Articles Posted in BALCA Decisions

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 “Indian Vegetarian Cook.”

After receiving and reviewing the Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit. He directed the Employer to present a signed notarized statement attesting to the sponsorship of the Alien. In addition, the CO requested answers to several questions concerning the position and the Foreign Worker. The Employer responded to the Audit request in a timely manner.

Once the CO received the audit materials, he denied certification of the application. The Employer did not provide the notarized statement that was requested in the Audit Notification Letter. The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. The Employer stated that “by signing and submitting the ETA Form 9089, it had attested it had a job opportunity available.” The CO re-affirmed his decision and stated that the Employer’s failure to send back a notarized letter with the Audit was a valid reason for denying certification. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

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 “Indian Vegetarian Cook.”

After receiving and reviewing the Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit. He directed the Employer to present a signed notarized statement attesting to the sponsorship of the Alien. In addition, the CO requested answers to several questions concerning the position and the Foreign Worker. The Employer responded to the Audit request in a timely manner.

Once the CO received the audit materials, he denied certification of the application. The Employer did not provide the notarized statement that was requested in the Audit Notification Letter. The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. The Employer stated that “by signing and submitting the ETA Form 9089, it had attested it had a job opportunity available.” The CO re-affirmed his decision and stated that the Employer’s failure to send back a notarized letter with the Audit was a valid reason for denying certification. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

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 “Cook Assistant, Japanese Cuisine.”

After audit, the CO denied the labor certification stating the prevailing wage on the ETA form 9089 did not match the one listed on the prevailing wage determination (PWD). The Labor application listed “$10.04” per hour and the prevailing wage determination listed “$10.14” per hour. The Employer requested reconsideration of the denial stating the prevailing wage discrepancy was “a minor typographical error”, “a clerical mistake of minor importance,” and that “no potential applicant was exposed to the clerical error.” They cited its Notice of Filing included the accurate wage. The Employer also argued in order to correct and re-file the labor application they would have to re-start the time-consuming recruitment process all over again.

After reviewing the reconsideration, the CO affirmed its denial of certification. He believed that under the PERM regulations, “employers must present an application that is complete and accurate to ensure the integrity of the PERM process.” The CO also pointed out that “$10.04” was typed twice on the application. The CO based his decision on the 20 C.F.R. 656.10(c)(1), which requires employers to certify in applications for permanent employment certification that the “offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage.” The CO forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

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 “Marketing Manager.”

Upon evaluating an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO ordered the Employer to present copies of its recruitment efforts. The Employer provided a copy of its notice of filing, job order with the Washington State Workforce Agency (SWA), as well as newspaper ads placed in the Seattle Times. In addition, they submitted a copy of the company’s recruitment report.

After reviewing the recruitment data, the CO denied Certification because he believed it violated PERM regulation 20 CFR 656.17(f)(6), which provides that additional language not found on the ETA Form 9089 exceeds the job requirements for the position. The CO stated the Employer’s Notice of Filing (NOF), SWA job order, newspaper advertisements and web advertisements all listed “may require employer-reimbursed travel.” The phrase was not listed on the Employer’s 9089 form.

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 “Financial Programmer Analyst.”

Upon reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit Notification and required the Employer to submit further documentation.

After looking through the documents, the CO denied the Labor Certification because he believed the Employer violated PERM regulation 20 CFR 656.17(f) (6). The CO stated the Employer’s advertisement posted on a job search website listed a travel requirement not listed on the Employer’s ETA Form 9089.

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 “Financial Analyst-Senior”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. Specifically, he requested information on US Workers that had been recently laid off. The Employer presented its response in a timely manner. Upon review of the information, the CO denied certification. He stated the Employer turned down a qualified U.S. worker. The CO believed there was at least one fitting candidate for the job opening. One of the laid off workers had been a Financial Analyst Senior and possessed a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics with experience in business applications.

The Employer requested reconsideration of the denial, the CO denied reconsideration of the case and the case was forwarded to BALCA. The CO noted that the Employer wrote in the Request for Reconsideration that “the most critical skill for the position is advanced programming skills.” Yet, that qualification was not listed on ETA Form 9089.

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 “Account Manager.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. It required the Employer to present all of its recruitment materials. The Employer responded with the documentation requested.

The CO denied the application based on PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. 656.17 (e) (1) (ii) (E). He stated “the employer failed to provide adequate documentation of the additional recruitment steps for professional occupations.” The Employer placed the ad for the Account Manager position on the website Dice.com, which the Employer argued was a trade or professional organization. The CO maintained that this website did not qualify as a trade or professional organization.

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 “Accountant. Level I.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. The Employer responded by sending certain information that the CO requested. In response, the CO informed the Employer that they would need to conduct supervised recruitment. As part of the process, the Employer had to submit a copy of the proposed job advertisement. A week later, the CO approved the advertisement and mailed further recruitment instructions. Over a month later, the Employer sent copies of the Georgia State Workforce Agency’s job order and an in-house job posting, along with copies of its advertisements.

A few months later, the CO told the Employer the recruitment time had concluded. In 30 days, the Employer needed to submit a comprehensive written report about the recruitment process and the results. In a timely manner, the Employer compiled with the request. In the report, the Employer noted it had rejected all US applicants, a few of which because the Employer was unable to communicate with them concerning the advertised position.

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 “Assistant Sports Editor, Al Dia.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. He asked the employer to provide documentation of their recruitment process. The Employer submitted copies of print and online job ads. However, the response did not contain any printouts from the employer’s own website.

The CO denied the application declaring that the Employer failed to deliver sufficient documentation to show the Employer used its own website to advertise the job. The Employer did not provide pages from their website that contained the dates the ads were posted online. In addition, the CO believed the Employer unlawfully rejected some US Applicants.

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.”