PERM - Labor Certification Category Archives — Page 17 of 23 — H1B Visa Lawyer Blog Published by Baltimore, Maryland Immigration and Visa Attorneys

April 9, 2010

BALCA upholds denial of Labor Certification – Employer Inappropriately Used Wage Range in Recruitment Efforts

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.

March 26, 2010

UPDATE on the Federalized Process for Obtaining PWD Requests

by Kellie N. Lego

Effective January 21, 2010, the Department of Labor’s iCERT online system was updated to allow the submission of electronic prevailing wage determination requests. This electronic process was intended to allow Employers and/or their Designated Representatives to submit and obtain prevailing wage determinations (PWD) for use in the H-1B, H-1B1 (Chile/Singapore), H-1C, H-2B, E-3 (Australia), and permanent labor certification programs through the iCERT portal. However, at this time, this federalized electronic process has caused delays in the issuance of prevailing wage determinations.

Prior to January 1, 2010, the date of enactment of the Federalized Process, employers and/or their designated representative were able to obtain PWDs from their State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), which normally took between two (2) to fourteen (14) days or even a months time. Currently, requestors are waiting between thirty (30) to sixty (60) days to obtain a response from the DOL further delaying the commencement of a new PERM case, or the filing of an AC-21 Portability Case.

Requestors who have submitted PWD requests to the NPWHC by U.S. Mail between January 1, 2010 and January 21, 2010, the launch date of the iCERT PWD System have received a response in regards to their PWD requests. However, at this time, there appear to be delays in the issuance of PWDs through the national DOL office with both hard copy and electronically submitted requests since January 21, 2010.

March 23, 2010

BALCA upholds denial of Labor Certification – Employer Offered Terms and Conditions of Employment Less Favorable than those Offered to the Foreign Worker

by Kellie N. Lego

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 “Production Worker.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on December 15, 2006. ETA Form 9089 indicated a requirement of three months of experience in the job offered and that the job opportunity’s requirements were normal for the position. 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 because the newspaper advertisements offered terms and conditions of employment less favorable than those offered to the Alien, in violation of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(7). Specifically, the advertisements contained criminal background checks, not listed on Form ETA 9089. The Employer responded by requesting reconsideration stating that it was amending Form ETA to attest to its requirement for a criminal background check, the employer amended the form by changing the answer in section H-12 from “yes” to “no”. The CO asserted that by amending its response to “NO” in Section H-12, the Employer did not indicate that a criminal background check was required. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration indicating that denial was proper because the newspaper advertisements offered terms and conditions of employment to the U.S. worker that were less favorable than those listed on ETA Form 9089 for the foreign worker.

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

March 11, 2010

BALCA upholds denial of Labor Certification – Employer Failed to Post Job Order for the Mandatory 30 day period

by Kellie N. Lego

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:

March 9, 2010

BALCA upholds denial of Labor Certification – Employer Failed to Submit Proper Documentation to satisfy the Business Necessity Requirement

by Kellie N. Lego

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 “Truck Driver.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on June 1, 2007. ETA Form 9089 indicated that knowledge of a foreign language was required to perform the job duties. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting further documentation justifying the business necessity for this job requirement. The Employer responded by stating that the “job opportunity requires the capability to speak a foreign language because the products that the company hauls are shipped to Cuauhtemoc, Chihuahua, Mexico.” The Employer added that the community speaks either Spanish or German, and a truck driver who did not speak either of those languages would be at a disadvantage. Further, the employer asserted that the truck drivers it currently employs are fluent in English, Spanish and German. Thereafter the CO issued a denial letter; the Employer responded by requesting reconsideration and asked the CO what type of evidence it needed to submit to address the business necessity requirement and that it would be willing to provide any and all supporting documentation needed. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration indicating that the Employer had not justified its foreign language requirement by demonstrating business necessity.

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

March 4, 2010

RECENT UPDATE on the Federalized Process for Obtaining PWD Requests

by Kellie N. Lego

Effective January 21, 2010, the Department of Labor’s iCERT online system was updated to allow the submission of electronic prevailing wage determination requests. This electronic process was intended to allow Employers and/or their Designated Representatives to submit and obtain prevailing wage determinations (PWD) for use in the H-1B, H-1B1 (Chile/Singapore), H-1C, H-2B, E-3 (Australia), and permanent labor certification programs through the iCERT portal. However, at this time, this federalized electronic process has caused delays in the issuance of prevailing wage determinations.

Prior to January 1, 2010, the date of enactment of the Federalized Process, employers and/or their designated representative were able to obtain PWDs from their State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), which normally took between two (2) to fourteen (14) days or even a months time. Currently, requestors are waiting between thirty (30) to sixty (60) days to obtain a response from the DOL further delaying the commencement of a new PERM case, or the filing of an AC-21 Portability Case.

