Accordingly, Amtel’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101-1537 (West 1999 & Supp. 2006), as implemented at 20 C.F.R. Part 655, Subparts H and I (2007).
2 The INS is now the "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" or "USCIS," which is located within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2194-96 (Nov. 25, 2002).
3 See 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7)(ii) (2007).
4 After we decided this case, we further clarified what constituted a "bona fide termination" in Gupta v. Jain Software Consulting, Inc., ARB No. 05-008, ALJ No. 2004-LCA-039, slip op. at 5-6 (ARB Mar. 30, 2007). In Gupta, we held that to effect a bona fide termination, the employer must take three steps: it must give the employee notice that the employment relationship is terminated; it must notify DHS that the employment relationship has been terminated; "[a]nd it must provide the employee with payment for transportation home under certain circumstances." Gupta, slip op. at 5 (emphasis added).
5 Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 826 (5th Cir. 2002), aff’g Macktal v. Brown & Root, Inc., ARB Nos. 98-112/122A, ALJ No. 1986-ERA0-23, slip op. at 2-6 (ARB Nov. 20, 1998).
6 See generally 16A Charles Allen Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3986.1 (West 2006).
7 Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(2).
8 United States v. Smith, 781 F.2d 184 (10th Cir. 1986).
9 Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 319 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2003); FDIC v. Massingill, 30 F.3d 601, 605 (5th Cir. 1994); American Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., 989 F.2d 1256, 1264 (1st Cir. 1993).
10 Lowry v. Bankers Life & Cas. Ret. Plan, 871 F.2d 522, 523 n.1, 525-526 (5th Cir. 1989).
11 Chelladurai v. Infinite Solutions, Inc., ARB No. 03-072, ALJ No. 2003-LCA-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB July 24, 2006); Rockefeller v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, ARB Nos. 03-048, 03-184; ALJ Nos. 2002-CAA-005, 2003-ERA-010, slip op. at 2 (ARB May 17, 2006); Saban v. Morrison-Knudsen, ARB No. 03-143, ALJ No. 2003-PSI-001, slip op. at 2 (ARB May 17, 2006); Halpern v. XL Capital, Ltd., ARB No 04-120, ALJ No. 2004 SOX-054, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 4, 2006); Getman v. Southwest Secs., ARB No. 04-059, ALJ No. 2003-SOX-008, slip op. at (ARB Mar. 7, 2006); Knox v. Dep’t of the Interior, ARB No. 03-040, ALJ No. 2001-LCA-003, slip op. at 3 (ARB Oct. 24, 2005).
12 See AX 4-J, 26.
13 See PX L.
14 See 65 Fed. Reg. 80,171 (Dec. 20, 2000).
15 See Exhibits on Recon. 1, A, B.
16 See 65 Fed. Reg. 80,171 (Dec. 20, 2000).
17 The requirements set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(7)(ii) and Amtel’s newly submitted evidence on reconsideration indicating that it timely notified the INS of Rung’s termination do not demonstrate a material difference in fact or law from those presented to the Board, which Amtel could not have known through reasonable diligence or new material facts that occurred after the Board’s decision, nor a change in the law after the Board’s decision or a failure to consider material facts presented to the Board before its decision.
18 See Amtel’s Brief in Support of Its Motion for Recon. at 5, n. 2; PX L.
19 See 65 Fed. Reg. 80,171 (Dec. 20, 2000).