Matter of CCG Metamedia – range of experience in recruitment (2-4 years) equals high end requirement (4 years)

BALCA held that stating a range of experience in recruitment (2-4 years) that goes above the minimum requirements in the application (2 years), inflates the job requirements and is a violation of 20 CFR §656.17(f)(6).

Issue Date: 02 March 2011
BALCA No.: 2010-PER-00236
ETA No.: A-07171-48431

In the Matter of: CCG METAMEDIA, INC.,
Employer, on behalf of NICOLA LANDUCCI, Alien.

Certifying Officer: William Carlson
Atlanta Processing Center

Appearances: Allen E. Kaye, Esquire
New York, New York
For the Employer

Gary M. Buff, Associate Solicitor
Heather A. Vitale, Attorney
Office of the Solicitor
Division of Employment and Training Legal Services
Washington, DC
For the Certifying Officer

Before: Colwell, Johnson and Rae
Administrative Law Judges

DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM. This matter arises under Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(5)(A), and the “PERM” regulations found at Title 20, Part 656 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”).

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2007, the Certifying Officer (“CO”) accepted for filing the Employer’s Application for Permanent Employment Certification for the position of “Technical Design Director.” (AF 135-152).1

On October 19, 2007, the CO issued an Audit Notification, directing the Employer to submit evidence of recruitment. (AF 133-134). On November 19, 2007, the Employer submitted the requested documentation.2 (AF 78-132).

The CO denied certification on October 26, 2009, citing several grounds for denial, three of which remain at issue on appeal. (AF 57-59). These remaining reasons are grounded in the fact that the Employer’s advertisements placed in the newspaper of general circulation, a local newspaper, and on the Employer’s website, contain job requirements in excess of those listed on the Employer’s application. Specifically, these advertisements state that the job opportunity requires 2-4 years of experience, whereas ETA Form 9089 states that the job opportunity requires 2 years of experience.

On November 24, 2009, the Employer submitted a Request for Reconsideration. (AF 1-56). The Employer asserted that the 2-4 years experience requirement indicated in its advertisements is accurate, but that Form ETA 9089 does not provide for an experience requirement other than a whole number, thus it could not indicate this requirement on its application. (AF 1-2). The Employer cited to Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009), which considered whether an application should be denied because the Employer did not affirmatively write the Kellogg language on its application. Comparing its case to this decision, the Employer quoted the Board’s decision in Federal Insurance: “Because the existing Form 9089 does not reasonably accommodate an employer’s ability to express this attestation, we hold that it would offend fundamental due process to deny an application for failure to write the attestation on the Form 9089.” Slip op. 3. The Employer asserted that its case is similar in that Form 9089 does not reasonably accommodate its ability to express the attestation of 2-4 years minimum experience required. (AF 2).

On January 19, 2010, the CO issued a letter of reconsideration, finding that the Employer’s advertisements placed in the newspaper of general circulation, a local newspaper, and on the Employer’s website contain job requirements in excess of those listed on the Employer’s application. The CO asserted that per 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1), the job requirements must represent the employer’s actual minimum requirements for the job opportunity.

BALCA issued a Notice of Docketing on February 17, 2010. On February 22, 2009, the Employer filed a Statement of Intent to Proceed.3 The CO filed a Statement of Position on April 5, 2010, contending that the Employer’s advertisements contain job requirements in excess of those listed on the Employer’s application. The CO asserted, “Stating that the job requires ‘2-4′ years experience in the recruiting materials, rather than 2 years of experience as stated in the Employer’s application, is against the permanent labor certifications regulations’ goals of the job advertisements.” He argued that the Employer’s 2-4 years experience requirement communicates the preference that the job applicant have more than two years of experience, and that the Board has held that “employer preferences are actually job requirements.” The Frenchway Inc., 2005-INA-451, slip op. at 4 (Dec. 8, 1997). Responding to the Employer’s argument that the application did not provide a place for it to list its requirement of 2-4 years, the CO contended the instant case is not about shortcomings in the ETA Form 9089. Instead, he argued that in this case, “the Employer used wording [in] its advertisements that may have discouraged applications from U.S. workers who meet the minimum requirements of the job opportunity, and therefore the Employer conducted an inadequate test of the labor market.”

DISCUSSION

The CO may only certify permanent labor applications if there are not sufficient United States workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the time of the application. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.1(a)(1). Accordingly, an employer has the duty to actively recruit U.S. workers in good faith prior to filing an application for permanent labor certification. See Final Rule, Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Implementation of New System, 69 Fed. Reg. 77326 (Dec. 27, 2004). Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) requires that an employer must hire any minimally qualified U.S. worker. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i)(I); see also V/H Electrical General Maintenance, 2002-INA-215 (Sept. 30, 2003); Coventry Place, 1995-INA-319 (Feb. 6, 1997); United Parcel Service, 1990-INA-90 (Mar. 28, 1991); AmericanCafé, 1990-INA-26 (Jan. 24, 1991); RichcoManagement, 1988-INA-509 (Nov. 21, 1989); Microbilt Corp., 1987-INA-635 (Jan. 12, 1988).

