Tag Archive for: Labor Certification

Cyrus Mehta

The Facebook Settlement Resolving Claims of Discrimination Against U.S. Workers Only Adds to the Contradictions in the Labor Certification Program

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On October 19, 2021, the U.S. DOJ and DOL announced that they had reached separate settlement agreements with Facebook regarding the company’s purportedly discriminatory PERM labor certification practices. These settlement agreements stem from a December 2020 DOJ complaint, in which the government alleged that Facebook had discriminated against qualified and available U.S. workers by “refus[ing] to recruit, consider, or hire” them for over 2,600 positions, which were tied to labor certifications filed on behalf of foreign national workers. Interestingly, Facebook was not accused of violating DOL rules, which require merely that employers test the labor market and discontinue the labor certification process if a qualified U.S. worker is found, but do not mandate that the company actually hire the U.S. worker or terminate the foreign national who currently holds the position pursuant to H-1B status. Instead, Facebook was charged with discriminatory practices under INA § 274B(a)(1), despite adhering to the DOL’s rules for recruitment.

In particular, the complaint alleged that “in conducting recruitment, employers must also engage in a good faith search that closely resembles the employer’s normal recruiting process”, citing Matter of Am. Specialty Pharmacy, 2016-PER-00016, 2019 WL 2910815 (BALCA 2019). The complaint accused Facebook of designing recruitment practices specifically intended to deter US workers from applying for the relevant positions, a policy which discriminated against U.S. workers in violation of INA § 274B(a)(1)(A). At issue in particular were Facebook’s use of different recruitment methods for PERM labor certifications than those employed for regular positions, such as requiring resumes to be sent by postal mail for advertisements related to labor certifications while accepting resumes by email for other open positions. In a previous blog, we discuss in greater depth the context of the complaint and its contradictions with actual DOL recruitment rules.

Although Facebook will pay a civil penalty of $4.75 million to the United States and up to $9.5 million to workers impacted by its practices, a sum that is likely small change to one of the largest companies in the world, the settlement carries more worrying implications for smaller companies that lack Facebook’s resources. The complaint against Facebook emphasizes that employers must make “good faith” recruitment efforts, but paradoxically implies that it may not be sufficient for companies to follow the DOL regulations, particularly where an employer’s PERM recruitment differs from the way it advertises regular job openings. DOL regulations are largely outdated and require employers to carry out recruitment practices, such as placing print advertisements in two Sunday newspapers, that are out of touch with modern employment practices. In addition to conforming their recruitment practices to the specific and anachronistic methods prescribed by the regulations, the Facebook complaint implies that employers must conduct PERM recruitment that mirrors their regular recruitment, requirements which may be near impossible to reconcile. Among the grievances leveled against Facebook were its failure to hire qualified U.S. workers who applied for PERM-related positions and its rejection of free online advertisements when it had purchased print versions, neither of which are prohibited by the regulations.

Even if an employer mirrors its real world recruitment with its labor certification recruitment,   it will still be vulnerable to a citizenship discrimination claim by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) because labor certification recruitment inherently requires a good faith test of the labor market, and not to hire US workers and replace the foreign national worker,  before the labor certification can be filed and certified by the DOL. If the employer hires the US worker, the labor certification may be denied. Even if the employer hires this minimally qualified US worker, and files the labor certification on behalf of the foreign worker, the employer may be found to be in violation as a result of “diversion.” The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has held that a US applicant cannot be diverted to another position, even a more senior position. See Engineering Technology, Inc.,89-INA-10 (BALCA 1990), Sam’s Exxon, 91-INA-362 (BALCA 1992). BALCA has found “diversion” even when the U.S. worker was hired for the same position as the foreign national worker where the employer was unable to establish multiple openings. Aloha Airlines, 91-INA-181 (BALCA 1992).

As part of the settlement,  Facebook is required to consider applicants who apply for PERM positions on Facebook’s Career website. Furthermore, the settlement requires the entry into “Facebook’s recruiting system (“FBR”) all applicants to all PERM related positions who apply via Facebook’s Careers website, enabling such applicants to be searchable and remain searchable in the same manner as applicants to non-PERM related positions at Facebook, and allowing Facebook’s recruiting team to identify, consider, and/or hire such applicants for Facebook job opportunities, including but not limited to ones in the same job profile group as the PERM-related position to which they previously applied. “It is hoped that if applicants for PERM positions are hired for other positions, the DOL does not deny the labor certification under its antiquated “diversion” doctrine.

These conflicting requirements may well prompt some employers to stop sponsoring foreign national workers for permanent residence. The penalty paid by Facebook would be ruinous to smaller employers and may deter them from even wading into the PERM domain. Further adding to the deterrent effect, Facebook faced not only a monetary penalty, but will also be forced to conduct supervised recruitment in future and will be subject to increased scrutiny even of its H-1B program. The latter penalty may be particularly off putting to companies who employ a large H-1B workforce.

Skilled foreign national workers already face several limitations in the US immigration system. There is a paucity of H-1B visas every year. The annual cap is set at a paltry 65,000 plus an additional 20,000 for those who have graduated with advanced degrees from US institutions of higher education. Skilled foreign national workers born in countries such as India and China also face disproportionate backlogs when they are sponsored for permanent residence due to the per country limits. The latest action against Facebook would now provide a disincentive for employers to file labor certifications. This would impact those caught in the backlogs who wish to change employers and obtain new labor certifications but retain their place in the queue by capturing the original priority date

The safest course for employers to pursue in light of the Facebook settlement may be to hew as closely as possible to their non-PERM recruitment practices when conducting PERM recruitment, within the dictates of the DOL regulations. If the employer normally accepts resumes by email, they should not require that applicants for PERM related positions send their resumes only by postal mail. When regular positions are advertised online, 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, the employer must comply with the DOL regulation of advertising in two Sunday print newspapers even though they do not normally advertise in print for their normal recruitment.

Although the labor certification process requires an employer to conduct a “good faith” test of the US labor market to determine whether US workers are qualified or available for the position held by the foreign national, the very notion of “good faith” seems oddly out of place when used with reference to a recruitment effort that achieves its desired objective by failing to locate any qualified job applicants. Only in the labor certification world do you win by losing.  The real solution, though, would be for Congress or the Biden administration to amend the regulations to comport with real, modern recruitment practices, ensuring that employers will not be tripped up by the contradiction between the “good faith” recruitment suggested by the Facebook complaint and the antiquated practices laid out in the DOL rules.

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

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

 

Cyrus Mehta

No Longer in Use: How Changes in SOC Systems Affect Employment-based Immigration

/0 Comments/in /by

Cyrus D. Mehta and Isabel Rajabzadeh*

The Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) is a federal statistical standard used by federal agencies to classify workers into occupational categories. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) coordinates the Federal statistical system, including the SOC. The SOC Policy Committee assists the OMB in the SOC revision process, and is comprised of Federal agencies including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. Most notably, SOC codes are used to categorize nonimmigrant and immigrant workers on the Permanent Employment Certification (“PERM” or Form ETA 9089, used to file most I-140s),  the Labor Condition Application (“LCA”, necessary to file H-1Bs and other visas) and the ETA 9142B for H-2B workers. The SOC system was created in order to facilitate job classification. It therefore collects occupational data and enables comparison of occupations across data sets.

In assigning the correct SOC code for employment-based petitions, one must compare the proffered position’s job duties and its requirements against the system. In addition, the requirement to pay prevailing wages as a minimum salary is mandatory for some employment-based visas. In order to determine the prevailing wage of a geographic area, one must look up the SOC code in the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library (“OWL”) which is run by the U.S. Department of Labor.

According to the Department of Labor, the SOC serves as the framework for information being gathered through the Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The O*NET database includes detailed information on tasks, skills, tools used, credentials, and other information associated with the occupations. Much like the OWL, the information found on O*NET is listed by the occupation’s SOC codes.

Many may not realize the SOC codes exist, however, its use is integral to some employment-based visas and therefore, can result in a denial if not used properly. These codes are based on statistics, however, what happens when the system is updated? The SOC has been revised four times: 1980, 2000, and then again ten years later in 2010. The most recent update is the 2018 SOC system, which was deemed to be a “multi-year process” by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In November 2020, the O*NET 25.1 Database incorporated the O*NET-SOC 2019 Taxonomy, which aligned with the 2018 SOC system. It stated, “updates and added new and emerging occupations ensure that the O*NET-SOC taxonomy not only represents the SOC structure, but reflects changes occurring in the world of work due to advancing technologies, innovative business practices, and the new organization of work.” However, the OWL still has not caught up with all of the SOC codes listed in the 2018 SOC system. Although the OWL states it integrated O*NET 25.3 on July 1, 2021, (which is later than version 25.1) it still does not reflect all of the changed SOC codes in the 2018 SOC system.

The Problem

In an effort to transition between the different SOC systems and SOC codes, “crosswalks” were developed to portray the changes of that year’s update. The crosswalks show which SOC code was replaced by a different title and/or SOC code number. The crosswalk from the 2000 SOC to the 2010 SOC can be found here. The crosswalk from the 2010 SOC to the 2018 SOC can be found here. As stated above, the OWL fails to keep up with the changes in the SOC codes. This causes huge discrepancies. Although not always detrimental to a case, it may cause unnecessary delays such a Request For Evidence (“RFE”).

For instance, “15-1031, Computer Software Engineers, Applications” is no longer in use and it was replaced by “15-1132 Software Developers, Applications” in the 2010 SOC system. Then, the 2018 SOC system changed the SOC code again to, “15-1252, Software Developers.” But what happens when a PERM was filed in 2011 which used the SOC code based on the 2010 SOC system? Then, 10 years later, the foreign national wants to downgrade their I-140 to take advantage of EB-3 priority dates? Which SOC code should be used on the I-140 form? Use of the 15-1031 SOC code would patch the previously filed PERM, however, it is no longer in use so that may raise flags. Use of the new SOC code may be effective, however, it may trigger a Request for Evidence. Even if there is an RFE, it could be overcome by explaining that 15-1132 (Software Developers, Applications) has replaced 15-1031 (Computer Software Engineers), which in turn has most recently been replaced by 15-1252 (Software Developers).

