On Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Senators Edward Kennedy, Robert Menendez, Charles Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Reuniting Families Act (S. 1085). This legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act/Family Based Immigration System by promoting family unity among other important purposes.
The legislation is intended to help families unite by promoting family stability and by fostering economic growth.
BALCA upholds denial of Labor application – Employer failed to comply with Notice of Filing requirements
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Slitting Supervisor.
The labor certification application was accepted by the CO in October of 2005. A few months later, the CO issued an Audit Notification to the Employer. Among other items, the Audit requested a copy of the Notice of Filing used for the alien worker’s labor application. The Employer responded by complying with the request and sending the Notice of Filing. In October of 2006, the CO issued a denial letter on the grounds that the Notice of Filing failed to contain the appropriate CO’s contact information including the physical address. Thereafter the Employer submitted a request for reconsideration, and only included a notice of entry of appearance of a new attorney; no argument or other information concerning the grounds for denial were provided. In September of 2008, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration finding that the denial of labor certification was valid. The CO noted that the Employer failed to provide any information relating to the missing information on the Notice of Filing. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. New counsel for the Employer filed a brief arguing that the failure to provide the address of the CO was harmless error and therefore denial based upon a typographical error was a denial of due process. Counsel also stated that when the Employer was made aware of the omission, he agreed to repost the Notice of Filing. The CO appropriately filed an appellate brief stating that the Board had ruled on the issue of failure to include the address of the appropriate CO on the Notice of Filing in a 2007 case.
Continue reading
UPDATE – FY 2010 H-1B Cap Count
On May 26, 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) updated the count of H-1B petitions received and counted towards the 65,000 cap. As of May 22, 2009, USCIS has received 45,700 H-1B cap subject nonimmigrant visa petitions. USCIS has advised that they will continue to accept petitions until the cap is reached. Additionally, USCIS reported that they received 20,000 advanced degree H-1B petitions. Although the limit on advanced degree petitions is 20,000, past experience has tended to show that not all petitions received are approvable. Accordingly, qualifying applicants are still able to petition for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa either under the general cap, or as an applicant with an advanced degree. (i.e., U.S. Master’s degree)
If you have any questions surrounding the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, please contact our office.
BALCA upholds denial of Labor application – Employer failed to obtain a proper PWD
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Marketing Consultant.
In August of 2005, the Employer submitted a labor certification application on behalf of an alien worker. The application indicated that the job location was Warren, Rhode Island. Shortly thereafter, the CO issued an audit notification requesting among other documents, the prevailing wage determination (PWD) issued by the State Workforce Agency (SWA). The PWD submitted by the Employer was from California, not Rhode Island. Portions of the California form were crossed out, with Rhode Island being inserted. The portion of the form which provides the job site address and county of job site listed both a Rhode Island address and county and a California address and county. The form was not signed nor dated by the SWA and several important portions were left blank. Specifically, the portions dealing with the Survey Data, Survey Area, Research Analyst were blank. No Rhode Island phone number was provided. The Employer then requested reconsideration arguing that the Rhode Island SWA had informed his office that they could utilize the California prevailing wage request form because they did not have their own form at the time of request. In September of 2008, the CO issued a letter denying certification because the Employer had failed to submit a prevailing wage determination that complied with regulations. The PWD submitted was not effectively endorsed by the Rhode Island SWA, and therefore, it could not be considered valid. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer argued that it was harmless error, and the CO argued that the Employer failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Rhode Island SWA issued the PWD in question.
Upon BALCA review it was determined that the regulations require that an Employer request a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the area of intended employment. Additionally, the SWA must endorse the PWD and return it properly to the Employer. In the case at hand, there was not sufficient information presented that the PWD submitted was actually issued by the Rhode Island SWA.
BALCA upholds denial of Labor application – Employer failed to comply with PERM regulations
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Stone Carver.
