Tag Archive for: Labor Certification

Cyrus Mehta

The Application for  Prevailing Wage Determination and the Application for Permanent Labor Certification – Siblings or Twins?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

The process for an employer to sponsor a noncitizen employee for permanent labor certification is long and complicated. The first step in the process for filing Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Labor Certification, also known as PERM, is to file Form  ETA 9141, Request for Prevailing Wage Determination. It takes about 6 months for the National Prevailing Wage Center to issue the prevailing wage determination. It is only after the prevailing wage is determined, and recruitment is conducted, that the employer can file Form 9089, which takes 9 months to a year before a labor certification is issued.

The filing of  Form 9089 sets the priority date, which determines where the noncitizen is in the queue under the Employment-Based Second (EB-2) or Employment-Based Third (EB-3) Preference. The filing of the Form 9089 can also provide the legal basis for filing an H-1B extension beyond the six year limit if it is filed one year before the sixth year under section 106(c) of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act.

As the Form 9141 is imperative in ensuring that the Form 9089 can be filed as soon as possible, the National Prevailing Wage Center has begun to issue Requests for Information (RFI) after the Form 9141 is filed to request a prevailing wage determination, which have the potential to further delay the overall labor certification process.

In the Form 9141, the position and the requirements have to be provided in detail so that the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) can issue an appropriate prevailing wage determination. For instance, if the position requires travel, this too needs to be specified on Form 9141. Since June 1, 2023, Form  9141 links to the new Form 9089, automatically populating certain fields on the PERM application form. Some of the information on Form 9141, such as the description of the offered position and its requirements, remain only on Form 9141.

Practitioners have been receiving a Request for Information (RFI) after filing Form 9141 requesting the employer to answer the travel requirement question with more specificity. This could add further delays to the issuance of a prevailing wage determination, which is taking about six months, which in turn would lead to delays towards filing Form 9089.  Question F.d.3 on Form 9141 asks, “Will travel bs required in order to perform the job duties?” If the response is “Yes” to this question, then the employer is required  under Question F.d.3. to “provide geographic location and frequency of travel”

If the position requires travel, Question F.d.3. should be answered as specifically as possible. If the position requires travel about once a month domestically to meet clients, the employer must specify under F.d.3 that the position requires travel once a month with  the US to meet with clients. If such details are not provided in Form 9141, and instead, the answer is “occasional travel required” then the NPWC will issue an RFI asking for specific details as set forth in the following example we have received on behalf of a client:

Item F.d.3a states, “Frequent travel required. ” Please clarify if the occupation will require any national or international travel, and the frequency of that travel. Your response should also confirm that the NPWC has permission to correct your Form ETA-9141 with the information you provide in your response.

The employer is given the choice to respond directly to the RFI in the FLAG system or via e mail. The employer must respond within 7 days. The employer is also given the choice to withdraw and apply again too.

In the case of “roving employees”, the 1994 Barbara Farmer Memo states that the employer’s main or headquarters (HQ) office should be indicated as the worksite when a job opportunity will require a beneficiary to work in various locations throughout the U.S. that cannot be anticipated.  Even with roving employees, the employer will tend to answer “Yes” to F.d.3, which asks “Will travel be required in order to perform the job duties?” Then, under F.d.3.a. where the employer is asked to “provide [the] geographic location and frequency of travel” the employer tends to answer consistent with the  Barbara Farmer Memo as follows: “Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US.”

Recently, the NPWC has been issuing an RFI on this response too stating:

Item F.d.3 states “Yes”, and Item F.d.3a states the applicant “Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the U.S. ”

Please clarify the frequency of that travel.

However, this response does not relate to travel because the frequency of travel is now known. The position, rather than requiring travel, requires the employee to be willing to relocate and work anywhere.

At the AILA 2024 Spring Conference in Washington DC on March 22, 2024, Lindsey Baldwin, Director, National Prevailing Wage Center, clarified that the DOL is more interested in knowing about travel in the Form 9141 than unanticipated job locations under the Barbara Farmer memo. She also said that the information in the Form 9141 does not have to match everything that is in the Form 9089, and suggested that the Form 9141 and Form 9089 may be siblings but they are not twins!

Given that the information in the Form 9141 links to the Form 9089, what if the employer answers “No” to Question F.d.3 regrading travel for a position that only requires the ability to work at unanticipated locations under the Barbara Farmer Memo? How will the ability to work at unanticipated worksites get captured in the Form 9089? Answering “No” may avoid an RFI regarding travel. However, the information in the Form 9089 must also match with the information provided in the advertisements, which requires that the job applicant  be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US.

One way of ensuring that the need to relocate to unanticipated worksites gets into Form 9089 is to answer “Yes” to  Fb.1. in Form 9089 – Will work be performed in geographic areas other than the one identified in Section F as above? Then answer F.c. – Other Definable Geographic Area(s) – by stating “Various worksites such as the Company Headquarter [insert address] and other unanticipated locations in the US.” This further demonstrates that Form 9141 and Form 9089 are siblings and not twins.

In order to answer the RFI and also answer F.d.3.a on Form 9141 to avoid a future RFI another suggested response from the employer may include answering positively to the travel question after consulting with the employer regarding the anticipated frequency of relocation. One example is as follows:

Must be willing to relocate and work anywhere in the US. Travel in the context of relocation may be required at least once or twice a year based on clients’ needs.

Ms. Baldwin did however emphasize that when responding to the RFI regarding travel, the employer must specify:

  • Whether travel is local or international

  • How frequent is the travel? – once or twice a year or more (do not indicate “occasional travel” as that is subjective)

  • What is the nature of the travel? Is it for meetings or is it for the performance of the duties of the position?

If the employer does not answer the RFI with such specificity, the Form 9141 issuance will get further delayed.

The labor certification process has been both exacting and maddeningly complex. The recent trend of RFIs being issued in the context of travel to determine the prevailing wage have added even more complexity as well as confusion to the process. The authors only provide suggested responses to RFIs and how to complete the travel section in Form 9141 and related sections in Form 9089. They do not provide any assurances that DOL will agree with these suggested responses.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

[This blog is only for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice].

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Space X’s Constitutional Challenge May Nix DOJ’s Ability to Bring Discrimination Claims Against Employers Under Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Including in the Labor Certification Context

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On November 9, 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) settled a dispute with Apple concerning allegations that Apple’s recruitment practices under the Department of Labor’s (DOL) foreign labor certification program –  known as  Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) – had discriminated against certain U.S. workers. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that Apple did not advertise PERM jobs on its own website, although it did this as a standard practice for other job openings. Additionally, Apple required applications for PERM job openings to send in paper applications by postal mail, despite permitting online applications for other open positions. Finally, the investigation found that “Apple did not consider certain applications for PERM positions from Apple employees if those applications were submitted electronically, as opposed to paper applications submitted through the mail”. The DOJ asserted that these practices cumulatively resulted in Apple receiving few or no applications from U.S. workers for PERM positions. Apple agreed to a settlement that requires it to “pay $6.75 million in civil penalties and establish an $18.25 million back pay fund for eligible discrimination victims”. Moreover, the settlement agreement specifies that the company must ensure that its PERM recruitment practices more closely match its standard recruitment practices in future.

In 2021, the DOJ and DOL reached similar settlement agreements with Facebook over issues with its own PERM recruitment practices. The agencies allegedly discovered through audit of Facebook’s pending PERM applications that the company “routinely reserved jobs for temporary visa holders through the PERM process” through practices designed to deter potentially qualified U.S. workers from applying in violation of INA § 274B(a)(1)(A). Specifically, Facebook allegedly required “applications to be submitted by mail only; refused to consider U.S. workers who applied to the positions; and hired only temporary visa holders”. Pursuant to its settlement agreement with the DOJ, Facebook was required to “pay a civil penalty of $4.75 million to the United States, pay up to $9.5 million to eligible victims of Facebook’s alleged discrimination, and train its employees on the anti-discrimination requirements of the INA”, as well as “conduct more expansive advertising and recruitment for its job opportunities for all PERM positions, accept electronic resumes or applications from all U.S. workers who apply, and take other steps to ensure that its recruitment for PERM positions closely matches its standard recruitment practices”. Facebook’s settlement agreement with the DOL will require it to conduct additional notice and recruitment for U.S. workers, and consent to ongoing audits of its PERM applications. We discussed the Facebook settlement in detail in a previous blog.

In our previous blog, we noted that the Facebook settlement seemingly imposed a requirement that employees go above and beyond the PERM regulations when conducting recruitment to ensure that its PERM recruitment practices mirror the way it advertises regular job openings. Because DOL regulations require employers to carry out highly specific recruitment practices, some of which may be quite outdated, such as placing print advertisements in two Sunday newspapers, it may be difficult for employers to both mirror their normal recruitment practices and adhere to the regulatory requirements when conducting PERM recruitment. We noted that these conflicting requirements could prompt some employers to stop sponsoring foreign national workers for permanent residence altogether. Although the penalties paid by Apple and Facebook may be small change to such large companies, similar fines could ruin smaller employers, potentially deterring them from attempting to file PERM applications at all.

Because Apple and Facebook both chose to settle, it is unclear what the outcome of these cases might have been if the companies had chosen to challenge the agencies’ allegations. Both Apple and Facebook complied with the DOL regulations regarding recruitment for US workers under the PERM program. They may have been able to win if they did not cop for settlements. Despite the settlement, Apple did not agree with DOJ’s allegations in its lawsuit. “Apple contests the accusation, according to the agreement, and says that it believes it was following the appropriate Department of Labor regulations,” reported CNBC. “Apple also contests that any failures were the result of inadvertent errors and not discrimination, according to the agreement.”

