Jinna v. MPRSoft, Inc. (agency decision, May 26, 2020)

Plain-English summary

The Board had modified an H-1B wage award to $6,651.03 in net back wages and $52,904.94 in gross back wages, plus interest. Dheeraj Reddy Jinna asked it to reconsider because he did not understand that he needed a cross-appeal, had received procedural information by telephone, and wanted broader review. The Board applies reconsideration only for previously unknowable material differences in fact or law, new material facts, a later change in law, or failure to consider facts already presented. It held that none of Jinna's arguments fit those limited grounds. The petition was denied, leaving the earlier modified award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 1182(n)
• Outcome: Reconsideration was denied; the previously modified back-wage decision remained in effect.
• Key point: A misunderstanding of appeal procedure does not by itself satisfy the Board's limited grounds for reconsideration.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

  In the Matter of:


  DHEERAJ REDDY JINNA,                          ARB CASE NO.      2019-0070

              PROSECUTING PARTY,                ALJ CASE NO.      2018-LCA-00039

        v.                                      DATE: May 26, 2020

  MPRSOFT, INC.,

              RESPONDENT.


  Appearances:

  For the Complainant:
        Dheeraj Reddy Jinna; pro se; Monmouth Junction, New Jersey

  For the Respondent:
        Leslie Stout-Tabackman, Esq.; Minnie Fu, Esq.; Jackson Lewis, P.C.;
        Reston, Virginia

  Before: Thomas H. Burrell, Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge,
  Heather C. Leslie and James A. Haynes, Administrative Appeals Judges


                       ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

         PER CURIAM. This case arises under the H-1B visa program provisions of the
  Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)
  (2014) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n) (2013), and implementing regulations at 20 C.F.R.
  Part 655, subparts H and I (2016). The Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
  (WHD), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) conducted an investigation of MPRSoft,
  Inc. (Respondent) and issued an Administrator’s Determination Letter in which it
  concluded that Respondent owed back wages in the amount of $53,220.06 to
  Dheeraj Reddy Jinna (Complainant).
                                        2


  On September 22, 2018, the Complainant appealed the Administrator’s

Determination and requested a hearing with the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). On July 16, 2019, a DOL Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Decision and Order Modifying in Part and Affirming in Part the Administrator’s Determination and Granting Request for Additional Back Wages. Decision and Order (July 16, 2019) (D. & O.). The ALJ affirmed the Administrator’s Determination to not assess any civil money penalties, but modified it and awarded Complainant $88,890.17 in back pay, plus interest.

   On April 15, 2020, we affirmed the ALJ’s findings and calculations for wages

earned during Complainant’s tenure with Respondent, but modified the total amount of back wages owed to Complainant to $6,651.03 in net back wages and
$52,904.94 in gross back wages, plus interest. On April 30, 2020, Complainant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) seeking reconsideration of our decision.

     The Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) is authorized to reconsider

a decision upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration within a reasonable time of the date on which the decision was issued. We will reconsider our decisions under limited circumstances, which include: (1) material differences in fact or law from those presented to a court of which the moving party could not have known through reasonable diligence, (ii) new material facts that occurred after the court’s decision, (iii) a change in the law after the court’s decision, or (iv) failure to consider material facts presented to the court before its decision. Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc., ARB Nos. 2015-0032, 2015-0033, ALJ No. 2014-LCA-00008, slip op. at 2, (ARB Feb. 14, 2017) (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration) (citing Kirk v. Rooney Trucking Inc., ARB No. 2014-0035, ALJ No. 2013-STA-00042, slip op. at 2, (ARB Mar. 24, 2016) (Decision and Order Denying Reconsideration)).

   Complainant asserts that we should reconsider our decision for several

reasons, including: (1) he did not neglect to file a cross appeal because he did not know legal formalities or that it was required; (2) he called the ARB and was informed that he would get a chance to present issues to be reviewed; and (3) his arguments were not an effort to diminish the appealing party’s rights, but instead, to increase the scope of review by the Board. See Petition at 2-3. None of Complainant’s arguments fall within any of the four limited circumstances under which we will reconsider our decisions. Therefore, we DENY his Petition.

  SO ORDERED.