Articles Posted in Employment Based Immigration

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

An Audit Notification was issued by the CO to the Employer requesting a copy of the job order placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) and any other SWA related documents. A response to the audit was submitted by the Employer. Certification was thereafter denied by the CO on the grounds that the audit response material was insufficient to, “demonstrate that a U.S. worker could not be trained to qualify for the position.” The representative of the Employer requested a review of the case and argued that the owner’s illness, substantial growth and other factors prevented the Employer from training U.S. workers. The CO stood by his original decision and denied certification again. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and a Notice of Docketing was issued. In the Employer’s appellate brief, he argued an acceptable amount of evidence was presented to the show inability to train US workers for the position.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17 (i)(3) controls and it provides, “the employer cannot require domestic worker applicants to posses training and/or expertise beyond what the alien possessed at the time of hire unless the employer can demonstrate it is no longer feasible to train a worker to qualify for the position.”

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification for an alien worker for the position of “Animal Trainers.”

The Employer’s Application was denied by the CO who found the company to be illegitimate because the Employer did not have a valid Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN). The CO did not issue an audit notification. In the Employer’s request for review copies of its business license, FEIN documentation, certificate of liability insurance, and income tax returns were included. In the reconsideration of the decision, the CO stated the Employer did prove sufficient evidence verifying the business license but there was no documentation to support the Employer’s FEIN. The CO also pointed out that no response had been received by the Employer after request had been sent to the Atlanta National Processing Center for proof of the Employer’s FEIN. The case was forwarded to BALCA; however, the Employer did not submit an appellate brief. In the Statement of Position, the CO argued that because the Employer failed to produce any documentation validating its FEIN he was unable to determine whether the company was legitimate and therefore had to deny certification.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(g)(2)(i)-(ii) controls and it provides in a request for reconsideration of denial of labor certification an employer may submit documentation requested from the CO or documentation that the Employer did not have the opportunity to present when the application was originally filed.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification for an alien worker for the position of “Programmer Analyst.”

The position advertised listed the minimum level of education required as a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information systems or computer engineering as well as 12 months experience in section H.4 and H.5 of the application. In Section H.8 the Employer also noted that just a bachelor’s with no experience or a foreign education equivalent would be acceptable for the position. Additionally, the Employer listed “system analysis & design, VB, C++, database design & development, MIS, operating systems, etc” in the section for specific skills and other requirements for the position. Certification was denied by the CO on the grounds that the alien only had a bachelor’s degree in information systems, no training or experience was listed to meet the requirements of the Employer. A request for review was submitted by the Employer who cited that a bachelor’s degree with no experience was an acceptable combination of education and experience. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and a Notice of Docketing was issued.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.16(i)(1) controls and it provides that the listed job requirements must match an Employer’s actual minimum job requirements.

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

Certification was denied by the CO who cited the applicant did not meet the position’s education requirements or the minimum experience qualifications. The Employer thereafter requested reconsideration on the grounds that the alien had attended a university for one year and had fourteen and one-half years of experience. The CO noted that with the given information and the employer’s formula, the alien’s education and experience would be equivalent to 17 years. This translates to 12 years of experience required as the equivalent for a Bachelor’s degree plus five years experience. However, according to the Field Memorandum NO. 48-94, Policy Guidance on Labor Certification Issues (FM) a Bachelors’ degree is only equivalent to two years of experience, therefore a Bachelor’s degree plus five years experience is only equivalent to seven years experience. Since the Employer’s requirement of 17 years of experience was not “substantially equivalent” to the primary requirements for the job, the CO denied certification. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and the Employer filed an appellate brief. In the appellate brief, the Employer argued that “17 years of experience” had never been listed on the application for the position of “product manager.” The CO submitted a Statement of Position stating the Employer also submitted the application too many days after the end date of the SWA job order, violating regulation.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1)-(2) controls and it provides that an Employer must represent the actual minimum requirements for the position on an application and an Employer must not hire individuals with less training or experience for a position than set by the requirements.

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

The Employer was issued an Audit Notification by the CO who requested additional documentation of recruitment as well as its ability to pay foreign workers the wage offered. The evidence requested included state payroll taxes for the last three years, federal income taxes statements for the last three years, list of current employees with their titles, work contracts, etc. The Employer responded to the audit; however the CO denied certification on the grounds that the Employer submitted no documentation to prove the ability to pay the $48, 200 per year offered to the foreign workers. Review was requested by the Employer who argued that because it’s a consulting company the amount of money available depends on the funds generated by clients. Even after the letter of reconsideration, the CO still found that the Employer did not sufficiently prove its ability to pay the wage offered to the foreign worker. The CO cited that the Employer’s 2007 tax return was only $9,855 after operating costs. BALCA issued a Notice of Docketing and the CO’s appellate brief provided evidence to show that the Employer did not “have sufficient funds to pay the wage offered to the Alien.”

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(3) controls and it provides that one part of the labor certification process is that the Employer must sufficiently prove the ability to pay the salary offered to the alien.