e r t i fi c a t i o n . ( 2 ) An approve d perm an ent l aborcer ti fi cati on g ra nted bef or e J uly16 , 20 07 e x p i re s i fnotfi l ed i n supp or t o f a F or m I

- 140 peti ti on w ith the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty w i thi n 180 cal endar days o f J uly 16, 20 07. 20 C. F
. R. § 6 56

. 30 ( b) ( 1)

- ( 2) ( 20 09). Acco r di ngt o DOL, o ne r ea so n f o r the n ew r egul at i o n was t o c urb th e g r o wi ng b l a c k m ar ke t in lab or ce rt ifica tio n s, w h er ein ind efin ite ly va l i d l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns wer e tr aded a nd s o l d t o the hi ghestbi dd er . 71 Fe d. Reg. 7659. A notherr eas on f or cr ea tinga fi ni te v al i di type r i o d f o r l abor c er ti fi ca ti o ns w as to “m or e cl ose l y a dh er e[]” to the com m and of 8 U
. S. C

. § 11 8 2 (a )(5)(A )( i) (I ) th at D O L gaug e the suff i ci e n c y o fth e s u p p l y o fab l e , wi l l i n g, qu a l i fi e d , a nd avai l ab l e work er s a t the ti m e o fthe vi sa appli cati on. 72 Fed. Reg. 2 7,9 24. DO L fur therexpl ai ned that “[ l ] abor m ar ke t c on d itio n s a r e s u b j ec t t o ra p id ch an ge , an d it is con siste n tw it h D O L ’s m a n d a t e u n d e r [§ 1182(a)(5)( A )( i) (I )] to r e qu i r e a r e t e s t o f the mar k e t a ft e r the pa s s a g e o f[ 180 da y s]
. ” Id. M or eo ve r, D O L co n c lu d ed th at “[t ]h e im p os iti on o fa val i dity per i od i s a l ogi calm ec h an i sm by wh i ch the Depart m en t ca n ensure thatthe i nfo rm ati on upon w h ich a d et er m in at ion w a s b as ed rem ain s le git im at e.” 72 Fed. Reg. 27, 925. B et w ee n M ar c h 20 01 an d M ay 20 07, fou rt ee n u n affiliat ed Il lin ois b u sin es se s filed ap p lica tio n s fo r lab or ce rt ifi cati ons on be hal fo ffi ftee n potenti alal i en em plo yee s.N o. 08

- 4122 5

These were the app li cat ions of D ij uje G roup , Inc. and C ountry 4 L an d scap ing & S u p p ly filed on b eh alf of Bo liva r B au tista C astela n a nd M an u el Q u inta na , resp ectiv ely O f the fift een p ote ntia l im m igr an t em p loy ees, ten fi led v isa 5 p etition s and fiv e d id no t. Thir tee n ofthe fi ftee n applicati ons w er e a pp ro ved bef or e the am ended § 656

. 30(b) to ok eff ect on J uly16 , 20 07; the o thertw o app l i cati ons w er e a pp ro ved afterthatdate. 4 A fter ei gh t of th e ali en w orkers’ v is a p etitions w ere 5 rej ecte d by DH S because o fexpi re d l aborcer ti fica tio ns, th e fo u rt ee n bu sin es se s a n d fift e en alien s filed su it aga i nst DOL and DH S i n the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. I n th eir com p lai nt, the p lai nt iffs sough t a de claratory j ud gm en t that DOL ’ s pro m ulg ati on o fthe am ended § 6 56. 30(b) w as beyo nd i ts author i ty or, al ter nati vel y, that re tr oa c tiv e a p p l i c at ion of th e a m en d ed reg u lat ion is unl awful

. The e i g htpl aint i ff s who ha d the i r v i sa pe ti ti o ns d e n i e d a l s o s o u g h ta wr i to fma n d a mu s a g a i n s tD HS to com pel the age ncy t o proce ss thei r vi sa peti ti ons. F o l l o wi ngc r o ss - m o ti o ns fo r sum m ar y j udg m en t, the di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe defen dan ts a nd de ni ed th e sa m e f or the pl aint i ff s. The p lain tiffs ap p ea l.

