Articles Posted in PERM – Labor Certification

by

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 “Chinese Specialty Cook.”

In the aforementioned case, the employer filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker. The significant facts of the case were: the alien signed the application on November 19, 2005; the employer’s attorney signed the application on December 13, 2005; the employer’s president signed the application on December 3, 2006; and the employer ran advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation on May 7, 2006 and May 14, 2006, and all of these facts were indicated within the application for labor certification. The CO denied certification because the advertisements used for recruitment did not occur within the requisite timeframe. The PERM regulations clearly state that advertisements for recruitment must occur at least 30 days, but no more than 180 days, prior to the date the application was filed.

The CO received request for reconsideration from the employer’s attorney. In response, the employer’s attorney submitted evidence indicating that advertisements were run in a newspaper and a journal for three consecutive days in June of 2005. Additionally, the employer’s attorney mistakenly had filed the labor application with the State Workforce Agency rather than directly with a federal Certifying Officer, and had to re-file with the latter. The employer’s attorney confessed error in the timing of the advertisements, but urged that they did in fact advertise, and did not receive any responses. The employer’s attorney alleged that the error was procedural. After reviewing the request, the CO denied reconsideration. The employer requested BALCA review.

Continue reading

by

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the PERM filing date and vacated the Certifying Officer’s (CO) denial of the application.

The employer, an independent school district filed a pre-PERM ETA form 750A application for permanent alien labor certification on October 24, 2004 for the position of Middle School Teacher. The work location was East Houston Intermediate School and the job description involved the language “teach middle school students…” Subsequently, on January 11, 2006, the employer filed a ETA form 9089 under PERM for the same Alien for the position of Elementary School Teacher. The work location for this application was Hilliard Elementary School, and the job description involved the language “teach elementary school students…” On the ETA form 9089, the employer indicated that it was seeking to utilize the filing date from the pre-PERM application, the date of October 24, 2004. Thereafter, the employer received a letter from the Dallas Backlog Elimination Center (BEC) in reference to the pre-PERM application. The BEC gave the employer several options to pursue. The employer responded by withdrawing 20 pre-PERM application, one of which was the present application, because applications had also been filed under PERM and were pending. In January, the following year, the employer received a letter granting certification on the PERM application. The date of acceptance was that of the newly filed PERM application, January 11, 2006. The employer requested that the CO reconsider the earlier pre-PERM application filing date. A request for additional information was issued to the employer, and the employer promptly replied. The CO subsequently denied the motion because the job descriptions, job titles, and job locations in the ETA form 750A and form 9089 were not identical. Regulations require that job descriptions be identical in order for the employer to retain the filing date from an earlier pending pre-PERM application. The CO forwarded the matter to BALCA for review.

Upon BALCA review, it was determined that the CO’s letter denying reconsideration stating that the application had been denied was clearly in error, and that there had been no intent to de-certify the application, leaving the remaining issue of whether the CO correctly determined the filing date for the PERM application.

Continue reading

by

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

of a Certifying Office (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of “Home Health Aide.”

In the aforementioned case, the employer, a private household filed a LC on behalf of an alien worker. The CO denied certification of the application on four grounds. The PERM regulations require that employers file completed applications for Permanent Employment Certification. The employer failed to make selections for the following questions on the ETA Form 9089: Section C-6 (Year commenced business); C-7 (Employer FEIN); F-3 (Skill level); and K-5 (Job 3 title). Subsequently, the Employer filed a request for reconsideration. In requesting reconsideration, the Employer asserted that she completed Sections C-6 and C-7 and no further information or explanation was given. After reviewing the request, the CO denied reconsideration. The CO stated that the employer’s request for reconsideration did not overcome all deficiencies noted in the determination letter. The employer requested BALCA review.

Continue reading

by

In light of the Fragomen audit, the Department of Labor (DOL) has recently issued many documents on the topic of attorney/agent consideration of U.S. workers under the permanent labor certification program . Attorneys/agents and foreign workers do not have a designated role in the PERM recruitment process. It is the responsibility of the DOL to ensure that no foreign worker obtains a certified labor application based on an employment offer if there are U.S. workers that are able, willing, qualified and available to fill the proffered position. Additionally, an employer must make an attestation that if admitted; the foreign workers will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly situated U.S. workers.

The purposes of the documents issued by the DOL are to clearly define and regulate the role of an attorney/agent in the consideration of U.S. workers under the PERM program. The DOL has long held the view that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resemble the employer’s normal consideration process. In most situations, the normal hiring process does not involve a role for an attorney/agent in assessing the qualifications of the applicants. The DOL has clearly specified the types of actions prohibited by attorneys/agents under the regulations, which include: (1) receiving resumes and applications of U.S. workers who respond to the employer’s recruitment efforts; and (2) participation in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants. However, if the attorney/agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed, then the attorney/agent may act accordingly. In addition, the attorney/agent may provide advice throughout the consideration process on any and all legal questions concerning compliance with governing statutes, regulations and policies. It is the sole responsibility of the employer to conduct recruitment in good faith.