In September 2023, the DOJ sued SpaceX for discriminating against refugees and asylees in its hiring and recruitment practices. As stated in a DOJ press release, the agency alleged that “[i]n job postings and public statements over several years, SpaceX wrongly claimed that under federal regulations known as ‘export control laws,’ SpaceX could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, sometimes referred to as ‘green card holders’”. Specifically, the company allegedly “…discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for open positions, through public announcements, job applications and other online recruiting communications that excluded asylees and refugees, …failed to fairly consider applications submitted by asylees and refugees, …refused to hire qualified asylee and refugee applicants and repeatedly rejected asylee and refugee applicants because of their citizenship status, and …hired only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, from September 2018 to September 2020”. The suit alleged that SpaceX disregarded the fact that refugees and asylees are treated the same as U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for export control purposes, and are similarly permitted to access export-controlled technology after they are hired. SpaceX filed a complaint arguing that the DOJ’s complaint is unconstitutional because the Attorney General, despite appointing Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), does not review their decisions. This constitutes a violation of the Appointments Clause, which requires a department head like the Attorney General to “direct and supervise” the “inferior officers” he appoints. Judge Rolando Olvera of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with SpaceX’s contention and granted a preliminary injunction in the case. See SpaceX v. Carol Bell, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00137 (Nov. 8, 2023).   According to Judge Olvera’s order, IER will not be able to cure this defect as “[b]ased on § 1324b’s [INA § 274B] plain language, broader context and legislative history, it is clear the decisions of OCAHO ALJ’s are not subject to the Attorney’s General review.” INA § 274B(g)(1) requires an ALJ to issue “an order, which shall be final unless appealed as provided under subsection (i).” INA § 274B(i) provides that the avenue for an aggrieved party to “seek review of such order” lies exclusively “in the United States court of appeals” 60 days after the entry of such an order.” According to Judge Olvera, “[i]t does not affirmatively provide for the Attorney General to review OCAHO ALJ decisions.”

SpaceX’s countersuit may provide a pathway for other employers whose hiring and recruitment practices under the foreign labor certification program are called into questions by the DOJ,, and wish to assert a constitutional challenge if they are investigated for unlawful discriminatory practices during the labor certification process. Indeed, based on SpaceX v. Bell,  employers may be able to pose an Appointments-Clause challenge to any IER lawsuit or investigation under INA § 274B sealing IER’s ability to bring any discrimination claim.  As stated by Cyrus Mehta in a recent Forbes article, the best practice for employers in light of these cases is to “hew as closely as possible to their non-PERM recruitment practices”, while also ensuring compliance with the DOL’s PERM regulations. Thus, an employer who normally advertises for open positions that are submitted by email should not require applicants for PERM positions to send their applications only by postal mail. When an employer normally advertises open positions on its website, it may be prudent for the employer to do the same for PERM positions, rather than advertising only in print newspapers. At the same time, employers must comply with the DOL regulations’ dictate of advertising in two Sunday print newspapers, even though they do not normally advertise other open positions in newspapers.

Under the foreign labor certification program, it is impossible for employers to completely mirror the recruitment with their real-world recruitment. Employers are also required to only test the labor market before filing the PERM. If there is a qualified US worker, the employer is not required to hire them and is only precluded from filing the labor certification application. The DOL invented the recruitment procedures out of whole cloth in its regulations at 69 FR 77325-77421 (Dec. 27, 2004).  INA § 212(a)(5), from which labor certification springs, only requires the DOL to determine the unavailability of qualified workers for the position and did not impose such an artificial labor market test.   On the other hand, the IER under INA § 274B has a different mandate and can potentially charge employers who conduct recruitment under the foreign labor certification program for discriminatory practices even if they follow the PERM regulations. The Appointments-Clause challenge by Space X if not overturned by the Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court could provide a pathway for other employers to fend off investigations and lawsuits by the IER when they conduct recruitment under the foreign labor certification program.

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Changes in Work From Home Policies After Labor Certification Has Been Filed

/0 Comments/in /by

Cyrus D Mehta and Jessica Paszko*

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, employers implemented telecommuting policies, and work-from-home became the norm for much of the workforce. Three years later, many of those employees are dusting off their lunchboxes and ironing their work suits as their employers call them back to the office. While the turning back of these policies may be met with groans from employees who grew comfortable in their home offices, for foreign nationals in the process of being sponsored for permanent employment, the change could mean something much worse than a mere change of work scenery. For instance, if the employer indicated in its test of the labor market that the position allows telecommuting and then later requires all employees to report to the office, could the labor certification be deemed invalid?

The PERM labor certification process is typically begun by submitting the Department of Labor (DOL) Form ETA 9141, Application for Prevailing Wage Determination (PWD). Some key “Job Offer Information” that ETA 9141 asks for in Section F is the job title (F.a.1), job duties (F.a.2), the minimum degree (F.b.1) and experience requirements (F.b.4), and whether the employer requires any special skills or other requirements (F.b.5). In F.b.5, the employer clearly must list any tools, software, or programs that the employee is required to know for the position, but the employer should also use this field to list other key information about the job, such as that telecommuting is permitted. The ETA 9141 also requires the employer to provide the full address of the place of employment (F.e). Based on the regulations’ definitions of employment and employer, the “place of employment” has been interpreted to mean a physical office or location in the U.S. Specifically, 20 CFR § 656.3 defines employer as a “person, association, firm, or a corporation that currently has a location within the United States to which U.S. workers may be referred for employment and that proposes to employ a full-time employee at a place within the United States . . . . An employer must possess a valid Federal Employment Identification Number (FEIN).”.  In the case of “roving employees”, the 1994 Barbara Farmer Memo states that the employer’s main or headquarters (HQ) office should be indicated as the worksite when a job opportunity will require a beneficiary to work in various locations throughout the U.S. that cannot be anticipated. Note, the information from the ETA 9141 automatically gets included in the ETA 9089, the DOL form used to electronically submit the labor certification, since the revised ETA 9089 took effect on June 1, 2023. Under the old ETA 9089, the employer had to repeat the information from the ETA 9141 in the relevant boxes. Many of the approved labor certifications are under the old ETA 9089.

Once the ETA 9141 is certified by the DOL, employers can move onto the second stage of the PERM process which is to conduct a series of mandatory and optional recruitment steps to confirm that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are “able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of application for a visa and admission into the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform the work”, i.e., the labor market test. 20 CFR § 656.1(a)(1). The employer’s advertisements must indicate all of the “Job Offer Information” that was listed in the ETA 9141, or in the old form it was the ETA 9089 and box H.14 was answered. The recruitment steps must be conducted in the area of intended employment that was listed in Section F.e. If an employer intends for an employee to work solely at a designated worksite, such as a company office or its HQ, then the ETA 9141 need only list one worksite location and the employer need only conduct recruitment in that area of intended employment. If the employer will permit the employee to perform work remotely from their home, then the ETA 9141 still need only list the employer’s main or HQ office as the worksite, but F.b.5 on the ETA 9141, and in turn each of the ads used in recruitment, should indicate that the employer will permit telecommuting from anywhere in the U.S.

Turning back to the question we posed at the outset – what should happen to a labor certification that indicated “telecommuting permitted” but where the employer later decides that all employees must report to the office five days a week? Arguably, the labor certification should not be deemed invalid in such a scenario because the labor market test was conducted in the area of intended employment, i.e., the company’s main office or HQ, which is where the foreign worker will need to report to. Additionally, by issuing the labor certification, the DOL determined that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available at the time of application for a visa and admission into the U.S. and at the place where the alien is to perform the work. Indeed, the employer, by indicating that telecommuting would be allowed, cast a wider net and potentially made the position “available” to more U.S. workers “at the place where the alien is to perform the work” since the U.S. applicant not need be physically present in the employer’s area of intended employment listed in the ETA 9141, Section F.e or in the old ETA 9089. Therefore, the labor certification should not be invalid as the employer properly made the two attestations required by it.

But what if the issue was flipped and now the employer wishes to allow telecommuting even though the ETA 9141 and subsequent recruitment did not indicate that telecommuting would be permissible? Here, the employer’s attestation that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available at the time of application for a visa and admission into the U.S. and at the place where the foreign worker is to perform the work may be called into question. By failing to indicate in its ads that workers could telecommute from anywhere in the U.S., the employer arguably made the position more restrictive as qualified U.S. applicants may have not applied to the position due to the location of the employer’s office or HQ, though they would have applied if telecommuting was allowed. Still, we would argue that the employer’s telecommuting change after the labor certification should not invalidate the labor certification. The Barbara Farmer Memo made clear that the employer’s main or HQ office should be indicated as the worksite when a job opportunity will require a beneficiary to work in various locations throughout the U.S. that cannot be anticipated. That HQ worksite in turn determines the course of the labor market test and where it is to be conducted. The labor certification should not be later deemed invalid just because the employer changes its mind as to whether or not telecommuting is allowed as the labor market test is still valid since it was conducted in the area of intended employment.

If the labor certification is approved but the I-140 petition still needs to be filed, it would behoove the employer to provide a justification in the support letter to the I-140 that the labor certification is still valid despite a change in work from home policy. Alternatively, the employer is only obligated to offer the position in accordance with the terms of the labor certification upon the grant of permanent residence. See Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009).  Thus, even if the work from home policies have currently changed, but the employer still wishes to offer the job in accordance with the labor certification, then there is no need for any further justification. Assuming that the employer does not intend to offer the position per the labor certification upon the grant of permanent residence, obtaining an I-140 approval after full disclosure has been made would be the ideal situation. If the I-140 petition is already approved, the employer could again go with the assumption that the underlying labor certification is valid despite the change in work from home policy and perhaps explain in the letter in support the I-485 or in the I-485J supplement, whichever is applicable. When there is doubt regarding the validity of the labor certification due to changes in work from home policies, and the I-140 is already approved, the employer can file a new labor certification and upon approval of the labor certification, file an I-140 petition and recapture the earlier priority date under 8 CFR § 204.5(e)(1).

Given the extraordinary time it takes to obtain labor certifications, starting again when there is a change in a work from home policy can be very burdensome especially when the foreign worker is running out of H-1B time. Our blog provides a legal basis for keeping the labor certification in intact when there is a change in work from home policies, and making full disclosure when submitting the subsequent I-140 petition and I-485 application.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as substitute for legal advice)

*Jessica Paszko is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta &  Partners PLLC. She graduated with a J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Although Section H.10-B Has Disappeared in the New ETA 9089, Will Its Ghost Continue to Haunt Us?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

The new ETA 9089 form has gone into effect and DOL stopped using the old version of the form on the evening of May 31, 2023. The new form does not have Box H.10-B. In our previous blog, we discussed the rise in PERM labor certification denials related to question H.10-B between October 2022 and March 2023. Does that mean that the problem has gone away? Not entirely, since the new ETA 9089 links to the Form ETA 9141 – the application for a prevailing wage determination – which asks an analogous question to H.10-B regarding the occupation required if employment experience is required. If the employer did not respond appropriately to the analogous question in ETA 9141 that now links to the new ETA 9089, will the DOL still deny labor certification?

This blog is part of a series, see here and here, that  address some of the numerous questions and issues raised by these new forms.