II. “W e r evi ew de nov o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sposi ti on o f cr o ss - m o ti o ns f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, whi l e co ns tr ui ng th e ev i den ce a nd al l r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s i n f av o r o fthe6 N o. 08

- 4122

The p lai nti ff s do not c ontend thatD O L lacks st atutory 6 author i t y t o i s s ue re gul at i ons pe rtai ni ng t o l abor c er t i fi c at i ons in gener al. In f act, the y ass um e i n thei r bri efs thats uch author ity exi s t s . W e wil l pr oc ee d underthatas s um pt i on f or the pu r po s e s o fthi s o pi ni on, a nd thu s we n e e d notr e s ol ve the que stionwe l eftuna ns were d i n Product i on Tool C orp. v. Em pl oyment& Tra i ni ng A dm i ni st ra t i on , 68 8 F .2d 1 1 6 1 , 11 6 7n .1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) , a nd Indust rial Hol ogr aphi cs , Inc. v. Donovan , 722 F. 2d 1 36 2, 13 66 n. 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83 ) : whethe r DO L’ s r eg ul at i ons a re l egis lat ive r ules prom ulgated pu rs uant to an im plie d c on gr e ss iona l de l e ga t i ono fpo we r o r m e r e l y i nt e r pr e t i ve ru l es i s s ued thr ough DO L’ s i nhe re ntauthor i t y. p ar ty ag ain st w h om th e m o t i on u n d er co n sid er at ion is m ade. ” R ick herv. Hom e D epot, Inc. , 53 5 F
. 3d 661, 66 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ). Su m m a r y ju d gm en t is ap p ro p ria te if “t h er e is no g en ui ne i ss ue a s to a ny mate r i alf ac t a nd .

. . the mova nt i s en ti tl ed to j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56(c).

A. The pla i nti ff s fi rs t a sse rtthatDO L ’s a m endm ent o f § 6 56. 30 to l i m i t the va l i dity of la b or ce rt i fi cati ons w as b e y o nd the s c o pe o fi t s s t a t ut o r y a utho r i t y . DOL r e s po nd s 6 that it w as acting withi n i ts author i ty w hen i t a m ended § 6 5 6

. 3 0
. T he S up r e me Co ur ti ns t r uc t s tha t“ [ a ] l tho ugh age ncy dete rm i nations w i thi n the sco pe ofdel ega ted author i ty ar e enti tl ed to def er ence, i t i s fund am ental‘ that an a g e nc y may no t b o o t s t r a p i t s e l f i nt o a n a r e a i n w hi ch i t has no j uri sdic ti on. ’ ” A dam s FruitCo
. , Inc. v. Ba rret t,N o. 08

- 4122 7 494 U
. S. 638, 650 ( 1990 ) (q u oting Fe d. M ar . Com m ’ n v . Seatrain Line s, Inc. , 411 U
. S. 726, 745 ( 1973)). A ccor dingl y, thi s ci rcui t r eview s d e no vo an ag ency’ s dete rm i nati on ofthe sco pe ofi ts own j uri sdic ti on. N . Illino is Steel Sup ply Co. v. Se c’y of La b or, 294 F.3d 844 , 847 (7th C ir. 2002 )

. W e e xam i ne the te xt and purpose ofa sta tute to deter m i ne wh ethera re gul ati on f al l s withi n the sco pe of t h e a u th or ity th e s ta tu te d ele ga te s. S e eAm. Hos p. Ass’ n v. Sc hw eik er, 721 F.2d 170 , 176-78 (1983). U nd er§ 1182 ( a) ( 5) ( A ) ( i ) , the Se cre tar y o fLaborm ust m ake two subst anti ve de te rm i nati ons bef or e i ssui ng a l aborcer ti fi cati on: 1) the re is an i nsuffi ci ent num bero f ab l e, wi l l i ng, qua l i fi ed, a nd a va i l ab l e wor k er s ( he r eina ft e r “ s u ffi c i e n tw o r k e r s d e t e r mi n a t i o n ” ) ; a n d 2 ) e mpl o y m en t o f th e al i enwi l l no t adv er se l y a ff ec t th e w age s a nd worki ng co nd i ti ons ofsi m i l ar l y s i tuate d wor k er s. O f key i m po r ta nc e he r e, whenmakingthe suffi ci ent work er s dete rm i nati on, the Se cretar y m ust c er ti fy that the supplyo fsuch work er s i s i nsuffi ci ent a t a s pe c i fi c po i nt i n t i me: “ a t the t i me o f a pp l i cati on f or a vi sa and adm i ssi on t o the Unite d Sta tes
. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 182 ( a) (5) ( A)( i ) ( I )

