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 “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 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.