As background, Box H.10-B of the previous version of the ETA 9089 asked employers to “identity the job title of the acceptable alternate occupation” if experience in an alternate occupation is acceptable. The DOL had promulgated little guidance on this question, so immigration lawyers completed this question in a variety of ways, including describing the experience such as “2 years of experience in engineering management emphasizing cloud-based product development” and then referring to section H.14., which lists the requirements of the offered position, rather than attempting to list specific job titles. This is because foreign national workers often had a number of job titles in their prior experience, which may not have reflected the job offered in the labor certification. For instance, with respect to the position of Engineering Manager, the foreign worker may have had similar experience in prior engineering management positions, but may have held titles that had little direct connection to the duties, such as Associate or Specialist. Hence, it was more appropriate to describe the experience gained rather than the titles in the prior positions, as this approach would define the employer’s job requirements with greater clarity.  Historically, the DOL had accepted PERM applications that responded to question H.10-B in this way. Since the spate of denials from October 2022, the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) communicated the following guidance to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in November 2022 in response denials on this issue:  “Employers may list a specific job title, a number of related job titles, or even language such as ‘any occupation in which the required experience was gained.’ The answer does not have to be an exact job title, but employers still have to answer the question. If employers reference H.14 to answer the question in H.10-B, employers must be sure to answer the H.10-B question. Just providing a list of requirements is not acceptable.” See AILA Doc. 22092601.

The denials concerning question H.10-B centered on the idea that question H.10-B is not properly completed if the employer fails to list specific job titles. The DOL therefore took the position that the entire PERM application is rendered incomplete if this question is not completed properly. The DOL cited to 20 CFR § 656.17(a), which states that incomplete applications will be denied, as the authority for the denials.

The DOL responded to reports of increasing PERM denials concerning question H.10-B, and posted a notice that read as follows as its website on April 14, 2023:

OFLC has stopped issuing denials for this issue for pending applications and will not deny for this reason for any application submitted on or before May 30, 2023, by which point OFLC expects to be accepting the updated version of Form ETA-9089 in the Foreign Labor Application Gateway system. Further, OFLC will overturn denials based solely on this issue. OFLC will identify applications that were denied for this issue and for which reconsideration has not yet been requested; employers whose applications have been denied solely for this reason and have not yet requested consideration are encouraged not to submit a request for reconsideration. Where reconsideration has been requested, OFLC will prioritize processing for any pending reconsideration requests based on denials where this is the only denial issue.

Although this notice has now been removed, it is reproduced as AILA Doc. No. 23041700. In our firm’s experience, PERMs denied solely on a question H.10-B issue were certified rather quickly after a Requestion for Reconsideration (“RFR”) was filed. Interestingly, though, while OFLC acknowledges that it has not adjudicated H.10-B issues in a consistent manner, it states that some of the denials were justified, stating:

…OFLC concluded that some employers have not consistently answered the question accurately by providing acceptable alternate job titles; rather, they include statements such as “see H.14 – Special Skills.” The information provided in H.14 does not identify what alternate occupations are acceptable to meet the experience requirements for the job that is the subject of the PERM application. Instead, the application only lists a series of the special skills requirements and/or other alternative combinations of education and experience that the employer is willing to accept. As a result of employers providing insufficient information in either H.10-B. or H.14, OFLC has recently denied applications for being incomplete.

OFLC evaluated these denials and determined that while they are appropriate, it has not been consistent about when it denies an application for this reason, which could confuse filers.

On April 24, 2023, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) issued an important decision addressing H.10-B denials. In Matter of Charter Communications, Inc., 2020-PER-00171 (Apr. 24, 2023), BALCA held that an employer’s failure to list specific occupation titles in box H.10.B. alone was not sufficient grounds for denial of a PERM application, also noting that the OFLC has dealt with this issue in an inconsistent manner in its adjudication of PERM applications. The employer in this case had inserted the following in box H.10-B: “Please see [Section] H-14.” Id. The employer’s response to section H.14 read as follows: “Bachelor’s degree, or foreign equivalent, in Engineering, Computer Science, or [a] related field. Must have 7 years of experience working with DSG/DAVIC set top boxes; and managing, maintaining, and configuring Linux operating systems. Must have 5 years of experience supporting software applications for back office servers.” Id. The Certifying Officer denied certification, and affirmed its denial after the employer filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”), asserting that section H.10-B requires an occupation or job title. BALCA vacated the denial and remanded the PERM application for certification, reasoning that: “…the Employer persuasively argued why, in this matter, failing to include the job title of an acceptable alternative occupation was immaterial to the CO’s review of the substance of the Form 9089. The Employer precisely detailed the skills needed to satisfy the requirement that “experience in an alternate occupation” was acceptable. […] Section H.10-B conveyed significantly more information than simply listing the job title of an acceptable alternate occupation.” Id.

While box H.10-B has disappeared from the new ETA 9089, box F.b.4.b. of the new 9141 with respect to minimum job requirements still asks employers to “indicate the occupation required” if employment experience is required for the position. See AILA Doc No. 23050101. On the previous version of the ETA 9141, which included the same version of this question as the new 9141, employers often responded  by indicating “see addendum” and listing the full requirements of the position rather than just the occupation, such as “2 years of experience in engineering management emphasizing cloud based product development”, in the addendum. Because the new ETA 9141 will link to the ETA 9089 and certain fields will be populated automatically, uncertainty for practitioners remains, even though box H.10-B itself has disappeared, as the response to box F.b.4.b may not have been in compliance to the recent guidance provided by OFLC with respect to H.10-B. These ETA 9141s were prepared and submitted in 2022, even before the H.10-B denials, and do not contain the preferred language recommended by OFLC in November 2022. They will now link to the new ETA 9089. The employer will not have an opportunity in the new ETA 9089 to include any rehabilitative language as it did in response to H.10-B closely analogous to DOL’s suggested  “any occupation in which the required experience was gained” language.  Will the DOL deny the ETA 9089 because the preferred language was not included in the previously approved ETA 9141?

Although only time will tell whether section H.10-B will haunt us despite its disappearance in the new form, employers who have not listed specific job titles  in box F.b.4.b. of the 9141 should be able to take reassurance from BALCA’s decision in Matter of Charter Communications, which although it pertained to an H.10-B denial, seems to support the more general idea that an employer’s failure to list specific job titles is not sufficient justification for denial of a PERM application.  Employers should also be able to argue that 20 CFR § 656.17(a), the provision used to justify PERM denials based on box H.10-B, pertains only to an  incomplete Form ETA 9089. If the DOL issues a denial based on an incomplete ETA 9141, there should be a strong legal basis to challenge the denial under 20 CFR § 656.17(a) in addition to the reasoning provided in Matter of Charter Communications. Another point in favor of challenging any denial is that the ETA 9141 with respect to alternative job requirements at box F.c.4.a asks for the number of months of alternate experience. It does not ask for the job title in the alternate occupation even if box F.b.4.b asks for the occupation required. It is hoped that DOL will not use the logic from its H.10-B denials to deny ETA 9089s in the new system because the occupation was not mentioned in response to box F.b.4.b. of the 9141. If it does, there will be ample basis to challenge the denial and forever exorcize H.10-B’s ghost.

The DOL sees the new 9089 as the solution to all the ambiguities in the old ETA 9089.  However, we all know that the new ETA 9089 is not the panacea to all the problems in the old form and continues to create additional ambiguities. We will need to remain vigilant and point these issues out as they play out including challenging potential denials to BALCA and even in federal court.

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Kellogg Has Reared its Ugly Head in the New Labor Certification Form: How Do We Deal with Alternate Requirements?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

Our most recent blog in this series discusses the new Application for Permanent Employment Certification, Form ETA 9089 (“ETA 9089”) and corresponding Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, Form ETA 9141 (“ETA 9141”) promulgated by the Department of Labor (DOL), and, specifically, how issues concerning dual representation and familial relationships can be dealt with on the new form. In this blog, we discuss how to handle alternate requirements in the new ETA 9089.

The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) of the DOL has now delayed the implementation of the new ETA 9089 until June 1, 2023. The new form was originally scheduled to go into effect on May 16, 2023. OFLC will continue accepting the older version of form ETA 9089 until June 1, 2023. Significantly, the new ETA 9141 will link to the new ETA 9089, automatically populating certain fields on the PERM application form. Watermarked versions of both new forms are available on the DOL website. This functionality of the new form has introduced uncertainty for practitioners, who must now ensure that information, specifically that pertaining to alternative requirements, is listed on the ETA 9141 in such a way that it will be correctly incorporated into the ETA 9089 as well.

The new ETA 9089 has undergone formatting changes, as well. The new form appears to change the way employers must list alternative requirements and specifically incorporate the Kellogg “magic language”.  The controlling guidance on alternative requirements comes from the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA)’s decision in Matter of Francis Kellogg, 94-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998). As discussed in a prior blog, Kellogg held that employers should indicate that they will accept “any suitable combination of education, training or experience” if the primary and alternate requirements for the position are not “substantially equivalent”. 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(ii) broadened the holding of Kellogg to apply whenever there are alternate requirements, providing as follows:

“If the alien beneficiary already is employed by the employer and the alien does not meet the primary job requirements and only potentially qualifies for the job by virtue of the employer’s alternative requirements, certification will be denied unless the application states that any suitable combination of education, training, or experience is acceptable.”

However, in Matter of Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009), BALCA held that there is no appropriate place on the ETA 9089 to include the Kellogg language, so an employer’s failure to do so should not be a basis for denial of the PERM application.

As the holding of Federal Insurance suggests, the old ETA 9089 was not well formatted to incorporate the Kellogg language. Box H.6 of the old ETA 9089 asks “Is experience in the job offered required for the job?”. Box H.10 then asks “Is experience in the alternate occupation acceptable?” If the employer answered both H.6 and H.10, it would likely trigger the requirement to state the Kellogg language.  Many employers chose to avoid stating the Kellogg language on the form by answering “no” to  question H.6. Instead, one could respond “yes” to box H.10., which asked “Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable?” This approach resulted in the alternate requirement listed in H.10 becoming the primary requirement. Because Box H.6 was answered “no”, there was only one requirement in H.10 rather than a primary and alternate requirement. However, this approach became irrelevant after Federal Insurance was decided on February 20, 2009, although employers still attempted to only have a primary requirement just in case the DOL revived the Kellogg language.

Take the example of  a Systems Engineer with the following job duties and requirements:

Conduct project execution in a global delivery model using various methodologies like Agile to deliver projects in enterprise applications space. Utilize Oracle Peoplesoft HCM, SCM and CRM, SaaS, and cloud based software like Salesforce. Conduct architecture, analysis, design, development, customization, and maintenance of applications using PeopleSoft, Salesforce Cloud, Data analytics tools like Tableau, PL/SQL, SQL, Oracle, HP Quality Centre, Rally, ServiceNow along with testing, application packaging, release co-ordination, security administration and product management from ideation to delivery of the product.