If the DOL finds evidence of improper attorney, agent or foreign worker involvement in the recruitment/consideration process, the DOL will audit and may subsequently require supervised recruitment to further investigate the employer’s recruitment efforts or potential debarment from immigration related programs.

by

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently vacated the final determination of a Certifying Office (CO) denying labor certification for an alien worker for the position of “Reverend,” and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In the aforementioned case, the employer filed an application for labor certification on behalf of a foreign alien to fill the position of Reverend. The CO notified the employer that it needed to provide the prevailing wage for the position or its equivalent. In response to the notification, the employer stated a rate of pay of $8.00 per hour. Thereafter, the CO sent the Employer a document entitled “Recruitment Instructions.” The instructions informed the employer that the prevailing wage was $11.79 for the job and that the employer should advertise the job at that particular rate of pay to obey regulations. Subsequently, the employer placed newspaper advertisements illustrating that the rate of pay was $8.00 per hour. When the recruitment report was submitted to the CO, there was no explanation to indicate why the employer had used the $8.00 rate of pay. The CO issued a Notice of Findings (NOF) proposing to deny certification because the $11.79 prevailing wage had not been used in the Employer’s advertisement. The CO further explained to the employer that to rebut the NOF, it must provide a copy of an advertisement and an internal posting placed during the recruitment period, and the advertisement must reflect the prevailing wage provided in the Recruitment Instructions letter. In response, the employer re-submitted its earlier advertisement and did not further discuss the reason for using the $8.00 rate of pay. The CO issued a final determination denying certification because the advertisement had stated a wage of $8.00 per hour. The employer requested BALCA review arguing that it complied with the CO’s instructions for advertising; however, it never mentioned nor explained the reason for running advertisements with the $8.00 wage rate rather than the $11.79 prevailing wage.

Upon BALCA review, the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (c)(2) provides guidance and requires that an employer offer a wage that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage. According to case law, where an employer is notified that its wage offer is below the prevailing wage, but fails to either raise the wage to the prevailing wage or justify the lower wage it is offering, certification is properly denied. An employer seeking to challenge the prevailing wage bears the burden of establishing both that the CO’s determination is in error and that the employer’s wage offer is at or above the correct prevailing wage. It is the responsibility of the CO to provide the employer with adequate notice of its burden on rebuttal. Upon further review, BALCA determined that the employer, who was pro se – was not given adequate notice of its burden. Specifically, the CO had informed the employer of the option to use a lower wage if it could document that the lower wage was appropriate; however, the NOF only gave the employer the option to produce an advertisement establishing that the $11.79 rate was issued. It did not give the employer the option of rebutting by documenting that a lower wage was appropriate. This failure to correctly state the Employer’s burden of proof necessitates a remand for issuance of a new NOF. The new NOF will provide the employer with an option to establish through documentation that its wage offer was appropriate for the proffered position. Accordingly, BALCA vacated the final determination of the CO in denying certification and remanded the case for further proceedings.

by

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Applications (BALCA) recently affirmed the final determination of the Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification.

In the present case, the petitioner (employer), a plumbing and compacting installation service filed an application for labor certification for the position of Plumber on behalf of a foreign alien beneficiary. Following recruitment, the employer filed a recruitment report in which it rejected five U.S. applicants. Only two of the applicants’ qualifications are questioned on appeal. According to the recruitment report, Applicant 1 was rejected because his resume indicated that he did not possess any U.S. experience as a plumber, and the employer thereafter assumed that he/she obviously had no knowledge of state and city plumbing codes, a job requirement for the proffered position. Applicant 2 was rejected because the applicant’s experience as a Plumber dated from the period of 1978 to 1984, after which he/she only worked as a Supervisor to several plumbers and helpers. The Employer stated that they desired the services of a raw plumber not a supervisor.

After thorough review of the documentation presented with the application for labor certification, the CO issued a Notice of Findings (NOF) proposing to deny certification. The CO noted that the employer unlawfully rejected applicants 1 and 2 based on resumes alone. With Applicant 1, it was not altogether established that he/she was not familiar with applicable New York (NY) plumbing codes and specifications and an interview would have clearly established the Applicant’s qualifications for the proffered position. The 2nd Applicant was rejected solely because he was overqualified according to his resume. In response to the NOF, the employer filed a rebuttal letter indicating why Applicants 1 and 2 were not further interviewed. The employer argued that the first applicants resume did not indicate any plumbing experience in NY, and there was no reason to assume that his home improvement experience in NY involved any plumbing. Accordingly, under those circumstances, the employer felt that he was not obliged to interview the applicant. In regards to Applicant 2, the Employer relied upon the applicant’s present occupation and stated that no one willing regresses in their career; therefore the applicant cannot be considered to be willing to be available and willing for the job of raw plumber. Thereafter, the CO issued a final determination denying certification. The CO indicated that the relevant standard in determining whether a resume merits further investigation is whether or not there is a reasonable possibility that an applicant may meet the employer’s minimum requirements despite an apparent shortcoming on the applicant’s resume.

