N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FEDER IC O AGUILAR

M UR ILLO; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. SER VIC IOS AGR IC OLAS M EX, INC .; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16272 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-02581-GM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, THOM AS, and B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs, fa

rm worke rs with U.S. c i tiz e n ship or la wful pe rm ane nt re side nc y , a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing the ir c la im s unde r the M igra nt a nd Se a sona l Agric ultura l W orke r Prote c tion Ac t (“ AW PA” ). W e a ffirm . B e c a use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e



# FIL ED FEB 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.re vie w que stions of la w de novo, Mov

se sian v . Vic toria Ve rsic he r ung AG , 670 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th C ir. 2012), a n d fa c tua l findings for c l e ar e rror, Unite d State s v . Ric h e y , 632 F.3d 559, 563 (9th C ir. 2011). The AW PA provide s, in re le va nt pa rt, for prote c tions for se a sona l a gric ultura l worke rs, like pla intiffs, a nd m igra nt a gric ultura l worke rs. 29 U.S.C . § 1831. Pursua

nt to 29 U.S.C . § 1832(c ), “ [n] o farm la bor c ontra c t or, a g ric ultura l e m ploy e r, or a gric ultura l a ssoc iation sha l l, without justific ation, viola te the te rm s of any working a

rrange m e nt m a de by

tha t c ontra c tor, e m

ploy e r or a ssoc iation with any se a sona l a gric ultura l worke r.” The H-2A progra

m pe rm its U.S. e m

ploy e rs a ntic ipating a

shorta ge of ava ila ble U.S. worke rs ne e de d

for a gric ultura l jobs to a

pply to the U.S. De pa

rtm e nt of La bor (“ DOL” ) for c e rtific ation to hire non-im m igra nt fore ign worke rs to pe rform the jobs on a te m pora ry ba sis. Se e 8 U.S.C . 1188. Suc h a rrange m e nts a

re not pe rm i ssible whe n U.S. worke rs’ wa g e s or working c onditions would be a dve rse ly a ffe c te d. 20 C .F.R . § 655.101(b)
. 1 The a pplic a ble re g ulation, 20 C .F.R . § 655.103(d)(3), re q uire s H-2A e m ploy e rs to work with the

re le va nt sta t e a g e n c y (in this c a s e the Ariz o na

1 C .F.R . re fe re n c e s a

re to the April 2006 ve rsion of theC .F.R ., a s tha t wa s the v e rsion in e ffe c t at the tim e of the e ve nts a t issue in this c a se . 2De pa

rtm e nt of Ec onom ic Se c urity (“ DES” )) in re c ruiting U.S. worke rs. Tha t re gula tion is lim

ite d, howe ve r, by

20 C .F.R . § 655.105, which inve sts in the DOL the a uthority to spe c i fy

the re c ruiting e fforts tha

t a n a pplic ant m

ust m ake in orde r to c o m ply with § 655.103. Pursua nt to § 655.105, the

DOL re q uire d tha t de fe n d ant Se rvic ios Agric ola s M e xInc . (“ SAM I” ) “ [c ] onta c t form e r U.S. e m ploy e e s, a nd solic it the i r re turn to the j ob.” W e a ssum e for the purpose s of this disposition, without de c iding, tha

t the DOL’ s re quire m e n t

form e d pa

rt of a “ working a

rrange m e nt” be twe e n

the pla intiffs and SAM I. Pla intiffs a sse rt tha

t SAM I did not c om

ply with this re quire m e nt be c a use SAM I did not c onta c t U.S. worke rs who ha d ha rve ste d M arlin’ s grove s from the San Luis c orralón in prior y e ars. SAM I a c knowle dge s a s m uc h . Ac c ordingly , SAM I did not doc um e n t a ny suc h e fforts in the ir filings with the DOL. Ne ve rthe le ss, the DOL a

pprove d SAM I’ s H-2A a

pplic ations. In other words, the DOL de te rm ine d tha

t SAM I ha d c om

plie d with the re quire m e nt to c onta c t its form e r U.S. worke rs “ and solic it the i r re turn to thejob.” Pla intiffs c onte nd tha

t the DOL wa s una

ware tha t SAM I did not c onta c t its San Luis form e r worke rs, a nd tha t, ha d it be e n so a

ware , the DOL would ha

ve de nie d the a

pplic at ion. B ut pla intiffs provide no e vide n c e showing tha t SAM I’ s 3filings we re ina c c urate , dishone st, or othe rwise de fic ie nt. Eve n m ore im porta ntly , the re is no e vide nc e tha

t the DOL wa s ignora

nt of a ny a spe c t of SAM I’ s re c ruiting pra c tic e s. Pla intiffs’ argum e nt is furthe r unde rm ine d by the fa c t tha

t SAM I worke d c lose ly with both the

DOL a nd the DES throughout the re c ruitm e nt proc e s s. The DOL’ s c onc lusion is furthe r supporte d by

the fa c ts on theground. For e xam ple , the distric t c ourt c onc lude d a s a fa c tua l m atte r tha

t none of the pla intiffs a pplie d to work a

t White W ing from

the 2003–04 se a son through the 2006–07 se a s on, e ve n though they

a ll live d within the

are a in whic h the re l e va

nt work ha d be e n a d ve rtise d via ra dio, ne wspa

pe r, and the sta

te job se rvic e . M ore ove r, the distric t c o urt did not c re dit the te stim ony tha t the pla i ntiffs would ha

ve be e n willing to pa

y for the ir own da ily

c om m ute from San Luis to W

hite W ing— a

90- m ile c om m ute tha t ta ke s two to thre e hours to drive e a c h wa y — and did c re dit te stim ony tha t som e , if not a ll, worke rs re c ruite d at San Luis would not live

in housing a t White W ing. In sum , the distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t pla i ntiffs ha

ve not shown tha

t SAM I fa ile d to c om

ply with there c ruitm e nt re quire m e nts, a s “ the job” it wa s offe ring wa s not thesa m e one its Sa

n Luis e m ploy e e s ha d fille d . AFFIRM E D.

4