Reqs: Master’s degree (or equiv) in CompApps, CompSci, Engg (Comp/Mech/Electronic), or related field, plus 3 years of experience in position involving similar duties/technical capabilities.

In this case study, the employer instead of requiring 3 years of experience in the exact duties of the position as offered above has asked for “3 years of experience in a position(s) involving similar duties/technical capabilities.”

The employer will address this in H.10 rather than H.6.  in the existing ETA 9089 by answering “no” to H.6 and “yes” to H.10 – Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? Then, by indicating the number of months of experience requirement in the alternate occupations in H.10A and  by referring to H.14 in H.10B that the employer will accept “3 years of experience in a position(s) involving similar duties/technical capabilities.”  Even before Federal Insurance,  by checking only H.10 rather than both H.6 and H.10, the employer could avoid the Kellogg language. However, if an employer chose to answer both H.6 and H.10 from February 20, 2009, the Kellogg language would not trigger because of Federal Insurance.

The new Form ETA 9089, however, appears to rectify the problem identified in Federal Insurance by specifically referencing the Kellogg language. This change could create confusion for employers who are not accustomed to including this language in recruitment or the ETA 9089 itself.

Box G.4. of the new ETA 9089 asks “Is the foreign worker currently working for the employer submitting this application?” An employer who answers “yes” to this question must then indicate in Box G.4.a. “whether the foreign worker only qualifies for the job opportunity by virtue of the employer’s alternative requirements identified in Section F of the ETA 9141 identified in Question E.1”. If the answer to this question is “yes” as well, Box G.4.b. asks the employer to “select the applicable statement describing the employer’s willingness to accept any suitable combination of education, experience, or training”, mirroring the Kellogg “magic language”. The two possible responses to this question are “I accept” or “I do not accept”.

Once the Kellogg magic language is included in the ETA 9089, it will be harder for employers to justify the lawful rejection of US workers. In Matter of Goldman Sachs & Co., 2011-PER-01064 (June. 8, 2012), the employer, indicated on the ETA Form 9089 that it would accept for the position of Financial Analyst, “any suitable combination of education, training and experience,” which was the required Kellogg magic language. During supervised recruitment, the employer submitted an expert opinion to the DOL detailing why thirty-five U.S. worker applicants had each been rejected without interview. As examples, BALCA highlighted one applicant who was rejected despite his “substantial academic business credentials” and because he did not possess “narrowly focused” experience necessary for the position and another applicant who the employer described as having “a long and varied career in accounting and financial reporting” but lacking in certain specific experience. The Certifying Officer (CO) denied the labor certification finding that the employer rejected U.S. workers for other than job related reasons. The CO specifically emphasized that the employer had indicated its willingness to accept “any suitable combination of education, training or experience” and had not taken the time to explore and evaluate the suitability of the applicants’ education, training or experience. The DOL cited 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(a)(2)(b) and stated that “where there is a reasonable possibility the applicant may meet the job requirements, it is incumbent on the employer to further investigate the U.S. applicant’s qualifications.” In its request for reconsideration, the employer argued, inter alia, that it has no duty to interview candidates who fail to show on their resumes that they satisfy the major job requirements.

BALCA held that the CO did not question the employer’s business necessity for its job requirements, but instead questioned the fact that the employer rejected without interview applicants who appeared facially qualified for the position and did not address how they were unqualified even possessing a combination of education, training and experience. BALCA upheld the CO’s denial and cited Blessed Sacrament School, 96-INA-52, slip op. at 3 (Oct. 29, 1997) which held that where the applicant’s resume shows a broad range of experience, education and training that raises a reasonable possibility that the applicant is qualified even if the resume does not expressly state that he or she meets all the requirements, an employer bears the burden of further investigating the applicant’s credentials. Thus, since the employer was required to evaluate US worker applicants under the Kellogg standard – will accept any suitable combination of education, experience and training – the employer’s rejection of US worker applicants based on only a review of their resumes were not considered to be lawful rejections.

Although the employer has to evaluate candidates who apply for the position under the Kellogg language, this language need not appear in the advertisements as confirmed in the following DOL Round 10 FAQs:

Does the advertisement have to contain the so-called “Kellogg” language where the application requires it to be used on the application?

Where the “Kellogg” language is required by regulation to appear on the application, it is not required to appear in the advertisements used to notify potential applications of the employment opportunity. However, the placement of the language on the application is simply a mechanism to reflect compliance with a substantive, underlying requirement of the program. Therefore, if during an audit or at another point in the review of the application it becomes apparent that one or more U.S. workers with a suitable combination of education, training or experience were rejected, the application will be denied, whether or not the Kellogg language appears in the application.

Still, the fact that the employer has to evaluate resumes in light of any combination of education, training or experience imposed by Kellogg in the new ETA 9089 may make it harder for employers to win labor certifications especially in industries where there have been many layoffs in recent times.

It remains to be seen whether the employer can avoid the Kellogg language like under the old form by making the alternative requirement the primary requirement. Under the revised forms, what is indicated in ETA 9141 will be linked to the ETA 9089. The question is whether under the new system the employer will be able to skip F.c. in ETA 9141, which asks details about the Alternative Job Requirements and instead complete only F.b. in ETA 9141, which asks details about the Minimum Job Requirements but would actually include information about the alternative job requirements.  By skipping F.c. in ETA 9141 (alternative requirements) and completing F.b. (minimum requirements) in ETA 9141, can the employer argue in Appendix C – Supplemental Information that the alternate has become the primary requirement and thus avoid using the Kellogg language?

It is unclear how well the approach of making the alternate requirement the primary will work in light of the “Kellogg language” question on the new ETA 9089. There is a chance that failure to accept the Kellogg question on Box G.4.b. of the new ETA 9089 when alternative sets of qualifications will be accepted, even if F.c. in ETA 9141 was left blank, could result in an audit or denial of the PERM application.

In Agma Systems LLC, 2009-PER-132 (Aug. 6, 2009), BALCA held that an employer was not required to include the Kellogg language where it has two sets of alternative requirements that are substantially equivalent. In Agma, the requirements in question were a Master’s Degree in Computer Science or Engineering and three years of experience in Computer Software Developing and/or Consulting — and a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or Engineering and five years of experience in Computer Software Developing and/or Consulting. Because these two sets of requirements were essentially the same and neither was the “primary”, BALCA reasoned that the Kellogg language need not be invoked because Kellogg expressly recognizes this type of equivalent requirements as acceptable. When requirements are substantially equivalent, BALCA’s holding in Agma lends support for the strategy of making the alternative requirement the primary requirement, thereby obviating the need to use the Kellogg language even in the revised ETA 9089.

The Kellogg language has returned with a vengeance in the new ETA 9089, and it remains to be seen whether employers and their attorneys will be able to avoid it if the alternate requirement can still become the single primary requirement. Employers need to deal with Kellogg with the respect that it deserves in order to avoid a denial.

[This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Cyrus Mehta

Answering Tricky Questions on the Revised Labor Certification Form on Dual Representation and Familial Relationships

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

The Department of Labor’s Office of Labor Certification (OFLC) has revised the Application for Permanent Employment Certification, ETA Form 9089, as well as the corresponding Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, Form ETA 9141. OFLC will begin accepting these revised forms on May 16, 2023, and has posted an “unofficial watermarked preview copy” of the form “to allow stakeholders to become familiar with changes to the form.” The link to the form can be found at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor

OFLC will no longer accept any new applications submitted via the legacy PERM Online System after May 15, 2023, at 6:59 pm ET. OFLC also will no longer accept the previous version of Form ETA-9089 after May 15, 2023, either electronically or by mail.

This will be the first in a series of blog discussing selected issues in the new ETA-9089 that are confounding practitioners.

1. How to answer the dual representation question?

 The question below asks whether the employer has contracted with an attorney that also represents the foreign worker covered by the application, as follows:

D.2. Has the employer contracted with an agent or attorney that also represents the foreign worker covered by this application?

Yes

No

It is difficult to understand why the DOL has included this question. Many practitioners take the position that they are representing both the employer and the foreign worker, which is commonly referred to as dual representation. Representing two or more clients is appropriate if the goals of both the clients are aligned. If the practitioner is engaging in dual representation then “Yes” should be checked off rather than “No”. It should not prejudice the case if “Yes” over “No” is checked.

Question D.2 also refers to an agent. It would have been good if the DOL did not include an “agent” as only attorneys admitted to a state bar in the US can engage in the practice of law. Agents should not be encouraged to represent the employer or foreign worker as they will then be involved in the practice of law and are also not bound by the ethical rules that attorneys are subjected to. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct include Rule 1.7 that set forth the parameters under which an attorney can jointly represent more than one client, such as the employer and the employee, and the attorney is precluded from such dual representation if there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Non lawyer agents are not subject to any rules of ethical conduct.

This question piqued my interest as I once co authored an article “The Role of the Lawyer in the Labor Certification Process”, a version is available at https://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0310-endelman.shtm,  which explored dual representation in the labor certification context. There are many decisions of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals discussed in the article that recognize that the lawyer for the employer is also the employer for the foreign worker.

The starting point for this analysis is the DOL rule at 20 CFR 656.10(b), which provides:

(i) It is contrary to the best interests of U.S. workers to have the alien and/or agents or attorneys for either the employer or the alien participate in interviewing or considering U.S. workers for the job offered the alien. As the beneficiary of a labor certification application, the alien can not represent the best interests of U.S. workers in the job opportunity. The alien’s agent and/or attorney can not represent the alien effectively and at the same time truly be seeking U.S. workers for the job opportunity. Therefore, the alien and/or the alien’s agent and/or attorney may not interview or consider U.S. workers for the job offered to the alien, unless the agent and/or attorney is the employer’s representative, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

(ii) The employer’s representative who interviews or considers U.S. workers for the job offered to the alien must be the person who normally interviews or considers, on behalf of the employer, applicants for job opportunities such as that offered the alien, but which do not involve labor certifications.

 

This rule precludes attorneys from interfering in the recruitment process by interviewing or considering US workers who apply for the job offered to the foreign worker. Only the employer is allowed to interview and consider the resumes of US worker candidates. Even the foreign worker cannot be involved in the recruitment process. Although most of the verbiage in the rule prohibits the attorney of the foreign worker form interfering in the recruitment process, the rule was amended in the fall of 2008 to also include “It is contrary to the best interests of U.S. workers to have the alien and/or agents or attorneys for either the employer or the alien participate in interviewing or considering U.S. workers for the job offered the alien.” (emphasis added). Thus, even the attorney for the employer is prohibited from interfering in the recruitment process since 2008 after the DOL slipped in the phrase “for the employer” in 20 CFR 656.10(b)(i).

