San Nicolas: Castillo must depart CNMI

The Department of Labor has ruled that Roger S. Castillo, an alien worker who was recently convicted of stalking his former common-law wife, must leave the CNMI.

Labor Secretary Gil M. San Nicolas affirmed the decision of the Labor administrative hearing office that denied Castillo’s request to transfer to a new employer.

San Nicolas ordered Castillo to leave CNMI within 15 days after his last employer of record delivers to Labor his repatriation ticket.

“The evidence cited by the hearing officer is sufficient and the legal grounds on which the order is based are proper,” said San Nicolas in his order.

The Labor Secretary found Castillo’s arguments frivolous.

In January 2006, Castillo filed a Labor case against his former employers, Rosalia Skey and Emalyn Santiago, claiming unpaid wages and requesting transfer relief.

Castillo worked from 2001 to 2004 for Santiago, with whom he had a long-time domestic relationship. In October 2004, the worker was arrested for assault and battery and was in detention for 14 months.

While the Labor case was pending, Castillo filed in July 2006 an application with the Labor director for approval of a one-year contract as a farmer for Ralph Demapan.

In October 2006, the Labor director denied Demapan’s application to hire Castillo. Castillo and Demapan appealed the director’s decision.

At the May 22, 2007, denial hearing presided by Labor administrative hearing officer Herbert D. Soll, only Demapan appeared.

That same day, Soll affirmed the Labor director’s decision denying Demapan’s employment application for Castillo.

Soll said that Demapan, after learning of the complications faced by the employee, decided to withdraw his application.

In June 2007, Castillo, through counsel Mark B. Hanson, appealed.

In the appeal, Hanson cited that Castillo has never been convicted of a felony, as opposed to the Labor director’s claim that “the employee has been convicted of felony” and “the employee failed to secure a new employer within 45 days upon expiration date.”

The lawyer said the late filing of the application was also the subject of issues involved in Castillo’s Labor case against Skey and Santiago.

Hanson said it is his understanding and recollection that the denial case was taken off-calendar by Soll pending a determination in the Labor case.

Hanson said that, on March 28, 2007, Soll issued an administrative order in the case against Skey and Santiago, awarding Castillo amounts for unpaid wages and granting him transfer relief.

Pursuant to Soll’s order, Castillo was given 45 days or until May 22, 2007, to file a transfer application.

Hanson said Soll set the denial case for a hearing on May 22, 2007, which was 10 days after the expiration of Castillo’s 45-day transfer period.

On May 2, 2007, Castillo filed with Labor an application for employment as a farmer under a one-year contract with Lin Yi Huei.

Hanson said that Soll’s May 22, 2007, order in the denial case was arbitrary and capricious. Hanson said the order was also a denial of due process to the extent it has any effect on the presently pending application of Castillo to work for Lin Yi Huei.

“It is arbitrary and capricious to affirm the denial of an application denied on the basis that Castillo has been convicted of a felony when Castillo has, in fact, never been convicted of a felony as shown by records on file with Labor,” he said.

He argued that it is arbitrary and capricious to affirm the denial of an application on the basis that Castillo did not timely file the application when, after the denial of the application, Castillo was granted transfer relief.

But San Nicolas disagreed with Castillo. He noted that Castillo failed to appear for a hearing after he had been served with notice.

On the criminal issue, San Nicolas said a conviction for assault and battery is not diminished by the decision whether to charge the crime as a felony.

San Nicolas said that Castillo was convicted of assault and battery, which is a serious crime.

However, the Secretary said, Soll found that Castillo failed to appear for a hearing after he had been served with notice.

On the granting of transfer issue, San Nicolas said that Soll affirmed the denial because Castillo did not appear for a hearing after he had been served with notice.

San Nicolas said if Castillo and his counsel thought the denial case was mooted, they had an opportunity to appear and make that argument.

With respect to the hearing schedule held 10 days after the expiration of Castillo’s transfer relief application, the Secretary said Labor’s procedures offer ample procedural protections.

“Mr. Castillo was represented by counsel experienced in labor matters. The scheduling of the hearing was appropriate and notice was properly served,” San Nicolas said.

Last March, the Superior Court found Castillo guilty of one count of stalking, three counts of violating a court’s order of protection, and one count of misdemeanor theft.