H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Purchasing Manager.

The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Labor Certification on behalf of the beneficiary. The position of Purchasing Manager required two years of experience in the job offered and a Bachelor’s degree in International Business, Marketing. The Employer also listed an alternate education requirement of a Bachelor’s degree in Public Relations, English or any other Business Administration major. Following an audit in December of 2006, the CO denied certification because the Notice of Filing was not posted in accordance with the regulations. The Notice of Filing was originally posted in the President’s handwriting from July 11, 2005 until July 25, 2005. The regulations require that the Notice of Filing be posted between 30 and 180 days before the Employer files ETA Form 9089. In this case, the Employer filed ETA Form 9089 on August 9, 2005. Counsel for the Employer stated that the July 11, 2005 date was an error and that the date should have been listed as May 11, 2005. The CO informed the Employer that documentation fabrication created after the fact to correct a deficiency may be discounted and can continue to be the basis for a denial.

Furthermore, while the beneficiary met the primary experience requirements for the position, he did not meet the primary education requirements for the position. To show that the requirements for the position were not unlawfully tailored to the alien, the Employer must have indicated that U.S. applicants with suitable combinations of education, training, or experience were acceptable. In this case, the Employer failed to do so. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA for review. Counsel for the Employer contended that there was no document fabrication or motive to deceive when filing the petition. Additionally, Counsel indicated that although the form did not state that qualified U.S. applicants with similar educational experience were acceptable, the criterion was applied in its recruitment efforts. The CO reiterated in its brief that the Employer had not posted the Notice of Filing at least 30 days before the filing of ETA Form 9089. The CO also stated that he did not abuse his discretion in this case.
Continue reading

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination
of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Stone Inspector.

The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Labor Certification on behalf of the beneficiary. In February of 2008, the CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting among other documents, a copy of the Employer’s Notice of Filing. Thereafter, the Employer supplied a copy of its Notice. In May of 2008, the CO denied the application because the Employer failed to provide its name on the Notice of Filing. Attorney for the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that since the notice of filing is posted within the job premises, the name of the company does not need to be included, as long as the name of the President and a telephone number are present on the posting. The actual Notice of Filing did not include the Employer’s company name, but did include the President’s name and telephone number. Accordingly, the CO denied reconsideration and thereafter forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(1) control the issue before the Board. The regulations require that the Notice of Filing list the hiring company. The CO’s appellate brief indicated that the reasoning behind this regulation is that sometimes more than one employer may reside at a single facility or location. Specifically, the CO stated that when multiple employers share an office and a Notice of Filing is posted in a common area in that office it could potentially apply to either employer. Further, without the name of the Employer, it would not be possible to determine which Employer the Notice of Filing applies. The Board identified the Petitioner’s argument, in that common sense should be used to determine the outcome rather than statutory interpretation. However, the Board found the omission was not harmless error and stated that to make a case out for equitable relief in favor of the Petitioner, the Petitioner needed to do more to show that the company’s name was not needed on the Notice of Filing. They needed to show the size of the company, how well the workforce knew the President of the Company, and whether the place in which it placed its Notices was a place exclusively designated for company bulletins.
Continue reading

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Computer Systems Analyst. Accordingly, the Board directed the CO to grant certification. This LC was filed prior to the effective date of the “PERM” regulations.

The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Alien Employment on behalf of the beneficiary. The CO denied the application in December of 2006, solely on the basis that Form 9089 lacked the Kellogg language. Specifically, the CO found that the alien currently worked for the Petitioner, and only qualified by virtue of an alternative experience requirement, and the application did not provide the following language: “any suitable combination of education, training, or experience” would be acceptable.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the Francis Kellogg decision governs the nature of this case. In Kellogg, the Board reversed the CO’s denial of certification based on the Employer’s failure to write the Kellogg language on the ETA Form 9089 because a denial on that basis would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process. It would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process because the instructions for ETA Form 9089 failed to provide a place to write the language, and the Employment Training Administration (ETA) had not provided instructions to the public to handle the issue in a timely manner.