Matter of Heso Electric – employer failed to check Box M-1

BALCA remanded the case to the CO for reconsideration where the employer failed to check Box M-1 on the ETA 9089, which asks whether the application was completed by the employer, but provided the preparer’s name and signature. (Matter of Heso Electric – 4-21-11).

Issue Date: 21 April 2011
BALCA Case No.: 2010-PER-00670
ETA Case No.: A-08161-59728

In the Matter of: HESO ELECTRIC,
Employer on behalf of GILBERT PANIAGUA-GERMOSEN, Alien.

Certifying Officer: William Carlson
Atlanta National Processing Center

Appearances: Howard L. Baker
Wilens & Baker
New York, New York
For the Employer

Gary M. Buff, Associate Solicitor
For the Certifying Officer

Before: Romero, Kennington, and Rosenow
Administrative Law Judges


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.”).


On December 3, 2007, the Certifying Officer (“CO”) accepted for processing an Application for Permanent Employment Certification for the position of Electrical Helper (AF 10-19 ).1 On June 11, 2008, the CO issued a denial determination regarding the application because a selection was not made for Section M-1 which concerns whether or not the application was completed by the employer (AF 7-9). In a letter dated June 24,2008, the Employer requested a review of the denial (AF 1) and submitted an amended form because the preparer inadvertently did not make the appropriate selection for Section M-1. The only difference between the original and amended applications was that in the amended application, the “No” box was checked in Section M-1, signifying that the application was not completed by the employer. On April 30, 2010, the case was forwarded to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (Board or “BALCA”) for administrative review.

BALCA issued a Notice of Docketing on June 17, 2010. On June 24, 2010, the Employer filed an intent to proceed and submitted a brief on July 12, 2010. On July 30, 2010, the CO sent a letter requesting that BALCA affirm the denial based upon the original determination as made by the CO.


The PERM regulations require an employer seeking to apply for permanent labor certification on behalf of an alien to file an ETA Form 9089. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(a). The regulations provide that incomplete applications will be denied. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(a). Additionally, the regulations provide that once an application is filed, requests for modifications to the application will not be accepted. 20 C.F.R. § 656.11(b).2

PERM is an exacting process, designed to eliminate back-and-forth between applicants and the government and to favor administrative efficiency. Given the resources available to administer the program, such efficiency benefits the public overall. HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-1, slip op. at 19 (July 18, 2006) (en banc). The burden is on the employer to ensure that it is submitting a complete application to the Certifying Officer. 20 C.F.R. § 656.2(b); All Ohio Air Filter Sales & Service Co., 2009-PER-205(April 7, 2010); Alpine Store Inc., 2007-PER-40 (June 27, 2007). For example, failure of the preparer to sign Section M of the Form 9089 is not a mere technicality. TLH Construction Corp., 2010-PER-688 (Aug.19, 2010).

The CO argues that the original application was incomplete, because a selection was not made for Section M-1, which asks whether the application was completed by the employer. The Employer argues that the preparer merely made a typographical error that could have easily been corrected during processing.3

The Employer did not argue that it was requesting a reconsideration by the CO rather than BALCA review, and except for this difference, many of the facts of this case mirror those of a 2010 BALCA decision, Gunnels, 2010-PER-626 (November 16, 2010).

In that decision, the Employer had neglected to check the box in Section M-1, but similarly provided a preparer’s name and signature, thereby signifying that someone other than the Employer had filled out the Form 9089. The request for review by Employer was somewhat ambiguous, because it was entitled “Request for Review” yet the letter/motion was addressed to the attention of the CO, much as it would for a request for reconsideration. The BALCA panel in Gunnels ultimately determined that the CO abused its discretion and elevated form over substance in refusing to reconsider the denial. The panel noted specifically that:

Since a request for review must contain only legal argument and only such evidence that was within the record upon which the denial of labor certification was based,’ direct review by BALCA bars our consideration of this argument. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion for the CO to treat the Employer’s request as a request for BALCA review without first issuing a ruling on reconsideration because it denied the Employer the opportunity to be heard on its legal argument.

