If you have received a transfer notice from one of the USCIS service centers that your case is being transferred to the National Benefits Center (NBC), do not be alarmed . The reason your case is being transferred is that it is being scheduled for an interview.
For interview waiver criteria and the reasons a case may be sent for an interview, please click here.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Office (CO) denying labor certification for an alien worker for the position of “Reverend,” and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In the aforementioned case, the employer filed an application for labor certification on behalf of a foreign alien to fill the position of Reverend. The CO notified the employer that it needed to provide the prevailing wage for the position or its equivalent. In response to the notification, the employer stated a rate of pay of $8.00 per hour. Thereafter, the CO sent the Employer a document entitled “Recruitment Instructions.” The instructions informed the employer that the prevailing wage was $11.79 for the job and that the employer should advertise the job at that particular rate of pay to obey regulations. Subsequently, the employer placed newspaper advertisements illustrating that the rate of pay was $8.00 per hour. When the recruitment report was submitted to the CO, there was no explanation to indicate why the employer had used the $8.00 rate of pay. The CO issued a Notice of Findings (NOF) proposing to deny certification because the $11.79 prevailing wage had not been used in the Employer’s advertisement. The CO further explained to the employer that to rebut the NOF, it must provide a copy of an advertisement and an internal posting placed during the recruitment period, and the advertisement must reflect the prevailing wage provided in the Recruitment Instructions letter. In response, the employer re-submitted its earlier advertisement and did not further discuss the reason for using the $8.00 rate of pay. The CO issued a final determination denying certification because the advertisement had stated a wage of $8.00 per hour. The employer requested BALCA review arguing that it complied with the CO’s instructions for advertising; however, it never mentioned nor explained the reason for running advertisements with the $8.00 wage rate rather than the $11.79 prevailing wage.
Upon BALCA review, the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (c)(2) provides guidance and requires that an employer offer a wage that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage. According to case law, where an employer is notified that its wage offer is below the prevailing wage, but fails to either raise the wage to the prevailing wage or justify the lower wage it is offering, certification is properly denied. An employer seeking to challenge the prevailing wage bears the burden of establishing both that the CO’s determination is in error and that the employer’s wage offer is at or above the correct prevailing wage. It is the responsibility of the CO to provide the employer with adequate notice of its burden on rebuttal. Upon further review, BALCA determined that the employer, who was pro se – was not given adequate notice of its burden. Specifically, the CO had informed the employer of the option to use a lower wage if it could document that the lower wage was appropriate; however, the NOF only gave the employer the option to produce an advertisement establishing that the $11.79 rate was issued. It did not give the employer the option of rebutting by documenting that a lower wage was appropriate. This failure to correctly state the Employer’s burden of proof necessitates a remand for issuance of a new NOF. The new NOF will provide the employer with an option to establish through documentation that its wage offer was appropriate for the proffered position. Accordingly, BALCA vacated the final determination of the CO in denying certification and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of a Certifying Office (CO) denying labor certification for an alien worker for the position of “Day Worker.”
In the aforementioned case, the Labor Certification (LC) was filed by the employer, a private household, on behalf of an alien worker in April 2001. In January 2007, a Notice of Findings (NOF) letter was issued by the CO requesting additional evidence for proof that a bona fide job opportunity actually existed at the residence and documentation that the employer had the ability to pay the actual wages offered. In response to the NOF letter, the employer submitted a copy of a utility bill showing a residential address for the employer, and thus did not provide any other documentation. The CO issued a final determination in August 2007 denying the LC. The CO concluded that the utility bill verified the employer’s residential address, but found that the response to the NOF was deficient because it did not address the ability of the employer to pay the Alien’s salary. Thereafter, the employer’s attorney requested BALCA review and attached his own letter to the request. The attorney suggested that the CO failed to take into consideration that the LC was for a domestic position in a private home, and thus all the boilerplate language in the NOF did not apply in the particular situation. The employer’s attorney requested that denial be reversed and that labor certification be granted.
Upon BALCA review, the board relied on 20 C.F.R § 656.20(c)(1) which specifically states that an application for labor certification must clearly show that an employer has sufficient funds available to pay the salary of the alien worker. This requirement is the same whether the position is in a private home or within a Fortune 500 company. Additionally, a CO may make reasonable requests of the employer to provide evidence of such, and failure to comply with those requests alone constitutes grounds for denial of certification. BALCA reviewed the NOF letter finding that it expressly stated that if the employee is to be employed in a private home, the employer should provide its most recent household Federal income tax return along with a utility bill in its name. BALCA further stated that it may have been reasonable for the employer not to submit some of the documentation requested in the NOF which was not applicable to a private home; however, to ignore the request entirely was unreasonable. Accordingly, BALCA affirmed the final determination of the CO denying the labor certification because the employer failed to produce documentation that would evidence its ability to pay the Alien’s salary.