Not only are immigrant visas affected by this but the H-1B system also relies heavily on SOC codes. What happens when an SOC code like 15-1132 is used on an LCA because the new SOC code 15-1252 is not reflected in the OWL and thus, one cannot reference the most relevant information to determine the position? Although usage of the “older” SOC codes on LCAs seem to be permitted by the USCIS, there is significantly less detailed information on the OWL for each SOC code than O*NET. While the O*NET provides detailed explanations for each SOC code based on the 2018 SOC System, we are left using the 2010 SOC system to determine prevailing wage information. In responding to specialty occupation RFE’s, this system forces individuals to not only argue the specialized nature of the position, but that the O*NET also sees it as a specialty occupation in order to strengthen the argument. In some cases, this requires one to dig into the O*NET archives to find the older 2010 SOCs.

In an occupation like technology it is understandable that SOC codes require changes. However, the impact of these changes on petitions filed by employers for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications are not formally addressed, and therefore, require us to connect the SOC code dots.

Finally, it should be noted that the Office of Foreign Labor Certification Data Center (“OFLC) has delayed the implementation of the 2018 SOCs to July 1, 2022. While O*NET has updated its system to the 2018 SOCs, the 2010 SOCs are archived in O*NET. Stakeholders can only use the 2010 SOCs until July 1, 2022, when the OFLC makes them go live in the Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG), OWL, and in the PERM portal.

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

* Isabel Rajabzadeh is an Associate at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC and is admitted to practice law in New York.

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

Recent BALCA Cases Highlight the Importance of Choosing the Right Sunday Newspaper

/0 Comments/in /by

In June 2019, the Board of Alien Labor Certifications Appeals (BALCA) issued at least ten decisions that addressed the employers’ choice of Sunday newspaper in the PERM labor certification recruitment process. So maybe they wanted to make a point? Let’s discuss.

As background, an employer must conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. The PERM recruitment process, whether for a professional or a nonprofessional position, requires employers to place two Sunday advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation. As PERM practitioners, having read the regulations, how confident are we on advising employers regarding which newspaper to use for Sunday ads? Some New York practitioners say that they always advise employers to use the New York Times. Others say they’ve successfully used the Daily News but have felt scared each time. What about the New York Post?  Over the years the question just keeps coming up. The Department of Labor (DOL) has not provided any specific guidance. One FAQ contains the following question and answer:

Question:         What is considered an acceptable newspaper and/or acceptable journal and is there a published list?

Answer:            There is no published list of acceptable publications.

Most employers, based on their normal recruiting efforts, will be able to readily identify those newspapers…that are most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified and available U.S. workers.

I am not sure if the newspapers are as readily identifiable as the DOL expects.

For nonprofessional positions, 20 C.F.R. 656.17(e)(2)(ii) requires that the employer place “an advertisement on two different Sundays in the newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity.” For professional occupations, there is the added requirement that the newspaper be “most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers.” See 20 C.F.R. 656.17(e)(1)(i)(B)(I). A nonprofessional occupation is defined as any occupation for which the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree is not a usual requirement for the occupation. A professional occupation is an occupation for which the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree is a usual education requirement. See 20 C.F.R. 656.3.

The ten recent BALCA decisions each involved the posting of Sunday ads in the Washington Examiner which was a free newspaper of general circulation in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia (it no longer publishes a Sunday newspaper). Eight of the decisions involved nonprofessional positions and two involved professional positions. In Matter of Fernando Lawn Services, LLC, 212-PER-01989 (Jun 6, 2019) the employer recruited for the position of Assistant Manager which required 2 years of experience as an assistant manager and a high school diploma. The CO denied the application on the sole ground that the Washington Examiner was “not a newspaper of general circulation most likely to bring responses from available U.S. workers.”  As authority, the CO cited 20 C.F.R. 656.17(e)(1)(i)(B)(l) which relates to professional occupations. The employer requested reconsideration or review and argued that the job was nonprofessional; the Washington Examiner was a newspaper of general circulation in the intended area of employment and was most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers. However, the CO denied the motion for reconsideration on the same sole ground even though he cited the regulations relating to both professional and nonprofessional occupations thereby conflating the standards applicable to professional advertising with those applicable to nonprofessional positions.   The case was then forwarded to BALCA.

BALCA reexamined existing, inconsistent case law that involved the Washington Examiner. Capital Building Services, Inc., 2012-PER-01971 (Feb. 12, 2013) involved the position of Cleaning Supervisor. The job requirements were two years of experience and therefore the position was nonprofessional. The CO denied certification because the employer used the Washington Examiner as its newspaper of general circulation. The majority BALCA panel disagreed with the CO and ordered certification.  They distinguished the case from Intercontinental Enterprises, Inc., 2011-PER-02756 (July 30, 2012). In Intercontinental Enterprises, the CO denied certification, finding that the Washington Examiner was not the newspaper of general circulation most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity because it involved the professional position of Senior Food Technologist. The BALCA panel noted that the regulatory history of the regulations recognized a distinction between professional and nonprofessional occupations. Specifically, when the regulations were being promulgated, the Employment and Training Administration explained in the proposed rule:

Under the current system [i.e., the pre-PERM regulations], the employer may advertise, when a newspaper of general circulation is designated as the appropriate advertising medium, in any newspaper of general circulation. However, our experience has shown that some employers routinely place newspaper advertisements in those newspapers with the lowest circulation and that these publications are often the least likely to be read by qualified U.S. workers. Therefore, in order for the employer’s job opening to receive appropriate exposure, the proposed regulation requires that the mandatory advertisements appear in the newspaper of general circulation most appropriate to the occupation and the workers most likely to apply for the job opportunity in the area of intended employment. For example, in a relatively large metropolitan area such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or Washington, DC, it would not be appropriate to place an advertisement for a computer professional in a suburban newspaper of general circulation since workers interested in professional jobs consult the metropolitan newspapers in the area of intended employment with the largest circulation rather than the suburban newspapers of general circulation. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to advertise in a suburban newspaper of general circulation for nonprofessional occupations, such as jewelers, houseworkers or drivers.

ETA, Proposed Rule, Implementation of New System, Labor Certification Process for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States [“PERM”], 20 C.F.R. Part 656, 67 Fed. Reg. 30466, 30471 (May 6, 2002).

The Intercontinental Enterprises panel acknowledged that The Washington Examiner was not a mere suburban newspaper, but found that the employer failed to establish that it was the newspaper in the Washington, D.C. area most appropriate to the occupation in question and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity and most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers. Essentially, The Washington Examiner was not appropriate to recruit for professional positions.

The panel in Capital Building Services found that the case was distinguishable from Intercontinental Enterprises because it presented an application involving a nonprofessional position and thus, the persons likely to apply are different types of job seekers. However, in his dissent, then Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge Johnson agreed with the majority that The Washington Examiner is a newspaper of general circulation and that the regulatory history indicates that a suburban newspaper of general circulation would be appropriate for certain nonprofessional occupations. But he disagreed with majority panel’s implication, by way of their grant of certification, that an employer may base its newspaper selection on less than the best newspaper choice for the occupation and the area of intended employment.

Further, in Millenniumsoft, 2012-PER-00636 (Nov. 23, 2015), regarding the position of Programmer Analyst, BALCA found that the use of the Washington Examiner was not appropriate for professional positions under either Intercontinental or Capital Building. The panel questioned the majority’s statement in Capital Building that the publication was a good choice for nonprofessional positions, noting that the statement did not seem consistent with the employer’s obligation under the regulation to use the newspaper “most likely” to attract domestic applicants. The “most likely” provision applies only to professional positions but the language “most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity” appears in the criteria for both professional and nonprofessional positions. Several other BALCA panels go back and forth on finding the Washington Examiner to be either appropriate or inappropriate for recruitment for nonprofessional positions.

The panel in Fernando Lawn Services, after reviewing all the case law, agreed with the majority in Capital Building Services and held that the Washington Examiner is a newspaper of general circulation that may be a good choice for advertising certain types of jobs in the Washington, DC area; and the regulatory history indicates that a suburban newspaper of general circulation would be an appropriate choice for certain nonprofessional positions. BALCA held that an employer does not need to establish that its chosen newspaper is the best publication or has the greatest circulation where a nonprofessional occupation is involved. Rather, it must be established that it was “most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity.” Since the employer asserted that the Washington Examiner was most appropriate and the CO offered nothing to refute this and did not identify the newspaper in which the Sunday ads should have been placed and explain why that paper would have been a better choice, the CO erred in denying the application.

Of the remaining nine recent cases, BALCA found the Washington Examiner to be the appropriate for nonprofessional positions such as Pipelayer, Server, Maintenance Repairer, Mason, Mechanic, and Cook and called out the CO for applying the standard applicable to professional positions to labor certification applications for these positions. See Eastern Pool Co. Inc., 2012-PER-01849; Fil Parong, 2012-PER-01167; Mount Vernon country Club, Inc., 2012-PER-02764; Daco Construction Corporation, 2012-PER-03333 and 2012-PER-03539; City Concrete Corp., 212-PER-02516 and Nova Europa Restaurant, 212-PER-03442, all issued on June 6, 2019.

In Georgetown Hill Early School, 2012-PER-03334, the offered position was that of a Teaching Assistant and required a Bachelor’s degree. The CO denied the application upon concluding that the Washington Examiner was not appropriate for recruitment for a professional position. In the end, BALCA did not accept the employer argument that the publication was targeted at young urban professionals and commuters and was widely read by white collar professionals and stated that this is not the standard but rather, it must be the newspaper “most likely to bring responses from able, willing, qualified and available U.S. workers” under the criteria for professional occupations appearing in 20 C.F.R. 656.17(e)(1)(i)(B)(1). See also, Software Catalysts, LLC, 2012-PER-01899 (Jun, 6, 2019).

BALCA cases can often serve as a warning of what is to come. Could the DOL soon start to focus more of its attention on the Sunday paper? While these recent cases focus on one paper in one geographic area, they are very important to highlight the importance of careful consideration when deciding on a Sunday newspaper of general circulation especially in relatively large metropolitan areas such as New York where there may be several newspapers that qualify as a “newspaper of general circulation.” It may not suffice to use the New York Times for a nonprofessional position such as a Nanny if the New York Times is not the paper “most appropriate to the occupation and the workers likely to apply for the job opportunity.” An argument that the New York Times has the highest circulation may not be successful if it cannot be proven that an out of work Nanny would likely search for a job in the New York Times as opposed to other newspapers of general circulation such as the New York Post or Daily News. In several of the ten cases discussed above, the CO actually checked the classified sections on the newspaper tear sheets provided by the employer and observed that the Washington Examiner’s classified sections included “no more than 30 total job listings over two pages, while they included nine pages of legal notices.” As practitioners, we ought to pay close attention to the types of advertisements that appear in different newspapers so that we are prepared to demonstrate that the employer has chosen the correct newspaper and to be able refute potential assertions made by a Certifying Officer in denying an application. There is no perfect method for making these determinations but in the end, the application ought to be certified as long as the employer has abided by the regulations and has demonstrated good faith recruitment. Hopefully.

Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese

Labor Certification: Mustn’t the US Job Applicant Be Able to Perform the Job Even If Qualified on Paper?

/0 Comments/in /by

PERM labor certification operates outside of the realm of typical real world recruitment efforts. Whereas employers in the real world normally look to hire the most qualified applicant, PERM requires employers to only assess whether a worker is minimally qualified for the position, regardless of whether they’re a good fit for the job. But even if a US worker applicant met the minimum requirements of the position, it is reasonable to expect this individual to perform the duties of the position.  There are certain requirements that are so inherent to the position that it would be redundant to even list them in an advertisement. One example is the ability to speak English or to not be addicted to video games in the workplace so that the employee ceases to be effective. There is an inherent requirement for an applicant to properly perform the job. Can the employer lawfully reject the applicant if she or he cannot perform the job duties after the employer discovers this in an interview even though the inherently obvious requirement was not listed in the advertisement?

As background, under Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Department of Labor (DOL) has the authority to determine whether there are insufficient US workers who are “able, willing, qualified, and available” to perform a job that has been offered to a foreign worker, and to ensure that the admission of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of those similarly situated. In order to demonstrate to the DOL that there are no “able, willing, qualified, and available” US workers to perform the proffered role, employers must go through the labor certification process, which requires, among other things, a good faith recruitment. 20 CFR § 656.17(e)(1)(i) describes the mandatory recruitment steps for professional occupations that an employer must take ahead of filing the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification. These include the posting of a job order with the relevant State Workforce Agency (SWA), two Sunday advertisements, and three additional recruitment steps (such as postings on job search websites, on-campus recruitment, local newspaper ads, etc.). The advertisements must clearly apprise US workers of the offered position and the minimum requirements for the role. Thereafter, the employer must prepare a recruitment report signed by the employer describing the recruitment steps taken, how many applicants applied for the role, and if those applicants were rejected, an explanation of why they did not qualify for the role. Critically, 20 CFR § 656.17(g)(2) states that “a US 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.”

Key to labor certification is the job advertisement. The advertisements must be carefully drafted to ensure that US workers are apprised of the position and also to demonstrate what the minimum qualifications are for the role. Under Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) decisions, employers may only reject US workers for not possessing the skills as listed on the ETA 9089, or not meeting the reasonable minimum education or experience requirements of the position. However, employers may feel that there are many skills that are so inherent to an employee’s ability to perform the job that would qualify as lawful business reasons for rejection, despite the fact that they are not explicitly listed  on the Form ETA 9089.

In Matter of Transamerica Life Insurance Company, 2015-PER-00274 (Feb. 22, 2017), BALCA upheld the denial of a labor certification where US workers were rejected based on an inability to perform the job duties in Section H.11 on the ETA 9089. BALCA reasoned that because the employer had stated that experience in the job offered was not required in H.6, it was “precluded from imposing specific job duties listed in H.11 as requirements that US applicants had to meet.” This holding has been reaffirmed in a number of BALCA decisions. See, e.g., Matter of Nam Info, Inc., 2017-OER-00058 (holding that although the employer could not reject the applicant based on an inability to perform the job duties in H.11 where no experience in the job is required, they could reject the applicant for failure to meet its education requirements for the position); Matter of IBM Corp., 2015-PER-00483 (Mar. 28, 2018) (holding that an employer may not reject an applicant who does not have experience in the duties listed in H.11 where the employer did not indicate that experience in the job offered was required). However, BALCA also added that denial of the labor certification in Matter of Transamerica was proper because the job duties in H.11 were not normal for the job according to O*Net, and if the employer wanted the workers to be able to perform the job duties in H.11, the skills to perform such should have been listed in H.14. Thus, this leaves open the question of whether one can lawfully reject a US worker for inability to perform the job duties listed in H.11 if those duties are listed as normal on O*Net.

As we’ve previously blogged, in Matter of Los Angeles Unified School District, 2015-PER-03153 (Jan. 23, 2017), BALCA upheld the denial of a labor certification where the employer denied a US worker based on a failure to satisfy an inherent job requirement. The position at issue was for a Special Education Teacher. The job advertisement listed a Bachelor’s degree and teaching credential as the sole requirements for the role. The employer received a resume for a US worker who met these minimum requirements; however, the employer rejected the applicant because she could not “teach special education classes competently” and because the employer had also received a negative reference from the applicant’s previous employer. BALCA held that the employer’s actual minimum requirements needed to be listed on the ETA Form 9089, and since nothing in the employer’s stated requirements indicated that an applicant cannot have a negative performance evaluation, BALCA determined that the rejection was unlawful.

It is rather unreasonable to force employers to list every inherent skill in its PERM advertisements, otherwise employers would spend thousands of dollars on lengthy advertisements, which would still not be able to capture every inherent requirement. Indeed, in several pre-PERM BALCA and Court decisions, it was determined that not all inherent skills need be listed in advertisements. See, e.g., Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley v. McLaughlin, 863 F.2d 410 (5th Cir. 1989), Matter of Ron Hartgrove, 1989 BALCA Lexis 6 (BALCA May 31, 1989), Matter of La Dye & Print Works, 1995 BALCA LEXIS 59 (BALCA April 13, 1995).

In Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, the Court held that the DOL could not flatly ignore job duties listed by the employer in determining that employer did not have job-related reasons for rejecting a US worker who otherwise satisfied the minimum experience requirements. Here, in its labor certification application, the employer listed the minimum education requirements, training, and experience for the position, which included “two years’ experience in the job offered or four years’ experience as a mechanical design engineer.” The employer received two resumes from individuals who had four years’ experience as mechanical design engineers. The employer rejected the first worker for inability to speak English, where the position required the supervision of other employee which inherently required the ability to speak English, as well as on the grounds that he had no experience in the field of wastewater and sewage treatment. The second worker was similarly rejected for lack of experience in wastewater and sewage treatment. The DOL determined that the rejection of the first applicant who could not speak English was lawful because ability to speak English was inherent to the position. However, the DOL denied the labor certification based on rejection of the second worker because the employer stated that a person with four years of experience as a mechanical design engineer was acceptable for entry into the position.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the DOL inappropriately ignored other aspects of the labor certification application, and the fact that the employer did include experience in the wastewater treatment industry in its job description. The Court found that the DOL cannot cherry-pick inherent skills, such as the ability to speak English, and flatly ignore others, such as experience in the wastewater industry. BALCA in Matter of Transamerica sought to distinguish Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley in footnote 8, stating that “the requirements which the court found that the CO impermissibly ignored referred to ‘experience in the wastewater treatment industry’ when describing the duties of the job. In this case, the Employer stated that experience in the job offered is not required which precluded it from imposing specific job duties listed in Section H.11 as requirements.” However, this distinction is unconvincing. In Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, the employer listed experience in the wastewater treatment industry in the job duties section, and listed as its minimum requirements “two years’ experience in the job offered or four years’ experience as a mechanical design engineer.” The applicant had four years of experience as a mechanical design engineer, but no experience in the wastewater treatment industry. The Fifth Circuit found that such inexperience, as required in the job duties, was a lawful reason to reject the worker. In other words, the applicant had the minimum experience of four years as a mechanical design engineer, but did not satisfy the inherent requirement of experience in the wastewater treatment industry.

So what does this mean for employers? It is critical that attorneys ask employers what the actual minimum requirements are for the role. Some employers may feel that certain experience and skills are inherent to the role, and may not feel that it is necessary to list these minimum requirements, as they may take up too much space in the advertisement, costing the employer thousands of dollars. Although this would be rational in an ordinary recruitment context, PERM labor certification is anything but rational or ordinary. Although there are certainly arguments to be made that certain skills are inherent to a position under Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, such as the ability to speak English or having experience in the relevant context in which the position takes place, one may want to include as many required skills as possible in H.14 and the advertisements to prevent an audit or denial. Thereafter, as we’ve previously suggested, when reviewing resumes, the employer ought to err on the side of caution and interview any applicants who appear to meet the stated minimum requirements, even if not all experience is listed on the resume. Thereafter, the employer can zero in to determine whether the US applicant meets the requirement of the position. In those instances where the US applicant meets all of the requirements of the position, but the employer discovers through a good faith interview that the applicant would not be able to perform the duties of the position, the employer can try to make the case that the US applicant was lawfully rejected. It remains to be seen, however, whether the employer will be successful with such an argument after Transamerica.

Cyrus Mehta

Potential Adjustment of Status Options After the Termination of TPS

/0 Comments/in /by

As President Trump restricts immigration, it is incumbent upon immigration lawyers to assist their clients with creative solutions available under law. The most recent example of Trump’s attack on immigration is the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for more than 200,000 Salvadorans. David Isaacson’s What Comes Next: Potential Relief Options After the Termination of TPS comprehensively provides tips on how to represent TPS recipients whose authorization will soon expire with respect to asylum, cancellation or removal and adjustment of status.

I focus specifically on how TPS recipients can potentially adjust their status within the United States through either a family-based I-130 petition or an I-140 employment-based petition for permanent residency. A September 2017 practice advisory from the American Immigration Council points to two decisions from the Ninth and Sixth Circuit, Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017) and Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2013), holding that TPS constitutes an admission for purpose of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under INA 245(a).

In both these cases, the plaintiffs previously entered the United States without inspection, and then became recipients of TPS grants and subsequently married US citizens. At issue in both those cases was whether they were eligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(a) as beneficiaries of immediate relative I-130 petitions filed by their US citizen spouses. Both the decisions answered this question in the affirmative.

A foreign national who enters the United States without inspection does not qualify for adjustment of status even if married to a US citizen since s/he does not meet the key requirement of INA 245(a), which is to “have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” However, both Ramirez and Flores held that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress intended TPS recipients to be considered “admitted” for purposes of INA 245(a). Thus, even if the foreign national entered without inspection, the grant of TPS constituted an admission thus rendering the TPS recipient eligible for adjustment of status. Of course, the other conditions of INA 245(a) must also be met, which is to be eligible to receive a visa and not be inadmissible as well as have a visa that is immediately available. The disqualifications to adjustment of status in INA 245(c)(2) such as working without authorization, being in unlawful status or failing to maintain lawful status since entry are not applicable to immediate relatives of US citizens, who are spouses, minor children and parents.

