Effective July 1, 2009, all users of the Old LCA system must begin using the new iCert system located on the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration website to file LCAs.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Slitting Supervisor.
The labor certification application was accepted by the CO in October of 2005. A few months later, the CO issued an Audit Notification to the Employer. Among other items, the Audit requested a copy of the Notice of Filing used for the alien worker’s labor application. The Employer responded by complying with the request and sending the Notice of Filing. In October of 2006, the CO issued a denial letter on the grounds that the Notice of Filing failed to contain the appropriate CO’s contact information including the physical address. Thereafter the Employer submitted a request for reconsideration, and only included a notice of entry of appearance of a new attorney; no argument or other information concerning the grounds for denial were provided. In September of 2008, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration finding that the denial of labor certification was valid. The CO noted that the Employer failed to provide any information relating to the missing information on the Notice of Filing. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. New counsel for the Employer filed a brief arguing that the failure to provide the address of the CO was harmless error and therefore denial based upon a typographical error was a denial of due process. Counsel also stated that when the Employer was made aware of the omission, he agreed to repost the Notice of Filing. The CO appropriately filed an appellate brief stating that the Board had ruled on the issue of failure to include the address of the appropriate CO on the Notice of Filing in a 2007 case.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Marketing Consultant.
In August of 2005, the Employer submitted a labor certification application on behalf of an alien worker. The application indicated that the job location was Warren, Rhode Island. Shortly thereafter, the CO issued an audit notification requesting among other documents, the prevailing wage determination (PWD) issued by the State Workforce Agency (SWA). The PWD submitted by the Employer was from California, not Rhode Island. Portions of the California form were crossed out, with Rhode Island being inserted. The portion of the form which provides the job site address and county of job site listed both a Rhode Island address and county and a California address and county. The form was not signed nor dated by the SWA and several important portions were left blank. Specifically, the portions dealing with the Survey Data, Survey Area, Research Analyst were blank. No Rhode Island phone number was provided. The Employer then requested reconsideration arguing that the Rhode Island SWA had informed his office that they could utilize the California prevailing wage request form because they did not have their own form at the time of request. In September of 2008, the CO issued a letter denying certification because the Employer had failed to submit a prevailing wage determination that complied with regulations. The PWD submitted was not effectively endorsed by the Rhode Island SWA, and therefore, it could not be considered valid. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer argued that it was harmless error, and the CO argued that the Employer failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Rhode Island SWA issued the PWD in question.
Upon BALCA review it was determined that the regulations require that an Employer request a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the area of intended employment. Additionally, the SWA must endorse the PWD and return it properly to the Employer. In the case at hand, there was not sufficient information presented that the PWD submitted was actually issued by the Rhode Island SWA.
Accordingly, the CO properly denied certification.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Cook, Private Household.
The Employer submitted the application by mail. The application was accepted for processing in January of 2006. In the application, the Employer indicated that the prevailing wage determination (PWD) was based on an ‘Employer Conducted Survey.’ The application failed to include the determination and expiration dates for the prevailing wage determination. In April of 2006, the CO denied certification based on the failure to complete the section dealing with the prevailing wage determination. The CO received the Employer’s request for reconsideration in May of 2006. The Employer stated in its request that it did not receive a response from the State Workforce Agency (SWA), and thereafter decided to adopt its own prevailing wage determination based upon speaking with other similarly situated Employers. The Employer submitted along with the request a new version of Form 9089, in which it indicated ‘PW based on Employer Conducted Survey,’ and a copy of the fax to the Maryland, SWA. On reconsideration, the CO denied the application because the Employer failed to indicate the expiration date of the prevailing wage determination. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer did not file an appellate brief, whereas the CO did file an appellate brief stating that even when an Employer bases its PW determination on a survey, the survey itself must be submitted to the SWA, who then decides whether the survey was acceptable and issues the prevailing wage determination.
Upon BALCA review it was determined that the PERM regulations provide that an Employer must request a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the area of intended employment. The regulations provide that the SWA must specify the determination date and expiration date of the PW determination. The regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(c) state that if an Employer uses a SWA PWD, the Employer must file the petition or begin recruitment within the validity period of the PWD.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Purchasing Manager.
The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Labor Certification on behalf of the beneficiary. The position of Purchasing Manager required two years of experience in the job offered and a Bachelor’s degree in International Business, Marketing. The Employer also listed an alternate education requirement of a Bachelor’s degree in Public Relations, English or any other Business Administration major. Following an audit in December of 2006, the CO denied certification because the Notice of Filing was not posted in accordance with the regulations. The Notice of Filing was originally posted in the President’s handwriting from July 11, 2005 until July 25, 2005. The regulations require that the Notice of Filing be posted between 30 and 180 days before the Employer files ETA Form 9089. In this case, the Employer filed ETA Form 9089 on August 9, 2005. Counsel for the Employer stated that the July 11, 2005 date was an error and that the date should have been listed as May 11, 2005. The CO informed the Employer that documentation fabrication created after the fact to correct a deficiency may be discounted and can continue to be the basis for a denial.
Furthermore, while the beneficiary met the primary experience requirements for the position, he did not meet the primary education requirements for the position. To show that the requirements for the position were not unlawfully tailored to the alien, the Employer must have indicated that U.S. applicants with suitable combinations of education, training, or experience were acceptable. In this case, the Employer failed to do so. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA for review. Counsel for the Employer contended that there was no document fabrication or motive to deceive when filing the petition. Additionally, Counsel indicated that although the form did not state that qualified U.S. applicants with similar educational experience were acceptable, the criterion was applied in its recruitment efforts. The CO reiterated in its brief that the Employer had not posted the Notice of Filing at least 30 days before the filing of ETA Form 9089. The CO also stated that he did not abuse his discretion in this case.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Stone Inspector.
