H1B Visa Lawyer Blog

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently affirmed the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Director of Sales.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO denied certification of the application for multiple reasons. Most importantly, the Employer did not include their name on their Notice of Filing (NOF) in violation of PERM regulation 656.10(d). PERM regulation 656.17 (f)(1) mandates that the advertisements “name the employer.”

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In its argument, the Employer stated the NOF was acceptable regardless of the omission of their name. The Employer argued that public access to its building is limited and it is very plausible that only the company’s three employees would have access to the filing. With its request, the Employer submitted multiple documents including their articles of incorporation; federal tax return; photographs of the facility & bulletin posting area; certifications of accreditation; Florida Resale Certificate for Sales Tax; lease agreements; Google Map print-outs; and Miami.Dade.gov Property Information. With its Reconsideration Request, the Employer relied upon the Stone Tech decision.

The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently overturned the decision of a Certifying Officer (CO) to deny labor certification for the position of “Electrical Helper.”

Procedural Case History – Case was originally accepted by DOL on December 3, 2007. June 11, 2008 CO denied certification. Appeal File was sent to BALCA on April 30, 2010. On April 21, 2011, BALCA vacated the denial and remanded for further processing. This labor application was for a nonprofessional position.

The Atlanta National Processing Center issued a letter directing the employer to provide evidence that it was a bona fide business entity. Additionally, the CO issued an Audit notification in June 2011. The CO asked the employer for copies of the newspaper tear sheets from its Sunday newspaper advertisements. The CO gave the Employer a one month deadline to submit its response. The Employer provided its response as well as a note asking for a 30 day extension on the tear sheets. The employer’s lawyer stated they had requested it but had not received it at the time of mailing the response.