Articles Posted in BALCA Decisions

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 “Industrial/Organizational Psychologist.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. The Employer presented its response and the CO issued a Notification of Supervised Recruitment. A few weeks later, the Employer sent a copy of the proposed job advertisement as well as a copy of the foreign worker’s Master’s degree and school transcripts. In response, the CO requested a signed sworn statement and documentation that explains why training is not realistic to meet the requirements for the particular position. The Employer responded with the required documents. The CO sent the Employer the resumes it had received from advertising. Two months later, the Employer submitted its recruitment report and accompanying records.

Upon review of the recruitment report, the CO denied certification of the labor application. He stated the Employer turned down qualified U.S. job applicants for “non-lawful job-related reasons.” The CO believed there were at least three fitting candidates for the job opening that were refused because the Employer believed they did not meet the minimum requirements. In his denial, the CO cited the Employer’s statement on the ETA Form 9089, “will accept any suitable combination of education, training and experience.”

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 “Bilingual Programmer.”

After obtaining & examining an Employer’s application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification ordering the Employer to submit a copy of the State Workforce Agency’s (SWA) job order. The Employer replied to the Audit within 30 days.

The CO denied labor certification stating “the SWA offered employment terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those offered to the alien.” On the SWA job order, the position “required drug testing/screening and background checks.” These requirements were not listed on the Employer’s ETA Form 9089. The Employer requested reconsideration and attached an amended copy of the ETA Form 9089 that listed the required drug testing/screening and background checks.

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 “Senior Food Technologist.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied the application. He believed that the Washington Examiner, where the employer placed its Sunday job postings, did not classify as a newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment. The CO was certain most job seekers would choose a paper with a larger classified section and job advertisements. He based his denial on PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. 656.17 (e)(1)(i)(B)(1). This regulation mandates newspaper advertisements for recruitment must be placed “in the newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity; and most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified and available U.S. workers.”

After the denial, the Employer requested reconsideration of the case. The Employer argued the Washington Examiner did have a substantial classified section. They stated the newspaper “has a classified section with advertisements for a large number of job opportunities that included both professional & non-professional positions.” In its reconsideration request, the Employer included a “Wikipedia” article about the Washington Examiner. The Employer argued that because of the size of the circulation of the Examiner as reported on the Wikipedia page, it was in fact the newspaper most appropriate to the occupation and workers.

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 “Operating Engineer.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied certification of the application because the Employer had placed their State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order more than 180 days prior to the filing of their ETA Form 9089.

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO arguing that “the 180 day period should be calculated based on the end date of the SWA, rather than the date it commenced.” To interpret the regulations otherwise would penalize employers who wanted to run their SWA’s for longer than 180 days. The CO did reconsider but afterwards, he confirmed the denial. Not happy with the outcome, the Employer appealed the decision to BALCA and restated its argument.

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 “Computer SW Engineers, Applications.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. He requested the Employer provide its recruitment documentation and a copy of its Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD). The Employer responded and the CO denied certification on two grounds. First, the wage offered in the Notice of Filing and job order was lower than the PWD. The Employer offered $59,467 and the PWD was $59.467.20. In addition, the CO stated the Employer failed to make available copies of employer notices on its employee referral program with incentives.

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO arguing the 0.0003% discrepancy should not cause their labor application to be denied. They indicated their use of “the Department of Foreign Labor’s Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data Center Online Wage Library to determine the appropriate annual wage.” The Employer also stated that it had provided a flier of its Employee Referral Program as well as data in its Recruitment Report about the program. Despite the Employer’s claims, the CO delivered a second denial and forwarded the case to BALCA for assessment.

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 “Director of Sales.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied certification of the application for multiple reasons. Most importantly, the Employer did not include their name on their Notice of Filing (NOF) in violation of PERM regulation 656.10(d). PERM regulation 656.17 (f)(1) mandates that the advertisements “name the employer.”

