Articles Posted in PERM – Labor Certification

AILA members have reported receiving the following e-mail message from the DOL National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) in response to inquiries into the status of prevailing wage requests:

Thank you for your inquiry.

The NPWC is currently experiencing delays in processing prevailing wage determinations as it is working to reissue certain prevailing wage determinations to comply with a court order issued June 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We continue to encourage all requestors to submit their ETA Form 9141 at least 60 days in advance of the employer’s initial recruitment efforts.

MVP Law Group, P.A. makes available the information and materials in this forum for informational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice or any contractual obligations. Further, the use of this site, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. And, therefore, your communication with us through this forum will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

Question #1 – Employment Based Immigration – Green Card

My employer appealed my denied labor to BALCA. My employer just got notice that my appeal has been docketed. When will I get a decision?

We wanted to find a new way to engage our reader base. Every other Friday, we will post the ten (10) best/most frequently asked questions received during the week from our h1bvisalawyerblog, Facebook, and Twitter readers. We will answer those questions and provide the Q&A on our H-1B Visa Lawyer Blog.

If you have a burning question, are seeking assistance with a difficult immigration related case, wish to discuss your views on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, AZ SB1070, priority dates, or the debate focused on Ending Birthright Citizenship, please contact us by submitting your question/comment/viewpoint in our comment box provided on our H-1B Visa Lawyer Blog.

Our next “Q & A Forum” will take place this Friday, July 22nd, 2011. Act now and submit your questions!

The following immigration-related bills were introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate in June 2011 and summarized below by AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association):

Senate Bills

Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation (POWER) Act (S. 1195)

We wanted to find a new way to engage our reader base. Every other Friday, we will post the ten (10) best/most frequently asked questions received during the week from our h1bvisalawyerblog, Facebook, and Twitter readers. We will answer those questions and provide the Q&A on our H-1B Visa Lawyer Blog.

If you have a burning question, are seeking assistance with a difficult immigration related case, wish to discuss your views on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, AZ SB1070, priority dates, or the debate focused on Ending Birthright Citizenship, please contact us by submitting your question/comment/viewpoint in our comment box provided on our H-1B Visa Lawyer Blog.

Our next “Q & A Forum” will take place this Friday, July 8th, 2011. Act now and submit your questions!

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 “Personal Finance Advisor.”

After receiving the Employer’s Application, the CO issued an Audit Notification. After receiving the audit response, the CO denied certification citing the fact that the journal the Employer used to advertised the position did not qualify as a professional journal and therefore did not satisfy the regulation. In the request for review, the Employer’s representative argued that the advertisement of the position in The Wall Street Journal did qualify as a professional journal. The case was forwarded to BALCA and the Employer filed a State of Intent to Proceed on June 24, 2010.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(B)(4) controls and it provides that if the position being offered requires experience and an advanced degree, a professional journal must be used to advertise the job.

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, Applications.”

An Audit Notification was issued by the CO requesting evidence of the Employer’s recruitment efforts. In the response to the audit submitted, the Employer included copies of Form ETA 9089 with original signatures, a statement of business necessity, a copy of the internal Job Posting, and other recruitment documents. The application was denied by the CO on the grounds that the Employer only completed 2 of the required 3 recruitment efforts for professional occupations. A request for review was submitted by the Employer who cited that in the CO’s “Reason for Denial” letter the wrong case number was used. A revised “Reason for Denial” letter was submitted by the CO with the correct case number included and it provided the reason for denial was the fact that the Employer did not submit its recruitment report. In another Request for Review, the Employer argued that the original response to the audit did include the recruitment documentation and recruitment report. The case was then forwarded to BALCA after the CO found the Employer did not overcome the original deficiencies in review of the case.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(g) controls and it provides that all employers must prepare a recruitment report, and in the event the CO notifies the employer that its application is to be audited, the employer must submit the report prior to a final determination. This report must also be signed by the employer or the employer’s representative and that individual must be the person who normally interviews or considers, on behalf of the employer, applicants for job opportunities.

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 “Cook.”

On ETA Form 9089 the Employer listed 2 years as the minimum amount of experience required for the position. Certification was denied by the CO on the grounds that the Employer did not select the name of the newspaper for the second advertisement in Section I-11. In a request for review, the Employer argued the omission was inadvertent and the “New York Daily News” should be inserted and included copies of the advertisement. An Audit Notification was then issued by the CO who stated that the minimum requirements set by the Employer exceed the SVP level assigned by O*NET. In order for the Employer to list requirements higher than those set by SVP, he must demonstrate that the additional requirements are essential for the position. The Employer submitted its response to the Audit and explained the business necessity for the additional requirements. The Employer stated that in the past when he had hired individuals with less than two years experience their skills were unsatisfactory and “they lacked knowledge to put together the necessary menus.” However, the CO denied certification due the fact that the Employer did not respond to the Audit before the specified date of 3/31/2008. The Employer wrote back arguing that a response was sent on March 12 and that a Federal Express Receipt show the audit team received it on March 14. Again the CO denied certification going back to the original reason for denial that the Employer exceeded the requirements set by the SVP level and did not adequately prove a business necessity for the additional requirements. In request for review the Employer submitted letters from other restaurant owners who require a minimum of two years experience, pages from the O*NET website and Dictionary of Occupational Titles showing a SVP of 6 for a cook position. The CO found the Employer’s response did not overcome the deficiencies and the documentation the Employer submitted was new evidence. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and a Notice of Docketing was issued.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(h)(1) controls and it provides that unless adequately established for business necessity, the job requirements must not exceed those set by the SVP level assigned by O*NET.

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 “Baker.”

Certification was denied by the CO who cited that ETA Form 9089 was incomplete; specifically section F-4 (skill level) and M-3 (preparer’s title) had been left blank. A request for review was issued by the Employer who cited that the fields left blank were too minor to, “consider the form ‘incomplete’ and outright deny [the certification].” The Employer went on to further argue that in the past he had routinely left those same fields blank and certification had never been denied, therefore he should have the chance to correct the form. Included with the request for review, the Employer submitted corrected forms with the previously omitted fields completed. After the case was forwarded to BALCA and a Notice of Docketing was issued, the Employer filed a Statement of Intent to Proceed on April 23, 2010.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(a) controls and it provides that an Employer filing for labor certification on behalf of an alien must submit a fully completed ETA Form 9089 (Application for Permanent Employment Certification). Applications that are not complete or that have missing fields will automatically be denied.

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.”

Contact Information