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 “Senior Design Verification Engineer.”

After reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. Upon receiving the employer’s audit response, the CO denied the application for multiple reasons. He declared that the Employer’s print advertisements did not “provide a description of the vacancy specific enough to apprise the US Workers of the job opportunity.” The remaining reasons for denial concerned the Employer’s use of on-campus recruitment.

The Employer presented a Request for Reconsideration claiming its evidence adhered to ETA guidance and regulations. The CO accepted the Employers’ claims for part of the denial but believed his other reasons for denial were valid. The CO wanted evidence that the job fair actually took place, which is not required under the regulations. In addition, the CO believed that the email received by the on-campus placement office did not contain enough specific information concerning the job.

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 “Nursery Manager.”

After reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. He wanted the Employer to submit a copy of the State Workforce Agency’s (SWA) Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD). The Employer submitted a PWD from “The Survey Group” along with a letter from this company that provided a job description which was similar to the Nursery Manager’s position, specifically, the position was titled – Nursery Technician.

The CO then informed the Employer that they would need to conduct supervised recruitment. The CO ordered the company “to obtain an updated PWD from the National Prevailing Wage Center.” The CO asserted the PWD listed on the Employer’s 9089 Form was no longer valid. As part of its response to the Supervised Recruitment, the Employer insisted that the CO did not have the authority to instruct them to obtain a new PWD. The Employer also sent a draft advertisement that included the original PWD. The CO issued a Draft Advertisement Correction because “the wage offer was lower than the current prevailing wage.” He directed them to send a new advertisement with a PWD that was equal to or surpassed the current PWD.