Articles Posted in PERM – Labor Certification

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 Stone Inspector.

The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Labor Certification on behalf of the beneficiary. In February of 2008, the CO issued an Audit Notification letter requesting among other documents, a copy of the Employer’s Notice of Filing. Thereafter, the Employer supplied a copy of its Notice. In May of 2008, the CO denied the application because the Employer failed to provide its name on the Notice of Filing. Attorney for the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that since the notice of filing is posted within the job premises, the name of the company does not need to be included, as long as the name of the President and a telephone number are present on the posting. The actual Notice of Filing did not include the Employer’s company name, but did include the President’s name and telephone number. Accordingly, the CO denied reconsideration and thereafter forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(1) control the issue before the Board. The regulations require that the Notice of Filing list the hiring company. The CO’s appellate brief indicated that the reasoning behind this regulation is that sometimes more than one employer may reside at a single facility or location. Specifically, the CO stated that when multiple employers share an office and a Notice of Filing is posted in a common area in that office it could potentially apply to either employer. Further, without the name of the Employer, it would not be possible to determine which Employer the Notice of Filing applies. The Board identified the Petitioner’s argument, in that common sense should be used to determine the outcome rather than statutory interpretation. However, the Board found the omission was not harmless error and stated that to make a case out for equitable relief in favor of the Petitioner, the Petitioner needed to do more to show that the company’s name was not needed on the Notice of Filing. They needed to show the size of the company, how well the workforce knew the President of the Company, and whether the place in which it placed its Notices was a place exclusively designated for company bulletins.
Continue reading

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Computer Systems Analyst. Accordingly, the Board directed the CO to grant certification. This LC was filed prior to the effective date of the “PERM” regulations.

The Employer filed an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Alien Employment on behalf of the beneficiary. The CO denied the application in December of 2006, solely on the basis that Form 9089 lacked the Kellogg language. Specifically, the CO found that the alien currently worked for the Petitioner, and only qualified by virtue of an alternative experience requirement, and the application did not provide the following language: “any suitable combination of education, training, or experience” would be acceptable.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the Francis Kellogg decision governs the nature of this case. In Kellogg, the Board reversed the CO’s denial of certification based on the Employer’s failure to write the Kellogg language on the ETA Form 9089 because a denial on that basis would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process. It would offend fundamental fairness and procedural due process because the instructions for ETA Form 9089 failed to provide a place to write the language, and the Employment Training Administration (ETA) had not provided instructions to the public to handle the issue in a timely manner.

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

The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in September of 2005. In March of 2006, the CO denied the application because of numerous deficiencies. The appeal before the Board only addressed one of the deficiencies, the failure of the Employer to specify the expiration date of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) prevailing wage determination. The Employer’s original petition provided November 2003, as the determination date and stated “N/A” for the expiration date of the SWA prevailing wage determination. The CO’s denial letter addressed the issue concerning the absence of the expiration date. Thereafter, the Employer’s attorney filed a request for review. The Employer’s attorney provided answers for a number of the omissions and submitted additional documentation. In regards to the expiration date of the SWA prevailing wage determination, the Employer’s attorney stated 2004. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration in August of 2008. The CO found that the Employer’s attorney had successfully rebutted several of the deficiencies, but still affirmed the denial of certification based upon a number of reasons. The CO provided that the expiration date of the prevailing wage determination was an important piece of information that needed to be provided in a month, day and year format, consistent with the regulations. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but the CO did file a brief urging denial based on the fact that the application was incomplete.
Continue reading

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

The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in February of 2006. The CO issued an Audit Notification letter in May of 2006. The CO requested that the Employer submit its Notice of Filing, and its recruitment documentation, among other documentation. In response, the Employer submitted a copy of an “Employment Notice” and copies of its newspaper advertisements for the job opportunity. In October of 2006, the CO then issued a denial letter. The CO stated that the newspaper advertisements were deficient because they did not include the Employer’s name, and the Notice of Filing did not include the appropriate address of the CO, or provide the wage offered for the position. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion for review arguing that he complied with the regulations because the advertisements included the Employer’s personal office fax number. The Employer also argued that the case number and jurisdiction of the CO was included in the Notice of Filing. However, the Employer did not address the absence of the wage information, but attached a copy of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) wage determination. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration withdrawing the citation concerning the appropriate CO’s address, but found that the absence of the Employer’s name from the advertisements and the absence of the wage offer from the Notice of Filing remained valid grounds for denial of certification. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did submit an appellate brief in support of its position and provided that the fax number included in the advertisements satisfied the regulatory requirements. The Employer also indicated that the wage offer was clearly provided in ETA Form 9089. Thereafter, the CO did filed a brief urging affirmation of the denial.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the regulation at 20 C.F.R. 656.17(f)(1) requires that the newspaper advertisement identify the Employer. The main reason behind the use of the Employer’s name in newspaper advertisements is to let applicants know what company is offering the job. The Board upheld the CO’s denial on this ground. Additionally, the regulation at 20 C.F.R. 656.10(d) requires an Employer to post a Notice of Filing of the permanent labor certification application. The Notice of Filing must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form.) The inclusion of the rate of pay in ETA Form 9089 did not cure the failure to include the rate of pay on the Notice of Filing. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the CO’s denial of certification on this ground.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination

of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Framer.

