Summary:
The employer/attorney entered the wrong job duties in Section H.11.
He mistakenly switched them with the job duties in K.9 job 1.
(So the job duties that were in section K.9 job 1 were supposed to be in Section H.11 and vice versa).
Decision:
BALCA’s stance was that although the Employer made a typographical error on its ETA Form 9089, because the audit materials demonstrate the Employer was in actual compliance with the regulations, the typographical error on its own does not warrant denial in the matter.
BALCA reversed the denial and ordered the CO to Certify the ETA 9089.
Discussion:
Is it possible that BALCA is showing a kinder, gentler side?
This seems to be a departure from their previous “zero error” policy and may be able to be used in similar typographical error appeals.
Stay tuned.