H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

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 “Landscape Tech.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification requesting the Employer to present documentation of its Notice of Filing (NOF). Once the CO received the Audit materials, he denied the Labor Application on the ground that the Employer failed to confirm that the NOF was posted for ten (10) consecutive business days between 30 and 180 days before filing its ETA Form 9089, in violation of PERM regulation 20 CFR 656.10(d).

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In his response to the reconsideration request, the CO requested the Employer, in 30 days, present a complete copy of their ETA Form 9089, a complete copy of the Request for Reconsideration and a complete copy of all of the audit documentation. The Employer provided the documentation; however, the CO denied the Labor Application citing the Employer did not send its materials back in a timely manner. The Employer then filed a second reconsideration request. In its argument, the Employer claimed it was an administrative error on the part of the Department of Labor, and re-submitted all of its materials including the original filing, audit materials and correspondence with the CO.

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 “Instructional Coordinator: Computer Cluster.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. Once the Employer responded, the CO denied certification of the application. He stated the position communicated in its recruitment efforts did not match the one listed on the Employer’s ETA Form 9089 in 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 which are less favorable than those offered to the alien.”

The employer’s ETA form 9089 contained the following language, not listed in any of its recruitment efforts – “occasional day travel within San Antonio Metropolitan area and/or to Corpus Christi, Texas. No Overnights.” The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In its argument, the Employer argued that it did not violate 656.17(f)(7) because it did not mention any travel in its recruitment advertising. They also stated by “not listing a travel requirement it makes the terms and conditions of employment offered to US workers more favorable.” The CO affirmed its initial denial and forwarded the case to BALCA for review.