The MVP Law Group, P.A. strongly encourages its clients and others to fully comply with all NOF requests issued by COs of the Department of Labor (DOL). Specifically, if the documentation requested in an NOF does not apply to your situation indicate why it does not apply on a separate sheet of paper. It is not wise nor recommended that you ignore requests for additional documentation from the DOL as failure to respond constitutes grounds for denial of certification in itself.
On August 15, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion finding that a no-match letter does not provide Constructive knowledge of Immigration Violations.
The case arose from the response by Aramark Facility Services (“Aramark”) to a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), which indicated that Aramark had reported information for 48 of its employees that did not match the SSA’s database. Aramark suspected immigration violations and demanded that the suspected employees correct the mismatch within three days by proving that they had begun the process for applying for a new card. Approximately a week later, Aramark fired 33 of the 48 employees. The Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) filed a grievance on behalf of the fired workers, contending that the terminations where without just cause and in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between Aramark and SEIU. An arbitrator ruled for SEIU and awarded the terminated employees reinstatement and back-pay, finding that there was no convincing information that the workers were undocumented. Thereafter, the District Court vacated the award on the ground that it violated public policy, and SEIU timely appealed.
In the aforementioned case, the main public policy to which Aramark points is expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). Specifically, Aramark cites the laws that (1) employers are subject to civil and criminal liability if they employ undocumented workers “knowing” of their undocumented status, and (2) the term “knowing” includes constructive knowledge. As defined in relevant regulations, “constructive knowledge is knowledge that may fairly be inferred through notice of certain facts and circumstances that would lead a person, through the exercise of reasonable care, to know about a certain condition. Aramark argued that two facts gave it constructive notice of immigration violations: (1) the no-match letters themselves, and (2) the employees responses (or lack thereof).
According to the SSA, the main purpose of the no-match letters is not immigration-related, but rather is simply to indicate to workers that their earnings are not being properly credited. Additionally, SSN mismatches could generate a no-match letter for many reasons, including typographical errors, name changes, compound last names, and inaccurate or incomplete employer records. An SSN discrepancy does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization. In fact, the SSA tells employers that the information it provides them “does not make any statement about…immigration status” and “is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee.” Employers do not face any penalty for ignoring a no-match letter.
Aramark also contends that it gave its employees ample time to respond to the no-match letter; however, the District Court found otherwise. Aramark’s return policy was extremely demanding in that an employee had three days to respond from the post-mark of the letter. Essentially, this gave the employees two days in order to gather documentation, possibly consult an attorney, and proceed to an SSA office during business hours, all while still continuing to work for Aramark.
In conclusion, Aramark had produced no evidence concerning the fired employees’ actual employment status other than that they were named in the no-match letters and did not quickly respond to the request for further verification of their social security status. This evidence does not illustrate that any of the workers were actually unauthorized to work, because a social security card is only ONE way to prove work authorization. Therefore, Aramark did not possess constructive knowledge/notice of immigration violations, and the SEIC on behalf of the fired employees shall be entitled to the arbitration award, as it is not against public policy when no evidence of immigration violations were found. Employers must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether they have constructive knowledge of suspected immigration violations.
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently dismissed an appeal brought by a U.S. petitioner, a convenience store. The issue of the appeal was whether or not the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtained lawful permanent residence. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary permanently as a Manager. The ETA 750 was accepted on March 28, 2001, and the proffered wage was $18.00 per hour ($37,440.00 per year). In order to prove the ability to pay, the USCIS requires that a petitioner demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wages from the time the labor application is accepted until the beneficiary attains permanent resident status. According to regulations, evidence of this ability shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.
In determining whether the employer has the ability to pay, the USCIS will first examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner can show that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage. However, if the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary, the USCIS will then examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner’s federal income tax return. Net income results after subtracting costs and expenses from total revenue.
In the aforementioned case, at the time the labor was submitted, the beneficiary was not employed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the USCIS chose to review the petitioner’s net income figures. As a result, the petitioner’s federal income tax returns were insufficient to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage, therefore, the USCIS elected to review the petitioner’s net current assets. Net current assets are the difference between the petitioner’s current assets and current liabilities. To clarify, net current assets are assets that are continually turned over in the course of a business during normal business activity; they are in other words, the petitioner’s working capital. After thorough review, it was determined that the petitioner had insufficient funds to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that by combining the petitioner’s net income with its net current assets, the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage. However, the AAO did not accept that approach. The AAO’s view was that net income and net current assets are two different methods of establishing the ability to pay, and they cannot be combined to satisfy the ability to pay, its either one or the other. Accordingly, the petitioner had not met its burden, and the appeal was dismissed.