The Employer submitted an application and it was accepted for processing on August 17, 2006. The Employer indicated that the position was for a nonprofessional. On Form ETA 9089, the Employer indicated that the State Workforce Agency (SWA) job order ran from July 5, 2006 until August 5, 2006. In July of 2007, the CO issued a letter denying certification. The main reason for the denial was that the SWA job order was not completed at least 30 days prior to the filing of the application. A request for review was sent to the CO by the Employer’s Attorney. In summary, counsel for the Employer indicated that it had not exceeded the 180 day limit for filing. In September of 2008, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration which established that the application was filed only 11 days after the end date of the SWA job order. The CO reiterated in its letter to the Employer that the denial was valid. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer did not file an appellate brief, whereas the CO did file an appellate brief urging that the denial be affirmed.
Upon BALCA review it was determined that the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) provide that recruitment must occur prior to the filing of the labor certification application. Specifically, if the application is for a nonprofessional occupation, the Employer must (1) place a job order, and (2) place two advertisements within six months of filing the application. The recruitment steps must be conducted at least 30 days but no more than 180 days before filing the application. Accordingly, entering the start and end date of the SWA job order on Form ETA 9089 establishes proof that these steps were completed properly. In the present case, the Employer failed to wait the proper period of time before filing its application, it only waited 11 days and needed to wait at least 30 days before submitting its application.
BALCA upholds denial of Labor application – Employer failed to comply with Prevailing Wage Determination Instructions
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) recently upheld the final determination of a Certifying Officer (CO) denying labor certification (LC) for an alien worker for the position of Cook, Private Household.
The Employer submitted the application by mail. The application was accepted for processing in January of 2006. In the application, the Employer indicated that the prevailing wage determination (PWD) was based on an ‘Employer Conducted Survey.’ The application failed to include the determination and expiration dates for the prevailing wage determination. In April of 2006, the CO denied certification based on the failure to complete the section dealing with the prevailing wage determination. The CO received the Employer’s request for reconsideration in May of 2006. The Employer stated in its request that it did not receive a response from the State Workforce Agency (SWA), and thereafter decided to adopt its own prevailing wage determination based upon speaking with other similarly situated Employers. The Employer submitted along with the request a new version of Form 9089, in which it indicated ‘PW based on Employer Conducted Survey,’ and a copy of the fax to the Maryland, SWA. On reconsideration, the CO denied the application because the Employer failed to indicate the expiration date of the prevailing wage determination. The CO then forwarded the case to the Board. Counsel for the Employer did not file an appellate brief, whereas the CO did file an appellate brief stating that even when an Employer bases its PW determination on a survey, the survey itself must be submitted to the SWA, who then decides whether the survey was acceptable and issues the prevailing wage determination.
Upon BALCA review it was determined that the PERM regulations provide that an Employer must request a prevailing wage determination from the SWA having jurisdiction over the area of intended employment. The regulations provide that the SWA must specify the determination date and expiration date of the PW determination. The regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(c) state that if an Employer uses a SWA PWD, the Employer must file the petition or begin recruitment within the validity period of the PWD.
Continue reading
Updated Service Centers Processing Times
Processing Time reports for all of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers were released on May 15, 2009 with processing dates as of March 31, 2009.
If you filed a petition with one of the Service Centers, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.
UPDATE – DOL will keep old LCA System operational through June 30, 2009
The Department of Labor (DOL) has informed a liaison of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that they will continue to keep the old Labor Condition Application (LCA) system operable for a specified time.
The reasons behind allowing the old LCA system to remain operational through June 30, 2009 are two-fold. First, the DOL wanted time to continue to evaluate issues of concern regarding the LCA system. The DOL has received numerous complaints and issues from users of the system. Secondly, the DOL wanted to give users more time to become familiar with the new LCA system.
If you have any questions about the new LCA system, please feel free to contact our office.
June 2009 Visa Bulletin
The Department of State has released its latest Visa Bulletin. The June 2009 visa bulletin still shows employment based third preference (EB-3) visas as oversubscribed while the employment based second preference (EB-2) is current for all areas of chargeability except for China and India.
Click here to view the June 2009 Visa Bulletin
.
Administrative Appeals Office Processing Times
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) released its time report on May 1, 2009 with updated processing times for all types of cases accepted by its Office.
If you filed an appeal, please review the link below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your case.