that there aré no American workers available “at the time of application for a visa and admission” and that admission will not adversely affect labor conditions is likely accurate only for a limited time. See Maceren, 509 F.2d at 939. In fact, one of the DOL’s motivations in enacting the 180-day validity period was that “[l]abor market conditions are subject to rapid change.” 2007 Labor Certification Notice, 72 Fed. Reg. at 27924. The Court agrees that “it is consistent with DOL’s mandate under INA section 212(a)(5)(A) to require a retest of the market after the passage of that time.” Id. The new regulation is aimed at reducing abuse of the administrative process which the DOL is charged with administering. Id. at 27904, 27931; see Industrial Holographics, 722 F.2d at 1366 (<HOLDING>). In sum, the regulation falls squarely within
holding that the secretary had inherent authority to issue regulations which simplify the administrative task and help guard against arbitrary agency action holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where plaintiff sent a letter to the attorney general grieving the initial agency determination instead of following the administrative appeal process specified by agency regulations holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it