Matter of O’Brien & Van Stiphout – Offered Wage

 BALCA Discusses the NOF “Offered Wage” Under 20 CFR §656.17(f)(7). The “offered wage” is the wage offered to the alien at the time the ETA 9089 is filed. BALCA rejected the argument that the NOF was sufficient where the employer raised the wage after posting to a rate above the NOF range.

Issue Date: 03 January 2011
BALCA No.: 2010-PER-00035
ETA No.: A-07189-54074

In the Matter of: O BRIEN & VAN STIPHOUT LLC formerly known as KRUPIN O’BRIEN, LLC, Employer, on behalf of ABDUL RAHMAN SHEIKH, Alien.

Certifying Officer: William Carlson
Atlanta Processing Center

Appearances: Monique A. van Stiphout, Esquire
Washington, D.C.
For the Employer

Gary M. Buff, Associate Solicitor
Frank P. Buckley, 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


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.”).


On August 22, 2007, the Certifying Officer (“CO”) accepted for filing the Employer’s Application for Permanent Employment Certification for the position of “Senior Immigration Paralegal.” (AF 131-146).(1) The Employer indicated that the position required a bachelor’s degree and 60 months of related experience. (AF 132-133). Additionally, the Employer listed the offered wage as $70,000 per year and the prevailing wage as $41,413 per year. (AF 132).

On October 5, 2007, the CO issued an Audit Notification, explaining that the Employer’s stated minimum requirements exceeded those normally required for the job opportunity as defined by O*Net. (AF 127-130). Specifically, the CO stated that the total lapsed time for the education, training, and experience entered on the Form ETA 9089 equals 84 months, while the SVP level assigned to the occupation permits a maximum total lapsed time of preparation of 2 years. The CO required the Employer to provide documentation justifying business necessity for this requirement by showing that the requirement bears a reasonable relationship to the occupation in the context of the employer’s business and that the requirement is essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner. (AF 130). Additionally, the CO required the Employer to submit, including other documentation, a copy of its Notice of Filing. (AF 127).

The Employer filed its audit response materials on November 5, 2007 and included a statement justifying the business necessity for the stated minimum job requirements. (AF 34-126). The Employer’s Notice of Filing (“NOF”) listed the salary for the position as $50,000-$65,000 per year. (AF 93). Additionally, the Employer submitted a copy of its prevailing wage determination (“PWD”) of $41,413 per year. (AF 102).

On January 9, 2009, the CO denied certification. (AF 32-33). The CO denied certification because the Employer’s NOF lists a wage that is less than the prevailing wage shown on the prevailing wage determination form in violation of 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(5). (AF 33). Additionally, the CO denied certification because the Notice of Filing contains a wage that is lower than the offered wage of $70,000 in violation of 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(7). (AF 33).

The Employer filed a request for expedited review on February 6, 2009. (AF 1-31). In its brief, the Employer argues that the Notice of Filing did not list a wage that is less than the prevailing wage. (AF 1-2). In addition, the Employer states that at the time it posted the Notice of Filing, it was paying the Alien $60,000, but before it filed its application, it raised the Alien’s salary to $70,000 per year. (AF 2). Therefore, the Employer argues that it did not violate 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(7) by listing a wage that was less favorable than that offered to the alien. (AF 2). In addition, the Employer submitted additional documentation with it  request for review to show that the Alien received a $60,000 annual salary at the time the Employer posted its Notice of Filing. (AF 12-28).

The CO forwarded this case to BALCA, and BALCA issued a Notice of Docketing on October 12, 2009. The Employer filed a Statement of Intent to Proceed, but did not file an appellate brief. The CO filed a Statement of Position on December 9, 2009, arguing that the Employer failed to comply with §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(7) by listing a wage in the NOF that was less than the offered wage of $70,000 per year.


The regulations require an employer that files an application for permanent labor certification to provide notice to the employer’s employees at the facility or location of employment. 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(ii). The Notice of Filing must contain the information required for advertisements in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals under § 656.17(f). 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(4). The applicable regulation requires that the advertisement must not contain wages or terms and conditions of employment that are less favorable than those offered to the alien. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(7).

BALCA has repeatedly stressed the importance of the NOF to the PERM program. We have stated that the NOF is not a mere technicality, but is an implementation of a statutory notice requirement designed to assist interested persons in providing relevant information to the CO about an employer’s certification application. It is not a regulation to be lightly dismissed under a harmless error finding. See Riya Chutney Manor, LLC, 2010-PER-177 and 191 (Apr. 7, 2010); Voodoo Contracting Corp., 2007-PER-1 (May 21, 2007). Further, BALCA has held that 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(7) requires that when the offered wage is more than the PWD, the wage listed on the NOF must not be less than the wage offered to the alien. Thomas L. Brown Associates, P.C., 2009-PER-347 (Sept. 1, 2009).

Here, the Employer’s NOF listed a wage range of $50,000-$65,000 per year, less than the offered wage of $70,000 per year to the Alien. We are not persuaded by the Employer’s argument that it did not violate the 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(f)(7) because it was paying the Alien a wage that fell within the NOF wage range at the time of posting. The wage that the Employer was paying the Alien at the time it posted the NOF is not the “offered wage;” the “offered wage” is the wage offered to the alien beneficiary at the time the application is filed, as provided by the Employer on the ETA Form 9089. See Final Rule, Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Implementation of New System, 69 Fed. Reg. 77326, 77338 (Dec. 27, 2004) (“the employer must include in the notice the wage offered to the alien beneficiary at the time the application is filed”). Therefore, the Employer explicitly violated the requirements under 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.10(d)(4) and 656.17(f)(7) by listing a wage in its NOF that was less than the wage offered to the Alien.(2)

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the CO’s denial of labor certification.


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 We acknowledge that this seems like an unjust result because the regulation does not accommodate changes in the Alien’s salary between recruitment and filing of the Form 9089. Nevertheless, the Board is not at liberty to ignore plain regulatory language.

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