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 “Hardwood Floor Installer.”

Upon evaluating the Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, an Audit was issued. In this Audit Notification, the CO asked the Employer to explain why US workers were rejected. After reviewing the Audit response, the CO denied the labor certification stating the Employer rejected three US applicants for reasons that were not job related. The CO “found the rejections were based on the failure to meet the Employer’s job requirement of having two years of hardwood floor installation experience.” He discovered three of the candidates have other experience in the construction industry that he believed would meet the requirements for the job.

The Employer requested reconsideration and BALCA review. They argued the CO was wrong in judging these three candidates were qualified for the position. Even though the applicants did have experience in “general carpentry/and or construction,” they did not believe this experience was enough to meet the requirements of the Hardwood Floor Installer job. The Employer included a Business Necessity Letter in its Audit response materials. The Employer pointed out that one of the candidates did have skills in hard wood flooring installation but he did not list how he obtained that experience. The employer also provided proof to the CO of letters that they had sent to the US worker applicants asking for them to contact the company with further information on their qualifications. The Employer claimed none of them responded to the letters.

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 “Nursery Manager.”

After reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. He wanted the Employer to submit a copy of the State Workforce Agency’s (SWA) Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD). The Employer submitted a PWD from “The Survey Group” along with a letter from this company that provided a job description which was similar to the Nursery Manager’s position, specifically, the position was titled – Nursery Technician.

The CO then informed the Employer that they would need to conduct supervised recruitment. The CO ordered the company “to obtain an updated PWD from the National Prevailing Wage Center.” The CO asserted the PWD listed on the Employer’s 9089 Form was no longer valid. As part of its response to the Supervised Recruitment, the Employer insisted that the CO did not have the authority to instruct them to obtain a new PWD. The Employer also sent a draft advertisement that included the original PWD. The CO issued a Draft Advertisement Correction because “the wage offer was lower than the current prevailing wage.” He directed them to send a new advertisement with a PWD that was equal to or surpassed the current PWD.