The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Labor Certification on behalf of the beneficiary. In February of 2008, the CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting among other documents, a copy of the Employer’s Notice of Filing. Thereafter, the Employer supplied a copy of its Notice. In May of 2008, the CO denied the application because the Employer failed to provide its name on the Notice of Filing. Attorney for the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that since the notice of filing is posted within the job premises, the name of the company does not need to be included, as long as the name of the President and a telephone number are present on the posting. The actual Notice of Filing did not include the Employer’s company name, but did include the President’s name and telephone number. Accordingly, the CO denied reconsideration and thereafter forwarded the case to BALCA for review.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(1) control the issue before the Board. The regulations require that the Notice of Filing list the hiring company. The CO’s appellate brief indicated that the reasoning behind this regulation is that sometimes more than one employer may reside at a single facility or location. Specifically, the CO stated that when multiple employers share an office and a Notice of Filing is posted in a common area in that office it could potentially apply to either employer. Further, without the name of the Employer, it would not be possible to determine which Employer the Notice of Filing applies. The Board identified the Petitioner’s argument, in that common sense should be used to determine the outcome rather than statutory interpretation. However, the Board found the omission was not harmless error and stated that to make a case out for equitable relief in favor of the Petitioner, the Petitioner needed to do more to show that the company’s name was not needed on the Notice of Filing. They needed to show the size of the company, how well the workforce knew the President of the Company, and whether the place in which it placed its Notices was a place exclusively designated for company bulletins.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Computer Systems Analyst. Accordingly, the Board directed the CO to grant certification. This LC was filed prior to the effective date of the “PERM” regulations.
The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Alien Employment on behalf of the beneficiary. The CO denied the application in December of 2006, solely on the basis that Form 9089 lacked the Kellogg language. Specifically, the CO found that the alien currently worked for the Petitioner, and only qualified by virtue of an alternative experience requirement, and the application did not provide the following language: “any suitable combination of education, training, or experience” would be acceptable.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the Francis Kellogg decision governs the nature of this case. In Kellogg, the Board reversed the CO’s denial of certification based on the Employer’s failure to write the Kellogg language on the ETA Form 9089 because a denial on that basis would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process. It would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process because the instructions for ETA Form 9089 failed to provide a place to write the language, and the Employment Training Administration (ETA) had not provided instructions to the public to handle the issue in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the CO properly vacated the CO’s final determination and granted certification.
It has come to our attention that many Permanent Labor Certification Applications are being denied by the Department of Labor (DOL) for several reasons, some of which could be avoided by having competent counsel.
It is important to have an Experienced Attorney who is familiar and thorough when completing and filing Permanent Labor Certification Applications. Many of the reasons for denial of labor certification are because of the failure to comply with Federal Regulations, failure to provide specific dates, misinterpreting statutory language, and the failure to comply with time period requirements.
When dealing with the complexity of Business Immigration Law it is recommended that you obtain the expertise of a skilled and knowledgeable Business Immigration Attorney, especially when dealing with the specificity of the PERM process.
Please contact the MVP Law Group today to discuss your Business Immigration needs.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Chef.
In May of 2006, the CO issued an Audit Notification letter. The CO requested that the Employer submit its Notice of Filing, among other documents requested. The Employer responded by submitting two Job Postings. Subsequently, the CO denied the application in December of 2006 on several grounds. The majority of the deficiencies focused on the Notice of Filing. The CO provided that the Notice of Filing failed to (1) state that the Notice was being provided as a result of the filing of an application for permanent alien labor certification, (2) state that any person may provide documentary evidence bearing on the application to the CO, (3) provide the CO’s address, and (4) list the wage offered for the position. In January of 2007, the Employer requested reconsideration and review of the denial. The Employer put forth the argument that the requested documentation was submitted to the CO in the context of the audit, and therefore, only a substantial failure to provide documentation may justify a denial of the application. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration providing that the denial was proper under 20 C.F.R. 656.10(d). The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did submit an appellate brief in support of its position, stating that the standard of consideration of whether to deny an application is whether the Employer’s filings constituted substantial compliance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations. The CO also filed a brief urging denial based on the importance of the Notice of Filing requirement and its contents.
Upon BALCA review, the language of the applicable Federal Regulation was analyzed. The regulation at 20 C.F.R. 656.10(d) provides that the Notice of Filing must (i) state the notice is being provide as a result of the filing of an application for permanent alien labor certification for the relevant job opportunity; (ii) state any person may provide documentary evidence bearing on the application to the CO of the Department of Labor (DOL); (iii) provide the address of the appropriate CO; and (iv) be provided between 30 and 180 days before filing the application. Additionally, if any application is filed under Sec. 656.17, the notice must contain the information required for advertisements by Sec. 656.17(f), must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form), and must contain the information required by paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Specialty Chef.
The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in September of 2005. In March of 2006, the CO denied the application because of numerous deficiencies. The appeal before the Board only addressed one of the deficiencies, the failure of the Employer to specify the expiration date of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) prevailing wage determination. The Employer’s original petition provided November 2003, as the determination date and stated “N/A” for the expiration date of the SWA prevailing wage determination. The CO’s denial letter addressed the issue concerning the absence of the expiration date. Thereafter, the Employer’s attorney filed a request for review. The Employer’s attorney provided answers for a number of the omissions and submitted additional documentation. In regards to the expiration date of the SWA prevailing wage determination, the Employer’s attorney stated 2004. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration in August of 2008. The CO found that the Employer’s attorney had successfully rebutted several of the deficiencies, but still affirmed the denial of certification based upon a number of reasons. The CO provided that the expiration date of the prevailing wage determination was an important piece of information that needed to be provided in a month, day and year format, consistent with the regulations. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but the CO did file a brief urging denial based on the fact that the application was incomplete.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Baker.
The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in February of 2006. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter in May of 2006. The CO requested that the Employer submit its Notice of Filing, and its recruitment documentation, among other documentation. In response, the Employer submitted a copy of an “Employment Notice” and copies of its newspaper advertisements for the job opportunity. In October of 2006, the CO then issued a denial letter. The CO stated that the newspaper advertisements were deficient because they did not include the Employer’s name, and the Notice of Filing did not include the appropriate address of the CO, or provide the wage offered for the position. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion for review arguing that he complied with the regulations because the advertisements included the Employer’s personal office fax number. The Employer also argued that the case number and jurisdiction of the CO was included in the Notice of Filing. However, the Employer did not address the absence of the wage information, but attached a copy of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) wage determination. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration withdrawing the citation concerning the appropriate CO’s address, but found that the absence of the Employer’s name from the advertisements and the absence of the wage offer from the Notice of Filing remained valid grounds for denial of certification. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did submit an appellate brief in support of its position and provided that the fax number included in the advertisements satisfied the regulatory requirements. The Employer also indicated that the wage offer was clearly provided in ETA Form 9089. Thereafter, the CO did filed a brief urging affirmation of the denial.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulation at 20 C.F.R. 656.17(f)(1) requires that the newspaper advertisement identify the Employer. The main reason behind the use of the Employer’s name in newspaper advertisements is to let applicants know what company is offering the job. The Board upheld the CO’s denial on this ground. Additionally, the regulation at 20 C.F.R. 656.10(d) requires an Employer to post a Notice of Filing of the permanent labor certification application. The Notice of Filing must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form.) The inclusion of the rate of pay in ETA Form 9089 did not cure the failure to include the rate of pay on the Notice of Filing. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the CO’s denial of certification on this ground.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Framer.
