Archive for the 'PERM' Category

BALCA Holds Failure to Include CO’s Address on Notice Cause for Denial

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

In Matter of Tekkote, 2008-PER-00218 (1/5/09), BALCA held that the certifying officer (CO) properly denied certification of  a PERM labor certification application where the employer omitted CO’s address on the Notice of Filing. BALCA found that the omission violated the purpose of the PERM statutes and law, which was to give an address where documentation relating to the PERM application could be sent. 

BALCA Upholds Denial for Failure to Wait 30 Days After SWA Order

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

In Matter of A&S Marble Granite, Inc., 2008-PER-00213, 1/5/09, BALCA upheld the denial of a PERM labor certification application because the employer submitted the application 11 days after end of SWA job order, instead of waiting the requisite 30 days. BALCA found that filing the application before the end of the 30 day period does not allow the employer to give U.S. applicants adequate consideration for the job opportunity.

BALCA Holds that Certification Can be Granted Despite Lack of Kellogg Language

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

In Matter of Kpit Infosystems, Inc., 2009-PER-00075 (2/25/09), BALCA held that a PERM labor certification application cannot be denied because it lacked the magic language of Kellogg on the Form ETA 9089.   It stated that since there was no particular place on the form to indicate such language, the petitioner could not be penalized for failing to include it.  This case will not have any relevance for PERM cases filed after the new portal and form are in place starting this September, since the new online Form ETA 9089 specifically requests whether Kellogg applies.

 

DOL Announces New ICert Portal System for Temporary and Permanent Labor Certifications

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

The DOL has announced that it will implement its new portal system called iCERT for the Labor Condition Application (LCA), which is part of the H-1B petition, and PERM filings.  Like the current system, employers or attorneys will need to create a user account before filing the LCA and PERM applications online.  The iCERT portal will become available April 15, 2009, for LCAs and September 1, 2009, for PERM applications.  DOL will allow the current system to be used until May 15, 2009, for LCAs and until October 1, 2009, for PERM applications.  Then, on these dates, only the new iCERT portal may be used to file cases online.

Also, on the May and September deadlines, DOL will deactivate the current electronic version of the LCA and PERM application and no data will be transferred to the new system. Therefore, it is wise to copy any information for a pending case on the current system into the new system before the deactivation date.

DOL cautions users to expect an increase in processing times for an LCA to up to seven business days, since DOL will perform an official review before certifying each LCA submitted.

DOL Publishes Guidance on Attorney Involvement in Recruitment Process

Friday, June 20th, 2008

The US Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a guidance regarding attorney involvement in the recruitment process, entitled “PERM Program Guidance Bulletin on the Clarification of Scope of Consideration Rule in 20 CFR 656.10(b)(2).”  In this guidance, DOL discusses the primary role of the PERM labor certification, which is to protect US workers by testing the US labor market to identify any able, available, qualified and willing US workers for the position.  If any such workers are found, then the PERM labor certification may not be filed.  A critical issue regarding the recruitment process is the attorney’s involvement.  The DOL wants to ensure that attorneys are not disqualifying otherwise eligible workers.The following is the actual guidance from DOL: 

“The Department has long held the view that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resembles the employer’s normal consideration process. In most situations, that normal process does not involve a role for an attorney or agent (as defined in 20 C.F.R. 656.3) in assessing the ability of applicants to fill the employer’s needs. It also does not involve any role for the foreign worker or foreign national in any aspect of the consideration process. However, given that the permanent labor certification program imposes recruitment standards on the employer that may deviate from the employer’s normal standards of evaluation, the Department understands and appreciates the legitimate role attorneys and agents play in the permanent labor certification process, and respects the right of employers to consult with their attorney or agent during that process to ensure they are complying with all applicable legal requirements.

By prohibiting attorneys, agents, and foreign workers from interviewing and considering U.S. workers during the permanent labor certification process, as described in 20 C.F.R. 656.10 (b)(2)(i) and (ii), the Department does not thereby prohibit attorneys and agents from performing the analyses necessary to counsel their clients on legal questions that may arise with respect to this process. The employer, and not the attorney or agent, must determine whether a U.S. applicant’s credentials meet the minimum qualifications for the position, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. After an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and concludes that the worker is unqualified, the employer may seek the advice of its attorney or agent to ensure that its reasons for rejecting the U.S. worker are lawful, and the attorney or agent may review the qualifications of the U.S. worker to the extent necessary to provide that advice. By contrast, if an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and determines that the worker is minimally qualified, the attorney, agent, or foreign worker may not thereafter consider the applicants’ qualifications and attempt to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the employer. In the Department’s view, an employer’s determination that a U.S. worker is minimally qualified for a position constitutes clear evidence that there are U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the work to be undertaken.

More specifically, the types of actions prohibited by 20 C.F.R. 656.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) include:

 

 

• Attorneys and agents may receive resumes and applications from U.S. workers who respond to the employer’s recruitment efforts; however, they may not conduct any preliminary screening of applications before the employer does so, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. The attorney or agent may not withhold from the employer any resumes or applications that it receives from U.S. workers.

 

 

• Attorneys and agents may not participate in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. Such involvement, because of its uniqueness, has resulted in an impermissible “chilling effect” on the interests of U.S. worker-applicants in the position.

 

• After the evaluation of applications by the employer has been completed, the employer may consult with its attorney or agent about the implications of its qualification determinations on the labor certification application. Those consultations can encompass the question of whether applicants who were found by the employer to be unqualified were rejected for lawful, job related reasons. Under no circumstances, however, should an attorney or agent seek to dissuade an employer from its initial determination that a particular applicant is minimally qualified, able, willing and available for the position in question.

Where the Department finds evidence of potentially improper attorney, agent, or foreign worker involvement in considering U.S. worker applicants, the Department may audit applications to determine whether the employer’s recruitment and hiring processes were conducted in good faith and to ensure adherence to all statutory and regulatory requirements.”

  

US Department of Labor to Audit all Fragomen’s PERM Labor Certifications

Friday, June 6th, 2008

On June 2, 2008, the US Department of Labor announced that it will audit all PERM labor certifications filed by attorneys at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. , a major immigration law firm: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20080752.htmw firm.

The announcement states in part:  “The department has information indicating that in at least some cases the firm improperly instructed clients who filed permanent labor certification applications to contact their attorney before hiring apparently qualified U.S. workers. The audits will determine which, if any, applications should be denied or placed into department-supervised recruitment because of improper attorney involvement in the consideration of U.S. worker applicants.”