Continue reading

by

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

In the aforementioned case, the Labor Certification (LC) was filed by the employer, a private household, on behalf of an alien worker in April 2001. In January 2007, a Notice of Findings (NOF) letter was issued by the CO requesting additional evidence for proof that a bona fide job opportunity actually existed at the residence and documentation that the employer had the ability to pay the actual wages offered. In response to the NOF letter, the employer submitted a copy of a utility bill showing a residential address for the employer, and thus did not provide any other documentation. The CO issued a final determination in August 2007 denying the LC. The CO concluded that the utility bill verified the employer’s residential address, but found that the response to the NOF was deficient because it did not address the ability of the employer to pay the Alien’s salary. Thereafter, the employer’s attorney requested BALCA review and attached his own letter to the request. The attorney suggested that the CO failed to take into consideration that the LC was for a domestic position in a private home, and thus all the boilerplate language in the NOF did not apply in the particular situation. The employer’s attorney requested that denial be reversed and that labor certification be granted.

Upon BALCA review, the board relied on 20 C.F.R § 656.20(c)(1) which specifically states that an application for labor certification must clearly show that an employer has sufficient funds available to pay the salary of the alien worker. This requirement is the same whether the position is in a private home or within a Fortune 500 company. Additionally, a CO may make reasonable requests of the employer to provide evidence of such, and failure to comply with those requests alone constitutes grounds for denial of certification. BALCA reviewed the NOF letter finding that it expressly stated that if the employee is to be employed in a private home, the employer should provide its most recent household Federal income tax return along with a utility bill in its name. BALCA further stated that it may have been reasonable for the employer not to submit some of the documentation requested in the NOF which was not applicable to a private home; however, to ignore the request entirely was unreasonable. Accordingly, BALCA affirmed the final determination of the CO denying the labor certification because the employer failed to produce documentation that would evidence its ability to pay the Alien’s salary.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. immigration system is constantly changing. At a recent stakeholders meeting, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced several upcoming changes to the Labor Certification and Labor Condition Application process.

Expect More PERM Audits

The DOL announced that with Backlog Elimination Centers (BECs) closing, the DOL will now be now focusing its resources on parts of the PERM regulations that were not focused on earlier, including audits and supervised recruitment. Since April 2007, Immigration attorneys have seen a spike in PERM audits by the DOL. It looks like Audits are going to be commonplace from now on. DOL announced that both targeted and random PERM audits will continue. The DOL stated that the 60 to 90 day timeframe discussed in the preamble to the PERM regulation is not binding and is irrelevant if there is an audit. Therefore, once a case has gone into audit, it will most likely not be adjudicated within the 60 to 90 timeframe.

Continue reading

by

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) recently dismissed an appeal brought by a U.S. petitioner, a convenience store. The issue of the appeal was whether or not the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtained lawful permanent residence. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary permanently as a Manager. The ETA 750 was accepted on March 28, 2001, and the proffered wage was $18.00 per hour ($37,440.00 per year). In order to prove the ability to pay, the USCIS requires that a petitioner demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wages from the time the labor application is accepted until the beneficiary attains permanent resident status. According to regulations, evidence of this ability shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.

In determining whether the employer has the ability to pay, the USCIS will first examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner can show that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage. However, if the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary, the USCIS will then examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner’s federal income tax return. Net income results after subtracting costs and expenses from total revenue.

In the aforementioned case, at the time the labor was submitted, the beneficiary was not employed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the USCIS chose to review the petitioner’s net income figures. As a result, the petitioner’s federal income tax returns were insufficient to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage, therefore, the USCIS elected to review the petitioner’s net current assets. Net current assets are the difference between the petitioner’s current assets and current liabilities. To clarify, net current assets are assets that are continually turned over in the course of a business during normal business activity; they are in other words, the petitioner’s working capital. After thorough review, it was determined that the petitioner had insufficient funds to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage.

Continue reading

by

No matter what avenue you take towards permanent resident status (“green card”), whether it is family-based petition, employment-based petition, or diversity visa based, the priority date of your petition determines the order of visa availability for each particular category.

Priority Dates for Family-Based Petitions

For family based petitions, the priority date is established when the I-130 form (Petition for Alien Relative) is filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If an I-130 petition is denied because of ineligibility and then later resubmitted when eligible, the priority date is established at the time of resubmission of the petition. Matter of Carbajal, 20 I&N Dec. 461 (BIA 1992).

Continue reading
Contact Information
1177 Annapolis Rd #70
Odenton, MD 21113
Toll Free: 1-800-447-0796Local: 240-390-0600Fax: 240-390-0603

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, MVP Law Group, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design