Court Opinion

ID: 9412780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 17:02:03.059407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:25.373933
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PERSIAN BROADCAST SERVICE                       No. 22-55254
GLOBAL, INC., a California
corporation,                                      D.C. No.
                                               2:21-cv-00229-
                Plaintiff-Appellant,              CAS-GJS

    v.
                                                  OPINION
MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of
Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,

                Defendants-Appellees.

         Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Central District of California
         Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

                   Submitted June 29, 2023 *
                     Pasadena, California

                     Filed August 1, 2023

*
 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2          PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

    Before: N. Randy Smith, Kenneth K. Lee, and Lawrence
                  VanDyke, Circuit Judges.

                  Opinion by Judge VanDyke

                          SUMMARY **

           Wages/Labor Condition Applications

   The panel affirmed the district court’s summary
judgment upholding an Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”) order awarding backpay plus pre-and post-
judgment interest to Majid Varess, an Australian citizen and
E-3 visa-holder who was employed as a sports reporter and
producer by Persian Broadcast Service Global (“Persian
Broadcast”).
    To employ Varess, Persian Broadcast filed and received
approval for a Labor Condition Application (LCA) through
the U.S. Department of Labor (“Department”), first in 2011
and again in 2013. An LCA binds an employer to pay the
required wages for the period of authorized employment,
and only two exemptions can eliminate an employer’s legal
obligations: when an employee is nonproductive for
personal reasons or there has been a bona fide termination of
the      employment        relationship.      20      C.F.R.
§ 655.731(c)(7)(ii). In February 2015, Varess filed an
administrative complaint with the Department, arguing that

**
  This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
         PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH       3

Persian Broadcast failed to pay him the full amount of his
wages as specified in the two LCAs.
    First, the panel held that Varess’s February 2015
complaint was not time barred. The ARB reasonably relied
on the LCAs rather than Varess’s visa to determine the
period of authorized employment and Persian Broadcast’s
wage obligations. By failing to pay Varess the reported
wage under the second LCA period, Persian Broadcast
continued to violate the wage requirement until the LCA
period ended on September 12, 2015.
    Second, the panel held that Varess’s circumstances did
not meet either of the statutory exemptions to the LCA wage
requirement because, by continuing his reporting work,
Varess remained in productive status and there was never a
bona fide termination.
    Finally, given Persian Broadcast’s failure to pay Varess
the LCA wages for the period of authorized employment, the
ARB did not abuse its discretion by awarding backpay plus
pre- and post-judgment interest.

                       COUNSEL

Ira J. Nasserian, Ira Nasserian A Professional Corporation,
Rolling Hills Estates, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Matthew J. Smock, Assistant United States Attorney; David
M. Harris, Assistant United States Attorney, Civil Division
Chief; E. Martin Estrada, United States Attorney; Office of
the United States Attorney; Los Angeles, California; for
Defendants-Appellees.
4        PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

                        OPINION

VANDYKE, Circuit Judge:

    Appellant Persian Broadcast Service Global (“Persian
Broadcast”) is a Farsi language television station based in
Southern California. The station employed Majid Varess, an
Australian citizen and E-3 visa-holder, who worked in the
United States and abroad as a sports reporter and producer.
To employ Varess, Persian Broadcast filed and received
approval for a Labor Condition Application (LCA) through
the U.S. Department of Labor (“the Department”), first in
2011 and then again in 2013. After Persian Broadcast fell
behind in paying Varess, he filed a complaint with the
Department alleging that Persian Broadcast failed to pay him
the appropriate wages under the LCAs. An administrative
law judge (ALJ) initially denied relief, but on remand from
the Administrative Review Board (ARB), found Varess’s
complaint timely and awarded back wages plus interest. The
ARB affirmed the award, as did the district court.
    Reviewing de novo, we hold that the district court did
not err in finding (1) Varess’s claims were not time barred;
(2) Persian Broadcast had not met either of the statutory
exceptions to the wage requirement; and (3) the ARB’s
conclusions were consistent with the law, and not arbitrary
or capricious. We thus affirm the district court’s decision.
                             I.
   Majid Varess is an Australian citizen of Iranian origin
who has worked since 1974 as a sports reporter and
producer. In 2011, at the age of 61, Varess came to the
United States to work for Persian Broadcast.
         PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH        5