The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in April of 2007. The Employer specified in the application that the position was not a professional occupation. The CO then denied the application on two grounds: the Employer failed to complete ETA Form 9089 by leaving multiple sections incomplete; the Employer used an Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) prevailing wage issued prior to March 8, 2005. Thereafter, the Employer’s owner sought a request for review. The Employer submitted information regarding the omitted sections, and attached a copy of a January 23, 2007 OES prevailing wage. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration accepting the Employer’s reasoning on three of the omissions, but found that the other five deficiencies were not cured by the information provided by the Employer. Specifically, the CO was requesting information concerning the State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order and the Sunday edition newspaper advertisements. For several of the selections, the Employer indicated NONE rather than filing in the specific dates required because the Alien was an “on-the-job-site hire.” The CO informed the Employer in the letter that under the regulations, a 30-day SWA job order is a mandatory recruitment step and the Employer is required to place two print advertisements in a Sunday edition newspaper. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but stated that the alien was a very good employee and that he would like to keep him. The CO did file a brief urging affirmation of the denial.

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

The Employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker and it was accepted for processing in July of 2006. The Employer specified in the application that the position was not a professional occupation. The CO then denied the application because the application did not include any evidence that a job order was placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the Employer sought reconsideration on the ground that it placed a new advertisement with the SWA from November 7, 2006 to December 8, 2006. Subsequently, the CO denied reconsideration explaining that a new job order placed after the application had been filed could only be used to support subsequent filings, not the application at issue. The CO then forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not submit an appellate brief in support of its position, but the CO did file a brief urging affirmation of the denial.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the PERM regulations for a nonprofessional occupation require that the employer must at a minimum place a job order and two newspaper advertisements within six months of filing the application. The job order must be placed with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. In the present case, the Employer’s job order was placed from February 9, 2006 to March 9, 2006, a period less than 30 days. Accordingly, the Employer’s job order was not long enough in duration to satisfy the requirements.

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

The CO denied the application in March of 2008 on one ground; the Employer had not filed its application or begun recruitment within the validity period of the State Workforce Agency (SWA) prevailing wage determination. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration stating that the failure to place advertisements was an unintentional oversight, and that its overall efforts at recruitment were sufficient. The Employer attached an affidavit from the Employer’s owner reciting the difficulty in recruiting cooks for the restaurant. Subsequently, the CO denied reconsideration. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not file an appellate brief, but the CO filed an appellate brief urging that its denial be affirmed by the Board. In the CO’s brief, it noted case law where a claim of clerical error as grounds of reversal was rejected because the employer had committed a substantive violation of the regulations.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the PERM regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(a) require that a petitioning employer obtain a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the proposed area of intended employed. The SWA specifies the validity date of the prevailing wage. When a SWA prevailing wage is used in support of an application, the petitioning employer MUST file their application(s) or begin the recruitment specified by the regulations within the validity period given by the SWA.
Continue reading

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently dismissed an appeal based upon the PERM audit regulations. A labor certification application was filed on behalf of an alien worker for the position of Domestic Servant. The CO issued a letter denying certification of the labor certification (LC) because the Employer failed to provide all evidence requested in the Audit Notification letter.

The employer, a private household filed a labor certification application on behalf of the alien worker in April of 2006. In December of 2006, the CO sent the Employer’s attorney an Audit Notification letter. The application was selected for audit to determine why the Alien resided with the Employer. The letter specifically requested documentation relating to the issue, and also requested the Recruitment Report and other documentation. In response, the Employer submitted an explanation as to why the alien lives with the household, and a copy of a tax return. Thereafter, the CO issued a letter denying certification. The CO attached a handwritten note to the letter stating that the recruitment report and advertisements were missing. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Employer’s attorney in April of 2007. Support for the motion consisted of an explanation about miscommunication between the attorney and the employer, another copy of the tax return, newspaper advertisements, the CALJobs job order, and a prevailing wage determination. Subsequently, the CO issued a letter denying reconsideration because the Recruitment Report had not been provided. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA. The Employer did not file an appellate brief in support of his position on the issue, whereas the CO filed a letter brief arguing that the Recruitment Report is an essential requirement of the labor certification program.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that PERM audit regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(a)(3) controls the issue on appeal. It provides that if the employer fails to provide documentation required to be submitted by the date specified in the audit letter, the application is automatically denied, the employer is considered to have refused to exhaust available administrative remedies, and administrative-judicial review before BALCA is not available. Thereafter, the Board determined that the Employer failed to timely submit the recruitment report as directed in the Audit Notification letter, and subsequently, according to regulations, the Board had no authority to further review the denial. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.