The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in April of 2007. The Employer specified in the application that the position was not a professional occupation. The CO then denied the application on two grounds: the Employer failed to complete ETA Form 9089 by leaving multiple sections incomplete; the Employer used an Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) prevailing wage issued prior to March 8, 2005. Thereafter, the Employer’s owner sought a request for review. The Employer submitted information regarding the omitted sections, and attached a copy of a January 23, 2007 OES prevailing wage. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration accepting the Employer’s reasoning on three of the omissions, but found that the other five deficiencies were not cured by the information provided by the Employer. Specifically, the CO was requesting information concerning the State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order and the Sunday edition newspaper advertisements. For several of the selections, the Employer indicated NONE rather than filing in the specific dates required because the Alien was an “on-the-job-site hire.” The CO informed the Employer in the letter that under the regulations, a 30-day SWA job order is a mandatory recruitment step and the Employer is required to place two print advertisements in a Sunday edition newspaper. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but stated that the alien was a very good employee and that he would like to keep him. The CO did file a brief urging affirmation of the denial.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the PERM regulations for a nonprofessional occupation require that the employer must at a minimum place a job order and two newspaper advertisements within six months of filing the application. The job order must be placed with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. Nothing in the regulations indicates that there is an “on-the-job-hire” exception to the mandatory recruitment steps. Accordingly, the CO correctly denied certification.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Restaurant Manager.
The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in July of 2006. The Employer specified in the application that the position was not a professional occupation. The CO then denied the application because the application did not include any evidence that a job order was placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the Employer sought reconsideration on the ground that it placed a new advertisement with the SWA from November 7, 2006 to December 8, 2006. Subsequently, the CO denied reconsideration explaining that a new job order placed after the application had been filed could only be used to support subsequent filings, not the application at issue. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but the CO did file a brief urging affirmation of the denial.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the PERM regulations for a nonprofessional occupation require that the employer must at a minimum place a job order and two newspaper advertisements within six months of filing the application. The job order must be placed with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. In the present case, the Employer’s job order was placed from February 9, 2006 to March 9, 2006, a period less than 30 days. Accordingly, the Employer’s job order was not long enough in duration to satisfy the requirements.
In summary, the Employer filed another job order after receiving the denial determination which did not cure the defect. As explained by the CO and reiterated by the Board, the new job order could be used to support subsequent filings, but did not help to correct the defect in the present petition. Thus, the CO properly denied certification.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Cook.
The CO denied the application in March of 2008 on one ground; the Employer had not filed its application or begun recruitment within the validity period of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) prevailing wage determination. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration stating that the failure to place advertisements was an unintentional oversight, and that its overall efforts at recruitment were sufficient. The Employer attached an affidavit from the Employer’s owner reciting the difficulty in recruiting cooks for the restaurant. Subsequently, the CO denied reconsideration. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not file an appellate brief, but the CO filed an appellate brief urging that its denial be affirmed by the Board. In the CO’s brief, it noted case law where a claim of clerical error as grounds of reversal was rejected because the employer had committed a substantive violation of the regulations.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the PERM regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(a) require that a petitioning employer obtain a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the proposed area of intended employed. The SWA specifies the validity date of the prevailing wage. When a SWA prevailing wage is used in support of an application, the petitioning employer MUST file their application(s) or begin the recruitment specified by the regulations within the validity period given by the SWA.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently dismissed an appeal based upon the PERM audit regulations. A labor certification application was filed on behalf of an alien worker for the position of Domestic Servant. The CO issued a letter denying certification of the labor certification (LC) because the Employer failed to provide all evidence requested in the Audit Notification letter.
The employer, a private household filed a labor certification application on behalf of the alien worker in April of 2006. In December of 2006, the CO sent the Employer’s attorney an Audit Notification letter. The application was selected for audit to determine why the Alien resided with the Employer. The letter specifically requested documentation relating to the issue, and also requested the Recruitment Report and other documentation. In response, the Employer submitted an explanation as to why the alien lives with the household, and a copy of a tax return. Thereafter, the CO issued a letter denying certification. The CO attached a handwritten note to the letter stating that the recruitment report and advertisements were missing. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Employer’s attorney in April of 2007. Support for the motion consisted of an explanation about miscommunication between the attorney and the employer, another copy of the tax return, newspaper advertisements, the CALJobs job order, and a prevailing wage determination. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter denying reconsideration because the Recruitment Report had not been provided. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not file an appellate brief in support of his position on the issue, whereas the CO filed a letter brief arguing that the Recruitment Report is an essential requirement of the labor certification program.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that PERM audit regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(a)(3) controls the issue on appeal. It provides that if the employer fails to provide documentation required to be submitted by the date specified in the audit letter, the application is automatically denied, the employer is considered to have refused to exhaust available administrative remedies, and administrative-judicial review before BALCA is not available. Thereafter, the Board determined that the Employer failed to timely submit the recruitment report as directed in the Audit Notification letter, and subsequently, according to regulations, the Board had no authority to further review the denial. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Restaurant Cook.
The employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker in August of 2005. In November of 2005, the CO issued an Audit Notification because he was unable to verify the Employer as a bona fide business entity. The CO requested proof of the employer’s Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN), among other documents. In response, counsel for the Employer submitted the FEIN of a different entity. Counsel stated that the reason the number has changed is because a new owner has taken over and is willing to continue sponsoring the Alien. Thereafter, the CO issued a letter denying certification on one ground, the FEIN supplied was not valid. The CO determined that the Employer did not have a valid FEIN at the time of filing, and that a new owner must file its own application. Subsequently, counsel for the Employer requested reconsideration addressing the same argument as he did previously. In May of 2008, the CO denied reconsideration by stating that the original sponsoring Employer no longer existed based on the Employer’s own statement, and on information the CO received from the California Secretary of State. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief, but the CO did file a letter brief arguing its reasons behind the denial for reconsideration.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the requirement in ETA Form 9089 requiring submission of a FEIN was fully supported by the regulations and by policy of using the FEIN as a means of verifying whether an employer is a bona fide business entity. BALCA reviewed case law surrounding the FEIN issue and found the following: (1) substitution of a Social Security Number (SSN) was not a substitute for a FEIN for a private household; and (2) obtaining a valid FEIN after being notified of the deficiency is not harmless error, it is failure to comply with the substantive requirement of possessing a valid FEIN prior to filing, hence a violation of the regulations. BALCA determined that where an application is deficient when filed because the sponsoring employer does not have a valid FEIN, the CO is not required to permit the application to be perfected based on a change in ownership. Accordingly, the CO properly denied certification.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determinationof a Certifying Officer (CO) affirming the filing date for the approved PERM labor certification (LC). The application was filed on behalf of an alien worker for the position of Auto Mechanic.
The employer, an auto repair shop filed a pre-PERM application on behalf of the alien worker on April 25, 2001. The education requirement is what is at issue on appeal. The pre-PERM application stated a requirement of an eighth grade education. On November 4, 2005, the employer’s filed PERM application for the alien worker was accepted for processing. The PERM stated a requirement of a high school education. The CO thereafter granted certification and set the alien worker’s priority date, November 4, 2005. The letter did not include an explanation as to why the priority date was not that of the pre-PERM date accepted for processing, April 25, 2001. Former counsel for the employer wrote to the CO arguing that the priority date was in error and attached evidence of the pre-PERM acceptance date. A few months later, new counsel for the employer mailed a letter to the CO reiterating the same point addressed in former counsel’s letter. The CO denied reconsideration on the priority date issue in July of 2008. The CO explained that the earlier date was not assigned as the priority date for the application because the applications were not identical on the education requirement. The CO then addressed the argument the employer made in its letter. The employer argued that ETA Form 9089 does not provide an option for grade school, and the closest option was high school. The CO rebutted this argument by noting that there is an option on Form 9089 for other, which allows the employer to specify what is required in regards to education. The CO forwarded an Appeal File to BALCA. The employer did not submit an appellate brief addressing the issue; however, the CO did file a letter brief which supported the reasons behind its denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Continue reading "BALCA affirms priority date for PERM application" »
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Auto Mechanic.
The Employer filed a LC on behalf of the alien worker and it was accepted for processing in January of 2007. The Employer stated in the application that the job was a nonprofessional position. The Employer indicated that it had run the State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order from December 15, 2006 until January 17, 2007, and submitted the application by mail on January 22, 2007. Thereafter, the CO issued a denial letter. The CO based the denial in part on the SWA job order not being in compliance with the statutory regulations. In March of 2007, the Employer’s owner requested review arguing that the SWA job order was completed at least 30 days prior to submission of the application. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration. The CO stated that the Employer had misunderstood the regulatory requirement which requires that the job order end at least 30 days prior to the ETA Form 9089 filing date. The CO said the application must be denied because the end date of the job order, (January 17, 2007) was less than 30 days prior to the filing date (January 22, 2007). The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, whereas the CO did file an appellate brief urging affirmation of the denial.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) that the job order must have been completed at least 30 days, but no more than 180 days before filing of the application, and it must have been at least 30 days in duration. The Board agreed with the CO about the Employer’s misinterpretation of the statutory regulation, and held that it was clearly a violation of the regulations by filing the application less than 30 days after the SWA job order ended. The Board explained that the regulatory time requirement was designed to ensure that the Employer had sufficient time to receive resumes, make contact with any applicants, conduct interviews, and make decisions regarding any U.S. applicants who may have applied for the job opportunity in response to the recruitment effort. Accordingly, the CO properly denied certification.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Horse Trainer.
The Employer submitted the application by mail. In the application, the Employer indicated that the job was first advertised in the New York Post on November 11, 2005 (three days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday) and the second advertisement was run on December 17, 2005 (three days, Saturday, Sunday, Monday). The CO had the mailed in application re-keyboarded, and the new version only stated 11/11/2005 and 12/17/2005 as the first and second dates that the advertisements were run. Subsequently, in November of 2006, the CO issued a denial letter on two grounds. The first reason related to the dates of the placement of a State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order, and the other reason related to whether the position was advertised in a Sunday edition of a newspaper of general circulation. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration. The Employer submitted tear sheets establishing that a Sunday advertisement was run in the New York Post on November 13, 2005 and on December 18, 2005. In June of 2008, the CO denied reconsideration providing that the tear sheets revealed that the advertisements did not name the Employer, did not indicate the geographic area of employment, and did not contain a wage rate at least equal to the prevailing wage. Thus, the CO declared that the denial was valid because the employer had not provided evidence that it placed a qualifying advertisement meeting all regulatory requirements. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer did not file an appellate brief to address the problems the CO identified in regards to the advertisements, whereas the CO did file an appellate brief detailing the applicable statutory regulation and the Employer’s alleged violation.
The Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS) International is an internationally recognized authority on credentials evaluations and verification pertaining to the education, registration, and licensure of nurses and health care professionals worldwide. CGFNS International is a leader in the industry with extensive knowledge of the profession and over 30 years experience reviewing foreign education credentials. CGFNS was asked to provide guidance on its view of the educational requirements for applicants intending to fulfill the position of Physical Therapist (PT). However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that this guidance given by CGFNS International is not binding.
As a credentialing organization, CGFNS must first make an assessment of whether an alien’s education, training, licenses and experience are comparable with that required for an American health care worker of the same type. Secondly, the organization must determine whether a particular alien’s education, training, license and experience meet all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for admission into the United States.