    To employ Varess in the United States, Persian
Broadcast had to file for approval. First, it applied for
Varess’s E-3 work visa, a classification designated for
specialty workers from Australia. The visa was approved.
Next, Persian Broadcast filed an LCA with the Department.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(t); 20 C.F.R. § 655.700. In its LCA,
Persian Broadcast requested one full-time “TV producer and
reporter” position for which the salary would be $45,000 per
year. The Department approved the LCA for the two-year
period from September 12, 2011, to September 12, 2013.
    On November 23, 2011, Varess entered the United States
and began working for Persian Broadcast. Over the next few
years, Varess left and reentered the United States multiple
times as his work assignments took him to sporting events
all over the world. Reporting from England, Ireland,
Belgium, France, and Australia, he covered major tennis and
soccer matches for his Persian audience. Upon one of his
reentries into the United States in September 2013, Customs
and Border Patrol (CBP) issued an I-94 Form, which
authorized him to remain in the United States until
September 2015. See Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft, 370
F.3d 851, 853 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An I–94 Form is an alien
arrival-departure record that serves as proof of the bearer’s
current immigration status and the time period during which
his stay in this country is authorized.”).
     When the first LCA and Varess’s visa expired in
September 2013, Persian Broadcast submitted a second LCA
to extend Varess’s employment at an annual salary of
$60,000. The Department approved the second LCA for a
two-year period from September 12, 2013, to September 12,
2015.     Varess temporarily departed for Australia in
November 2013, at which point Persian Broadcast signed a
letter in support of Varess’s E-3 visa renewal. Varess
6         PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

continued to work for Persian Broadcast overseas until July
2014.
    Throughout Varess’s employment, Persian Broadcast
paid him irregularly and sporadically in amounts between
$300 and $2,300. Varess “came back to continue [working]
with the hope that … it [was] getting better.” In July 2014,
Varess contacted Amir Shadjareh, the president and chief
operating officer of Persian Broadcast, regarding his wages.
In response, Shadjareh texted Varess that the station could
no longer afford to pay him. Varess did not interpret the text
as a notice of termination, but after July 14, 2014, he did not
perform any more work for the company.
    In all, Persian Broadcast paid Varess a total of just
$20,581 for the entire period of his employment. The parties
agree that Persian Broadcast failed to pay Varess the wages
specified in either of the two LCAs.
    On February 5, 2015, Varess filed an administrative
complaint with the Department, arguing that Persian
Broadcast failed to pay him the full amount of his wages as
specified in the LCAs. The Department’s Wage and Hour
Division initially concluded that Persian Broadcast had not
committed any wage violations and did not owe Varess
anything. Varess appealed the decision. On appeal, the
Department’s ALJ issued an order denying relief. Varess
filed a petition for review at the ARB, and the ARB reversed
and remanded the case to the ALJ. The ALJ issued a new
decision finding Varess’s complaint timely and awarding
back wages plus interest in the amount of $183,794. Persian
Broadcast appealed, and the ARB affirmed the ALJ’s award.
Persian Broadcast did not contest that it did not affect a bona
fide termination of Varess to the ARB, and any argument to
          PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH        7

the contrary is forfeited. See Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269,
279 (4th Cir. 2008).
    On appeal at the district court, Persian Broadcast
challenged the ARB’s order under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), arguing the complaint was not timely
filed and the agency’s calculation of back wages owed was
arbitrary and capricious. The Department counterclaimed,
seeking to enforce the payment award. At summary
judgment, the district court upheld the award against Persian
Broadcast, because the ARB’s holdings were consistent with
the text of the statute, regulations, and LCA—nothing
suggested the non-renewal of an E-3 visa ended the period
of authorized employment, as Persian Broadcast argued.
    The district court also found that neither of the two
exceptions to the payment requirement were satisfied. See 8
U.S.C.        § 1182(t)(3)(C)(vii)(I)–(II);  20      C.F.R.
§ 655.731(c)(7)(i)–(ii). Persian Broadcast timely appealed
to this court.
                             II.
    The district court’s grant of summary judgment is
reviewed de novo. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d
1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). However, we review the ARB’s
decision pursuant to the APA. Under the APA, an agency’s
decision is unlawful when it is found to be “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law” or “unsupported by substantial
evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E). “The scope of our
review under this standard is narrow; as we have often
recognized, a court is not to substitute its judgment for that
of the agency.” Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 52–53
(2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
8        PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