Regardless of this amendment to the rule, there are a number of BALCA decisions even before 2008 that have acknowledged dual representation, and thus recognizing that the attorney for the employer is also considered the attorney for the beneficiary. In Sharon Lim Lau, 90-INA-103 (BALCA 1992),  the attorney for the employer sent letters to the only two applicants who responded to the advertisements inviting them to interviews and also presided over the initial interviews to screen the applicants.   The foreign beneficiary, who was the subject of this labor certification application, lived in Taiwan, and the attorney argued that he was the foreign worker’s agent only for purposes of providing a mailing address and to facilitate the foreign worker’s responses to requests by the government for information or documents.  BALCA disagreed by holding that it was common in labor certification cases for the same attorney to be listed as the attorney for both the employer and the foreign worker on the labor certification form.

Contrast Sharon Lim Lau with the earlier BALCA decision in Matter of Marcelino Rojas, 87-INA-685 (BALCA 1988).  In Rojas, the employer contended that his attorney interviewed U.S. applicants because he had difficulty communicating effectively in the English language.  Here too, the certifying officer alleged that 20 CFR §656.20(b)(3)(i) had been violated because the attorney had interviewed a U.S. applicant for the position. BALCA initially noted:

In labor certification cases, the employer’s attorney is almost automatically the  alien’s pro forma attorney.  The employer’s attorney “represents” the alien to the  extent that if the employer succeeds in its application then the alien also succeeds   by receiving labor certification.  It would be the rare exception to find the alien  and the employer represented by different attorneys.

 

But BALCA, in Rojas, held that the attorney represented the employer rather than the foreign worker in the conduct of the interviews.  The employer was present at the location of the interviews to observe the applicants and to decide, after conferring with his attorney, whether to conduct follow-up interviews.  Therefore, the attorney only represented the employer and 20 CFR §656.20(b)(3) was inapplicable to this case.  Rojas, can thus best be described as an exception to the generally accepted rule that the attorney for the employer will also be treated as the attorney for the foreign worker. Of course, Rojas was decided before the amendment to the rule in 2008.

In a later decision, Chicken George, 2003 BALCA LEXIS 72,   the attorney for the employer and the foreign worker was the one who issued letter for the interview to one of the U.S. applicants who applied for the job.  The letter was written on the letterhead of the law firm. Since the employer’s attorney assented that he was the attorney for both the employer and the alien, BALCA held that 20 CFR §656.20(b)(3)(i) and (ii) had been violated.

Finally, in Matter of Scan, 97-INA-247 (BALCA 1998),  the labor certification was denied because it appeared that the applicant was to have been screened by the attorney rather than by the employer.  There, the Certifying Officer concluded:

The initial assessment of the applicant’s qualifications constitutes attorney  involvement and is prohibited by the Regulations.  It is clearly adverse to the  interests of U.S. workers for the alien’s attorney to have any involvement in the  recruitment process.  The rebuttal provides no satisfactory assurance that the  attorney did not initially assess the applicants’ qualifications in this case despite the fact that the employer actually interviewed the workers and made the ‘hiring  decision.’  We cannot say that U.S. workers were not prejudiced by the attorney’s          actions in this case.

 

Although it is unclear from the fact that the attorney claimed to only be the employer’s attorney, BALCA appeared to have broadly held that the attorney violated 20 CFR §656.20(b)(3)(i) because he had engaged in the “filtering process” which is part of the personnel procedures that the employer follows when the employer hires staff personnel.

Thus, under the predecessor provision, 20 CFR §656.20(b)(3),  with the sole exception of Rojas, BALCA has held that an attorney interfering in the recruitment process, either by interviewing or initially screening applicants, violated the regulation.  Of course, the regulation does carve out an exception where if the attorney is the person who normally interviews job applicants outside the labor certification process, this provision will not be implicated.

I have provided this history to demonstrate that the DOL has recognized dual representation in the labor certification process. If the employer is engaging in dual representation, then there will be no downside in answering the question as “Yes” to Question D.2 in the revised ETA 9089.

 

2. How to Answer the Question on Familial Relationships?

The revised ETA 9089 asks the following two questions:

A.16. Is the employer a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which the foreign worker has an ownership interest?

Yes

No

A.17. Is there a familial relationship between the foreign worker and the owners, stockholders, partners, corporate officers, and/or incorporators?

Yes

No

In the current ETA 9089, Question C.9 asks:

Is the employer a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which the alien has an ownership interest, or is there a familial relationship between the owners, stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners, and the alien?

The question needed to be answered “Yes” only if the employer was a closely held corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship and the foreign worker either had an ownership interest or there is a familial relationship between the owners, stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners, and the foreign worker. The language in C.9 was consistent with the language in 20 CFR 656.17(l), which provides:

If the employer is a closely held corporation or partnership in which the alien has an ownership interest, or if there is a familial relationship between the stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners, and the alien, or if the alien is one of a small number of employees, the employer in the event of an audit must be able to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide job opportunity, i.e., the job is available to all U.S. workers, and must provide to the Certifying Officer, the following supporting documentation…….

The new ETA 9089 now separates out this question into two questions removing any ambiguity regarding whether the corporation has to be closely held for both parts in the same C9 question of the current form.

Question A.16 asks:

Is the employer a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which the foreign worker has an ownership interest?

 

Question A.17 asks:

Is there a familial relationship between the foreign worker and the owners, stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners?

The DOL has taken the position that if the foreign worker either has an ownership interest or there is a close family relationship the recruitment that the employer is required to conduct to test the US labor market will be suspect. If the foreign national has an ownership interest or familial relationship BALCA has set forth a “totality of circumstances” test under Matter of Modular Container, 1989-INA-228 (Jul. 16, 1991) (en banc) to determine whether there is a bona fide job offer to US workers. Modular Container Systems considers whether the foreign national:

a) Is in a position to control or influence hiring decisions regarding the job for which LC is ought;
b) Is related to the corporate directors, officers or employees;
c) Was an incorporator or founder of the company;
d) Has an ownership interest in the company;
e) Is involved in the management of the company;
f) Is on the board of directors;
g) Is one of a small number of employees;
h) Has qualifications for the job that are identical to specialized or unusual job duties and requirements stated in the application; or
i) Is so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her pervasive presence and personal attributes that the employer would be unlikely to continue without the foreign national.

 

In the current version of the form the question had to only needed to be responded to in the affirmative if the employer is a closely held corporation. The new question A.16 regarding whether the foreign worker has an ownership interest need only be answered “Yes” if the employer is a closely held corporation. This makes sense since even if the foreign worker held shares in a large publicly traded corporation it would be hard to imagine how the recruitment would be tainted.

Question A.17, however, is no longer conditioned by whether there is a closely held corporation, and this is clearly not consistent with 20 CFR 656.17(l). So, let’s say the foreign worker is a second cousin or grandnephew to a corporate officer in Walmart which has over a million employees, the answer now has to be “Yes”. For a publicly traded company, how is one supposed to know whether there is “a familial relationship between the foreign worker and the . . . stockholders”?

In DOL’s FAQ, a  “familial relationship includes any relationship established by blood, marriage, or adoption, even if distant. For example, cousins of all degrees, aunts, uncles, grandparents and grandchildren are included. It also includes relationships established through marriage, such as in-laws and step-families. The term ‘marriage’ will be interpreted to include same-sex marriages that are valid in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated.”

If the employer is not a closely held corporation and there is a familial relationship, one view is to assume that the intention of the DOL was to only expect an answer to the question in the affirmative if the employer is a closely held corporation. On the other hand, if the intention of the DOL was to ask the question without regard to whether the employer is a closely held corporation,  the practitioner must require the foreign worker to ascertain whether  there is any familial relationship foreign worker and the owners, stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners. This would be the more prudent approach until we get further clarification from the OFLC. The foreign worker can endeavor in good faith to find out whether any relative as defined in the DOL FAQ owns stock in the company that is filing the labor certification. If so, A.17 must be marked as Yes. In the supplemental information, Appendix C, it can be explained that notwithstanding the familial relationship the foreign worker under the totality of circumstances test in Matter of Modular Containers had no influence on the recruitment process especially in the context of a large publicly held corporation.

There will be many instances when the foreign worker may not be able to identify every relative who owns stock in the company that is filing the ETA 9089 on their behalf. Even if the question A.17 is marked as “No” and it later comes to light that the question should have been “Yes” and the DOL denies the application, such a finding can be challenged as BALCA does not take too kindly to the DOL denying applications when the instructions are not clear. For instance, when the employer requires alternative experience and the foreign worker qualifies through that alternative experience, 20 CFR 656.17(h)(4), which adopted the holding in Matter of Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 8, 1998),   provides that certification will be denied unless the application states that “any suitable combination of education, training, or experience is acceptable.” In Federal Ins. Co., 2008-PER-37 (Feb. 20, 2009), BALCA reversed the denial on grounds of fundamental fairness and procedural due process  where this language was not included as the ETA 9089 or its instructions gave no guidance where to put this language.

The new ETA 9089 now specifically instructs applicants about where and how to insert the Kellogg language, and how to respond to the question on the new form will probably be the subject of the next blog in this series.

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

National Interest Waiver Changes for STEM Graduates and Entrepreneurs, Along with Premium Processing, Will Benefit H-4 Spouses Seeking Work Authorization

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Jessica Paszko*

Earlier this year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that as of January 30, 2023, it would accept premium processing requests for all previously filed and newly filed petitions for National Interest Waivers (NIW) under the Employment-Based Second Preference (EB-2) category. For an additional filing fee of $2,500, USCIS will adjudicate these petitions within 45 days. This premium processing development coupled with last year’s update to the USCIS Policy Manual, which clarified how the National Interest Waiver can be used by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates and entrepreneurs, makes the National Interest Waiver more appealing than ever. We last covered the National Interest Waiver five years ago after the Administrative Appeals Office of the USCIS issued its precedent decision, Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) which articulated a new National Interest Waiver standard.

As background, the National Interest Waiver is an immigrant petition for lawful permanent residence under the EB-2 category. In the ordinary course, a valid, permanent offer of employment in the U.S. and a labor certification application certified by the Department of Labor (DOL) are mandatory prerequisites to the filing of such an employment-based immigrant petition. However, the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90) provided that the labor certification requirement in the employment-based second category may be waived and foreign nationals may qualify for the NIW in the sciences, arts, professions or business if they are: (1) members of the professions holding advanced degrees; or (2) foreign nationals of “exceptional ability” who will “substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interest, or welfare” of the United States, i.e. where the foreign national’s employment is deemed to be in the “national interest.”

