Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Matter of Marion Graham

Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals
No. 88-INA-102  (1990)


Facts

Marion Graham, a United States citizen, (petitioner) submitted an application for labor certification for Gladys Yolanda Ulloa, an immigrant, for a live-in housekeeper position. On the application, Graham described the various duties required for the position. One of the conditions of employment was that the housekeeper had to live in Graham’s home. The Department of Labor denied Graham’s application on the basis that the live-in requirement was unduly restrictive, and thus in violation of 20 C.F.R. 656.21(b)(2), which requires that employers wishing to hire aliens on a permanent basis list the potential job without unduly restrictive requirements. Under the statute, a requirement that a worker live on the employer’s premises is presumed unduly restrictive. To overcome this presumption, the employer must demonstrate that the requirement arises from a business necessity. In a letter of rebuttal, Graham argued that her live-in requirement did in fact arise from a business necessity. The Department of Labor nevertheless issued a final determination denying the application, and Graham appealed to the Board.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.