                            III.
    The ultimate issue is whether the ARB abused its
discretion by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in
awarding back wages plus interest. The parties agree that
the first LCA was enforceable, so Persian Broadcast is liable
to pay the wages specified in that LCA. What Persian
Broadcast disputes is whether the second LCA was
enforceable and whether Varess timely filed his complaint.
    Persian Broadcast makes two main arguments. First, it
argues that the ARB’s award was “arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law” under the agency’s Manoharan decision
that was issued after the ARB’s decision in this case. See
Manoharan v. HCL America, Inc., No. 2021-0060, 2022 WL
1469017 (ARB Apr. 14, 2022). Second, it argues that Varess
failed to timely file his complaint with the Department.
Neither argument is successful.
                             A.
    Persian Broadcast argues that the “period of authorized
employment” ended—and so, too, did its wage
obligations—when Varess’s E-3 visa expired on September
12, 2013. Therefore, Persian Broadcast argues that the
February 2015 complaint was untimely as filed more than 12
months after the latest violation. The government responds
that “an E-3 visa merely authorizes travel, not employment.”
Instead, the government suggests that the CBP’s issuance of
an I-94 Form was relevant to Varess’s “period of authorized
employment,” as it allowed Varess to be present in the
United States beyond the expiration of his visa.
   We need not resolve whether issuing the I-94 Form was
necessary because the ARB and ALJ reasonably relied on
           PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH                 9

the LCAs to determine the “period of authorized
employment.” See 20 C.F.R. § 655.750(a). 1
                                  1.
    Under the regulatory framework, an E-3 worker’s
“period of authorized employment” runs from the first date
of employment until “the latest date indicated [in the LCA]
or two years after the employment start date under the LCA,
whichever comes first.” 20 C.F.R. § 655.750(a)(2). It was
not arbitrary for the ARB to conclude that the LCA, not the
visa, determined the period of Persian Broadcast’s wage
obligations. Here, the second LCA authorized Varess to
work from September 12, 2013, to September 12, 2015, so
at the latest, Varess’s “period of authorized employment”
would end on September 12, 2015.
    An LCA binds an employer to pay the required wages
for the period of authorized employment, and only certain
exemptions can eliminate an employer’s legal obligations
under its LCA. 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7)(ii). An employer
no longer needs to pay the required wage if (1) the employee
is nonproductive for personal reasons (e.g., vacation, family
leave, health reasons) or (2) there has been a bona fide
termination of the employment relationship, which requires
a meeting of the minds—a mutual understanding that the

1
  In the future, the agency could provide guidance on whether the I-94
(in addition to the approved LCA) was essential. Here, it did not. So
while the government did provide an I-94 Form here, it is unnecessary
for this court to reach the question whether providing that form was
required for Varess to be entitled to wages, or whether his employer and
the government simply approving the LCA was sufficient. For the
following reasons, we rely on the LCA’s dates as the “period of
authorized employment,” while reserving for a future case whether the
I-94 Form was required.
10        PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

work relationship is over. Id.; see Gupta v. Jain Software
Consulting, Inc., No. 05-008, 2007 WL 1031365, at *4 n.3
(ARB Mar. 30, 2007).
    The ARB did not abuse its discretion in finding that
Varess’s circumstances do not fit within one of the limited
exceptions to the payment rule. First, Varess remained in
“productive” status as he attended sporting events and
continued his reporting work all over the world. Persian
Broadcast does not argue that Varess became nonproductive.
His absence from his United States-based office was in
service of Persian Broadcast’s work.        As the ARB
recognized, Varess’s work required him to travel abroad on
reporting assignments.
     Second, there was never a bona fide termination. Persian
Broadcast never informed Varess that he was being
terminated. Varess’s brief text exchange with Shadjareh
regarding his wages was not a bona fide termination because
it lacked a meeting of the minds; Varess did not interpret the
message as a notice of termination. Even after Varess
stopped performing work on July 14, 2014, Persian
Broadcast did not terminate him. To decide that Varess’s
expired E-3 visa ended Persian Broadcast’s wage obligation
under the LCA would be to create a third, unwritten
exception to the rule. When a provision contains express
exceptions, “the familiar judicial maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius counsels against finding additional,
implied, exceptions.” Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 501
(9th Cir. 2017).
                              2.
   Next, relying on a recent ARB decision, Manoharan v.
HCL America, Inc., Persian Broadcast contends that the
second LCA was unenforceable because after Varess’s E-3
           PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH                 11

