Articles Posted in BALCA Decisions

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for three alien workers for the position of “Senior Programmer Analyst.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on August 15, 2007. ETA Form 9089 indicated that the job duties consisted of “design, develop, plan, coordinate and implement advance software module components in complex computing environment. For specific skills, the employer required: C++, ASP, COM/DCOM, Scripting, Win NT/2000/98, UNIX, Oracle and VB. Thereafter, the CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting evidence of recruitment and other required documentation. The Employer responded by submitting copies of its newspaper advertisements, as well as the other required documentation. Thereafter the CO denied certification for several reasons: (1) the Notice of Filing did not contain the location of the job opportunity; and (2) the Employer did not provide adequate documentation of the mandatory print advertisements as requested. Specifically, the tear sheets submitted were not legible. The Employer responded by requesting reconsideration and submitted enlarged, legible copies of its newspaper advertisements. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration indicating that denial was proper because the advertisements contained additional job requirements not listed on the ETA Form 9089. Specifically, the newspaper advertisements stated that travel was required for the position.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(7) controls and it provides:

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 “Property Real Estate and Community Association Manager.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on December 8, 2008. On September 30, 2009, the CO denied the application because the Employer indicated on Form ETA 9089 that it placed its second advertisement on Craigslist, which the CO indicated was not a newspaper or a professional journal. The Employer thereafter requested reconsideration and in its request argued that it was denied due process because it had not been provided adequate notice of the regulatory violation.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) controls and it requires that an employer attest to having conducted recruitment prior to filing an application for permanent employment certification. The regulation goes on to provide that applicants involving both professional and non-professional occupations normally require the sponsoring employer to attest to having placed two print advertisements on two different Sundays in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment. In lieu of one of the Sunday newspaper advertisements, a sponsoring employer is allowed to place an advertisement in a professional journal. In the instant case, the Employer did not attempt to argue that Craigslist was a professional journal, but relied on the argument that it was denied due process because the CO raised an issue for the first time in its final decision, as the Employer based its reasoning on a series of pre-PERM BALCA decisions. Under the pre-PERM regulations, a CO would first issue a “Notice of Findings” (NOF) providing notice to an employer of any deficiencies upon which the CO proposed to deny certification. However, the PERM regulations eliminated the NOF/Rebuttal procedure. The Board found that the CO’s denial of the application without prior notice of the grounds for denial did not violate the PERM regulations.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently reversed the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the professional position of “Key Accountant Manager/ICSD.”

The employer filed a LC and ETA Form 9089 indicated that one of its recruitment steps was to advertise with its employee referral program from July 26, 2006 to September 30, 2006. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter on December 14, 2006 indicating that the reason prompting the audit was a foreign language requirement. The Employer responded to the Audit Notification with a package of materials. Thereafter the CO issue a denial letter on the sole ground that the Employer had failed to provide documentation of its use of an employee referral program consistent with the regulations. The employer requested reconsideration arguing that the audit notification had not been directed at the employee referral system and that a document explaining the company’s employee referral program was inadvertently omitted from the Recruitment materials. Although the document had been omitted, the employer further argued that it was not an omission in recruitment, which had been completed and reported on a timely basis. The document explaining the program and its incentives was included in the Employer’s Motion for Reconsideration. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration indicating that the Employer had failed to provide evidence of an Employee Referral Program that provided dated copies of the employer notice or memorandum advertising the program; specifically, documenting the incentives that would be offered to the employees.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17 (e)(1)(ii)(G) controls and it provides that when an employer files an application for permanent alien labor certification under the basic process for a professional position, the regulations require it to have conducted certain recruitment steps prior to the filing and be prepared to document those steps. One type of recruitment that may be used to support an application is use of an employee referral program with incentives. The way an employer can document this type of recruitment is “by providing dated copies of the employer notices or memoranda advertising the program and specifying the incentives offered”. In the instant case, the Employer’s attorney admitted that it inadvertently omitted the documentation describing the Employer’s employee referral system. However, it is simply not clear whether the CO was affirming the earlier denial based on the Employer’s incomplete audit response, or on the basis that the documentation provided by the Employer with its motion for reconsideration was inadequate under the regulations. Upon review of the entire record, BALCA stated that the Employer was in compliance with the requirements for an employee referral program and met all of the required steps in the PERM process.