. By de cl ar i nga ppr o ve d l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns ind efi nitely vali d w ithou t any l inka g e t o the fil ing of a vi sa peti ti on, the ear l i erve rs i on o f§ 656. 30( a) d i d not ap p ly th e s t atu tory prov isi on th at th e suffici en t w orkers d eterm ination be m a d e “at th e tim e of ap p li cation f or a vis a.” Sec tio n 65 6.3 0 w as am en d ed s o t h at a lab or ce rt ifi cati on e x pir es i fnotfi l ed i n supp or t o fa vi sa appli catio n w ith in 18 0 d ay s o f th e c er tific at io n ’s a p p ro va l. T h u s , D O L i mp l e me n t e d § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) b y i mposi ng a ti m e l i m i t be tw een the ce rt i fi cati on a nd the vi sa appli cati on. Put ano therway, DO L’s im p osi ti on o fthat8 N o. 08

- 4122 ti m e l i m i tat i on o n the val i dity o fa lab orcer ti fi cati on ensure s t h at the s uffi ci ent work er s dete rm i nati on r efl ects the s tat e o fthe l aborm ar ketatthe ti m e the anti ci pated em plo yee ’ s a pp l i cati on f ora vis a an d adm i ssi on i s m ade. As s umi ng tha t DOL po s s e s s e d s t a t ut o r y a utho r i ty to pr om ulg ate r egul ati ons perta i ni ng to l aborcer ti fi cati ons, then the am ended § 656

. 30(b) i s withi n the sco pe of D O L ’s a u th or ity be c au se itco m p lies w ith th e e x p licit langu age from § 1182(a)(5) (A )( i) (I ). I n additi on, the am endm ent i s co nsi sten t w i th o ne o f the ove ra rchi ng pu rpos es behi nd l aborcerti fi cati ons: pr o te ct i o n o fthe do m es ti c l ab o r f o r ce fr o m j o b c o mpe t i t i o n. P rod . Tool Corp
. , 6 8 8 F
. 2 d a t1 1 6 8
. S e c t i o n 6 5 6

. 3 0 ( b ) l i mi ts th e v a lid ity of ap p ro ve d lab or ce rt ifica tio n s: if, w ith in 180 days ofi ssuance, an a pp ro ved cer ti fi cati on i s no t fi l ed i n supp or t o fa peti ti on f ora vi sa and adm i ssi on, i t be

co m es v o i d. Thu s, the a m en ded § 65 6. 30 ( b) e ns ur es tha t th e snapshots o f the l aborm ar ketta ken when l aborcer ti fi catio n s a re approv ed ar e no t s tal e a pp ra i sal s o fthe l abor m ar ke t when the vi sa peti ti ons ar e fi l ed. Thi s pro tect s Am er i ca ns who a r e cur r en tl y abl e, wi l l i ng, qua l i fi ed, a nd av ai l ab l e to fi l l c er ta i n s k i l l ed an d uns k i l l ed po si ti o ns f ro m havi ng to co m pete w i th al i ens who w er e i ssued l a b o r c e r t i fi c a t i o ns ( a nd a r e no w a pp l y i ng f o r v i s a s ) a t a ti m e when the dom est i c work f or ce was i nsufficien t to fi l l such pos i ti ons. As the p l a i nt i ff s p o i nto ut, me r e l y b e c a us e a n a pprove d l aborcer ti fi cati on i s fi l ed in s u p p or t o fa vi sa a p p l i c a t i o n w i th i n th e a me nd e d § 6 5 6

