Articles Posted in PERM – Labor Certification

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 “Animal Trainers.”

The Employer’s Application was denied by the CO who found the company to be illegitimate because the Employer did not have a valid Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN). The CO did not issue an audit notification. In the Employer’s request for review copies of its business license, FEIN documentation, certificate of liability insurance, and income tax returns were included. In the reconsideration of the decision, the CO stated the Employer did prove sufficient evidence verifying the business license but there was no documentation to support the Employer’s FEIN. The CO also pointed out that no response had been received by the Employer after request had been sent to the Atlanta National Processing Center for proof of the Employer’s FEIN. The case was forwarded to BALCA; however, the Employer did not submit an appellate brief. In the Statement of Position, the CO argued that because the Employer failed to produce any documentation validating its FEIN he was unable to determine whether the company was legitimate and therefore had to deny certification.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(g)(2)(i)-(ii) controls and it provides in a request for reconsideration of denial of labor certification an employer may submit documentation requested from the CO or documentation that the Employer did not have the opportunity to present when the application was originally filed.

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 “Programmer Analyst.”

The position advertised listed the minimum level of education required as a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information systems or computer engineering as well as 12 months experience in section H.4 and H.5 of the application. In Section H.8 the Employer also noted that just a bachelor’s with no experience or a foreign education equivalent would be acceptable for the position. Additionally, the Employer listed “system analysis & design, VB, C++, database design & development, MIS, operating systems, etc” in the section for specific skills and other requirements for the position. Certification was denied by the CO on the grounds that the alien only had a bachelor’s degree in information systems, no training or experience was listed to meet the requirements of the Employer. A request for review was submitted by the Employer who cited that a bachelor’s degree with no experience was an acceptable combination of education and experience. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and a Notice of Docketing was issued.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.16(i)(1) controls and it provides that the listed job requirements must match an Employer’s actual minimum job requirements.

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 “Product Manager.”

Certification was denied by the CO who cited the applicant did not meet the position’s education requirements or the minimum experience qualifications. The Employer thereafter requested reconsideration on the grounds that the alien had attended a university for one year and had fourteen and one-half years of experience. The CO noted that with the given information and the employer’s formula, the alien’s education and experience would be equivalent to 17 years. This translates to 12 years of experience required as the equivalent for a Bachelor’s degree plus five years experience. However, according to the Field Memorandum NO. 48-94, Policy Guidance on Labor Certification Issues (FM) a Bachelors’ degree is only equivalent to two years of experience, therefore a Bachelor’s degree plus five years experience is only equivalent to seven years experience. Since the Employer’s requirement of 17 years of experience was not “substantially equivalent” to the primary requirements for the job, the CO denied certification. The case was then forwarded to BALCA and the Employer filed an appellate brief. In the appellate brief, the Employer argued that “17 years of experience” had never been listed on the application for the position of “product manager.” The CO submitted a Statement of Position stating the Employer also submitted the application too many days after the end date of the SWA job order, violating regulation.

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1)-(2) controls and it provides that an Employer must represent the actual minimum requirements for the position on an application and an Employer must not hire individuals with less training or experience for a position than set by the requirements.

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.”

The Employer was issued an Audit Notification by the CO who requested additional documentation of recruitment as well as its ability to pay foreign workers the wage offered. The evidence requested included state payroll taxes for the last three years, federal income taxes statements for the last three years, list of current employees with their titles, work contracts, etc. The Employer responded to the audit; however the CO denied certification on the grounds that the Employer submitted no documentation to prove the ability to pay the $48, 200 per year offered to the foreign workers. Review was requested by the Employer who argued that because it’s a consulting company the amount of money available depends on the funds generated by clients. Even after the letter of reconsideration, the CO still found that the Employer did not sufficiently prove its ability to pay the wage offered to the foreign worker. The CO cited that the Employer’s 2007 tax return was only $9,855 after operating costs. BALCA issued a Notice of Docketing and the CO’s appellate brief provided evidence to show that the Employer did not “have sufficient funds to pay the wage offered to the Alien.”

PERM regulation 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(3) controls and it provides that one part of the labor certification process is that the Employer must sufficiently prove the ability to pay the salary offered to the alien.

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.