Requestors who have submitted PWD requests to the NPWHC by U.S. Mail between January 1, 2010 and January 21, 2010, the launch date of the iCERT PWD System have received a response in regards to their PWD requests. However, at this time, there appear to be delays in the issuance of PWDs through the national DOL office with both hard copy and electronically submitted requests since January 21, 2010.

February 12, 2010

BALCA vacates denial of Labor Certification – Fundamental Fairness requires Employer be given a Second Opportunity to Produce the Relevant Document

by Kellie N. Lego

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

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on May 21, 2007. ETA Form 9089 indicated that the State Workforce Agency (SWA) determined the prevailing wage to be $7.31 per hour, and the skill level, “Professional.” Additionally, the employer did not provide a name or date of the second newspaper or professional journal advertisement. The Employer had attached several documents to ETA Form 9089, including documents showing the Alien’s qualifications and visa status; a March 2007 job order placed with the NY State Department of Labor; a print out of a www.flcdatacenter.com web page showing the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) wages for a photographer in the Middleton, NY area; tear sheets from one newspaper advertisement; and resume and interview notes for a couple of the rejected job applicants. The CO thereafter issued a letter denying certification based on the fact that the Employer had not selected a proper Skill Level, and did not provide the name of the second advertisement or professional journal. The employer then requested reconsideration by submitting a copy of the OES print out indicating that no skill level was set for the position of Photographer, and provided evidence of several additional newspaper advertisements. The record indicates that the Employer was asked to provide a copy of the SWA PWD to the DOL analyst and submitted a new SWA PWD for 2009, instead of one dated for 2007. The CO determined that its basis for denial was valid and forwarded the appeal file to BALCA.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(a) controls and it provides that the employer must request a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the proposed area of intended employment. The SWA must enter its wage determination on the form it uses and return the form with its endorsement to the employer. Furthermore, the employer must maintain the SWA PWD in its files and be prepared to submit it if requested in the course of an audit.

February 5, 2010

BALCA reverses denial of Labor Certification – Employer Omissions on ETA Form 9089 were not material as other information provided on the Form answered the essential question posed by the Form

by Kellie N. Lego

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.

January 15, 2010

UPDATE on the Federalized Process for Obtaining PWD Requests

by Kellie N. Lego

Effective January 21, 2010, the Department of Labor’s iCERT online system will be updated to allow the submission of electronic prevailing wage determination requests. This electronic process will allow Employers and/or their Designated Representatives to submit and obtain prevailing wage determinations (PWD) for use in the H-1B, H-1B1 (Chile/Singapore), H-1C, H-2B, E-3 (Australia), and permanent labor certification programs through the iCERT portal.

Until January 21, 2010, all prevailing wage determination requests must continue to be submitted by U.S. Mail or comparable physical delivery service to the Washington, D.C. address listed below.

BACKGROUND – On December 19, 2008, the Department published a Final Rule addressing the Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or Registered Nursing in the United States (H-2B Workers), and Other Technical Changes. The Final Rule implemented a federalized process for obtaining PWD requests for use in the H-2B temporary nonagricultural labor certification program directly from the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) appropriate National Processing Center (NPC)–which was designated as the Chicago NPC.

January 13, 2010

BALCA upholds denial of Labor Certification – Employer Failed to Timely Address Business Necessity Issue

by Kellie N. Lego

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 “Dental Assistant.”

The employer filed a LC which was accepted for processing on January 16, 2007. ETA Form 9089 indicated that the job required a high school education and twenty-four (24) months of experience in the job offered. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter indicating that the O*Net indicates that one (1) year of experience is normal for the occupation and specifically directed the Employer to establish business necessity for its two (2) year requirement. The Employer responded to the Audit Notification but failed to address the business necessity issue. Thereafter the CO issue a denial letter, the Employer responded by requesting reconsideration and submitted a letter regarding why two (2) years experience was required for the position. The CO issued a letter of reconsideration indicating that the new letter constituted new evidence that was not in the record at the time that the application was filed and on which the denial was based.

PERM Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(b) controls and it provides that when an application is audited, the audit procedure specifies that a substantial failure by the employer to provide required documentation will result in that application being denied. In the instant case, the CO’s Audit Notification specifically requested that the Employer document the business necessity for its two (2) year experience requirement. BALCA stated that the failure to address the business necessity was clearly a substantial failure to provide documentation required by the audit notification. In addition, the regulations governing motions for reconsideration provided that the request for reconsideration may not include evidence not previously submitted.