The courts in Ramirez and Flores relied on INA 244 (f)(4), which provides:

(f) Benefits and Status During Period of Protected Status – During a period in which an alien is granted temporary protected status under this section-

(4) for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248, the alien shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant

Both courts read the above phrase, especially “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245 and change of status under section 248” to be in harmony with being “admitted” for purposes of adjustment of status. As INA 244(f)(4) bestows nonimmigrant status on a TPS recipient, an alien who has obtained nonimmigrant status is deemed to be “admitted.” Thus, at least in places that fall under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, TPS recipients who have been granted nonimmigrant status under INA 244(f)(4) could potentially adjust status to permanent residence as immediate relatives of US citizens.

The next question is whether a TPS recipient can also adjust status to permanent residence if s/he is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. The answer arguably is “yes” provided the applicant resides in a place that falls under the jurisdiction of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. INA 245(k) will come to their rescue, which applies to the employment-based first to fourth preferences.

A TPS recipient from El Salvador who is concerned that her TPS designation will terminate on September 9, 2019 may wish to request her employ to file a labor certification on her behalf. If the labor certification is approved, after an unsuccessful test of the US labor market for her experience and skills, the employer may file an I-140 petition and potentially a concurrent I-485 adjustment of status application. The EB-2 and EB-3 priority dates for a person born in El Salvador are current in the February 2018 visa bulletin, and likely to remain current over the foreseeable future.

INA 245(k) exempts applicants for adjustment who are otherwise subject to the INA 245(c)(2) bar based on unauthorized employment or for not maintaining lawful status provided they are present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission and subsequent to such admission have not failed to maintain lawful status or engaged in unauthorized unemployment for more than 180 days. Thus, even if the TPS recipient may have not been in lawful status prior to the grant of TPS, the grant of TPS resulted in the individual being admitted into the US. If this person files within the TPS validity period, 245(k) should allow this person to adjust to permanent residence.

I would posit that this person would be eligible under 245(k) to apply for adjustment of status within 180 days from the expiration of the TPS status. This may well be the case if there is a delay in the processing of the labor certification or if there is a retrogression in the priority date.  Although INA 244(f)(4) bestows lawful nonimmigrant status to a current TPS recipient, that grant of nonimmigrant status also previously admitted her into the United States. The fact that she was once admitted through the TPS grant cannot vanish just because she is no longer a TPS recipient, and she ought to be eligible to adjust status under 245(k) so long as she has not stayed in the US greater than 180 days from the termination of TPS designation. Once a person has been admitted, the person is still considered to have been admitted for 245(a) purposes even if the period of stay under TPS expires. I would argue that this should apply to a INA 244(f)(4) implied admission as much as it does to any other kind of admission. If you are necessarily admitted because you have gone from having entered without inspection to being in nonimmigrant status, that does not cease to have been the case because your nonimmigrant status later goes away.

A person who was previously admitted in a nonimmigrant status, but who then fell out of status prior to the grant of TPS, may also arguably be considered admitted once again under 245(k) upon receiving a grant of TPS. One could argue that the TPS is the last admission for 245(k).  However, the argument is probably stronger for one who entered without inspection, since traditionally only the granting of status to someone previously not admitted is a new “admission”—going out of status and back in doesn’t have the same tradition of being characterized that way.

Note that 245(k) is only applicable to I-485 applications filed under the employment-based first, second, third and fourth preferences. With respect to family-based preference petitions, USCIS has taken the position that anyone who has ever failed to maintain continuously a lawful status will not be eligible for adjustment of status. Hence, the beneficiary of an I-130 filed by a permanent resident on behalf of his spouse will not be able to adjust status if he was not in status prior to the grant of TPS. The AIC practice advisory cites Figueroa v. Rodriguez, No. CV-16-8218 -PA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128120 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017), which held to the contrary that TPS cures the prior lack of status for a family preference beneficiary, but since this is a decision from a district court it has no precedential value and should not be relied upon.  Of course, if his spouse becomes a US citizen, then he qualifies as an immediate relative and also eligible to adjust status if admissible despite having not maintained status prior to the TPS grant, or even if the TPS terminates, as immediate relatives are exempt from the 245(c)(2) bar.

Those who do not reside in the Sixth and Ninth Circuit can also adjust by availing of Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). Under this decision, a departure under advance parole does not trigger the 3 and 10-year unlawful presence bars pursuant to INA 212(a)(9)(B). Thus, a TPS recipient may apply for advance parole, leave the United States and be paroled back into the United States (although beware that under the Trump administration, CBP could deny entry to one with advance parole). The departure would not trigger the unlawful presence bars and the parole would be recognized for purposes of adjusting under INA 245(a) as having been “inspected and admitted or paroled.” Note, though, that the entry into the United States under parole would only render one eligible for adjustment of status as an immediate relative, and not under an approved I-140 preference petition since INA 245(k) only applies to one who has been admitted rather than paroled into the United States. The parole entry would also not help a preference beneficiary under an approved I-130. Although parole could be considered a lawful status (as the INA 245(c)(7) bar only applies to employment-based I-140s that are not subject to the 245(k) exception) for purposes of adjustment of status based on a family preference I-130, the applicant must demonstrate that s/he never previously violated lawful status. Proceeding overseas for consular processing, where filing an adjustment of status application may not be possible, may trigger the 3 and 10-year bars if the TPS recipient previously accrued unlawful presence prior to the grant of TPS. Even if the TPS recipient departs the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole, it is not clear whether the US Consulate will recognize Matter of Arrabelly and Yerrabelly in situations where the person departs under advance parole but intends to return on an immigrant visa. Thus, those who plan to proceed for consular processing who have accrued the requisite unlawful presence to trigger the 3 and 10-year bars should only proceed if they can obtain a provisional waiver of the bars based on extreme hardship to a qualifying relative.

What is quite certain presently is the ability to adjust status as an immediate relative if the TPS recipient resides within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) or the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). It is also important to note that the Eleventh Circuit in Serrano v. Unites States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) held that TPS was not an admission for purposes of adjustment under INA 245(a).  As David pointed out in his blog, those who reside outside those two Circuits, except in the Eleventh Circuit,  might still be able to pursue adjustment of status on the same theory if they are willing to litigate in federal court following any denials. An applicant can litigate by bringing an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  701 in federal district court. Alternatively, if the applicant is placed in removal proceedings, s/he can argue these theories before an Immigration Judge, and if unsuccessful to the Board of Immigration Appeals and subsequently in a Court of Appeals. Further details on various litigation strategies may be provided in a subsequent blog.  Even if a TPS recipient resides within the jurisdiction of the Sixth or Ninth Circuit, it is not clear whether the USCIS will accept an argument for adjustment of status through an I-140 employment-based petition under INA 245(k). This uncertainty gets exacerbated where the TPS grant has already expired and the I-485 is being filed within 180 days of its final expiration date.  Hence, the TPS recipient planning to deploy an adjustment of status strategy under 245(k) must also be prepared to litigate even if residing within the jurisdiction of the Sixth or Ninth Circuit. Under the Trump administration, when immigration benefits have suddenly been curtailed for long time TPS recipients, it may be worth adopting creating adjustment of status strategies, and if USCIS does not accept them, to consider litigating until there is success as was the case in the Ramirez and Flores decisions.

(This blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for independent legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client’s case.)

Cora-Ann Pestaina

7 Points To Remember Regarding Resume Review In The PERM Process

/0 Comments/in /by

The employer’s review of resumes received from applicants continues to be one of the trickiest issues in the PERM labor certification process. The process might seem straightforward enough because, after all, employers filing PERM applications are likely quite used to evaluating resumes from applicants. But such thinking is probably where the first wrong step is taken. I last blogged on this issue on December 2012 and my blog entitled, Resume Review in the PERM Process is still very relevant. However, I find that this issue continues to be a problematic one and worthy of a follow up.  Improper resume review continues to be one of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) most popular reasons for PERM denials.

By way of background, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the DOL has a statutory responsibility to ensure that no foreign worker is admitted for permanent residence based upon an offer of employment absent a finding that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the work to be undertaken and that the admission of such worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. INA §212(a)(5)(A)(i). The DOL fulfills this responsibility by determining the availability of qualified U.S. workers before approving a permanent labor certification application and by ensuring that U.S. workers are fairly considered for all job opportunities that are the subject of a permanent labor certification application.  Accordingly, the DOL relies on employers who file labor certification applications to recruit and consider U.S. workers in good faith.  Under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c), the employer must certify that U.S. workers who applied for the job opportunity were rejected for lawful job-related reasons. While the DOL has indicated that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resemble the employer’s normal consideration process, operating under this belief will most likely lead to problems.  I have always found that it is infinitely more effective to counsel the employer not to consider PERM as resembling any type of real world recruitment process whatsoever.

Review of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) is a good place to stay up to date on the DOL’s reasoning on any PERM issue. Based on recent BALCA decisions, here are 7 points regarding resume review that are worth discussing with the employer at the outset of the PERM process, even before the job duties and requirements are finalized and the advertisement is drafted.

1.   Be certain that use of the Kellogg language is warranted and reflective of the actual   minimum requirements for the offered position.

2.   An applicant cannot be rejected simply because their cover letter or resume clearly states that they are seeking a completely different position.

In Global Teachers Research and Resources, Inc. 2015-PER-00396 (March 30, 2017), the employer’s job requirements for the position of Elementary Teacher were a Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education and 60 months of experience in the job offered.  In addition, the qualified applicant also had to demonstrate eligibility for a Georgia Teaching Certificate. In section H.14 of the ETA Form 9089, the employer had also listed, “Employer will Accept any Combination of Experience, Training or Education.” This is commonly referred to as the Kellogg language based on Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc).