visa expired, he was no longer authorized to work. See No.
2021-0060, 2022 WL 1469017 (ARB Apr. 14, 2022). 2
    But Manoharan is not applicable to Varess’s situation.
As an H-1B worker, Manoharan could not work without
getting an LCA approved, submitting an H-1B “Petition” (I-
129 Form), and receiving approval from U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) via an I-797 Form. Id.
at *5. Thus, in his case, the ARB based the end of the
“period of authorized employment” on the end date of the H-
1B visa-holder’s I-129 Petition. Id. at *9. But this extra step
is only required for those on H-1B visas—not those on an E-
3. That is presumably why the agency in the Manoharan
decision explicitly acknowledged that its “analysis applies
only to the H-1B program and not to similar programs like
H-1B1 and E-3.” Id. at *5 n.49.
    Manoharan doesn’t clarify the law for this case because
H-1B workers and E-3 workers face different requirements
for work authorization. 3 E-3 workers experience lower

2
  Persian Broadcast also argues that it is “highly unlikely” that Varess
would have been issued a second E-3 visa since the consular officer
would have learned that Varess had not been paid the amount promised
in the original LCA. Persian Broadcast speculates that the officer would
have denied the visa application because the second LCA promised a
significantly higher wage that Persian Broadcast had demonstrated by its
past behavior it was unlikely to pay. But adopting such an assumption
would reward Persian Broadcast for falling short of its obligations. This
rule would incentivize bad behavior from sponsor employers who stand
to benefit from underpaying nonimmigrant workers. Moreover, Persian
Broadcast explicitly supported the visa renewal that it now claims should
have been denied.
3
 Even if Manoharan were on-point, that decision is on equal footing
with the Varess ARB decision below. Each is a per curiam ARB
decision, so Manoharan is not superior or controlling. See In the Matter
12         PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

barriers to entry because a treaty between the United States
and Australia created a path to temporary employment for
specialty workers. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-13, § 501, 119 Stat. 231. In other words, Varess falls in
a unique subset of nonimmigrant workers for whom the
typical H-1B requirements—including the I-129 Petition—
are not applicable.
    What H-1B and E-3 workers share in common, however,
is the I-94 Form, which authorizes only the worker’s
physical presence in the United States. See Mariscal-
Sandoval, 370 F.3d at 853 n.4. By contrast, the approved
LCA is what authorizes the E-3 worker to work in the United
States.
    Accordingly, the agency’s holding was not arbitrary or
capricious when it found (1) the LCA’s dates determined the
“period of authorized employment,” and (2) neither of the
statutory exceptions to the LCA payment obligation applied.
                                 B.
    By failing to pay Varess the reported wage under the
second LCA period, Persian Broadcast continued to violate
the requirement until the LCA period ended on September
12, 2015. As a result, Varess’s complaint in February 2015
was timely.
    An aggrieved party alleging a violation of an LCA must
file an administrative complaint “not later than 12 months
after the latest date on which the alleged violation(s) were
committed,” which is “the date on which the employer
allegedly failed to perform an action or fulfill a condition

of Majid Varess, v. Persian Broadcast Service Global, Inc., No. 2020-
0017, 2020 WL 4569021 (ARB July 14, 2020).
          PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH         13

specified in the LCA[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 655.806(a)(5). The
violation “remains actionable for the duration of the
employment relationship as stipulated in the LCA.” Adm’r
v. ME Global, Inc., No. 2016-0087, 2019 WL 3293915, at
*7 (ARB Mar. 22, 2019).
    Because Persian Broadcast’s failure to pay the required
wage was ongoing, its “latest” violation occurred at the end
of the second LCA. The limitations period had thus not even
begun to run when Varess filed his complaint in February
2015.
    Persian Broadcast argues that Varess’s complaint was
not timely because he filed it more than 12 months past the
end of the first LCA. But as explained above, the ARB
properly rejected this statute of limitations argument because
Varess’s “period of authorized employment” ended when
the second LCA expired in September 2015, not September
2013. Thus, Varess filed his complaint well before the
statutory window closed.
                              C.
    Given Persian Broadcast’s failure to pay Varess the LCA
wages for the period of authorized employment, the ARB did
not abuse its discretion. Persian Broadcast’s sole argument
against enforcement of the award itself is that “the size of the
award will essentially force [the station] to ‘close shop’ and
render [Varess’s American counterparts] unemployed.”
Persian Broadcast does not back up this policy argument
with legal authority or record support.
                              IV.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion by awarding
backpay plus pre- and post-judgment interest. Therefore, we
affirm the district court’s summary judgment decision.
14      PERSIAN BROAD. SERV. GLOBAL, INC. V. WALSH

     AFFIRMED.