In order to ensure that an employer conduct an adequate test of the labor market and document that no qualified U.S. workers are available for the job opportunity in the application, employers must conduct certain mandatory, and in the case of professional positions, additional recruitment steps prior to filing an application. 69 Fed. Reg. at 77347. One such mandatory recruitment step is to place advertisements in newspapers of general circulation. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(1)(i). The PERM regulations require that a newspaper advertisement must “[n]ot contain any job requirements or duties which exceed the job requirements or duties listed on the ETA Form 9089.” 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(6). On the Form 9089, the employer must indicate its actual minimum requirements for the job opportunity. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1).

Because the PERM application consists of a single form, it is fundamental to the permanent labor certification process that an employer’s application contain all of the job requirements and conditions of the job opportunity. In order to streamline the labor certification process, the drafters created a system that may grant labor certification solely on the basis of information contained in the application. 69 Fed. Reg. at 77327-328; see also HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-1 (July 18, 2006)(en banc). Ensuring that an employer’s application is a complete and accurate picture of an employer’s job opportunity is essential to maintaining the integrity of the PERM process.

In the instant case, the Employer’s advertisements placed in a newspaper of general circulation, a local newspaper, and on the Employer’s website, state that the job opportunity requires 2-4 years of experience, whereas the ETA Form 9089 states that the job opportunity requires 2 years of experience. (AF 137). As the CO stated, this experience requirement communicates the preference that the job applicant have more than two years of experience, and as the Board has held, “employer preferences are actually job requirements.” The Frenchway Inc., 2005-INA-451, slip op. at 4 (Dec. 8, 1997).4 Stating a range of experience in the recruiting materials that goes above the minimum experience requirements stated in the application inflates the job requirements in the job advertisements, and does not accurately reflect the Employer’s attestations on the ETA Form 9089. Moreover, it is in violation of the regulations.

In the Employer’s Request for Reconsideration, it asserted that the 2-4 years experience requirement indicated in its advertisements is accurate, but that Form ETA 9089 does not provide for an experience requirement other than a whole number, thus it could not indicate this requirement on its application. (AF 1-2). Citing to Federal Insurance Co., the Employer contended that because the existing Form 9089 did not accommodate its ability to express the attestation of 2-4 years minimum experience, it would offend fundamental due process to deny an application for failure to write the attestation on the Form 9089. The issue in this case is not about the ETA Form 9089 and Federal Insurance Co. is not applicable.5 The issue in this case is whether the Employer listed requirements in its advertisements that exceed its minimum requirements, thereby discouraging minimally qualified U.S. applicants from applying for this position. Here, the Employer’s newspaper advertisements list its experience requirement as a range, thereby exceeding the Employer’s actual minimum requirement of 2 years experience. Because the Employer included requirements in its advertisement that does not reflect its actual minimum experience requirement, it did not conduct an adequate test of the labor market and failed to comply with the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(6).

Accordingly, we affirm the CO’s denial of labor certification.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the denial of labor certification in this matter is hereby AFFIRMED.

Entered at the direction of the panel by:

Todd R. Smyth
Secretary to the Board of
Alien Labor Certification Appeals

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION FOR REVIEW: This Decision and Order will become the final decision of the Secretary unless within twenty days from the date of service a party petitions for review by the full Board. Such review is not favored and ordinarily will not be granted except (1) when full Board consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of
its decisions, or (2) when the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. Petitions must be filed with:

Chief Docket Clerk
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals
800 K Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001-8002

Copies of the petition must also be served on other parties and should be accompanied by a written statement setting forth the date and manner of service. The petition shall specify the basis for requesting full Board review with supporting authority, if any, and shall not exceed five double-spaced pages. Responses, if any, shall be filed within ten days of service of the petition, and shall not exceed five double-spaced pages. Upon the granting of a petition the Board may order briefs.

1 In this decision, AF is an abbreviation for Appeal File.

2 The CO issued an additional audit on September 4, 2009, requesting a notarized affidavit explaining the nature of the payment the Employer received for submission of the application. The Employer complied with this request, thus it is not an issue on appeal.

3 In this statement, the Employer indicated that it would first like the case to be sent to the CO for his consideration, as it stated in its Request for Reconsideration, and if that is denied then to proceed with the appeal. Since the Appeal File includes a Letter of Reconsideration from the CO, this request is moot.