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 “Supervisor, Laundry.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on October 25, 2005. ETA Form 9089 indicated that the State Workforce Agency (SWA) prevailing wage determination was $19.04 per hour and the foreign alien was being offered a wage of $19.04 per hour. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting documentation of recruitment efforts. The Employer responded by providing a copy of its New York job order listing a range of $18.00 to $19.50 per hour. Thereafter the CO issue a denial letter because the job order listed a wage that was less than the wage offered to the Alien, and that was less than the prevailing wage. The Employer thereafter requested reconsideration arguing that it was their practice to compensate applicants according to their experience – the reason for the range, and that the offer of $19.04 per hour was offered to the Alien and to any American worker. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration establishing that the denial was valid because the low end of the range was less than the prevailing wage determination.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) controls and it provides that most sponsoring employers are required to attest to having conducted requirement prior to filing an application for permanent employment certification. Among other requirements, the employer must have placed a job order with the SWA serving the area of intended employment. Furthermore, the employer must attest that the offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage. In the instant case, the job order placed with the SWA states a wage range, the lower end of the wage range being $1.04 less per hour than the SWA’s prevailing wage determination. An employer can use a wage range in its printed recruitment efforts and in its notice of filing; however, the bottom of the range can be no less than the prevailing wage rate. BALCA stated that although the PERM regulations do not expressly state that the SWA job order must not state a wage lower than the PWD, the regulatory requirement that an employer attest to offering at least the prevailing wage and the statutory requirement that an employer pay 100% of the prevailing wage make it clear that the DOL will permit the use of wage ranges in recruitment only when the lower end of the range exceeds the prevailing wage rate.

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 “Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators & Tenders.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on May 17, 2007. ETA Form 9089 indicated that the position was a nonprofessional occupation. The CO denied certification on the grounds that the job order was not placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) for a period of 30 days in violation of the regulations. The Employer responded by requesting reconsideration stating that it had placed two different job orders but did not provide any supporting evidence that reflected proof of either of the posting dates listed on Form 9089. The Employer further added that “any errors are immaterial and minor in the overall effect and outcome of the labor certification.” The CO issued a letter of reconsideration finding that the application was denied because the job order placed with the SWA was not posted for a period of 30 days.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17 (e) controls and it provides:

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

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on June 5, 2006. On September 20th, the CO denied the application because several required selections on the form had not been made by the Employer. The Employer thereafter requested reconsideration at the end of October. In its request for reconsideration, the Employer’s attorney provided responses to the omissions and believed that the request for reconsideration was to determine that the 30 day deadline had not elapsed. The Employer argued that each of the omissions was not material to the adjudication of the application as other information provided within the form answered the essential questions posed by the form. The Employer clearly stated in the motion for reconsideration that it was providing reasons for omissions in the event that the CO accepted the motion despite its lack of timeliness. Thereafter the CO accepted the Employer’s explanations for several of the selections, but found that the denial was valid because the Employer still did not provide information on what should be completed for the omitted selections. On appeal, the CO moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not timely. The Employer thereafter filed a response opposing the CO’s motion to dismiss.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(a) controls and it requires that an employer who desires to apply for a labor certification on behalf of an alien must file a completed Department of Labor (DOL) Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089). The regulation goes on to provide that incomplete applications will be denied. In the instant case, the Board found that the CO waived the issue of timeliness and made their decision based upon the materiality of the omissions. The Board recognized that some omissions may not be material to the review of the substance of an application and stated that the Employer made reasonable arguments as to why, in context, the omissions all were not material; however, the CO proffered no explanation for why the omissions prevented a complete review of the application.