After reviewing the employer’s response to an audit, the DOL denied the PERM application finding that the employer failed to properly consider one applicant who possessed a Master’s degree in Education/Special Education, 60 months of experience and a GA teaching license. The Certifying Officer (CO) reasoned that since the employer had indicated “Employer will Accept any Combination of Experience, Training or Education” then the employer had to consider the applicant even if she did not have a degree in Elementary Education. Oftentimes, an employer will insert the Kellogg language on the ETA Form 9089 when it is totally unnecessary. It is important to remember that this is specific language that is only required on the ETA Form 9089 when the foreign national qualifies for the offered position only on the basis of the employer’s alternative requirements. In addition, Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009) held that the failure to include this language was not fatal as there is no space on the form for such language. Some employers recall receiving PERM denials due to lack of this language prior to the decision in Federal Insurance and, not fully comprehending the issue, they feel better to just include it. It is therefore very important to discuss the meaning of the Kellogg language with the employer and whether the insertion of this language would reflect the employer’s true minimum requirements for the offered position.

The employer in Global Teachers Research and Resources filed a request for reconsideration and argued that the applicant had clearly indicated on her resume that she was seeking employment as Special Education Teacher and that this information prevented them from actually considering applicant for the offered position. However, BALCA held that since the Applicant had applied for the Elementary Teacher position and since it would be illogical for a person to apply for a position in which they were not interested, the employer was obligated to give the application due consideration. Citing a long list of precedent decisions which would make for required reading, BALCA held that an applicant is presumed to be interested in a job for which he or she applies.

3.    Be careful of rejection for lack of an unstated, “inherent” requirement.

4.    Even if an applicant may lawfully be rejected for various reasons, always list ALL   reasons for rejection in the recruitment report.

 In Matter of Los Angeles Unified School District, 2012-PER-03153 (Jan. 23, 2017) the employer recruited for the position of “Teacher, Special Education” for which it required a Bachelor’s degree in any field, a valid California Education Specialist teaching credential, and no training or experience.  After two audits, the PERM application was denied because the employer rejected an applicant finding that the applicant failed to meet the minimum requirements for the offered position because the applicant had a below satisfactory performance evaluation on her most recent student-teaching assignment.

The employer requested reconsideration and, listing several pre-PERM administrative law decisions, argued that some qualifications are simply inherent and need not be expressly stated in the job description. The employer argued that the ability to “teach special education classes competently” is one such inherent requirement that need not be expressly stated. The employer also pointed to a negative confidential reference from the applicant’s most recent teaching assignment.

BALCA dismissed all of the administrative law decisions as non-binding and stated that the PERM program demands strict compliance with the regulations which require that the job requirements described on the ETA Form 9089 represent the employer’s actual minimum requirements for the offered position. BALCA found it debatable whether one negative performance evaluation over the course of a career could demonstrate a lack of competency. But ultimately, since nothing in the employer’s stated minimum requirements indicated that an applicant cannot have a negative performance evaluation or a negative reference of any kind, BALCA found the rejection of the applicant to be unlawful. Basically, any qualification that can form the basis of a rejection ought to be listed in the advertisement. If it is not, then it cannot be used as the basis for a rejection.

However, this decision does not make sense as every inherent skill cannot be listed in the advertisement, the ability to speak English, being the prime example. There are a line of cases to support this proposition. See Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley v. McLaughlin, 863 F.2d 410 (5th Cir 1989), Matter of Ron Hartgrove, 1989 BALCA Lexis 6 (BALCA May 31, 1989), Matter of La Dye & Print Works, 1995 BALCA LEXIS 59 (BALCA April 13, 1995).

In its appellate brief the employer had also tried to insert a new argument that the applicant was also not qualified because she did not have the required teacher credential. The employer stated that it did not initially consider this but that is nevertheless a basis for rejection. BALCA dismissed this evidence finding that its review is restricted to timely submitted evidence that was part of the record when the CO made his decision. It is therefore very important that an employer conduct a complete review of each applicant’s qualifications and list each and every lawful reason for rejection of any applicant. In the instant case, despite the employer’s rejection for lack of what it considered to be an inherent requirement, if the employer had also lawfully rejected the applicant for lack of the teaching credential and demonstrated that the applicant indeed lacked the credential, the PERM might not have been denied.

5.     Never put the duty to follow up on the applicant.

Matter of Unisoft International, Inc. 2015-PER-00045 (Dec. 29, 2016) is a supervised recruitment case.  The offered position was that of Network Administrator. The employer’s PERM application was eventually denied for four reasons but only reason number 4 regards resume review. Essentially, the CO found that the employer did not conduct a good-faith recruitment effort because the employer sent out a form letter to each of 20 applicants. This letter stated, “After a preliminary review of your resume, we have determined that you do not have a few of the desired skills we are looking for including experience with MCP and SPO for OS2200.” Putting the onus of additional communication on the applicant, the letter then stated, “Please contact us immediately to schedule an interview if you do have these qualifications.” The CO found that the employer had failed to “intensively” recruit and had not sufficiently established that there were no US applicants who were able, willing, qualified and available to perform the work.

BALCA pointed to case law which held that an employer may lawfully reject an applicant when the resume is silent on whether he or she meets a major requirement such as a college degree. However, when the qualification is something a candidate may not indicate explicitly on his or her resume though he or she possesses it, the employer carries the obligation to inquire further whether the applicant meets the requirements.  BALCA found that the employer had rejected these 20 candidates because they did not list a subsidiary requirement on their resumes and the employer had an obligation to inquire further. The employer’s letter to these 20 applications did not fulfill this obligation because it placed the responsibility of following up and requesting an interview on the shoulders of the applicants.  Moreover, BALCA found that the employer failed to inquire whether there were any available training options for these candidates especially for two candidates who the CO identified as already possessing networking experience. BALCA found that the employer’s letters to the candidates were perfunctory and not made in good faith.

This case displays another strong example of how resume review in the PERM process does not resemble resume review in the real world. In the real world, an applicant is expected to demonstrate his or her actual interest in the offered position. In the real world, putting the onus of additional communication on the applicant could very well be a test of the applicant’s dedication and interest. No so under PERM. In the PERM process, the employer has to understand that it must bend over backwards to ensure that it has done everything in its power to fully determine whether an applicant is qualified for the offered position notwithstanding that applicant’s failure to respond to a telephone call (email and then send a certified letter); that applicant’s lack of awareness of who the employer is or of the offered position (the employer must now inform them again!);  or that applicant’s request to be contacted at a later time (the employer must comply!).

6.     Over qualification is never a lawful reason for rejection.  

7.     An applicant may be rejected based on their unwillingness to accept the salary only if the employer can show that the employer offered the position to the applicant at the listed salary and the applicant then refused to accept the position.

BALCA has long held that an employer may not reject a US worker applicant based on a belief that the applicant is over qualified for the position. This is still one rejection reason that almost all employers instinctively want to use. And again, this is where the PERM process breaks away from the real world. It is hard for most employers to comprehend why the DOL would require that they classify as qualified, an applicant who clearly would be taking a “step down” because their qualifications indicate that they are qualified for a higher level position. Employers feel that such applicant use lower level positions as a stepping stone. However, BALCA has always held that such applicants are qualified to perform the core job duties. See Bronx Medical and Dental Clinic, 1990-INA-00479 (Oct, 30, 1992) (en banc) and most recently, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC, 212-PER-02772 (Nov. 25, 2016).

Also in Kohn Pederson Fox Associates, the employer, having advertised listing the offered salary, then rejected applicants who applied for the position requesting a higher salary. While the employer’s reasoning here makes real world sense, BALCA held that an employer may reject a qualified US applicant as unwilling to accept the position at the offered wages only if the position was actually offered to the applicant and the applicant refused to accept the position at the offered wages.  The employer must have documentation of the offer and refusal.

Overall, employers must always bear in mind that the DOL serves to protect the interests of the US worker. Accordingly, while the real world may be a dog eat dog world where one typo can cause an applicant’s resume to quickly hit the trash, in the PERM world, applicants must almost be cuddled. The employer must set aside all normal reasoning; all normal industry expectations; all expectations that a US worker applicant can understand basic things like a requirement for 2-3 years of experience means that 2 years would be acceptable. The employer must consider what is in the best interest of the US worker applicant and ensure that it has sufficiently described the offered position and all its requirements to fully apprise the US worker of all he or she needs to know in order to determine whether to apply for the position. Once that application has been received, the employer is obligated to examine every aspect of that applicant’s qualification; to reach out to that applicant using multiple forms of communication if the most convenient form fails; to verify that the applicant, though lacking in a certain requirement cannot be trained within a reasonable time; and to remember, above all else, that the employer is never supposed to seek the “best” candidate for the position, but rather, must consider a candidate qualified if he or she even barely meets the stated minimum requirements.

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA Holds That Failure To Disclose A ‘Wage Adjustment’ Is Not A Valid Denial Ground

/0 Comments/in /by

Recently, in the representative case, Matter of Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corp, 2013-PER-01488 (BALCA, September 29, 2016), the Board of Alien Labor Certifications Appeals (BALCA) reversed 382 PERM denials finding, most significantly, that the employer’s failure to apprise US workers of its wage adjustment – a variable amount of money to be paid to the employee depending on where they’re geographically based – was not a valid ground for denial.

In the representative case, the employer, in response to an audit notification, submitted a copy of an offer letter that was sent to a U.S. applicant. This offer letter stated a base salary of $117,707.20 and also described a “Cost of Labor Adjustment” or “COLA” as follows:

As eligible, you may be paid a geographically based Cost of Labor Adjustment (COLA) of $250.00 per pay period for Washington, D.C., which is an annualized amount of $6,000. Your COLA on the 15th and last day of each month in accordance with the Company’s current payroll policies and practices, along with your regular base salary. [sic] If your work location changes, then there will be an adjustment to COLA effective the first day of work in your new work location. COLA is subject to regular review and may be increased or decreased, or replaced by another compensation component upon certain promotions.

The Certifying Officer (CO) found that the employer’s Notice of Filing (NOF), which advised of a long and short term travel requirement, failed to also appropriately apprise US workers of the actual terms and conditions of employment. The CO found that the NOF violated 20 CFR §656.17(f)(3) which states that advertisements must “provide a description of the vacancy specific enough to apprise the U.S. worker of the job opportunity for which certification is sought” and 656.10(d)(4) which requires that the NOF “contain the information required for advertisements by §656.17(f).” The CO also found that the job order, Sunday newspaper advertisements, local newspaper advertisement, job search website advertisement and private employment firm advertisement failed to apprise US workers of the COLA and therefore did not appropriately apprise them of the job opportunity in violation of 656.17(f)(3). The CO, in denying the application, held that US workers were not properly notified that they would be appropriately compensated based on the specific geographic area of assignment, which could have impacted whether or not they were willing to apply for the job opportunity.