According to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), an additional seventeen (17) month Optional Practical Training (“OPT”) extension is available for current OPT F-1 students who have completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degree and accepted employment with an employer enrolled in the E-verify program. Additionally, this extension will benefit students with pending H-1B petitions and change of status requests, as it will enable them to maintain their employment eligibility for the duration of the H-1B processing period. Without this benefit, foreign students on F-1 nonimmigrant status would only be eligible for the normal twelve (12) months of OPT to work for a U.S. employer in a field directly related to their major area of study. This employment eligibility program essentially provides a benefit for students on F-1 status who seek employment with an employer enrolled in E-Verify.
E-Verify Requirement for Federal Contractors
On June 9, 2008, Executive Order 12989 was issued, which declared E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system that all federal contractors must use. The Executive Order directs all federal departments and agencies to require contractors, as a condition of each future federal contract, to agree to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of all persons hired during the contract term, and all persons performing work within the United States on the federal contract. This rule is not final, and is open for public comment at this time. Please refer to the following link for contact information, if you would like to submit a written comment. Written comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2008.
The CSPA protects Derivative children of Employment-Based preference categories
As mentioned in my previous article, new guidelines issued by the USCIS make the CSPA retroactive to petitions filed prior to August 6, 2002. In addition to applying to children of U.S. Citizens and children of permanent residents, the CSPA also applies to children of beneficiaries of employment-based visas. As a derivative, the child of a beneficiary of an I-140 petition (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) is eligible for an immigrant visa number at the same time and under the same preference category as his/her parent. Prior to the CSPA, if a child turned twenty-one (21) prior to being issued an immigrant visa or obtaining approval of an adjustment of status application, the child would “age-out” and would lose eligibility for a green card based on his/her parent’s application.
Again, we must calculate the “CSPA age” of the child in order to determine if they qualify for benefits under the CSPA. First, you must determine the age of the child when the petition was filed, and the approximate date the child will be when a visa becomes available (when your priority date becomes current).
For instance, if you are the beneficiary of an employment-based third preference I-140 petition, as a citizen of India, with a priority date of March 1, 2005, your child would automatically have the same priority date. At the time of filing, your child was 16 years old. Once again you would have to review the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin to determine whether or not your priority date is current. Currently, there is a backlog for the employment-based third preference category for citizens of India. Accordingly, applicants currently have a wait of approximately seven (7) years before a visa number will become available. The State Department is currently processing cases for applicants with a priority date of November 1, 2001. Therefore, by the time the visa number will be available, your child will be 23 years old. Then, you must subtract from that age, the result of a second formula.
The second formula requires you must determine the elapsed time between the date the petition was filed, and the date that the petition was approved.
Accordingly, the I-140 petition was filed on March 1, 2005, and then approved on March 27, 2006. The computation of those two dates would be a period of approximately 1 year. This only brings your child’s age down to 22. (23 years of age – 1year = 22) Therefore, your child has “aged-out” even with the help of the CSPA. Retrogression of employment-based visa numbers has severely limited the ability of the CSPA to help the derivative children of employment-based petitions.
If the facts were different, and your child did not “age-out”, he/she would still have to apply for permanent residence within one year of the priority date being current in order to be protected under the CSPA. Otherwise, the child would “age-out” and subsequently be denied.
The CSPA as it relates to U.S. citizens filing petitions on behalf of their children.
The CSPA was designed to benefit children who would “age-out” because of processing delays on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of State. In enacting the CSPA, Congress had the intent to ensure that a child did not lose an immigration benefit merely because the child turned 21 while the government was processing the child’s immigration documentation. Prior guidance issued by the USCIS on August 17, 2004 and June 14, 2006 had limited eligibility of individuals to the CSPA if certain qualifying events occurred prior to August 6, 2002. However, new guidelines recently published by the USCIS remove those limitations.
The CSPA changes who can be considered to be a “child” for the purpose of the issuance of visas by the Department of State, and for purposes of adjustment of status of aliens by USCIS. The Immigration and Nationality Act defines a “child” as someone who is unmarried and under the age of twenty-one. Prior to the passage of the CSPA on August 6, 2002, a child could only benefit from his “child” status if he/she remained a child right up until the date that he obtained an immigrant visa to come to the U.S.
The new guidance allows aliens who had an approved immigrant visa petition prior to the enactment of the CSPA, but had not yet applied for permanent residence on the date of enactment to benefit from the CSPA. The new guidance includes many aliens who, subsequent to the enactment of the CSPA, never filed an application for permanent residence and aliens who filed an application for permanent residence but such application was denied solely based on the applicant’s age.
