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 “Purchasing Manager.”

On Form ETA 9089 the Employer listed the offered wage and prevailing wage at $67,787.00 per year. An Audit Notification was issued by the CO requesting documentation including a copy of the Notice of Filing (NOF). A copy of the NOF was submitted as the Employer’s response to the Audit, listing the rate of pay as $67,454.00 per year. The application was denied by the CO on the grounds that the NOF listed a lower wage than the prevailing and offered wage. A request for reconsideration was submitted by the Employer arguing that labor certification should not be denied “based solely on the deficiency less than .50% of the prevailing wage.” However, the CO still denied certification after reconsideration and the case was then forwarded to BALCA. In the Employer’s appellate brief, he argued that the amount of $333 difference between the prevailing wage and NOF listed wage should be forgiven, since it equals 99.51% of the prevailing wage.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(5) and (7) controls and it provides the Notice of Filing must list a wage equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the State Workforce Agency.

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

In Section M-1 of Form 9089 where the employer is suppose to check whether they completed the application, the Employer failed to check either “yes” or “no”. The CO denied certification of the application on March 23, 2010 citing the fact that Section M-1 was not completed. The case was forwarded to BALCA after the Employer submitted a corrected copy of Form 9089, with Section M-1 complete. The Employer stated he was only seeking reconsideration of the case instead of a formal appeal in a letter to BALCA on August 2, 2010.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.11(b) controls and it provides that after July 16, 2007 no request for modifications to an application will be accepted.

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 “Maintenance and Repair Workers, General.”

The Employer’s Application for Permanent Employment Certification was denied on August 28, 2007 by the CO who cited that in section H of Form ETA 9089, the job opportunity listed was not offered to the alien in section J of Form ETA 9089. In the Employer’s request for review, he stated it was a careless mistake to check the “no” box in Section H16 instead of the yes “box”, referencing the view of Matter of Health America. An additional request was submitted by the Employer on September 11, 2008. An audit was then issued and the Employer was requested to provide documentation of the job order placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA), a copy of the job order issued by the SWA or other evidence to prove publication by the SWA. The documentation submitted by the Employer was found unsatisfactory to the CO in proving the SWA ran the job order and certification was denied on August 26, 2009. After the case was forwarded to BALCA, the Employer filed a Statement of Intent to Proceed on January 12, 2010.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(i)(A) controls and it provides that one of the ways an Employer must inform US workers about a job opportunity is by placing a job order with the SWA in the area of intended employment for 30 days.

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 “Senior SAP Basis Technology Analyst.”

In the Employer’s Application for Permanent Employment Certification, three additional recruitment steps were listed because the job advertised was a professional position. The Employer’s ETA Form 9089 was audited on November 15, 2007. The CO requested recruitment documentation in the Audit Notification and the Employer responded to the audit with a screenshot of its internal job posting website. This screenshot included the dates on which the posting began and ended. Certification was denied by the CO on the grounds that documentation of the additional recruitment steps was insufficient as well as no employer notices or memorandum that specifically indentified incentives offered were submitted. A request for reconsideration was submitted by the Employer on June 18, 2009 who argued the screenshot qualified as sufficient evidence under the regulation. The Employer also sent information detailing the talent referral program in the request for reconsideration. The CO upheld his previous decision in denying certification even after the employer’s request for reconsideration and forwarded the case to BALCA on February 12, 2010. The CO filed his Statement of Position stating the Employer’s inability to submit documentation on time was a just cause for denial.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(g)(2)(i) ,(ii) controls and it provides that an Employer’s request for reconsideration may only include documentation that Employer originally did not have to opportunity to present or documentation the CO specifically requested.