Analysis of Degree Requirements
Applicants for Permanent Residence
Foreign PTs seeking permanent resident alien status must satisfy the applicable Department of Labor (DOL) regulatory requirements. These regulations include the definition of “physical therapist,” which states in part that these individuals are “persons who will be employed as physical therapists, and who possess all the qualifications necessary to take the physical therapist licensing examination in the state in which they propose to practice physical therapy. According to these regulations, it is the education requirement of the state of intended employment that controls whether the degree requirement is a master’s degree or bachelor’s degree. The applicable regulations do not provide further guidance on the issue.
Applicants for H-1B status
Foreign PTs seeking H-1B visa status must satisfy the USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2 (h). Among these requirements is the requirement that PT beneficiaries of H-1B petitions “hold a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation…” or a foreign degree equivalent, and hold an unrestricted State license to fully practice the specialty occupation or have progressive work experience comparable to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree. The regulations do not define the professional degree required as long as it is at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. Due to the state licensing requirement, the education standards for the state of intended employment continue to control if the PT indeed already has such a license. No further guidance was provided on the issue.
Applicants for TN status
Foreign applicants seeking TN status must satisfy the standards at 8 C.F.R. 214.6. For the position of “Physiotherapist/Physical Therapist,” the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) regulations provide that a baccalaureate or licenciatura degree, or a state/provincial license is required.
The comparable U.S. entity is the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, (CAPTE) and they describe the educational requirement for this position as simply “post baccaulureate.” Accordingly, there is no requirement that a foreign beneficiary must possess a Master’s degree to seek admission into the United States as a Physical Therapist. Accordingly, the DOL Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) is incorrect on the issue.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Domestic Tutor. This LC was filed prior to the effective date of the “PERM” regulations.
The employer, a private household filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker in June of 2004. The requirements for the position were a high school education, four years of training as a domestic, and four years of experience in the job offered. In May of 2007, the CO issued a Notice of Findings (NOF) proposing to deny certification due to numerous defects in the application. First, the Director found that the job requirements were unduly restrictive in violation of the regulations, and as such were in excess of the requirements listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The DOT lists a specific vocational preparation (SVP) for this job as “over one month and up to three months” of combined education, training and experience. The CO instructed that this issue could be rebutted by one of two ways: (1) establish a business necessity for the job requirement, or (2) reduce the requirements to the DOT standard. Additionally, the CO determined that the documentation provided did not establish that the alien worker had the four years of training and four years of experience in the job prior to being hired. The CO provided that the employer could rebut this finding by: (1) documenting that the alien worker had the required training and experience at the time of hire; (2) submitting evidence that it is not presently feasible due to business necessity to hire a worker with less than the qualifications presently required for the job opportunity and demonstrate that the job as currently described existed before the alien was hired, or (3) amending or deleting the requirement. Another defect noted in the NOF was that the Employer had not documented that the alien worker had one year of full time experience performing the duties of the job offered in a domestic household as required by the regulations. The CO provided that this defect too could be rebutted by submitting specific information. Lastly, the CO identified that the wage offered in the application was $9.00 per hour, which was below the prevailing wage of $13.34 per hour. The CO informed the employer this defect could also be rebutted by: (1) amending the application and increasing the salary offer to at least 100% of the prevailing wage, or (2) submit alternative wage data. In its rebuttal, the employer stated that there was business necessity, that overwhelming evidence had been submitted to establish that the alien had the requisite experience at the time of hire, and amended the application to increase the salary to $14.00 per hour.
The CO stated that the Employer’s rebuttal evidence corrected the prevailing wage defect, but the Employer’s rebuttal was not sufficient to correct the other three deficiencies in the application. Thereafter, the CO issued its final determination denying certification because the Employer did not correct all deficiencies in its labor application. Subsequently, the employer requested BALCA review.
The regulations require that an employer must document that its requirements for the job opportunity are those normally required for the successful performance of the job in the United States. Where the employer cannot document that the job requirement is normal for the occupation or that it is included in the DOT, the employer must establish business necessity for the requirement. The Employer indicated that the job requirements arose from a business necessity, however; the employer failed to submit any documentation to verify its statements. Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the Employer did not establish business necessity for the training and experience requirements in excess of those set forth in the DOT. The Employer stated that they would amend the application to rebut the findings of the Director, however; only the wage section of the application had been amended. In summary, the Employer did not submit any documentation on rebuttal to cure the defects noted by the CO. Thus, the CO properly denied certification.
The Department of Labor will soon implement a new integrated online system – known as the iCert Portal – through which employers will submit applications for permanent labor certification, labor condition applications (LCAs) and other applications for immigration-related DOL programs. In addition, the agency will introduce new editions of Form ETA-9089, the PERM labor certification application, and Form ETA-9035, the labor condition application. When fully implemented, the new system will replace the existing LCA and labor certification application systems. DOL will implement the new LCA and PERM application systems with 30-day transitional periods, when both the existing system and the new online portal will be operational simultaneously.
The new iCert system will begin to accept LCAs as of April 15, 2009 – after the April 1 opening date of the H-1B filing period for employment in Fiscal Year 2010. The system will begin to accept PERM applications beginning July 1, 2009.
Continue reading "Labor Department To Implement New Online Application System" »
Over 90,039 Labor certification applications were received between October 01, 2007 and September 01, 2008. Of those, 49,205 have been certified. Many are either still in the review process, undergoing an audit, on appeal, or have been denied.
The top 5 states of intended employment for these permanent labor certifications were California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
Alien beneficiaries representing 179 different countries were certified for permanent employment in the U.S. These alien beneficiaries were from India, Mexico, China, South Korea, Philippines, Canada, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Ecuador.
The top job titles for those certified included Computer Software Engineers, Computer System Analysts, Computer and Information System Managers, Restaurant Cooks, Electronics Engineers, Market Research Analyst, Computer Programmers, Financial Analysts, Mechanical Engineers, Chefs and Head Cooks, and Electrical Engineers.
Although a new PERM Form 9089 has been created, implementation of the new form is delayed until Spring 2009. Until then, the existing Form 9089 will be accepted for Labor Certification.
Since the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release in June 2008 announcing it was auditing all of the PERM labor certification applications filed by the Fragomen law firm there has been much confusion for attorneys in regards to the PERM process. While there are still a number of areas left questionable, below are some Do’s and Don’ts based on the DOL’s pleadings.