In its Request for Reconsideration/Request for Review, the employer argued that COLA was a “per diem benefit payment” which did not need to be disclosed based on BALCA’s previous decision in Matter of Emma Willard School, 2010-PER-01101 (BALCA, September 28, 2011). In Emma Willard, BALCA held that there is no obligation for an employer to list every item or condition of employment in its advertisements and listing none does not create an automatic assumption that no employment benefits exist. I previously blogged about this decision here. The employer argued that COLA is a not a guaranteed benefit and can be increased, decreased or replaced by other compensation at any time and to insist that such a benefit be disclosed would be similar to insisting that the employer also disclose benefits such as parking and gym memberships, which the regulations do not require.

BALCA found that the CO correctly classified COLA as a wage adjustment because it is a set amount “per pay period”, even if the exact amount may change, and is paid on the 15th and last day of each month along with the base salary. BALCA further found that this is different from a per diem benefit, which refers to something paid on a daily basis (citing Mirriam-Webster’s definition of “per diem” as “by the day”) or to reimbursements for travel receipts or meals (pointing to the U.S. General Services Administrations’ definition of “per diem” as an allowance for lodging…meals and incidental expenses). BALCA cited the case of Crowley v. U.S., 57 Fed. Cl. 376, 381 (2003) where the court cited a 1990 Conference Report discussing the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act which stated that a locality adjustment was considered part of base pay. BALCA therefore held that, based on the federal government’s characterization of a locality benefit as part of base pay, COLA must also be considered part of base pay. Since COLA is a wage and not a benefit, BALCA held that the holding in Emma Willard did not apply.

If COLA is a wage adjustment then isn’t the employer required to list it in all its advertisements and on the NOF? BALCA held that since there is no requirement that an employer list a wage in its newspaper advertisements, the employer’s failure to do so is not a violation of the regulations. Also, citing its decision in Symantec Corporation, 2011-PER-01856 (Jul. 30, 2014) which I previously discussed here, BALCA held that the job order and additional recruitment steps could not held deficient pursuant to 656.17(f)(3) because 656.17(f) applies only to newspaper advertisements. If the advertisements were not deficient, then 656.24(b)(2) is not a valid ground for denial because the employer did properly recruit for the position.

But BALCA has left a pretty bloody trail when it comes to lack of disclosures in the NOF. In Matter of KFI, Inc. 2009-PER-00288 (Aug. 25, 2009) BALCA affirmed a PERM denial based on the employer’s failure to list the CO’s address on NOF in violation of 656.10(d)(3)(iii). In Servion Global Solutions, Inc., 009-PER-00282 (Jun. 23, 2009) BALCA held that failure to state the rate of pay constituted grounds for denial. In Matter of Innopath Software, 2009-PER-00153 (Sept. 2, 2009), BALCA held that the absence of the employer name on the NOF, although it was posted in a conspicuous location at the place of employment, was not harmless error. In Matter of G.O.T. Supply, Inc., 2012-PER-00429 (Oct. 6, 2015) BALCA affirmed the CO’s denial where the company president’s name but not employer’s name was listed on the NOF. BALCA said persons providing information to the CO need the employer name as it appears on Form 9089. The NOF is required to contain certain information as specified in 20 CFR § 656.10(d) which provides that the NOF “must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form).” Failure to list the rate of pay wage in the NOF usually constitutes grounds for denial of certification. But this time, the deficiencies of the PERM process and the Form 9089 could not be overcome.

Despite its conclusion that the regulations could reasonably be interpreted to require an employer to state a wage adjustment on a NOF, BALCA declined to affirm the denial because the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has issued no guidance whatsoever alerting employers that this type of wage adjustment needs to be specifically disclosed in the advertising and on the ETA Form 9089. BALCA also noted that there is “neither an instruction nor a current mechanism by which an employer may enter this information on the Form 9089 and cited Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009) in which case the fact that certain mandatory language pertaining to an alternative requirement under Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc), did not appear on the ETA Form 9089 was not fatal as there is no space on the form for such language. Because employers have not been provided with notice of its regulatory interpretation concerning the requirement that COLAs be disclosed and a mechanism by which to disclose COLAs, BALCA could not find the NOF defective.

As an aside, it is also interesting to note that the foreign national resided in Florida rather than in Washington, DC, but BALCA did not attach any significance to this fact. It still raises a question about the importance of differentiating between a future job opportunity in a labor certification and a foreign national’s current employment. It was not clear in the representative case whether Washington DC, which was the subject of the COLA, would be the future position. The PERM labor certification was presumably filed using the employer’s headquarters, and indicated that it would involve working at “unanticipated client locations throughout the US.” If the current position provides a COLA, but the future position that is the subject of the labor certification does not, then the fact that the employer submitted a job offer letter with respect to the current position should not undermine the outcome of the labor certification. In responding to an audit notification, employers must clearly specify whether a job offer letter sent to a US worker applicant is applicable to the future PERM position or to the current position in order to attempt to stave off a similar denial.

Also quite interesting is BALCA’s insertion of a footnote acknowledging that the employer, in its prevailing wage request, negatively answered the question about whether the position will be performed at multiple worksites but then indicated on the Form 9089 that work would also be performed at “unanticipated client locations throughout the US.” BALCA acknowledged that the prevailing wage issued by the National Prevailing Wage Center may have been affected had the employer disclosed the roving nature of the position. BALCA provided no explanation as to why this did not constitute grounds for denial. Possibly because the immigration bar continues to beg in vain for clarification on issues related to roving employees.

This decision follows the trend of Infosys Ltd., 2016-PER-00074 (May 12, 2016), also cited in Cognizant, where BALCA held that it was not fundamentally fair to require an employer’s advertisements and Form 9089 to disclose the possibility of relocation in absence of notice or guidance especially since the DOL had previously approved over 500 similar PERM applications by the employer. In Infosys, BALCA recognized that PERM, an attestation-based program places a heavy burden on employers to be careful in preparing their applications but also places a related burden on the CO to ensure that employers are given adequate guidance on what will be demanded of them. These decisions highlight the frustrating deficiencies in the existing PERM regulations and Form 9089. Updates to the PERM program have long been anticipated by both employers and foreign nationals who each expect to benefit from the PERM modernization. DOL officials previously commented that they expect the new regulation to be finalized and implemented before the end of President Obama’s administration in January 2017.

Cyrus Mehta

High Skilled Worker Rule – Is There Scope For Porting On A Labor Certification?

/1 Comment/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta & David A. Isaacson

Our firm provided selected comments to the  proposed DHS rule entitled “Retention of EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers.” These comments are based primarily on three recent blogs:

Including Early Adjustment Filing in Proposed DHS Rule Impacting High-Skilled Workers Would Give Big Boost to Delayed Green Card Applicants

Preserving H-1B Extension For Spouse And Freezing Age Of Child In Rule Impacting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

The Opportunity to Be Heard: Why New DHS Proposed Regulations Regarding I-140 Petitions Should Incorporate and Expand Upon the Rule of Mantena v. Johnson.

Our comments focused on areas that others may not have commented on, and may require the DHS and even the DOL to propose supplemental rules. However, if our comments are considered, they will greatly improve the proposed rule.

The centerpiece of the rule is to grant work authorization to beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions who are caught in the crushing employment-based backlogs. The requirement of demonstrating compelling circumstances has disappointed beneficiaries, along with further restrictions relating to the renewal of the work authorization. We do hope that the DHS removes these restrictions so that deserving beneficiaries are able to easily obtain work authorization.

It would also be highly desirable for beneficiaries of such approved I-140 petitions to exercise   job portability, and not be required to re-start the labor certification process through a new employer, even though the proposed rule allows for the retention of the old priority date under certain circumstances. Recognizing that INA 204(j) requires a pending I-485 adjustment application for 180 days, and thus the DHS may not be receptive to arguments that may justify portability, we proposed that DHS also consider promulgating a rule that would recognize the ability of applicants to file early adjustment applications based on a filing date that would be far ahead of the final action date in the State Department Visa Bulletin, even if theoretically one visa is only available in a preference category. The existence of a pending I-485 application would allow for true job mobility pursuant to INA 204(j).  If DHS does not accept our proposal for an early adjustment filing, we have proposed in our comment the following innovation, which we reproduce below:

“Modifying Labor Certification Rules to Provide Greater Flexibility to Beneficiaries of Approved Labor Certifications

Finally, we take this opportunity to suggest that USCIS propose to another Executive Branch department, specifically, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), some regulatory changes which would mesh well with those that USCIS has proposed and assist in accomplishing the goals of the President’s initiative.

First, we propose that the DOL should formalize a policy, previously suggested in some case law of the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”), whereby an employer who wishes to offer an alien prospective employee a position which in substance has already been the subject of an approved labor certification, even for another employer, does not need to go through the entire labor certification process all over again.

In Matter of Law Offices of Jean-Pierre Karnos, 2003-INA-18, 2004 WL 1278081 (Bd. Alien Lab. Cert. App. 2004) [hereafter referred to as Matter of Karnos], BALCA held that if “there is a bona fide job opportunity which remains the same, despite the change in employers,” then “[t]he absence of a contractual agreement between [the employers] does not negate the fact that a bona fide job opportunity exists” and thus “the change in employers, when an adequate test of the labor market has been performed and when the position remains the same, does not offend the policies of labor certification.” Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3. This is, we would submit, consistent with the text and purpose of INA § 212(a)(5)(A), which focuses on the effect on U.S. workers of the alien filling a particular position, rather than the identity of the employer who wishes to hire the alien to fill that position.

In Matter of Karnos, the lawyer who had operated the law office that was the original employer, Jean-Pierre Karnos, had died before a final decision was made on the application for labor certification. Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *1. James G. Roche, Esq., continued to run a similar law firm under the name of the Law Offices of James Roche, but could not demonstrate that he had any formal contractual relationship with Mr. Karnos so as to assume ownership of Mr. Karnos’s firm. Id. at *1-2. The initial Certifying Officer within the Department of Labor denied labor certification based on the difference in employers, as BALCA explained:

[T]he CO stated that Mr. Roche was “unable to provide that he and Jean-Pierre Karnos had a written contractual or inheritance agreement.” Therefore, the CO found that Mr. Roche was a separate employer and should not be entitled to the application signed by another party. The CO denied certification on the ground that two “distinctly different employers” were involved and there was no agreement to “attest to the legality of this condition.”

