H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

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.

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 “Maid.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied certification. He cited the Employer’s failure to “make a selection for Section H-1” of the 9089 form as grounds for the denial. The Employer submitted a reconsideration request stating that they had completed Section H-1.

The CO issued “a request for information about the bona fides of the Employer’s business.” In addition, he sent an Audit notification to the company’s attorney. After the deadline had passed to receive the Audit response, the CO affirmed its initial denial of labor certification. The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO arguing that it never received the Audit notification or the request for information. In its argument, the Employer sent a letter from their General Manager that stated he had never received a letter. They also provided email documentation from the Atlanta Processing Center which cited the Employer’s attorney’s response to the request for information from a request initially made in 2008. The CO denied reconsideration stating the Audit notification was mailed to the address on record, no change of address was recorded within the file, and the other letters were delivered and responded to with no problem.