4 Although this case relied on 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(2)(iv), a pre-PERM regulation not retained in the PERM regulations that provided that an employer’s “preference” was deemed to be a job requirement, we find that this principle is implicit in the requirement that the position be clearly open to U.S. workers. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(8).

5 In Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-37 (Feb. 20, 2009), the Board found that there was a lack of effective notice to the public on just how to comply with the requirement that the employer include the Kellogg language on its Form 9089. In the instant case, however, the Form specifically requires the number of months of experience required for the job opportunity, which, because the regulations require an employer to provide its actual minimum requirements for a job opportunity, must be a discrete number, not a range. Because a range of 2-4 years is not a minimum requirement, it is not an acceptable response to the experience requirement at 6-A on the ETA Form 9089.

Client Reviews

I've had the pleasure of conducting business with this law firm for the last 10 years. They have been nothing but the best for every aspect of immigration need I had. From F1 all the way to citizenship. They're probably the most affordable, knowledgeable, and most efficient immigration law firm out there. Plus, they always provide responses to questions in a very timely manner. Trust me, other immigration law firms will cost you an arm and a leg for the same or less of a service compared to this law firm. Give them a call, check out their website. You will not regret it.
Andy Glasgow
Andy Glasgow
17:26 27 Mar 17
Because of John and his team my wife and I were able to travel back to the states, get married and have a Green Card without any headaches. John’s efforts were amazing and it shows because my wife and I didn’t have to go to the Green card interview. We had a strong enough case to receive the Green card in the mail. If you’re seeking a Lawyer that will be impartial, he’s your guy.
T M
T M
19:18 23 Feb 17
Me & husband went through immigration process which thankfully was made easy with the help and services of Marc Tyler Inc. Our direct contact was John which i want to personally say Thank You ! The service provided was efficient, fast, affordable prompt answers in a timely fashion. I would recommend Marc Tyler Inc to anyone who need immigration done fast, easy, friendly & with no hidden charges.
Aleksandra Stoycheva
Aleksandra Stoycheva
15:27 26 Jan 17
I could not have asked for better service. I will definitely be coming back to get the green card process done. The fees are extremely reasonable and they stick with their clients the entire way. I had so many questions during this process, and each one of them were answered very quickly and with out most professionalism. This firm is a pleasure to work with and I highly recommend them to anyone.
bryan mowrey
bryan mowrey
06:41 25 Nov 16
Marc and John Dorer worked on our case to file for AOS after our L1A was approved.Marc and John are professionals and extremely reasonable-priced. The reason they are able to cut the price is because they don't spend time consulting you or guiding you and will never get on call.All communications are email only, so if you know precisely what you want they will do all the paper-work, follow the trail and get the job done. If you are confused and need advice and consulting, they may not be the right lawyers.But since we were doing our AOS, it worked out perfectly well and they did their job extremely professionally.Would recommend them every time to get the work done.
hardik parikh
hardik parikh
01:58 08 Feb 17
At first I thought I could have very well gone through the green card application process on my own and saved all lawyer fees. Its funny how some lawyers can charge in excess of 2K for this. However at Taylor and Associates the price seemed more reasonable and felt it made sense to go with one at that price. There were some doubts that arose in our mind which they cleared in a timely manner and seemed very knowledgeable in this area. Its for moments like these when having a professional around helps. While we can get busy with our lives and with laws constantly changing, I would definitely recommend them - a small price to pay for peace of mind.
Callistus Pereira
Callistus Pereira
17:51 06 Jun 17
I am US citizen. We hired Marc's firm for my wife's Green Card process, We are extremely happy with their services.They are one of the best service providers in the country. Price is very affordable. John is awesome. He responded to our queries on time with very useful information. We highly recommend this firm to anybody looking for affordable and the best immigration services. it was an awesome experience working with this team.
Narsimha M
Narsimha M
13:57 04 Aug 17
Mark and team went above all my expectations of an 'online' service agency I went in with very low expectations to match the low cost of the service and was amazed that the experience was no different than going through an expensive attorney. They were very prompt on responses, very patient and also very knowledgeable on every facet of the application (including a follow up checklist). I would highly recommend them considering the low cost they charge and the high risk we take by doing this ourselves
First Dhalsite
First Dhalsite
22:27 01 Sep 17
USVISANOW streamlined the paperwork which saved us so much time. This also reduced the stress involved in filling out the paperwork. They also are very understanding and respond very quickly to questions and emails. Jackline is now a US citizen which took less than 5 months. Thank you Mr. Taylor and your team. From Brian and Jacky.
Jackline Osero
Jackline Osero
17:32 12 Sep 17

Read More Client Reviews