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In its argument, the Employer stated the NOF was acceptable regardless of the omission of their name. The Employer argued that public access to its building is limited and it is very plausible that only the company’s three employees would have access to the filing. With its request, the Employer submitted multiple documents including their articles of incorporation; federal tax return; photographs of the facility & bulletin posting area; certifications of accreditation; Florida Resale Certificate for Sales Tax; lease agreements; Google Map print-outs; and Miami.Dade.gov Property Information. With its Reconsideration Request, the Employer relied upon the Stone Tech decision.

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 “Forman.”

Upon evaluating an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification which provided that the employer was a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which the alien has an ownership interest, or …there is a familial relationship between the owners, stockholders, partners, corporate officers, incorporators, and the alien, the CO issued a “Request for Additional Information.” In 30 days, he needed the following evidence: (1) Proof of a federal employer identification number; (2) Proof that the company was a business entity; and (3) Proof of the physical location of the company. It appears from the record that most of the information requested by the CO already accompanied the Application.

A few months later, the CO delivered a “Notice of Supervised Recruitment.” The Employer was required, in 30 days, to send a draft job advertisement, corporate financial & structure documentation as well as any family relationship the Alien has to the Employer. In a timely fashion, the Employer responded by providing their business license, operating agreement, IRS FEIN number, organization certificate from the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and a letter from the Company’s owner describing his relationship 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 Vice President, Mergers & Acquisitions.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO informed the Employer that he would need to oversee their PERM recruitment. As part of the process, the CO sent the employer separate instructions for its advertisement and recruitment report. In the instructions for the recruitment report, he requested the Employer to “state the names, addresses and provide resumes (other than those sent to the employer by the CO) of the U.S. workers who applied for the job opportunity.

A few months later, the Employer presented the outcomes of its PERM recruitment in its recruitment report. The Employer indicated they had received 70 applications from U.S. Workers; and 7 applications from non-U.S. workers. Out of the 70 U.S. candidates, only three of the candidates were interviewed for the position. Based on the interviews, the Employer decided none of the applicants were qualified because they lacked the required critical experience and skills. In the recruitment report, the Employer identified the name of each applicant and provided the reason each candidate was disqualified. However, in the actual report, the Employer did not state the addresses of the applicants. In the report, they wrote a note to the CO that specified the following, “The resumes of the applicants who responded directly to JP Morgan Chase are attached to this report. Please note that the resumes, which are part of this recruitment report, include the name and address of each applicant.”

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 “Software Engineer.”

After obtaining & examining an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification ordering the Employer to submit its Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD) and other requested documentation. The Employer replied to the Audit by providing the PWD as well as the other documents.

The CO denied the labor certification stating the prevailing wage on the ETA form 9089 did not match the one listed on the PWD. He cited a violation of PERM Regulations 656.10(c) (1), 656.40 AND 656.41. In addition, the Employer’s Notice of Filing did not contain the job requirements or duties as listed on the ETA Form 9089. The Employer requested a reconsideration of the denial stating the prevailing wage inconsistency was an unintentional harmless error. The Employer also believed all of its audit response materials were compliant with PERM regulations.

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 “Design Engineer-Mechanical.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. The Employer responded by sending its recruitment report as well as resumes from U.S. applicants. In response, the CO informed the Employer that they would be required to conduct supervised recruitment. As part of the process, the Employer could only advertise the position in permitted publications and abide by specific advertising conditions. The Employer sent the CO a copy of the proposed job advertisement that was approved by the CO. A few weeks later, the Employer sent copies of the Arkansas State Workforce Agency job order; newspaper ads, on-line job postings from its company web page and a job search website. The CO told the Employer about the resumes that he had received as well.

A few months later, the CO told the Employer that the recruitment time had concluded. In 30 days, the employer was required to submit a comprehensive written report about the recruitment process and the outcomes. In a timely manner, the Employer presented its recruitment results. In the report, the Employer noted it had received resumes from 45 applicants. During the review of the resumes, the Employer cited it considered job applicants based on their education, training, experience as well as trainability. The Employer believed that none of the applicants fulfilled the minimum job requirements and therefore, were not qualified for the position.