• Do be prepared for DOL to audit how the employer received and reviewed the resumes if there is any hint this is an issue in the recruitment process.
• Do assist your clients without fear of DOL wrath when they have questions about whether an applicant is unqualified.
• Given DOL’s position on pre-screening resumes for the employer, it may well be a “best practice” for the attorney not to pre-screen.
• Be wary about the activities of paralegals at the worksite of an employer, acting as an agent of the attorney.
• Do continue to impose on the employer the overall requirement of good faith recruitment and evaluation of applicants.
It is important to note that the DOL confirmed in writing that the employer is not legally required to hire anyone recruited through labor certification recruitment. In other words, the labor certification is a test of the labor market and not a hiring program.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of “Maid.”
In the aforementioned case, the employer, a private household filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker. The employer mailed the Application for Permanent Employment Certification to the Chicago Processing Center. The CO accepted the application for processing on October 24, 2006, and then re-keyed the application into the Department of Labor’s ETA electronic system. Weeks later the CO wrote a letter to the employer that denied the employer access to submit a Form 9089 electronically until the employer submitted proof of a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN), proof of a business entity, and proof of a physical location. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter denying certification. The reason for denial was that the employer could not be verified as a bonafide entity. In requesting reconsideration, the Employer asserted that the denial was vague, pointed out that it was a private household and not a company, but ultimately failed to identify how it was verified as a bonafide entity. The employer submitted a passport and her most recent tax return and further argued that neither her nor her legal counsel were ever contacted regarding verification of the employer’s existence. After reviewing the request, the CO denied reconsideration. The CO stated that providing a Social Security number was not a valid substitute for a FEIN. The matter was referred to BALCA for review. In the employer’s brief, she based her argument on a denial of due process.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulations require the submission of a FEIN on ETA Form 9089 because the FEIN is used to verify whether an employer is a bona fide entity. The PERM regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.3 require that an employer possess a valid Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) whether they are a private household or a legitimate company. Case law further provides that the use of a social security number as a substitute for a FEIN is prohibited because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) clearly requires employers to possess a FEIN in order to file tax forms for domestic household employees.
The employer asserted that she was denied due process; however, under the PERM regulations, an employer is given an opportunity to file for reconsideration. In issuing a denial to an employer, the CO shall identify the section or subsection allegedly violated, and the nature of the violation. In this case, the CO’s original denial letter was deficient because it failed to state that the employer needed to provide a FEIN to be verified as a bonafide entity. The CO’s letter had the potential to deny the Employer’s due process rights. However, the CO’s failure to describe the nature of the violation did not prevent the employer from obtaining a labor certification that should have been granted. The only evidence that the employer could have provided for the case to swing in its favor was evidence that the employer had a FEIN at the time she applied for labor certification.
From the record, it was clear that the employer did not possess a FEIN as she used her social security number as a substitute. As stated above, a FEIN is required even for domestic households. In this case, the employer’s failure to obtain a FEIN prior to filing for labor certification rendered her application deficient as a matter of law. Accordingly, although the CO’s original determination letter was deficient, the employer could not be deprived of something to which she was never entitled. The Board recommended that the employer obtain a FEIN and file a new application.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of “Chinese Specialty Cook.”
In the aforementioned case, the employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker. The significant facts of the case were: the alien signed the application on November 19, 2005; the employer’s attorney signed the application on December 13, 2005; the employer’s president signed the application on December 3, 2006; and the employer ran advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation on May 7, 2006 and May 14, 2006, and all of these facts were indicated within the application for labor certification. The CO denied certification because the advertisements used for recruitment did not occur within the requisite timeframe. The PERM regulations clearly state that advertisements for recruitment must occur at least 30 days, but no more than 180 days, prior to the date the application was filed.
The CO received request for reconsideration from the employer’s attorney. In response, the employer’s attorney submitted evidence indicating that advertisements were run in a newspaper and a journal for three consecutive days in June of 2005. Additionally, the employer’s attorney mistakenly had filed the labor application with the State Workforce Agency rather than directly with a federal Certifying Officer, and had to re-file with the latter. The employer’s attorney confessed error in the timing of the advertisements, but urged that they did in fact advertise, and did not receive any responses. The employer’s attorney alleged that the error was procedural. After reviewing the request, the CO denied reconsideration. The employer requested BALCA review.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the new rules of PERM were applicable to the present case. The PERM regulations require that ETA form 9089 be utilized rather than ETA form 750, and that applications be filed directly with a federal Certifying Officer rather than a State Workforce Agency. The employer had applied for certification for a non-professional position. Under the regulations, for a non-professional position, the employer must, at a minimum, place a job order and two newspaper advertisements within 6 months of filing the application. Unfortunately, the employer’s motion for reconsideration did not remedy the timing problem with the advertisements. Moreover, regardless of whether the employer’s advertisements were run in May 2005, June 2005 or would be run in May 2006, none of those dates fit within the requisite timeframe in support of a labor certification application filed under PERM. Additionally, the employer’s attorney requested equitable relief for its error in filing the pre-PERM application rather than the PERM application. BALCA denied equitable relief as the facts surrounding the case did not present a compelling case for the application of equitable relief. Accordingly, BALCA affirmed the final determination of the CO in denying certification for not complying with the new advertising rules for PERM.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the PERM filing date and vacated the Certifying Officer's (CO) denial of the application.
The employer, an independent school district filed a pre-PERM ETA form 750A application for permanent alien labor certification on October 24, 2004 for the position of Middle School Teacher. The work location was East Houston Intermediate School and the job description involved the language “teach middle school students…” Subsequently, on January 11, 2006, the employer filed a ETA form 9089 under PERM for the same Alien for the position of Elementary School Teacher. The work location for this application was Hilliard Elementary School, and the job description involved the language “teach elementary school students…” On the ETA form 9089, the employer indicated that it was seeking to utilize the filing date from the pre-PERM application, the date of October 24, 2004. Thereafter, the employer received a letter from the Dallas Backlog Elimination Center (BEC) in reference to the pre-PERM application. The BEC gave the employer several options to pursue. The employer responded by withdrawing 20 pre-PERM application, one of which was the present application, because applications had also been filed under PERM and were pending. In January, the following year, the employer received a letter granting certification on the PERM application. The date of acceptance was that of the newly filed PERM application, January 11, 2006. The employer requested that the CO reconsider the earlier pre-PERM application filing date. A request for additional information was issued to the employer, and the employer promptly replied. The CO subsequently denied the motion because the job descriptions, job titles, and job locations in the ETA form 750A and form 9089 were not identical. Regulations require that job descriptions be identical in order for the employer to retain the filing date from an earlier pending pre-PERM application. The CO forwarded the matter to BALCA for review.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the CO’s letter denying reconsideration stating that the application had been denied was clearly in error, and that there had been no intent to de-certify the application, leaving the remaining issue of whether the CO correctly determined the filing date for the PERM application.