. 3 0 ( b ) t i me fr a me does not ensu re t h at , atthe ti m e o fa vi sa’ s issua nc e by DH S ( the pr oce ss can ta ke a w hi l e) , the curr ent l aborN o. 08

- 4122 9

The pl ai nt i ff s r el y on M ede l l i n v. Bu st os , 854 F. 2d 795 ( 5th Cir

. 7 1988) , to argue thatthe am endm ent is outs ide ofD O L’s authori t y b e c a u se it in t r u d e s u p o n tu r f c o m m i t t e d so l e l y to D H S ’s ad m inistra tion , i. e., m an ag em en t of the v isa p etition p ro cess. T h i s c a s e i s ma t e r i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e fr o m M ed ellin

. In M ed ellin , th e Fifth Cir cuithel d that a D O L op erat ing i nst ruct i on had i n e ff ec tr ewri t t enthe r el eva nts t atut e ( t he c ur re nt § 1 18 2( a) ( 5) ( A) ( i ) ) be c aus e ther e was no s t atut or y l ang uage suggest ing D O L could lim it a labor cer ti fic ati on to the al ie n origi nall y nam ed in the app lic a tio n, 854 F. 2d at 798. H ere, howeve r, the re i s i ndee d s t atut or y l ang uage c l ea rl y di re c t i ng th a tD O L ’ s s u ffi c i e n tw o r k e r s d e t e r mi n a t i o n b e l i n k e d i n t i me t o the fi l i ng o fa vi s a a ppl i c at i on. Henc e, the am en dm en t was c on s i s t e ntwi th t he s t a t ut or y di vi s i ono fa dm i ni s t r a t i ve authority betw een DO L and D H S. T h e p l a i n t i f f s d o n o tc h a l l e n g e th e r e a so n a b l e n e ss o f D O L ’s 8 i nt er pre t at i on of§ 11 82 ( a) ( 5) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) i n i t s prom ul gat i on of (co n tin u ed ...) m ar k eti s r o ug hl y the sam e a s i t was a t th e ti m e th e l aborcer ti fi cati on was i ssued. But that i s a n i ssue f or Congre ss and D H S to add re ss. T he poi nt r em ai ns that the new § 656. 30(b) ad vances , to som e degr ee, the congr essi onalpurpose ofpro tect i ng Am er i can worke rs . 7 I n sum , we concl ud e that the pro m ulg ati on of§ 656. 30(b) wa s w i th i n D O L ’ s s t a t u t o r y a u th o r i t y b e c a u s e i tc o mport s with the te x tu alm andate o f§ 1182 ( a) ( 5) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) f or D O L t o a s c e r t a i n th e s u ffi c i e n c y o fw o r k e r s a tth e t i me an a p p li cati on f ora vi sa i s m ade, and i t further s o ne o f the c ongr ess i onal pu rpos es behi nd the l aborcer ti fi cati on r equi re m ent. 810 N o. 08

- 4122

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 § 6 56

. 30 ( b) , s o we hav e no oc c as i on t o r ea c h the i s s ue. For thatr ea s on, no C hevron ( U .S.A
. Inc. v. N a tu ra l R esources D ef ens e C ounci l, Inc. , 46 7 U .S. 837 ( 1 9 8 4 )) an aly sis, w hich is the lev el of d eferen ce w e w o u ld ap p ly g iv en the p lain tiffs’ a ssu m p tio n , se e supr a note 6, i s requir ed in this cas e. The L a n dg ra

f an aly sis app lies equ ally to ad m inistra tiv e ru les. 9 S ee M ej i a v. G on zale s , 49 9 F .3d 99 1 , 99 7(9t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); Br uh v . Be s s e me rVe nt ur e Pa r t ne r s IIIL
. P. , 464 F. 3d 202, 213 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ); N at ’ l M i ni ng A ss ’ n v. Dep’ tof Labor, 292 F .3d 8 4 9 , 859 (D .C . C ir . 20 0 2 ). B