In the updated Policy Manual, under the Specific Evidentiary Considerations for Persons with Advanced Degrees in STEM Fields heading, USCIS states, at the outset, that it was particularly interested in persons with advanced STEM degrees fostering progress in three areas, namely (1) “focused critical and emerging technologies”, (2) “other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness”, and (3) “national security.”

Critical and emerging technologies “are those are critical to U.S. national security, including military defense and the economy”. To identify a critical and emerging technology field, USCIS prompts officers to consider governmental, academic, and other authoritative and instructive sources, and all other evidence submitted by the petitioner. Officers may find that a STEM area is important to competitiveness or security in endeavors that will help the U.S. remain ahead of strategic competitors or adversaries or relates to a field that may contribute to the U.S. achieving or maintain technology leadership or peer statues among allies and partners. Moreover, the lists of critical and emerging technology subfields published by the Executive Office of the President, by either the National Science and Technology Council or the National Security Council, are listed as examples of authoritative lists which officers may consider. The Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update, issued in February 2022, defines critical and emerging technologies as “a subset of advanced technologies that are significant to U.S. national security.” It then goes on to list the critical and emerging technology areas that “are of particular importance to the national security of the United States” as well as a set of key subfields for each identified critical and emerging technology. We encourage readers to view the full list, but note the following subfields: supercomputing, edge computing, cloud computing, data storage, computing architectures, data processing and analysis techniques, distributed ledger technologies, digital assets, digital payment technologies, and digital identity infrastructure.

An indicator of STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness is inclusion as a priority in the annual research and development priorities memo about the President’s budget issued jointly by the White House Director of the Office of Science Technology Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. For example, the Memorandum on Research and Development Priorities (PDF) (August 2021) for President Biden’s FY2022 budget, where reference is again made to “critical and emerging technologies” including artificial intelligence, quantum information science, advanced communications technologies, microelectronics, high-performance computing, biotechnology, robotics, and space technologies.

U.S. national security objectives, which includes “protect the security of the American people; expand economic prosperity and opportunity; and realize and defend democratic values”, are outlined in the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (PDF). The Policy Manual instructs that for purposes of National Interest Waiver policy and adjudications, “national security” refers to these three objectives.

Matter of Dhanasar provides that after eligibility for EB-2 classification has been established, USCIS may grant a NIW if the petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

  • The foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.
  • The foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
  • On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.

The Policy Manual reiterates that with respect to the first prong as set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, supra, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. It notes that many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. At the same time though, the Policy Manual makes clear that “classroom teaching activities in STEM” are not, on their own, indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance.

For the second prong, the person’s education and skillset are relevant to whether the person is well positioned to advance the endeavor. Here, the USCIS officer’s analysis involves assessing whether the person has an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D. which USCIS considers an especially positive factor. But the advanced degree must also be in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S competitiveness or national security. Additionally, taking into account that doctoral dissertations and some master’s theses concentrate on a particularized subject matter, the person’s “scientific knowledge in a narrow STEM area” must also be considered in order to determine whether that specific STEM area relates to the proposed endeavor. Finally, the Policy Manual cautions that a degree in and of itself, is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and urges petitioners to submit supplemental evidence, including letters from interested government agencies. Evidence that may demonstrate that the person is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor includes, but is not limited to:

  • Degrees, certificates, or licenses in the field;
  • Patents, trademarks, or copyrights developed by the person;
  • Letters from experts in the person’s field, describing the person’s past achievements and providing specific examples of how the person is well positioned to advance the person’s endeavor;
  • Published articles or media reports about the person’s achievements or current work;
  • Documentation demonstrating a strong citation history of the person’s work or excerpts of published articles showing positive discourse around, or adoption of, the person’s work;
  • Evidence that the person’s work has influenced the field of endeavor;
  • A plan describing how the person intends to continue the proposed work in the United States;
  • A detailed business plan or other description, along with any relevant supporting evidence, when appropriate;
  • Correspondence from prospective or potential employers, clients, or customers;
  • Documentation reflecting feasible plans for financial support (see below for a more detailed discussion of evidence related to financing for entrepreneurs);
  • Evidence that the person has received investment from U.S. investors, such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators, and that the amounts are appropriate to the relevant endeavor;
  • Copies of contracts, agreements, or licenses showing the potential impact of the proposed endeavor;
  • Letters from government agencies or quasi-governmental entities in the United States demonstrating that the person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor (see below for a more detailed discussion of supporting evidence from interested government agencies and quasi-governmental entities);
  • Evidence that the person has received awards or grants or other indications of relevant non-monetary support (for example, using facilities free of charge) from federal, state, or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation; and
  • Evidence demonstrating how the person’s work is being used by others, such as, but not limited to:
    • Contracts with companies using products that the person developed or assisted in developing;
    • Documents showing technology that the person invented, or contributed to inventing, and how others use that technology; and
    • Patents or licenses for innovations the person developed with documentation showing why the patent or license is significant to the field.

 

Lastly, with respect to the third prong, the Policy Manual reminds us that it is the petitioner’s burden to establish that factors in favor of granting the waiver outweigh those that support the requirement of a job offer and thus a labor certification. In its evaluation of the third prong and whether the U.S. may benefit from the person’s entry, USCIS considers the following combinations of facts contained in the record to be a strong positive factor:

  • The person possesses an advanced STEM degree, particularly a Ph.D.;
  • The person will be engaged in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and
  • The person is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance.

USCIS considers the benefit to be “especially weighty” where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, or when the petition is supported by letters from interested U.S. government agencies.

The expanded guidance will also benefit noncitizen entrepreneurs under the Matter of Dhanasar standard. They may submit evidence of ownership and a role in the U.S. entity; degrees, certifications, licenses and letters of experience; investments from outside investors; participation in an incubator or accelerator; awards or grants; intellectual property such as patents; published material on the petitioner and U.S. based entity; prospects of revenue generation and job creation; and letters and statements from credible third parties.

In comparison, eligibility under the Employment-Based First-Preference category (EB-1A) can be established through evidence of a one-time, major international award or fulfillment of at least three out of ten criteria. But even after the applicant has demonstrated evidence of at least three criteria, USCIS conducts a final merits determination where it considers the submitted evidence holistically and determines whether the applicant has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of individuals who have risen to the top of their field of endeavor. Clearly, to qualify for a National Interest Waiver, one need not satisfy any set regulatory criteria or rise to the EB-1A level of acclaim or level of expertise, which can be quite difficult to establish.  Like the EB-1A, individuals may self-petition for the National Interest Waiver under EB-2 and need not be beholden to an employer.

The NIW on its face will have little utility for India or China born beneficiaries of I-140 petitions in the EB-2. The EB-2 for both these countries is retrogressed, and more so with India which according to the February 2023 State Department Visa Bulletin, the Final Action Date is October 8, 2011. Still, even if an Indian born EB-2 beneficiary obtains the NIW they will not be bound to any employer to file a new labor certification,  and can remain in H-1B status from employer to employer until their Final Action Date becomes current.  Another advantage of the NIW under EB-2 is that dependent spouses in H-4 status can receive work authorization once the I-140 on behalf of a principal beneficiary is approved and the dates for the country remain retrogressed. Currently the EB-2 is retrogressed worldwide at November 1, 2022. Therefore, in addition to H-4 spouses of India born beneficiaries of I-140 petitions, all H-4 spouses would be entitled to work authorization once the I-140 under the NIW is approved. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv).   Given that there is now premium processing, the speed with which an H-4 spouse can obtain an EAD through the NIW than through the traditional employer sponsored labor certification process is significant.

Although the USCIS has broadened the evidentiary criteria for NIW petitions, it is still important to demonstrate that the national interest of the US will be advanced under the standards set forth in Matter of Dhanasar.  As the EB-1 has become muddied with the need to satisfy the final merits determination, the NIW may be easier to win under the expanded guidance for individuals in STEM and entrepreneurs and may be worth considering if one is born in a country other than India. However, even for those born in India, the NIW may have a significant benefit as it would allow the H-4 spouse to get employment authorization more rapidly.

(This blog is for informational purposes, and should not be relied up as a substitute for legal advice)

*Jessica Paszko is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta &  Partners PLLC. She graduated with a J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Tension Between State Wage Transparency Laws and Labor Certification Recruitment

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

In the past year, several states and jurisdictions across the U.S. have begun enacting wage transparency laws, and others are poised to go into effect in the new future. Aimed at increasing wage transparency for job seekers, these laws typically require that job postings disclose the salary that the employer plans to offer applicants. Colorado’s law went into effect on January 1, 2021, and requires employers with at least one employee in Colorado to list the applicable hourly wage or salary for the position. New York City’s law went into effect on November 1, 2022, and requires employers with 4 or more employees, at least 1 of which is located in New York City, to disclose wage information in job advertisements. Washington State and California have enacted wage transparency laws effective January 1, 2023, with both applying only to employers with 15 or more employees. Other jurisdictions are considering implementing similar legislation in future. Interestingly, some wage transparency laws could be interpreted to apply even to remote positions that could be performed from one of the impacted jurisdictions, even if the employer does not currently have a presence in that state. Penalties in New York, for example, can require offending employer to “pay monetary damages to affected employees, amend advertisements and postings, create or update policies, conduct training, provide notices of rights to employees or applicants, and engage in other forms of affirmative relief”, although the city will not assess a penalty on first time offenders who correct the violation within 30 days of receiving notice. Civil penalties of $250,000 per violation can be assessed on repeat offenders. Although Colorado indicated that it would not enforce its wage transparency law against PERM recruitment, it has not formalized this guidance in writing, and other jurisdictions have not offered similar assurances

In the permanent labor certification (PERM) context, these laws present a host of new issues for employers to consider. The PERM regulations 20 CFR §656.17 and 20 CFR §656.18 require only the Notice of Filing (NOF) to list the wage or wage range offered for the position, but employers may now find that they are required to disclose a salary range on newspaper and website advertisements that would typically not have included this information. Although Colorado indicated that it would not enforce its wage transparency law against PERM recruitment, other jurisdictions have not offered similar assurances. See AILA Doc. No. 21040231. Interestingly, some jurisdictions’ wage transparency laws may apply to advertisements for remote positions that could be performed from that location, even if the employer otherwise has no presence or current employees in the jurisdiction.