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(d) clearly supports the CO’s decision not to retain the pre-PERM filing date. The regulation provides that employers who have filed applications prior to March 28, 2005, may…re-file such applications…without loss of the original filing date by: (i) submitting an application for an identical job opportunity…, (ii) withdrawing the original application…, and (iii) re-filing within 210 days of withdrawal of original application. To be clear, the regulations state that a job opportunity shall be considered identical if the employer, alien, job title, job location, job requirements and job description are the same as those stated in the original application. In this case, the employer had a different job title, job location and job description for each application that was submitted on behalf of the alien worker. Since the employer did not address the fact that the job location had changed in the motion for reconsideration, BALCA determined that for that reason alone, the CO was correct in finding that the applications were not identical. Although the job titles and descriptions may have been similar, they were not identical; the regulations require them to be identical in order to grant the request of the employer.
Accordingly, BALCA affirmed the determination of the CO that the filing date shall be the date that the PERM application was accepted for processing, January 11, 2006.
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination
of a Certifying Office (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of “Home Health Aide.”
In the aforementioned case, the employer, a private household filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker. The CO denied certification of the application on four grounds. The PERM regulations require that employers file completed applications for Permanent Employment Certification. The employer failed to make selections for the following questions on the ETA Form 9089: Section C-6 (Year commenced business); C-7 (Employer FEIN); F-3 (Skill level); and K-5 (Job 3 title). Subsequently, the Employer filed a request for reconsideration. In requesting reconsideration, the Employer asserted that she completed Sections C-6 and C-7 and no further information or explanation was given. After reviewing the request, the CO denied reconsideration. The CO stated that the employer’s request for reconsideration did not overcome all deficiencies noted in the determination letter. The employer requested BALCA review.
Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the employer offered an incomplete ETA Form 9089. The PERM regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(a) require that an “employer who desires to apply for a labor certification on behalf of an alien must file a complete Department of Labor Application for Permanent Employment Certification form (ETA Form 9089). Further, the regulations state that “incomplete applications will be denied.” In this case, the omissions on ETA Form 9089 were material and the employer failed to correct them by offering documentation in her request for reconsideration to establish compliance with the regulations. The Employer clearly failed to obtain a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) and to complete Sections F-4 and K-5 of the application. Accordingly, BALCA affirmed the final determination of the CO in denying certification for not submitting a completed application for labor certification.
In light of the Fragomen audit, the Department of Labor (DOL) has recently issued many documents on the topic of attorney/agent consideration of U.S. workers under the permanent labor certification program . Attorneys/agents and foreign workers do not have a designated role in the PERM recruitment process. It is the responsibility of the DOL to ensure that no foreign worker obtains a certified labor application based on an employment offer if there are U.S. workers that are able, willing, qualified and available to fill the proffered position. Additionally, an employer must make an attestation that if admitted; the foreign workers will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly situated U.S. workers.
The purposes of the documents issued by the DOL are to clearly define and regulate the role of an attorney/agent in the consideration of U.S. workers under the PERM program. The DOL has long held the view that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resemble the employer’s normal consideration process. In most situations, the normal hiring process does not involve a role for an attorney/agent in assessing the qualifications of the applicants. The DOL has clearly specified the types of actions prohibited by attorneys/agents under the regulations, which include: (1) receiving resumes and applications of U.S. workers who respond to the employer’s recruitment efforts; and (2) participation in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants. However, if the attorney/agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed, then the attorney/agent may act accordingly. In addition, the attorney/agent may provide advice throughout the consideration process on any and all legal questions concerning compliance with governing statutes, regulations and policies. It is the sole responsibility of the employer to conduct recruitment in good faith.
If the DOL finds evidence of improper attorney, agent or foreign worker involvement in the recruitment/consideration process, the DOL will audit and may subsequently require supervised recruitment to further investigate the employer’s recruitment efforts or potential debarment from immigration related programs.
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 Applications (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of the Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification.
In the present case, the petitioner (employer), a plumbing and compacting installation service filed an application for labor certification for the position of Plumber on behalf of a foreign alien beneficiary. Following recruitment, the employer filed a recruitment report in which it rejected five U.S. applicants. Only two of the applicants’ qualifications are questioned on appeal. According to the recruitment report, Applicant 1 was rejected because his resume indicated that he did not possess any U.S. experience as a plumber, and the employer thereafter assumed that he/she obviously had no knowledge of state and city plumbing codes, a job requirement for the proffered position. Applicant 2 was rejected because the applicant’s experience as a Plumber dated from the period of 1978 to 1984, after which he/she only worked as a Supervisor to several plumbers and helpers. The Employer stated that they desired the services of a raw plumber not a supervisor.
After thorough review of the documentation presented with the application for labor certification, the CO issued a Notice of Findings (NOF) proposing to deny certification. The CO noted that the employer unlawfully rejected applicants 1 and 2 based on resumes alone. With Applicant 1, it was not altogether established that he/she was not familiar with applicable New York (NY) plumbing codes and specifications and an interview would have clearly established the Applicant’s qualifications for the proffered position. The 2nd Applicant was rejected solely because he was overqualified according to his resume. In response to the NOF, the employer filed a rebuttal letter indicating why Applicants 1 and 2 were not further interviewed. The employer argued that the first applicants resume did not indicate any plumbing experience in NY, and there was no reason to assume that his home improvement experience in NY involved any plumbing. Accordingly, under those circumstances, the employer felt that he was not obliged to interview the applicant. In regards to Applicant 2, the Employer relied upon the applicant’s present occupation and stated that no one willing regresses in their career; therefore the applicant cannot be considered to be willing to be available and willing for the job of raw plumber. Thereafter, the CO issued a final determination denying certification. The CO indicated that the relevant standard in determining whether a resume merits further investigation is whether or not there is a reasonable possibility that an applicant may meet the employer’s minimum requirements despite an apparent shortcoming on the applicant’s resume.