. A l ter nati vel y, the pla i nti ff s a rgue thatev en if D O L had the s tatutor y a uthor i ty to prom ulg ate the am ended § 6 56. 30(b) , thatr egul ation h as an i m perm i ssibl y r etr oac ti ve eff ecta s appl i ed to the m . W e r ev i ew de no vo the q u es tio n ofw h et h er a law op er at es ret ro ac tiv ely

. FaizM oha m m ad v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 799 , 801 (7th C ir. 2005). I n Landgraf v. U SI F il m Produ cts , 5 11 U. S

. 2 44 ( 19 94 ) , the Suprem e Cour t s et for th the anal yti calfra m ew or k f or d e t e r mi n i n gwh e th e r a s t a t u t e i s r e t r o a c t i v e . F i r s t, we 9 as kwhethe r Co ng r es s ha s spo k enc l ea r l y r eg ar di ng w h et h er th e la w sh ou ld ap p ly re t r o a c tiv ely

. Lan dgraf , 51 1 U .S. at 2 57, 280 . W h en , as h e r e , a n ad m in ist ra tiv e ru le is at i ssue, the i nquir y i s t w o- f ol d: w hetherCongr ess has express l y c onfer re d pow ero n th e agencyto pro m ulg ate r ul es wi thr et r o ac ti ve e ff ec t an d, i fs o , whethe r the age ncy cl ear l y intended fo r the r ule to have r etr oac ti ve effe c t. Bo we n v . G e o rg e t o wn Un i v . Hos p. , 4 88 U
. S. 20 4, 20 8N o. 08

- 4122 11 (19 88 ); C la y v. Johns on , 264 F.3d 744 , 749 (7th C ir. 2001). We a r e u n a wa r e o f a n y e x p r e s s s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n i ndica ti ng co ngre ssi onala p prova l o fr etr oac ti ve rul em aki ng byDO L i n re gar d to l aborcerti fi cati ons. There f or e, w e proc e e d t o the s e c o nd Lan dgraf s t e p, wh i c h i s t o a sk w hether the r egul ati on has r etr oac ti ve eff ect. 51 1 U.S

. at 26 9-7 0, 28 0. A law i s n o t ret ro ac tiv e m er ely be c au se it is appli ed to co nd uct be fore the l aw was passed o r u p se ts ex p ec ta tio n s b as ed in p rior law

. Id. at 269. Rath er, a l aw has re tr oa c tive eff ect i fi t “ w oul d i m pai r ri ghts a partyposs ess ed w hen he acte d, i ncre ase a party ’ s l i abi l i ty f orpast conduct, o r i m pose new duti es w i th r es pect t o tr ansact i ons al re ady co m ple ted. ” Id. at28 0. In st ead o f bei ng a “si m ple o r m echani calta sk, ” i d. a t 2 6 8 , the de term in at ion of w h et h er a law op er at es ret ro ac tiv ely r equi r es a “ co m m o ns en se , func ti o na l j udg m en t ab o ut

‘ w hetherthe new p rovi si on a tta ches new l ega l co nsequences t o eve nts c om ple ted b e fo r e i t s e na ctm ent, ’ ” M arti n v. H adix , 5 27U. S

. 3 43, 3 57

- 58 ( 19 99 ) ( quo tingLa ndg r af , 511 U

. S. at 270). Th at j ud gm en t is in form ed by con side rati ons ofnot i ce, r elia n ce, and set tl ed expectat i ons. Lan dgraf , 51 1 U.S. at 2 70. I f§ 656. 30(b) o perat es re tr oac ti vel y, the tr adit i onalpre sum ption a gai nst the appli cati on o fr etr oac ti ve l aw s di ctat es that it cannot be a pp l i ed in th is c as e. Id. at28 0. W i th r e g a r d t o the t wo l a b o r c e r t i fi c a t i ons th a tDO L approve d afterthe new r egul ati on t oo k e ff ect on J uly16 , 2007, i t i s cl earthat§ 656. 30(b) has no r etr oa c tive eff ect. T h e filin g of a n a p p l i c a t ion for a lab or ce rt ifica tio n is si m plya prel i m i naryst ep f oro btaini ng a l aborcer ti fi ca-12 N o. 08