Further complications arise when an employer wishes to list a salary range in its PERM recruitment in order to comply with a state or local wage transparency law, and the lower end of that falls below the prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor (DOL) or if the wage range in the advertisement materials does not conform with the wage stated in the Notice of Filing. This scenario may be compliant with the relevant wage transparency law, but it could create issues in the PERM context. As yet, the DOL has not issued any guidance on the interaction between wage transparency laws and PERM regulations, and the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has not directly addressed this issue. In the meantime, analyzing how the DOL has viewed wage ranges that partially fell below the prevailing wage can provide helpful guidance.

As mentioned above, the PERM regulations do not require recruitment to list a salary at all, with the exception of the NOF. 20 CFR § 656.10(d)(4) states: “If an application is filed under § 656.17, the notice must contain the information required for advertisements by § 656.17(f), must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form), and must contain the information required by paragraph (d)(3) of this section”. Employers who do list a wage or wage range in advertisements in newspapers or professional journals are required to ensure that these advertisements do “[n]ot contain a wage rate lower than the prevailing wage rate” pursuant to 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(5). Furthermore, 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(7) states that that advertisement shall “not contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien.”

If a wage range is indicated in the advertisements, it is important that the Notice of Filing (NOF) also contains the same wage range. BALCA has held that employers violate 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(7) if the NOF contains a wage lower than the wage offered the foreign worker. In Gallup McKinley County Public Schools, 2016-PER-00646 (BALCA April 16, 2021), the wage range offered to a Middle School Teacher was $50,273 to $57,402. The NOF identified the wage as $52,000 per year. The BALCA upheld the Certifying Officer’s denial since the wage range suggested that the foreign national employee would be paid a wage up to $57,402 and higher than the wage indicated in in the NOF. BALCA reasoned that because the NOF stated a wage lower than the highest wage in the wage range, the “NOF did not disclose that opportunity to the Employer’s other workers or other interested persons who may have viewed the NOF.”

The employer cited a pre-PERM case University of North Carolina, 1990-INA-00422 (June 9, 1992) establishing that 20 CFR § 656.17(f) was satisfied if the wage offered is no less than the wage offered at the time of the foreign worker’s initial hire. In University of North Carolina, the university indicated a salary of $23,100 in all of its advertisements for a research associate position, which exceeded the prevailing wage determination and reflected the noncitizen’s salary at the time. By the time the PERM application itself was filed, though, the noncitizen’s salary had risen to $30,000. BALCA overturned the denial of the PERM application, reasoning that 20 CFR § 656.21(g)(8) requires the employer to advertise a wage that is no less than what the noncitizen was offered at the time of their initial hire, not the offered salary at the time the PERM application is filed. However, in Gallup KcKinley, BALCA held that subsequent panels have rejected the reasoning in University of North Carolina as US workers could potentially pass on the job opportunity because of the difference in the lower wage in the advertisement and the higher wage privately offered to the noncitizen. See, e.g., Sensus Metering Systems, 2010-PER-00849 (July 20, 2011). In Sensus Metering Systems, the employer listed a higher offered wage on the ETA 9089 than the NOF, and the employee had only gained about 7 months of additional experience with the employer since the position was advertised, rather than 3-5 years as in University of North Carolina. BALCA has also upheld denials of PERM applications where the lower end of a wage range as listed in the advertisements fell below the salary offered to the noncitizen on the ETA 9089. See Om Shri Ganesh, LLC, 2016-PER-00024 (July 28, 2016); Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr., 2009-PER-00472 (June 29, 2010); Lakeview Farms, 2011-PER-01679 (Sept. 4, 2014); Charles E. Churchwell, 2012-PER-01662 (Mar. 2, 2016). Sensus Metering Systems and its progeny illustrate the importance of ensuring that a consistent offered wage range is listed across the NOF, advertisements, and the PERM application itself.

In cases where recruitment has inadvertently included a salary range that fell below the prevailing wage, there have been a few decisions where BALCA has been relatively forgiving. In Re IAC Search & Media, Inc., BALCA Case No.: 2011-PER-00845 (May 2, 2012), for example, involved an employer who inadvertently listed a salary lower than the prevailing wage in the ETA Form 9089 and in a website advertisement. BALCA held that employer had actually offered a salary that exceeded the prevailing wage, so the typographical error was not grounds for denial of the PERM. Similarly, in Nancy Adelman, 2011-PER-02464 (BALCA 2011), BALCA overturned a denial of a PERM application on the grounds that the “prevailing wage rate and validity period listed in Section F of the Employer’s ETA Form 9089 did not match the information contained in the PWD submitted by the [e]mployer” as part of an audit response. BALCA held that a labor certification cannot be denied due to a typographical error unless the result is a violation of the PERM regulations, and no violation had occurred here since the offered wage had actually exceeded the prevailing wage. However, in Marcel Cleaners, Inc., 2009-PER-00395 (BALCA February 2010), BALCA affirmed the denial of a labor certification when the job order listed a wage range, the lower end of which was less than the prevailing wage. BALCA reasoned that 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(5) expressly specifies that advertisements placed in newspapers and professional journals must not contain a wage rate lower than the prevailing wage.

Finally, employers must also be careful about State Workforce Agency job orders whose algorithms may require a different formulation of the wage. Thus, a wage range of $0-$70,000 (depending on experience) will not be in compliance with the regulation. This issue also came up in Gallup McKinley County Public Schools, although BALCA focused its denial on the discrepancy between the wage range in the advertisement and in the single wage indicated in the NOF.  Practitioners can take some comfort in  A Cut Above Ceramic Tile, 2010-PER-00224 (Mar. 8, 2012) where BALCA held that based on the history of the PERM regulations and the plain language of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(2)(i), proof of publication of the State Workforce Agency (“SWA”) job order is not required supporting documentation in the event of a DOL audit of the labor certification application.

Wage ranges in labor certification recruitment always add more complexity and risk to an already hyper technical process.   The DOL will likely continue to deny labor certification if there are discrepancies, such as when the salary range falls below the prevailing wage at the lower end (notwithstanding some BALCA decisions going the other way) or if the wage range stated in the advertisements is different from the wage reflected in the NOF. The DOL has said that employers must comply with PERM rules. If employers need to comply with local wage transparency laws it would be prudent for the employer to comply with those laws too during labor certification recruitment but DOL is not concerned about what employers must do under local laws. Employers need to now tread even more carefully when they are compelled to state a wage range under state transparency laws taking into account all the relevant considerations regarding wage ranges established under DOL rules and BALCA decisions.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice).

*Kaitlyn Box is a Senior Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Helping Afghans and Ukrainians Progress from Parole to Temporary Protected Status to Permanent Residence

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

In light of the recent crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has been at the forefront of discussions around how the United States can assist individuals who are fleeing these two countries. On March 3, 2022, Ukraine was designated for TPS for an 18 month period. On March 16, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security also announced the designation of Afghanistan for TPS for a period of 18 months.

Generally, TPS provides a temporary immigration status to nationals of countries fraught with armed conflict or other disasters. In order to be eligible for TPS, an individual must be a national of a country designated for TPS, have been continuously present in the U.S. since the date of the designation, have continuously resided in the U.S. since a date specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and not be inadmissible to the United States. In the case of Ukraine, the requirement that applicants must have continuously resided in the United States since April 11, 2022 will render many  Ukrainian nationals ineligible for TPS, as many individuals fleeing the war would not have arrived in the United States by that date. Individuals who are granted TPS receive a stay of deportation and temporary authorization to work in the United States.

The Uniting for Ukraine program that would allow Ukrainians to enter the US under humanitarian parole was announced on April 21, 2022. Thus, those who will get paroled into the US under Uniting for Ukraine will not be eligible for TPS.  However, several thousand Ukrainians who came to Mexico  after the Russian invasion in February 20, 2022 and got paroled into the US from the Southern border prior to April 11, 2022 will be eligible for TPS.

On the other hand, Afghans have been applying for  humanitarian parole prior to and  after the US withdrew from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021. A recent New York Times report states that of the 43,000 humanitarian parole applications received by USCIS since July 2021, the agency has processed less than 2,000. Of those processed applications, 1,500 were denied and 170 were approved as of February 11, 2022. While the humanitarian parole program for Afghans has been a disappointment, those who have been paroled into the US already prior to March 16, 2022 can apply for TPS.

Though it provides an important temporary form of relief for some nationals of countries experiencing a crisis, TPS is, by its very nature, temporary and does not provide foreign nationals with a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship in the United States. Thus, one must look for other alternatives for individuals who wish to seek permanent residence in the United States. Foreign nationals who have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative may be able to file a family-based adjustment of status application, but some family preference categories are extremely backlogged. Skilled TPS recipients who can find a U.S. employer to sponsor them may instead be eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application. There are no backlogs for most TPS-designated countries, and spouses and minor children of the primary applicant may also file adjustment of status applications. In addition, foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics may be eligible for an employment-based, first-preference visa, which does not require employer sponsorship or a Labor Certification.

However, complications arise when a TPS recipient who entered the U.S. without inspection wishes to apply for permanent residence. Pursuant to INA § 245(a), an individual must have been inspected and admitted  or paroled into the United States in order to be eligible to apply for adjustment of status. A foreign national who was inspected and paroled into the United States would be eligible for adjustment of status, but an individual who entered without inspection would not. In a previous blog, we analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas, which holds that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not constitute an admission under INA § 245(a) for purposes of adjustment of status. However, the decision seems to leave open whether a grant of TPS could “cure” a short lapse in the status of an individual who was inspected and admitted to the U.S., but later fell out of status. In her opinion, Justice Kagan gives the example of an individual who was out of status for a few months before receiving TPS, potentially implying that receiving TPS ends an individual’s time out of status, if this duration would otherwise have exceeded 180 days and rendered the individual unable to adjust under INA § 245(k). Additionally, the decision could imply that a grant of TPS could qualify as a “lawful nonimmigrant status”, which could assist individuals who would otherwise have been ineligible to file and adjustment of status application under INA § 245(c)(7).

While TPS is no doubt an important tool for aiding individuals who have fled Ukraine or Afghanistan, not all nationals of these countries will be eligible and a grant of TPS does not provide a path to permanent residence in the U.S. Thus, some TPS recipients, or individuals from TPS-designated countries who are ineligible, may be able to utilize employment-based immigrant visa petitions as a path to permanent residence.  Thus, one who was initially paroled into the US and then was granted TPS would be able to apply for adjustment of status if he or she became the beneficiary of an employment based I-140 petition after an employer obtained labor certification. The parole would fulfill the requirement  under INA 245(a) that the applicant have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the US. The subsequent grant of TPS would then confer “lawful nonimmigrant status” to that applicant and thus render him or her eligible for adjustment of status under INA §245(c)(7).  However, TPS recipients who entered without inspection will be ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. For individuals who were inspected and admitted to the U.S., though, but later had a lapse in status, a grant of TPS could render them again eligible for permanent residence.

There will be large numbers who will enter the US on humanitarian parole under Uniting for Ukraine but will not be eligible to receive TPS as they would have entered the US well after the cut off date of April 11, 2022. If a parolee is sponsored by an employer through labor certification, he or she will not be eligible for adjustment of status as parole is not considered a lawful nonimmigrant status under INA  § 245(c)(7).  This person will have to process at a US Consulate overseas after the I-140 petition is approved. Fortunately, Ukrainian nationals can have their cases processed at the US Consulate in Frankfurt rather than in Kiev. On the other hand, a parolee would still be able to adjust status under 245(a) as an immediate relative. Similarly, a parolee who becomes the beneficiary of an I-130 petition under a family preference category will also be able to adjust status as the requirement to be in “lawful nonimmigrant status” under 245(c)(7) only applies to beneficiaries of employment-based petitions and not family-based petitions. Indeed, one in parole status would be considered  to be in a lawful status under 8 CFR 245.1 (d)(1)(v) for purposes of adjusting status under a family-based petition but not an employment-based petition.

There are pathways for people who have been paroled to become permanent residents, and even more  pathways for those who have subsequently received TPS. Given the low unemployment rate and shortage of workers in the US, employers should look to not just be hiring Ukrainians and Afghans as parolees or in TPS status, but must also endeavor to sponsor people with parole and TPS for permanent residence through a labor certification, an I-140 petition and the filing of an I-485 adjustment of status application. Those who may not be eligible for adjustment of status because they are parolees can still proceed to a US Consulate for an immigrant visa following the approval of the I-140 petition.

The sponsoring of  workers based on their true worth skills would allow them to pursue better jobs and careers. Presently, people on TPS or parole may have employment authorization, but many are in jobs that may not match their skills. How many times has one been driven by a taxi driver who was a doctor or engineer in their own country or received groceries from a delivery person who may have previously been an accountant?   An employer who commits to hiring and then sponsoring a foreign national worker on parole or TPS based on their real skills creates a win-win situation for both.

(This blog is for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice).

*Kaitlyn Box graduated with a JD from Penn State Law in 2020, and is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Florida Detox Centers Provides Further Guidance on Resume Review in Labor Certification Recruitment

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta & Jessica Paszko*

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), U.S. employers wishing to sponsor a foreign worker for employment and permanent residence must first prove to the Department of Labor (“DOL”) that there are no sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the prospective job and that hiring the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed. INA § 212(a)(5)(A)(i).

Before employers can file an Application for Permanent Employment Certification, or Form 9089, sponsoring a foreign worker, they must conduct a good faith recruitment effort and ascertain whether there are U.S. workers available for the job. Employers may only reject applicants for lawful, job related reasons in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(9), such as when an applicant is not qualified for the job opportunity. However, the regulations also provide that a U.S. worker is able and qualified for the job opportunity if the worker can acquire the skills necessary to perform the duties involved in the occupation during a reasonable period of on-the-job training. 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(e)(4). Therefore, an employer may lawfully reject a U.S. worker for being unqualified, only if the employer determines that a U.S. applicant does not meet the requirements listed on Form 9089 and the U.S. applicant could not acquire the skills during a reasonable period of on-the-job training.

Previous decisions by the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) have indicated that where an applicant’s resume shows a broad range of experience, education, and training that raises a reasonable possibility that the applicant is qualified, even if the resume does not expressly state that the applicant meets all the requirements, the employer bears the burden of further investigating the applicant’s credentials. See Blessed Sacrament School, 96-INA-52, slip op. at 3 (Oct. 29, 1997); Matter of Goldman Sachs & Co., 2011-PER-01064 (June 8, 2012). These decisions discussed in a previous blog put pressure on employers to interview U.S. applicants, no matter how convinced they may have been that the applicants were unqualified for the position based on their resumes, or else risk a denial of the foreign worker’s labor certification. However, a recent BALCA decision, Florida Detox Centers, 2017-PER-00236 (Aug. 24, 2021), may offer some leeway to employers by allowing them to reject applicants on the basis of their resumes.

In Florida Detox Centers, the employer sought to employ an “Operations Analyst” with “two years of experience in the job offered,” and having found no such U.S. worker, filed Form 9089 sponsoring a foreign worker for the position. The employer was subjected to supervised recruitment by the DOL. In its recruitment report, the employer stated that it received 240 applications for the job opportunity, interviewed 20 applicants it found to be potentially qualified and rejected 220 applicants because they did not possess the minimum of two years of experience based on the face of their resumes. The DOL denied labor certification, finding that the employer rejected a potentially qualified U.S. applicant without an interview even though there was a reasonable possibility that the applicant met the requirements of the job opportunity.  The applicant’s resume clearly indicated that the applicant lacked the required two years of experience in the job offered. Nonetheless, the DOL argued that the employer did not meet its burden by failing to investigate the applicant further and conducting an interview. The DOL pointed to the applicant’s resume which indicated experience similar to the job duties described on Form 9089 as well as the applicant’s four years of experience in the Operations Analyst/Strategic Sourcing Coordinator industry.

In the matter before the BALCA, the employer, on reconsideration, thoroughly expanded on its reasons for rejecting the applicant and detailed why the applicant was unqualified for the job opportunity such that an interview or further inquiry was unnecessary. The employer argued that it was not able or willing to accept less than two years of experience, as stated on Form 9089, nor should it have been required to do so, given the high specific vocational preparation level (“SVP”) of 8 assigned by the DOL for the occupation of Operations Analyst under O*Net Code 13-1111. An SVP of 8 generally requires between four and ten years of education, training, and/or experience, but the employer was only requiring two years of experience in the job offered. The employer compared each duty identified in the Form 9089 to the applicant’s resume and determined that the applicant only had experience in 25% of the job duties described in the form. The employer also stated that the applicant lacked any experience in three important job duties described in the form. According to the employer, it was “unrealistic to . . . consider an applicant completely lacking experience in nearly 40% of the job duties,” especially given the employer’s requirement of a minimum of two years of experience in each job duty. The employer claimed not to have a duty to investigate the applicant further given the level of detail in the applicant’s resume which allowed it to readily determine that the applicant’s experience was not similar or relevant to the job opportunity.

The BALCA was satisfied with the employer’s explanation for rejecting the applicant and that the employer, in the selection process, concluded that based on the applicant’s resume and its business operations and staffing, that the applicant possessed two years of experience in only 25% of the job duties, and that for the remaining 75% of the job duties, the applicant would require a full two years of training in 40% of the job duties, and more than the normal six months of training in the remaining 55% of the job duties. The BALCA found that the employer’s explanation, which the employer substantiated by detailing the specific period of time that training would take, sufficiently demonstrated that the applicant could not acquire the necessary experience through a reasonable period of on-the-job training. The BALCA accepted the employer’s argument that it should not be required to offer more than 6 months of on-the-job training for an Operations Analyst assigned an SVP level of 8 because the additional training “would severely jeopardize the operational and financial well-being of the business, particularly when the specific purpose of [the job opportunity] is to improve and maximize efficient and effective operations” of the business.

While the BALCA’s conclusion appears helpful to employers, it should not be taken to mean that all employers can avoid a labor certification denial by relying on the argument that necessary job experience cannot be acquired through a reasonable period of on-the-job training. Indeed, in a 2012 decision, Kennametal Inc., 2010-PER-01512 (Mar. 27, 2012), the BALCA found that the employer rejected a number of applicants for other than lawful, job-related reasons. There, the employer did not merely reject applicants based on their resumes alone but rather interviewed them and only after the interview determined that they did not possess the requisite qualifications, namely knowledge in Unigraphics and heat transfer and fluid dynamics. According to the BALCA, the employer’s argument that training unqualified employees in using Unigraphics and learning heat transfer and fluid dynamics would involve a substantial and unreasonable amount of training was “not acceptable.” Apparently, the employer had not met its burden in establishing that it was not feasible to train a U.S. worker. The employer’s failure to substantiate its claims that the applicants would only be qualified if they already possessed these skills and failure to give the specific time that training would take proved fatal to its application.

While Florida Detox Centers may offer a reprieve from the rather harsh ruling of Matter of Goldman Sachs & Co. by allowing employers to reject unqualified candidates on the basis of their resumes alone, employers must detail the specific period of time that training the applicant would take and explain why the applicant could not acquire the necessary experience through on-the-job training. However, coupled with Kennametal Inc., it is clear that what the DOL or the BALCA really care about is that employers investigate how long training an unqualified applicant would take. In Florida Detox Centers, the employer clearly required that an applicant possess two years of experience in a number of job requirements and thus an unqualified applicant could only acquire that experience in two years’ time. Whereas in Kennametal Inc., the employer wholly failed to consider that training unqualified applicants in two specific job duties could take six months, or a reasonable period of time. Indeed, had the employer in Kennametal Inc., determined that such training would take much longer, the BALCA may have decided differently. In JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2011-PER-01000 (Jul. 16., 2012), the employer too won based on a resume review alone when the resumes did not indicate that the applicants met the employer’s requirement, which was “Proficiency in Excel or Access,. . .understanding of databases (Lotus Notes and SharePoint), must have experience liaising with a technology team to develop/update product enhancement tool, databases and work flow engines . . . .” The key issue for the BALCA was whether or not the employer’s stated minimum requirements were established as a business necessity. Note that in Florida Detox Centers, on the other hand, the employer did not ask for any specific requirements which it could establish through business necessity and instead simply required two years of experience in the duties of the offered position. The BALCA in JP Morgan Chase stated that the employer had submitted a business necessity explanation in its recruitment report detailing why it requires an understanding of Lotus Notes and SharePoint and why job training was not feasible; the DOL did not contend that these requirements were unduly restrictive; and the resumes of the U.S. worker applicants showed that they did not have the required skills. Based on this, the BALCA held that the DOL cannot dismiss the employer’s stated requirements and substitute its judgment for the employer’s.

Therefore, while employers may survive a labor certification denial even where they fail to interview potentially qualified applicants, they must provide details of why the applicant did not meet the duties or requirements of the position based on a review of the resume as well as detail the specific period of time that training the applicants would take. A bare assertion that it is not feasible to train a U.S. worker will not be accepted.

[This blog is for informational purposes and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice]

*Jessica Paszko is a Law Clerk at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC. She graduated with a J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2021, passed the New York Bar Examination and is awaiting admission to the New York Bar.