Upon BALCA review of the record, it was determined that the resumes of Applicants 1 and 2 raised the reasonable prospect that they were capable of performing the job offered. Accordingly, the employer had the duty to interview the applicants or verify their qualifications in some other manner other than just making assumptions based on their resumes. Since the employer rejected the applicants without interviewing them or otherwise verifying their qualifications or lack thereof, the CO properly denied certification. The burden of proof was with the employer, although the employer attempted to shift the burden to the CO, the employer was unable to satisfy the burden and accordingly the certification was denied.
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.
The U.S. immigration system is constantly changing. At a recent stakeholders meeting, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced several upcoming changes to the Labor Certification and Labor Condition Application process.
Expect More PERM Audits
The DOL announced that with Backlog Elimination Centers (BECs) closing, the DOL will now be now focusing its resources on parts of the PERM regulations that were not focused on earlier, including audits and supervised recruitment. Since April 2007, Immigration attorneys have seen a spike in PERM audits by the DOL. It looks like Audits are going to be commonplace from now on. DOL announced that both targeted and random PERM audits will continue. The DOL stated that the 60 to 90 day timeframe discussed in the preamble to the PERM regulation is not binding and is irrelevant if there is an audit. Therefore, once a case has gone into audit, it will most likely not be adjudicated within the 60 to 90 timeframe.
As of July 15th, the DOL was working on cases that have not been audited with a priority date of April 2008. Currently, there is only one Audit queue. The DOL does not maintain separate queues for random and targeted audits. As of Mid July, DOL was working on audited cases with Priority dates of March 2007.
H-1B LCAs will be scrutinized more closely
The DOL also stated that Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) associated with the H-1B filing process will be scrutinized more closely beginning this fall. Currently LCAs are approved within a matter of seconds once they are applied for through the DOL’s online application system. The DOL expects such applications to take up to 7 days to be reviewed and certified by the DOL. If alternate wage surveys are submitted with the LCAs, the certification times would be even longer. Therefore, the days of starting a new H-1B petition in a couple of days pursuant to a change in employer will soon come to an end.
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.
No matter what avenue you take towards permanent resident status (“green card”), whether it is family-based petition, employment-based petition, or diversity visa based, the priority date of your petition determines the order of visa availability for each particular category.
Priority Dates for Family-Based Petitions
For family based petitions, the priority date is established when the I-130 form (Petition for Alien Relative) is filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If an I-130 petition is denied because of ineligibility and then later resubmitted when eligible, the priority date is established at the time of resubmission of the petition. Matter of Carbajal, 20 I&N Dec. 461 (BIA 1992).
Priority Dates for Employment-Based Petitions
For employment-based immigration petitions, the priority date is set either on the date that a labor certification is filed (EB-2 and EB-3 categories require labor certification); or for categories that do not need a labor certification (EB-1, EB-4, and EB-5) on the date that the preference petition if filed with the USCIS.
Transferring priority dates from a prior employment-based petition to a subsequent new employment based petition
Employment-based priority dates in the first three preference categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB3) are transferable within those categories. For instance, if one files an EB-3 based labor certification and has an approved I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) for that category, that individual can subsequently file a labor certification in the EB-2 category and request that the priority date from the EB-3 petition be retained when filing the I-140 for the EB-2 petition. However, it is important to note that priority dates are not transferable from EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 cases to any EB-5, EB-5, and family based petitions.
Priority dates for derivative beneficiaries (Spouses/Children)
Spouses and children of the primary beneficiary of both employment-based and family-based petitions are assigned the same priority date as the primary beneficiary as long as the marriage still exists and the children are under the age of 21 pursuant to the Child Status Protection Act. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For instance, the child of a person who marries a U.S. Citizen must be the beneficiary of a separate petition by the parent beneficiary or, where applicable, the petitioning step-parent.
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" »
The employment based permanent residency or “green card” process is a three step process. The first step in this process is called Labor Certification. As of March 28, 2005 all Labor Certification applications are filed through the online PERM process. The Since April of 2007, immigration attorneys have reported a significant increase in the number of PERM audit notifications issued by the US Department of Labor (DOL).
PERM audits are either randomly issued or are triggered by mechanisms installed in the PERM program by the DOL. In order for an employer to file a successful labor certification application, a U.S. employer must establish that no U.S. workers (either U.S. citizens or permanent residents) were available for the position. The DOL requires U.S. employers to conduct a recruitment campaign prior to filing a PERM based labor certification application. If the DOL deems the U.S. employer’s job requirements to be excessively restrictive to U.S. workers, an audit request is issued. In most instances, an audit will be triggered if an employer’s job requirements do not comply with the Department of Labor’s specific vocational preparation (SVP) guidelines as set forth in the O*NET. For example, if the DOL has set a SVP of “7<8” for the software engineer position. According to the DOL’s SVP guidelines, the maximum vocational preparation for this position is 4 years. The DOL equates a bachelor’s degree to 2 years of vocational preparation and a master’s degree to 4 years of vocational preparation. Therefore, if an employer’s requirements for a software engineer exceed either a bachelors degree in the field and 2 years of experience or a masters degree in the field an 0 years of experience, the requirements would be considered excessive by the DOL.
The majority of the recent PERM audits are a direct result of employer’s exceeding the DOL’s SVP requirements. Most of these audits require employers to establish “business necessity” for the job requirements exceeding the SVP. In accordance with Matter of Information Industries, 88-INA-92 (BALCA Feb. 9, 1989) and 20 CFR § 656.17(h), "To establish a business necessity, an employer must demonstrate the duties and requirements bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation in the context of the employer's business and are essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner." Therefore, when responding to business necessity related audit requests, the employer must provide the DOL with evidence that proves that the employer’s requirements bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation and are essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner. The employer could include evidence of its past hiring practices and describe its operations in detail to justify that the requirements are needed to perform the duties of the position to fulfill the employer’s business needs.