In the instant case, the Employer similarly merely neglected to check a box in M-1 but provided the preparer’s name and signature. Implicit in Employer’s response was the legal argument that the completion of the signature block of the preparer was sufficient and the box was not required to be checked. More significantly, its response to the initial denial was at the least an ambiguous request that the CO treated as a request for BALCA review, rather than CO reconsideration. Whether the CO abused his discretion in doing so depends on whether he denied the Employer the opportunity to be heard on its legal argument. We find the case falls within the holding in Gunnels and remand the case in order to provide the CO the opportunity to reconsider the issue.


Based on the foregoing, we VACATE AND REMAND this matter for reconsideration by the CO.

For the Panel:

Administrative Law Judge

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 Employers often rely on HealthAmerica and assert that a typo on its application is harmless error and that it really did comply with the regulations. However, following the decision in HealthAmerica, the Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”) amended the regulations to prevent an employer from modifying its application. 20 C.F.R. § 656.11(b); ETA, Final Rule, Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Reducing the Incentives for Opportunities for Fraud and Abuse and Enhancing Program Integrity, 72 Fed. Reg. 27904, 27916 (May 17, 2007) (“To the extent the BALCA favored allowing the employer in HealthAmerica to present evidence that effectively change the response to a question on the application, the BALCA’s approach is inconsistent with the Department’s objective and the NPRM proposal that applications cannot be changed or modified after submission.”). The regulatory history succinctly explains that ETA considered the costs associated with permitting employers the opportunity to modify their applications and determined that it would be a significant and costly resource drain on the PERM case management system and  staff. 72 Fed. Reg. at 27918.

Additionally, ETA rejected the argument that typographical errors were immaterial, noting that “typographical or similar errors are not immaterial if they cause an application to be denied based on regulatory requirements.” 72 Fed. Reg. at 27917.

3 The Employer also argued that the Claimant was previously represented by an organization which had been closed down by the New York state Attorney General for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and that the organization had provided shoddy work which had led to the deportation of many if its clients.

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.
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
The best law agency I have ever worked with. Very responsive, experienced. I trusted my green process to them and it was done perfectly without and issues in minimum possible period. Thank You Very much Marc, John and others!!!
Hrach Gyulzadyan
Hrach Gyulzadyan
16:38 30 Sep 17
My husband and I worked with John Dorer from Marc Taylor's office, and his services exceeded our expectations. He was very knowledgeable, responsive, and our Green Card process and interview from start to finish went smoothly. Thank you so much, John, for your dedication to our case and all your help. I would highly recommend USAVISANOW to all!
Sophia Nguyen
Sophia Nguyen
17:26 09 Oct 17
Marc and John helped me apply and get my green card. They are very specific about needed documents and other details. Also, they are very responsive when you have a question. I know I emailed them several times just to ask questions that I could have found answers online myself. They are very patient and professional. If you want to get great services with reasonable fees contact them!
Amin Bagheri
Amin Bagheri
11:54 12 Oct 17
Used the services of this office for Green Card through AOS and was mainly in contact with John Dorer. I was unsure about their services at first, considering the unusually affordable cost but was pleasantly surprised by their prompt responses to all our questions and their timely preparing and handling of our documents! Will be using their services again when filing for removal of condition! Definitely recommended!
Lisa Lorentzon
Lisa Lorentzon
22:56 10 Dec 17
my wife and i worked with John Dorer from Marc Taylors Associates. He's services were awesome and amazing. i would recommend him to anybody applying for their permanent resident to work with them.
Seun Olanrewaju
Seun Olanrewaju
15:33 22 Dec 17
I was very pleased with their professional service from the beginning to the end for my citizenship application. I am a professional working in the higher education and somewhat familiar with the immigration process. For that reason, I was thinking of applying it by myself but I found Taylor and Associates whose service fee is very affordable and worth of my time. Indeed, they found some of minor mistakes in my application, which could have delayed much longer for my application process. Luckily, they caught and fixed them immediately. Their communication was excellent. In fact, everything was very smooth. Even after I had the approval notice, they followed up with valuable advices. I strongly recommend their service if you need immigration services. Thank you Marc and John for your excellent services.
Dominic Choo
Dominic Choo
17:12 23 Dec 17

Read More Client Reviews