By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

SUPERIOR Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman on Friday affirmed the Department of Labor’s decision denying an overstaying alien’s employment transfer relief.
Mei Wen Wu, through attorney Stephen Woodruff, had argued that the secretary of labor abused his discretion in upholding the hearing officer’s denial of transfer relief.
Wiseman, in his order, said that the the secretary of labor’s determination to confine review to the existing record was in accordance with the law, 1 CMC 9110 (c).
Wiseman said the decision to “confine his review of Wu’s case to the existing record was not short of statutory rights or an abuse of discretion.”
Wiseman said the Department of Labor’s refusal to grant Wu equitable transfer relief is supported by substantial evidence.
Wu was abandoned by her former employer, New Flying Dragon Co. Ltd.
The Department of Labor then opened a compliance agency case to address the abandonment of New Flying Dragon Co.’s employees.
Wu and the other employees were granted 45 days to find a new employer.
Wu failed to file the necessary labor and entry permit application by Oct. 25, 2001, the approximate expiration date of the 45 day period.
The Department of Labor then forwarded Wu’s name to the Division of Immigration.
Wu was apprehended by immigration officers on Nov. 25, 2002 for remaining in the CNMI without a lawful permit.
Wu filed a complaint with the Division of Labor and stated that at her original compliance hearing, a man named Steven Pangelinan offered to employ her and assist her in completing her labor and entry permit.
Wu said she paid Pangelinan $500 to process her transfer application so she could work for him.
But the hearing officer ruled that Wu’s claim against Pangelinan was time-barred under 4 CMC 9246 and that Wu was not entitled to equitable transfer relief.
The secretary of labor upheld the labor hearing officer’s decision on the basis that the statute of limitations expressed under 4 CMC 9246 time-barred Wu’s complaint. He refused to grant Wu’s equitable transfer relief.
Wu filed a complaint for judicial review on June 24, 2004 and claimed that the secretary of labor abused his discretion in upholding the hearing officer’s denial of transfer relief.
In affirming the Department of Labor’s decision, Wiseman said Wu failed to explain in either of her briefs how either of the Labor proceedings in her case failed to observe mandated procedure.
“Likewise, appellant makes no salient argument as to how Labor’s refusal to grant transfer relief to appellant was short of her statutory rights pursuant to 1 CMC 9112 (f)(2)(iii),”the judge stated.
“There was substantial evidence to reasonably conclude that appellant was not entitled to equitable transfer relief within the statutes of the Administrative Procedure Act and she fails to cite any additional statutory rights which were denied to appellant in so holding. The court will not set aside Labor’s determination pursuant to 1 CMC 9112(f)(2)(iii),”Wiseman said.