The Act provides that if you are a U.S. citizen and you file a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) on behalf of your child before he or she turns 21, your child will continue to be considered a child for immigration purposes even if USCIS does not act on the petition before your child turns 21. The child will not ‘age out.’ The child will be eligible for permanent residence as an immediate relative, provided that no final decision was reached prior to August 6, 2002 on an application for permanent residence in which the applicant claimed to be a child.
It is the employer’s responsibility to maintain an audit file for every PERM application they file on behalf of their employees. As a practical matter, it is important to keep accurate and up-to-date records of all employee supporting documentation, especially when dealing with the PERM process. It is important that all steps in the process are followed precisely. Otherwise, consequences may occur that could ultimately result in supervised recruitment for two years, employer disbarment from the PERM system for two years, or even the closing of the employer’s business. Therefore, by maintaining an audit file for every PERM applicant, the employer is prepared to respond to an audit notice in a timely and efficient manner, and has the evidence to establish that they followed the required procedures correctly.
The key elements of an employer’s audit file should include the following:
1. A copy of the certified labor certification application (ETA FORM 9089)
An employer is required to maintain a copy of the certified application
2. Proof of permanent, full-time employment
An employer must be prepared to document the permanent and full-time nature of the position by furnishing job descriptions and payroll records for the job opportunity involved in the 9089 application- If the job does not exist, the employer must be prepared to show that a change in its business caused the job to be created
3. Notice to the bargaining representative (if applicable)
A copy of the letter and a copy of the 9089 Application form that was sent to the bargaining representative will suffice
4. Documentation of job posting notice
A copy of the posted notice and statement regarding where it was posted, and copies of all the in-house media that were used to distribute notice will be sufficient
5. Proof of job order placement
A copy of the State job order print document will be adequate
6. Documentation regarding bona fide job opportunity (if applicable)
Applies if the employer is a closely held corporation or partnership or if there is a familial relationship between management and the alien, or if the alien is one of a small number of employees
If applicable, documentation consisting of the Articles of Incorporation, partnership agreements, licenses, an organizational chart documenting all positions and relations between workers, the total investment of each individual, and the name of the human resources representative should all be kept within the file
7. Prevailing wage documentation
The State Workforce Agency (‘SWA’) prevailing wage determination printout will suffice; however, if the employer used an alternative wage source to obtain a prevailing wage determination, the employer should retain copies within the file
8. Recruitment documentation consisting of: (three different mediums must be utilized in addition to the two required print ads)
• Print Ads
- copies of the newspaper pages in which the advertisements appeared will suffice
- if a professional journal was utilized, a copy of the page in which the advertisement appeared will be adequate
• Job Fairs
- a copy of a brochure advertising the fair and/or newspaper advertisements in which the employer is named as a participant in the job fair will be sufficient
• Employer’s Web site
- a dated copy of the page from the website that advertises the occupation involved will suffice
• Job Search Web site (other than employer’s)
- a dated copy of the page(s) from one or more website(s) that advertise the occupation involved will be adequate
• On-Campus recruiting
- copies of the notification issued or posted by the university’s placement office naming the employer and the date it conducted interviews for employment in the occupation will be sufficient
• Trade or professional organization journals/newspapers
- copies of pages of newsletters or trade journals containing advertisements for the occupation involved will suffice
• Private employment firms
- copies of contracts between the employer and the private employment firm and copies of advertisements placed by the private employment firm for the occupation involved will be adequate
• Employee referral program with incentives
- dated copies of employer notices or memoranda advertising the program and specifying the incentives offered will be sufficient
• Campus placement offices
- a copy of the employer’s notice of the job opportunity provided to the campus placement office will suffice
• Ads in local and ethnic newspapers
- copies of the newspaper pages in which the advertisements appeared will suffice
• Radio and Television advertisements
- a copy of the text of the employer’s advertisement along with a written confirmation from the radio/television station stating when the advertisement was aired
Continue reading "Maintaining PERM AUDIT Files" »
As I had recently mentioned in another one of my other recent blog postings, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) had reported that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) was going to resume premium processing of I-140 applications for certain individuals. Today, the USCIS released an update and fact sheet addressing this issue.
In its update, the USCIS confirms that on June 16, 2008 it will make available its Premium Processing Service for individuals who are on H-1B status and are reaching the end of their sixth year on H-1B and have I-140 petitions (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) filed on their behalf (in our previous report we had reported that USCIS officials were going to open up premium processing on July 16, 2008).
Under the Premium Processing Program, the USCIS guarantees that petitioners would get a response (i.e., approval, denial, request for additional evidence, etc.) within 15 calendar days. This is really good news for individuals running our of time on H-1B status as according to the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), and H-1B nonimmigrant is permitted to extend their status for three years beyond the six year limit provided that the alien is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and an employment-based preference visa is not available for that individual.
Click here to view the USCIS Update on I-140 Premium Processing.
