Articles Posted in BALCA Decisions

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Computer & Information Systems Manager.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. Once the Employer responded to the Audit, the CO denied certification of the application for failing “to respond to the audit notification within the required time.”

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In its argument, the Employer submitted its audit response documentation that included a copy of its job posting from its website with an unreadable handwritten note displaying the dates of posting. In addition, the recruitment report signed by the Company’s President was submitted. In the report, the time frame for the job posting on the employer’s website was listed as November 30 to December 30, 2008.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) overturned the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny Labor Certification.

After obtaining & examining an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification ordering the Employer to submit a copy of the Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD) received from the State Workforce Agency (SWA) along with a copy of the request for the determination. The Employer replied to the Audit by providing a copy of the PWD issued from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workforce Development Partnership. It did not contain a copy of its original request for a prevailing wage as submitted to the Pennsylvania SWA.

The CO denied labor certification citing the Employer’s failure to provide the request for the PWD in a timely manner. He referred to PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(b) as his reason for denial. PERM Regulation 656.20(b) declares, “A substantial failure by the employer to provide required documentation will result in that application being denied.”

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Field Service Engineer.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. One of the issues present was the fact that the main worksite address on the ETA Form 9089 was the same as the alien’s address. In its Audit response, the Employer provided its recruitment documentation and explained that the position allows its “Field Service Engineer to work from home and to travel to client sites as needed.”

Once the Employer responded, the CO denied certification. The CO indicated the position communicated in its recruitment efforts did not offer the condition to work from home to US workers. This was a violation of PERM Regulation 20 CFR 656.17(f)(7). This regulation requires that an advertisement “must not contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien.”

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently overturned the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Computer SW Engineers, Applications.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. He requested the Employer provide its recruitment documentation and a copy of its Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD). The Employer responded and the CO denied certification on two grounds. First, the wage offered in the Notice of Filing and job order was lower than the PWD. The Employer offered $59,467 and the PWD was $59.467.20. In addition, the CO stated the Employer failed to make available copies of employer notices on its employee referral program with incentives.

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO arguing the 0.0003% discrepancy should not cause their labor application to be denied. They indicated their use of “the Department of Foreign Labor’s Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data Center Online Wage Library to determine the appropriate annual wage.” The Employer also stated that it had provided a flier of its Employee Referral Program as well as data in its Recruitment Report about the program. Despite the Employer’s claims, the CO delivered a second denial and forwarded the case to BALCA for assessment.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Design Engineer-Mechanical.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. The Employer responded by sending its recruitment report as well as resumes from U.S. applicants. In response, the CO informed the Employer that they would be required to conduct supervised recruitment. As part of the process, the Employer could only advertise the position in permitted publications and abide by specific advertising conditions. The Employer sent the CO a copy of the proposed job advertisement that was approved by the CO. A few weeks later, the Employer sent copies of the Arkansas State Workforce Agency job order; newspaper ads, on-line job postings from its company web page and a job search website. The CO told the Employer about the resumes that he had received as well.

A few months later, the CO told the Employer that the recruitment time had concluded. In 30 days, the employer was required to submit a comprehensive written report about the recruitment process and the outcomes. In a timely manner, the Employer presented its recruitment results. In the report, the Employer noted it had received resumes from 45 applicants. During the review of the resumes, the Employer cited it considered job applicants based on their education, training, experience as well as trainability. The Employer believed that none of the applicants fulfilled the minimum job requirements and therefore, were not qualified for the position.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently overturned the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Senior Systems Analyst.”

Upon evaluating an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied the Labor Application because he believed it violated PERM regulation 20 CFR 656.17(f)(4). The CO denied certification because “the newspaper advertisement failed to list the correct geographical area of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements.” He pointed out the physical area of employment contained in the employer’s job ad in the San Francisco Chronicle as well as hotjobs.yahoo.com does not match the one listed on the ETA Form. The ad lists San Francisco, while Fremont is recorded on the ETA Form. The CO stated these two cities are located in different “Metropolitan Statistical Areas” (MSA).

The Employer filed an appeal to BALCA. They declared that the CO made an error in thinking Fremont and San Francisco were in different MSA’s. The Employer argued that the “advertisements complied with PERM requirements and DOL guidelines for roaming positions.” As evidence, the Employer requested BALCA to take administrative notice of a printout from the Census Bureau’s website which lists the MSA’s, among other evidence. In addition, they wanted the Board to review a “County to County” commuting chart from the San Francisco Bay area. The Employer explained that Fremont is the company’s headquarters but the locations of the job are yet unknown.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Operating Engineer.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied certification of the application because the Employer had placed their State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order more than 180 days prior to the filing of their ETA Form 9089.

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO arguing that “the 180 day period should be calculated based on the end date of the SWA, rather than the date it commenced.” To interpret the regulations otherwise would penalize employers who wanted to run their SWA’s for longer than 180 days. The CO did reconsider but afterwards, he confirmed the denial. Not happy with the outcome, the Employer appealed the decision to BALCA and restated its argument.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Electronics Engineer.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification requesting evidence of the employee’s work experience. The Employer sent back its recruitment documentation as well as the worker’s educational information, among other documents.

Upon review of the Audit response, the CO denied the Labor Certification. The CO believed the applicant’s credentials did not match the position’s minimum job requirements recorded on the Labor application. He stated the worker did not have a Master’s degree or 60 months experience at the time of his hire and only received his Master’s degree after he started working for the company. Overall, the CO declared “the Employer’s job requirements listed on Form 9089 did not represent the Employer’s actual minimum requirements.”

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Travel Agent.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. It required the Employer to present the notice of filing documentation. The Employer sent back a copy of the Notice of Filing (NOF).

The CO denied the application for multiple reasons. He stated that the employer did not name the location of where the NOF was posted, as a result, they violated PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. 656.10 (d) (1) (ii). This regulation requires that “the NOF must be posted at employer’s facility or location in two conspicuous places where the employer’s US workers can readily read the posted notice on their way to or from their place of employment.” The regulations also provide that “the documentation requirement may be satisfied by providing a copy of the posted notice and stating where it was posted.”

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently overturned the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Business Development Manager-IV.”

After receiving and reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit. He directed the Employer to present copies of its recruitment records. The Employer responded with its New Jersey State Workforce Agency (SWA) Job order that was administered through America’s Job Exchange (AJE).

Once the CO received the audit materials, he denied certification of the application. The CO cited the position communicated in its recruitment advertising did not match the one listed on the Employer’s ETA Form 9089 in violation of PERM Regulations 656.17 (f)(6). In its Labor Application, the Employer stated the position required “a Master’s Degree and 12 months of experience in the job offered.” In its SWA job order, the experience requirement listed “Mid-Career (2-15 years).”

Contact Information