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 “Multi-Media Artists & Animators.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. After the Employer responded, the CO denied certification of the application for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the position advertised did not match the one listed on the Employer’s ETA Form 9089 in violation of PERM Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 656.10 and § 656.17 (f)(3). These regulations require that an advertisement “provide a description of the vacancy specific enough to apprise a US worker of the job opportunity for which certification is sought.” The CO revealed that the employer’s web advertising specified the position required a minimum of a high school diploma. On the Employer’s ETA Form 9089, it listed a Bachelor’s degree plus 24 months, or 4 years of work experience as an alternative to the degree.

The Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO. In its argument, the Employer stated the government made a clear error in denying the labor application. The CO delivered a second denial and forwarded the case to BALCA for review.

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 “Software Quality Engineer.”

After receiving & reviewing an Employer’s Application for Permanent Labor Certification, the CO issued an Audit notification. After the Employer responded, the CO denied certification of the application for violating PERM Regulation 20 CFR 656.17 (f)(4) among other grounds. PERM regulation 656.17 (f)(4) requires that newspaper ads “must indicate the geographic area of employment with enough specificity to apprise applicants of any travel requirements and where applicants will likely have to reside to perform the job opportunity.” The Employer’s Notice of Filing and recruitment efforts listed Santa Clara, California ONLY; however, the ETA Form 9089 mentioned Santa Clara, California, and “various unanticipated locations throughout the U.S.”

Even though the Employer sent a reconsideration request to the CO, he delivered a second denial and forwarded the case to BALCA for review. The Employer argued that the position did not necessitate travel and only listed it on the ETA Form to “allow for participation in events outside of the employer’s offices.” They insisted that the travel requirement was optional.