- 4122 ti o n. Bec au se i t i s no t a fi na l det er m i na ti o n o r ev ent, no new l ega l co nsequences w oul d aff ect the a pp l i c at ion a s a re su lt of t h e a m en d ed § 65 6.3 0(b ). Se eLa b oj e wskiv. G o nz a les , 4 0 7F
. 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 2 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i ng th ata n a ppl i ca ti o n f o r a vi sa pet i ti o n, w hi chw as a pr er eq uis i te to th e filing ofan a pp l i cati on f oradj ustm ent o f st atus , co ul d no t be c o ns i der ed a “ ‘ co m pl et ed tr an sa ct i o n’ th atg i ve s r i se t o v es te d r i g ht s o r s et tl ed exp ectat i o ns for p urp oses of the p resu m p tion agains t retroactivity”); see also B el ls outh Tel ec om m s. , Inc. v. Se . Tel

. , Inc. , 46 2 F
. 3d 650, 66 0- 61 ( 6th Ci r. 20 06) ( sta ti ng tha t “ fi l i ng an a pp l i cati on w ith an a gencydoes notge nera l l y c onferupon t h e a p p lica n t a n inv iola b le rig h t t o h av e t h e a ge n c y ru le on the appli cati on pursuant to the r egul ati ons i n eff ect at th e tim e of fi li ng ”); Pine TreeM ed. A ss ocs. v. Se c’y of Health & H um a n S ervs. , 1 27F
. 3d 118, 12 1 ( 1s t Ci r . 1 99 7) ( ho l di ng that “the m er e fi l i ng o fan a pp l i cati on is n ot the k i nd o f c om p let ed tra n sa c tio n in w h ich a p a r t y co u ld fairly expect s tabi l i ty ofthe re l evantl aw s as of the t ra nsacti on d at e” ); Cha dmoo r e Comm c ’ n s , In c . v . F CC, 11 3 F
. 3d 235, 24 1 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 99 7) ( fi ndi ngtha t no r ight ve st ed upo n the fi l i ng o fplainti ff’ s a pp l i cati on f oran e xtended im ple

m en tation p eriod to con stru ct a m obile rad io syste m ). T he thirteen ali en s w hos e labor certification s w ere appr o v e d p r i o r t o J ul y 1 6 , 2 0 0 7, a r g ue tha tthe i r l abor cer ti fi cati ons w er e v al i d perm anentl y a nd thus gave th em a ve st ed righ t t o file e m p loy m e n t -b as ed vis a p et itio n s s up port ed by such cer ti fi cati ons a ta n yt i me . T hey conte nd the am ended § 65 6.3 0( b) i s i m perm i ssibl y r etr oac ti ve b ec au se i t i m pai r ed su cha right. Nots o . Any r i g httha t m i g htha ve b ee n c r ea te d wi thr es pec t to theN o. 08

- 4122 13

The pl ai nt i ff s r el y on Ma c e r e n v . D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r, INS , 509 10 F. 2d 9 34 ( 9th Ci r. 19 74 ) , i n s uppor tof th eir re t ro ac t i vi t y a rg um en t, b u t tha tc as e i s m at er i al l y di s t i ngui s habl e. I n M aceren , an alien was den i ed a vi s a be c aus e t he l abor c er t i fi c at i on sup p or ting his p referen ce p etition ex p i r e d d u e to th e p ro m u lgati on of a n ew rule by D O L. 509 F. 2d at 937- 38. The new reg u lation , w h i c h p laced a on e-yea r v alid ity p erio d on all (co n tin u ed ...) tim e p er iod of va lid ity of th e la b or ce rt if i c a tio n s w ou ld h a v e c om e fro m th e e ar lier v er sio n of § 6 56 .30 (a) p ro m u lg a t e d b y DO L. T ha tv e r s i o n s i mpl y s t a t e d tha ta ppr o ve d l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns wer e vali d “ i nde fi ni te l y . ” The pl aint i ff s’ c ha r ac te r i za ti o n o fthe i r l ab o r c er tif i ca ti o ns as perm an en tly val i d i s unf ounded