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2.

In his request for review by BALCA, Mr. Roche clarified that while he could not establish a formal relationship with the late Mr. Karnos, “he was offering the same position of accountant, under the same terms and conditions, including the same wage, set forth in the original application.” Id. BALCA agreed that this was sufficient:

In general, a new employer must file a new application unless the same job opportunity and the same area of intended employment are preserved. International Contractors, Inc. [and Technical Programming Services, Inc., 1989-INA-278 (Bd. Alien Lab. Cert. App. 1990)]; Germania Club, Inc., 1994-INA-391 (May 25, 1995). When the employer has clearly demonstrated that the job opportunity, including the wage paid, remains the same such that there is still a bona fide job opportunity, a new application is not required.

In this case, there is a bona fide job opportunity and an adequate test of the labor market has been performed. The new Employer, Mr. Roche, has indicated that the duties of the job remain the same and that the salary is the same. The same job opportunity has been preserved. The absence of a contractual agreement between Mr. Karnos and Mr. Roche does not negate the fact that a bona fide job opportunity exists with Mr. Roche as the employer. The new Employer has clearly demonstrated that there is a bona fide job opportunity which remains the same, despite the change in employers.

Therefore, in light of the particular factual circumstances presented by this case, we hold that the change in employers, when an adequate test of the labor market has been performed and when the position remains the same, does not offend the policies of labor certification. The former Employer attempted to recruit a U.S. worker for the position and the new Employer has certified that the position remains the same as that originally petitioned for, in the same area of employment. In such circumstances, labor certification should not be denied solely on the change in employers. Thus, the CO improperly denied certification.

Matter of Karnos, 2004 WL 1278081 at *2-*3.

DOL should amend the governing regulations to make explicit, and expand upon, the holding of Matter of Karnos. Where a new employer wishes to sponsor an employee for a position that remains the same, and is in the same area of employment, a new application for labor certification should not be required.

We also propose that DOL should add to Schedule A, at 20 CFR 656.5, a new “Group III” comprising persons who will be employed in a same or similar occupation to one for which they already have an approved labor certification from a different employer. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for the Department of Labor to conclude on a categorical basis that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, and that the wages of United States workers similarly employed will not be adversely affected, because a similar determination has already been made in the process of granting the previously approved labor certification.  New employers should under such circumstances therefore be able to process their labor certification through USCIS pursuant to 20 CFR 656.15.  At the very least, even if DOL is not willing to have Schedule III cover such same or similar occupations on a nationwide basis, it should cover instances in which the alien has an approved labor certification for a same or similar occupation, and the area of intended employment for the position covered by the Schedule III filing is within normal commuting distance of the area of intended employment for the position covered by the previously approved labor certification.”

 

Cora-Ann Pestaina

BALCA Reverses Labor Certification Denials By Upholding Real World Job Advertisements

/2 Comments/in /by

Late last year, just in time to ruin the holidays for those affected, the Department of Labor (DOL) started a round of PERM denials setting forth another new and previously unheard of reason for denial. Despite having certified these types of PERMs for years (lulling practitioners into another false sense of security), the DOL started denying PERM applications where the employers, in their PERM recruitment, used terms such as “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience” (DOE), “Negotiable,” “Will Discuss With Applicant,” “Other,” or similar verbiage in lieu of stating the offered salary.

To provide some background, an employer has to conduct a good faith recruitment of the labor market in order to obtain labor certification for a foreign national employee. Obtaining labor certification is often the first step when an employer wishes to sponsor a foreign national employee for permanent residence. The PERM regulations do not require the employer to state the offered salary in any of its recruitment. In its list of frequently asked PERM questions (FAQs) on the Office of Foreign Labor Certification’s website, question number 5 under the heading of “Advertisement Content” is asked and answered as follows:

Does the offered wage need to be included in the advertisements?

No, the offered wage does not need to be included in the advertisement, but if a wage rate is included, it can not be lower than the prevailing wage rate.

The Preamble to PERM Regulations, 69 Fed. Reg. at 77347 also discusses the elimination of the requirement that the wage offer must be included in advertisement.

In filing a PERM application, the employer, under 20 C.F.R. §656.10 (c), must certify to the conditions of employment listed on the Application for Permanent Employment Certification (1) “[t]he offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage determined pursuant to §656.40 and §656.41” and (8) ‘[t]he job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.” And 20 C.F.R. §656.24(b)(2) requires the Certifying Officer (CO) to make a determination as to whether there “is in the United States a worker who is able, willing, qualified and available for and at the place of the job opportunity.” Using these regulations as authority for some of its denials, the DOL, after acknowledging the fact that the employer is not required to list a wage in its advertisements, goes on to state that the employer’s indication of “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience (DOE),” “Negotiable,” “Other,” etc. is in fact an expression of a salary and that any discussion concerning wages must sufficiently inform applicants of the job opportunity outlined in the PERM application. The DOL claims that terms like “Depends on Experience” and “Negotiable” could be vague and could place a potential burden on the US worker to reasonably determine the wage rate for the position or could indicate that an applicant’s experience might potentially cause the employer to offer a salary which is lower than the salary offered to the foreign worker. Incredulously, according to the DOL, a term like a “Will Discuss With Applicant” could prevent a potentially qualified US applicant from making an informed decision on whether he/she would be interested in the actual job opportunity, and could deter a number of such applicants from applying. The denials claim that the employers, by listing terms that potentially deterred US workers from applying, did not adequately test the labor market.

Under the PERM regulations at 20 CFR §656.17(e)(1)(i)(A) and §656.17(e)(2)(i), the employer’s job order for both professional and nonprofessional occupations must be placed with the State Workforce Agency (AWA) serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. But one of the problems many employers face is with SWAs that require the employer to list an offered wage and to make a selection from a drop down menu under “Pay Comments” choosing from comments which include “DOE,” “Will Discuss with Applicant,” “Commission Only,” “Not Applicable,” etc. The DOL has been issuing denials in cases where, for example, the employer listed the offered salary as $0 or $1 in an effort to get past this requirement and then indicated “Will Discuss With Applicant” under the pay comments. As ludicrous as it is to suggest that any US worker would be deterred from applying for the offered position simply because the offered wage was listed as $0 – which obviously could never be the actual case – this is exactly what the DOL suggests in its denials.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) did raise this issue with the DOL in one of its stakeholders meetings last year informing the DOL that many of its state job order systems, and many job search websites and other recruitment sources require the use of, or they automatically insert, the terms that are now the cause of the new denials. The DOL only agreed to review the issue and may possibly issue an FAQ in the future. But they declined to suspend further denials or reopen past denials.

Many motions to reconsider have been filed and remain pending. The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has just issued a couple of decisions that will hopefully help shed light on how those pending motions should be decided. In Bahwan Cybertek, Inc. 2012-PER-01147 (Feb. 18, 2016) the employer filed a PERM application indicating that the offered wage was $99,500. The PERM was audited. The employer submitted copies of its SWA job order which showed that the employer had listed the minimum pay and the maximum pay as $1 per year. Under “Pay Details” the employer had indicated “Competitive Salary. Will be discussed with the candidate.” The CO denied certification finding that the job order listed a wage rate lower than the prevailing wage in violation of 20 C.F.R. §§656.10(c)(8) and 656.17(f)(7). In a request for reconsideration the employer stated that it normally does not list wages in its recruitment and the PERM rules do not require it but that the Massachusetts SWA’s online job order system asked for minimum and maximum pay for the advertised position and so the employer entered $1 so that the system would accept the posting but added the pay comments as clarification making it clear that the salary was not $1. The CO still found that the statements “competitive salary” and “will be discussed with the candidate” were “not demonstrably specific enough to overcome the potential chilling affect [sic] arising from advertising $1 as an annual salary.” The employer appealed to BALCA.

BALCA simply pointed out that the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f) provides that “[a]dvertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals before filing the Application for Permanent Employment Certification must … [n]ot contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien” and that, by its own terms, this regulation only applies to advertisements in newspapers or professional journals, and does not regulate the content of SWA job orders.

But with regard to whether or not the job opportunity had been clearly open to any US worker as the employer attested to under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8), one of the grounds for denial being used in the slew of recent denials discussed above, BALCA confirmed that stating a wage rate below the actual wage offer for the job definitely calls into question whether the job opportunity is indeed open to US workers. However, BALCA found that in the instant case, the employer’s indication of a wage rate of $1 was obviously a placeholder based on a generic data field in the SWA job order and was clearly not intended to reflect the actual wage rate. BALCA found that that “no reasonable job seeker would have been discouraged from applying for the job, especially since it was clarified that the employer is offering a competitive salary and that the salary was subject to discussion.

Similarly, as in the recent denials, where an employer has indicated a salary of $0 and had indicated that the salary will be discussed with the applicant, no reasonable job seeker would have been deterred by that.

In another case, Global TPA LLC, 2012-PER-00847 (Feb. 18, 2016), the offered Project Manager position required 4 years of specific experience which the employer detailed on the ETA Form 9089. Upon audit, the CO discovered that the employer had advertised on a website, as one of the three additional forms of recruitment required for professional positions under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(ii), indicating that the Project Manager position requires 4-5 years of experience. The CO listed this as one of its three reasons for denial. The employer filed a motion to reconsider but the CO upheld its denial and the case went up to BALCA. BALCA referenced its en banc decision in Symantec Corp., 2011-PER-1856 (July 30, 2014) which I previously discussed here. BALCA pointed out that under Symantec the additional professional recruitment only requires documentation of recruitment for the occupation involved in the application and not recruitment for the particular job opportunity at issue. Therefore, the fact that the employer’s website posting stated 4-5 years of experience as opposed to 4 years of experience as listed on the PERM application did not violate the regulations.  In a footnote, BALCA pointed out that the CO in this case had only cited 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6) as a ground for denial in regard to the discrepancy between the website posting and the ETA Form 9089 in regard to the experience required. BALCA pointed out that its decision is not an opinion on whether the website posting may have been in conflict with 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8) which requires that the employer certify that the job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.