. I n com m on usag e, the t er m “i nd efi n ite ” m eans “havi ng no exact l i m i ts; in d et er m in a t e in e x te n t o r am ou n t; n ot cle ar ly fix ed .” W EBS TER’ S T HI RD N EW I NTERNATI ONA L D ICT IO N ARY11 47 ( 20 02 )

. Thu s, l ab or c er ti fi ca ti o ns a ppr o ve d unde r the ol d regula ti on were n ot val i d perm anentl y, but onl y s o l o nga s n o de fi ni t e p e r i o d o fv a l i di t y wa s fi xe d b y DO L. By defi ni ti on, t h en , a ny “r i ght” that the pl ai nti ff s m ay ha ve o bt ai ne d to fi l e th ei r a ppr o ve d l ab o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns i n supp or t ofvis a p eti ti ons at any ti m e they chose was coex te ns i ve w i ththe dur at i o n o fthe “ i nde fi ni te ” r egul at i o n. W hen DO L am ended § 65 6.30( b) es senti al l y t o est abl i sh a 1 80 -d ay tim e lim it for p re vio u sly ap p ro ve d lab or ce rt ificati ons, the pla i nti ff s’ r i ght t o the c er ti fi cati ons’ i nd efi ni te va l i di tye nde d. The r efo r e, upon th e appr o va l o fthe updat ed § 65 6. 30 ( b) , the p la i nt i ff s di d no t po ss es s an y v e s t e d r i g h tth a tth e a me n d e d r e g u l a t i o n c o u l d i mp air. Si m il arly, any ex p ecta tions th at th e plaintiff s

1014 N o. 08

- 4122

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 labor ce rt ific ati ons, r en d ered the al ie n’ s previously approv ed l a bo r ce r t i fi c a t i oni nv a l i d i m m e di a t e l y wi t ho uta ny o pp o rt u n ity to p re se rv e i ts v a lid ity
. Id. Af t er bal anc i ng the ineq u ities of retroa ctiv e ap p lication of th e r eg u lation ag ain st the s t a t ut or y i nt e r e s t s , the Ni nth Ci r c ui th e l d tha tr e t r oa c t i ve a p p lic a tio n o f th e r eg u la tio n w a s im p ro p er . Id. at 93 9 -4 1

. By c ont ra s t, i n thi s c ase th e pl ai nt i f f s ’ l abor c er t i fi c at i ons w er e n o t r en d er ed in v a lid o n th e e ffec tiv e d a te o f § 6 5 6 .30 (b ); rather, the p la in ti ff s w ere aff orded 180 days i n w hich they c oul d pre s er ve the val i di t y ofthe i r pre vi ous l y a ppro ved l abor cer ti fic ati ons. This w as the sam e 180- day l im it ati on att ached to c ert ific ati ons approv ed af terJ uly 16, 2007.

8- 18- 09 h ad r eg ar d in g th e c on tin u ed va lid ity of th eir lab or ce rt ific a t i o ns we r e n o ts e t t l e d d ue t o the u nfi xe d c hara cter ofthe ol d regula tio n. A ccor dingl y, we hol d that a pp l i catio n of th e n ew § 65 6.3 0(b ) h a s n o r e tr oa c tiv e e ffec t in thi s ca se.

III
. W e c o nc l ud e tha t § 6 5 6

. 3 0 ( b ) f a l l s wi thin the s c o pe o f DOL’ s st atut o r y a utho r i tyt o pr o m ulgate r egul at i o ns p e r t a i n i n gt o th e l a b o r c e r t i fi c a t i o n p r o c e s s . F u r th e r, we h old that§ 656. 30(b) does noto perat e r etr oac ti vel y. Fo r the s e a nd a l l f o r e g o i ng r e a s o ns, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.