In any event, even if BALCA declined, in that case, to state that the job opportunity was nevertheless clearly open to US workers, it doesn’t mean that the argument can’t still be made. Under Symantec, the additional forms of recruitment can represent real world alternatives and can advertise for the occupation involved in the application rather than for the job opportunity involved in the application as is required for the newspaper advertisement. Therefore, when it comes to one of these forms of recruitment, an employer’s use of terms like “Competitive,” “Depends on Experience” (DOE), “Negotiable,” “Will Discuss With Applicant,” etc. does not take away from the employer’s advertisement of the occupation and is therefore not in violation of any PERM regulation. BALCA specifically stated in Bahwan Cybertek that no reasonable job seeker would have been discouraged from applying due to the use of such terms. And to state what is probably obvious, someone that would read such terms and be left so confused as to be deterred from applying is quite likely not qualified.

After its slew of denials starting late last year and the stream of motions to reconsider that must have resulted, the DOL’s ultimate stance on this issue remains to be seen. Anecdotal and unscientific evidence seems to indicate that they have stopped or slowed down the issuing of these types of denials.

Nevertheless, going forward, it would be wise to stay away from usage of any of the “problem terms” indicated above to the extent possible.

Cyrus Mehta

A Trap For The Unwary: Equivalent Degrees And Alternate Requirements In Labor Certification Applications

/2 Comments/in /by

When a foreign national has a three year degree instead of a four year degree, or has no degree, and is able to establish an equivalent degree through a combination of education and work experience, or only through work experience, it is important that the PERM labor certification application be carefully drafted. While an equivalent degree might pass muster for an H-1B visa, it will not always for a labor certification and the subsequent I-140 immigrant visa petition.

20 CFR §656.17(h) requires that an alternative requirement must be substantially equivalent to the primary requirement of the job opportunity in a labor certification application. If the foreign national does not meet the primary job requirement, and while already employed by the sponsoring employer, only meets the alternative requirement, the labor certification will be denied unless the application states that any suitable combination of education, training or experience is acceptable (emphasis added). 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(ii) essentially adopts the holding of BALCA in Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-00465, although in that case the primary and alternative requirements, namely, experience as a cook or salad maker, were not substantially equivalent, thereby necessitating that the employer accept any suitable combination of education, training or experience. In contrast to Kellogg, 20 CFR §656.17(h) requires consideration of this language even if there is substantial equivalence between the primary and alternative requirement.

Fortunately, if this language does not appear on the form, it is no longer fatal and practitioners can challenge a denial if the sole reason for the denial was the failure to insert this “magic language” on the application. In Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (BALCA Feb. 20, 2009) the fact that the Kellogg language did not appear on the form could not be a ground for denial as there is no space on the ETA-9089 form for such language; and the Kellogg language also does not need to appear in recruitment materials. BALCA in Federal Insurance held that a denial would offend fundamental fairness and due process under HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-0001 (BALCA July 18, 2006). HealthAmerica is a seminal BALCA decision, which rejected the certifying officer’s (CO) denial of the labor certification based on a typographical error recording a Sunday advertisement on the form, although the employer possessed actual tear sheets of the advertisement. BALCA rejected the CO’s position that no new evidence could be submitted as the advertisement tear sheets were part of the PERM compliance recordkeeping requirement and thus was constructively submitted by the employer.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Kellogg magic language is not required, DOL’s rigid insistence that alternate requirements be substantially similar becomes especially problematic when a position requires the minimum of a bachelor’s degree but the foreign national qualifies based on equivalent work experience. It is important to draft PERM labor certification applications being aware of this pitfall, as well as the advertisements, so as to avoid a denial. Globalnet Management, 2009-PER-00110 (BALCA Aug. 6, 2009) is illustrative of this problem. In Globalnet Management,, BALCA held that a bachelor’s degree plus two years of experience was not substantially equivalent to 14 years of experience. BALCA did not accept the argument that the alternative requirement of 14 years of experience comported with the well-established formula to determine equivalency under the H-1B visa, three years of experience is equal to one year of education under 8 CFR §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), and held that the primary and alternative requirements were not substantially equivalent. BALCA relied on Field Memorandum No. 48-94 that set forth the years under the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) system for different educational attainments. Therefore, the appropriate alternative for a position requiring a B.S. degree plus two years of experience would have been four years of experience rather than 14 years of experience. While BALCA noted that 8 CFR §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) may be persuasive in the absence of other guidance, citing Syscorp International, 1989-INA-00212, it nevertheless relied on Field Memo No. 48-94 in affirming the denial of the labor certification.

One reason why practitioners still include an alternative requirement relating to an equivalent degree is to ensure that the requirement is consistent with the H-1B visa petition. It is not unusual to qualify a foreign national for an H-1B visa who may have the equivalent of a three year degree, and then makes up the fourth year through the equivalent of three years of experience. The following language, which previously passed muster would now put into jeopardy ETA-9089 applications that define an equivalent degree, as follows: “Employer will accept a three year bachelor’s degree and three years of experience as being equivalent to one year of college.” Under the reasoning employed in Globalnet, this assumes that the alternative requirement would involve 12 years of SVP lapsed time while a bachelor’s degree would only require two years of SVP lapsed time. The employer faces a Hobson’s choice. If the employer does not include what it means by an equivalent degree on the ETA-9089, the subsequent I-140 petition will fail. If an employer requires a bachelor’s degree, and if the foreign national does not have the equivalent of a four year degree, and the ETA-9089 does not include a definition with respect to what it means by an equivalent degree, USCIS will assume that the employer required a four year degree and the foreign national would not be able to qualify for the position by virtue of not possessing such a degree.

On the other hand, in light of Globalnet it no longer remains viable to insist on consistency between the H-1B and the labor certification. Hence, if the primary requirement is a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience, and the foreign national does not have a degree whatsoever, the substantially equivalent alternative that would be acceptable to DOL would be four years of experience, as opposed to 14 years of experience. There may be some concern that requiring this formula on the labor certification, which may pass muster for DOL, may still be problematic when the alien has filed an I-140 petition and is also extending the H-1B visa using the “3 for 1” equivalency formula to establish the equivalent degree to qualify for the H-1B occupation. There is some anecdotal evidence of the USCIS questioning the extension of the H-1B visa when the I-140 petition involving the same position did not require a degree.  However, if this issue comes up during an H-1B adjudication, it should be argued that the discrepancy lies in the USCIS regulations and USCIS interpretations relating to H-1B and I-140 petitions, not in the beneficiary’s job or the beneficiary’s qualifications. USCIS ought not to deny an H-1B solely because a beneficiary who has been classified for an H-1B visa through an equivalent degree, either based on a combination of education and experience, or purely through a requirement of 12 plus years of experience, is classified on an I-140 under the EB-3 skilled worker preference requiring something less than a bachelor’s degree.

Finding ways to escape the Globalnet trap (and to achieve consistency with the H-1B) have not been successful. In Microsoft Corporation, 2011-PER-02563 (October 16, 2012), the employer indicated in items H.4 through H.7 in the ETA 9089 that its requirements for the position was a Bachelor’s degree or foreign educational equivalent in Comp. Sci., Eng., Math, Physics, Business or related field and six months of experience in the job offered or in a computer-related occupation or student school project experience. The employer indicated in item H.8 that there was an acceptable alternate combination of education and experience, and specified that it would accept 3 years of work experience for every year missing from a four year college degree. The CO denied on grounds that the alternative requirement was not substantially similar to the primary requirement. When the employer appealed to BALCA, one of its arguments was that 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i) did not apply as it was accepting an alternate combination of education and experience in H.8-C, rather than an alternate experience requirement. This argument, unfortunately, was shot down, since the employer created an alternate requirement by indicating in H.10 that it would require three years of work experience for every year of missing college education. The following extract from the BALCA decision in Microsoft Corporation is worth noting:

The Employer completed item H.8 indicating it would accept an alternate combination of education and experience, but that there was no alternate experience requirement. The Employer, however, completed box H.14 indicating that it will accept three years of work experience for every year of missing education from a four year college degree. Although not listed in item H.8C, box H.14 indicates that the position has, in effect, an alternate experience requirement which varies from zero to twelve depending on the level of education attained by the applicant. Therefore, the CO correctly applied § 656.17(h)(4)(i) in determining whether the alternate experience requirement is substantially equivalent to the primary requirement.

The reason why labor certifications of this sort stumble is because there is an alternative requirement, thus triggering 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i). The employer can arguably require the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree as a sole requirement, rather than insist on a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent of such a degree, by checking No to H.6 and Yes to H.10 in ETA 9089, and explaining the equivalency formula in H.14. See Matter of DNP America LLC, 2012-PER-00335 (Oct. 6 2015) (employer properly answered No to H.6 because it did not require experience in the offered position, and was instead requiring experience in a similar position, which it appropriately indicated in H.10).   This strategy too is likely to fail as the DOL may argue that an alternate requirement was created in H.10, as in Microsoft, although BALCA has yet to rule on such a fact pattern where the labor certification expresses one requirement, rather than a primary and alternate requirement.

While achieving consistency between the H-1B and the educational requirements on the ETA 9089 may be impossible based degree equivalencies through work experience, it behooves the employer to at least frame the alternate requirement appropriately as being substantially similar to the primary requirement so as to avoid a denial of the labor certification. For foreign nationals who have no degree and have qualified for their H-1B visa status through 12 years of work experience, including the formulaic “3 for 1” year rule as a way to express the equivalency on the labor certification will most certainly be fatal. Instead, this author has experienced success when the employer required a bachelor’s degree in the specialized field as a primary requirement, and as an alternate, required two years of experience in the specialized field in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. This is consistent with DOL’s interpretation under Kellogg and 20 CFR §656.17(h)(4)(i) that the primary requirement of a bachelor’s degree (requiring 2 years of SVP time) is substantially equivalent to  the alternate requirement (which is two years of experience). If the position requires two years of experience in addition to a bachelor’s degree, then the alternate requirement could be 4 years of experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree.  Similarly, when a foreign national has a three year degree, the best practice is to require either a 3 or 4 year bachelor’s degree plus the relevant experience.

Navigating immigration law is already challenging, and it becomes increasingly more so when one is dealing with the DOL and the USCIS, who are committed to different standards relating to equivalency. What is worse is that the goal posts are constantly moved, and what may have been acceptable previously is unbeknownst to anyone suddenly not. Until both the agencies settle their differences, or legislation forces them to do so, the immigration practitioner will need to be constantly threading the needle when representing foreign clients with equivalent degrees in order to avoid a labor certification denial and successfully obtain permanent residency.

[This is a shorter version of a forthcoming article in ILW’s PERM Book III (High Tech/IT Edition, Ed. Joel Stewart). The blog is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice]