Matter of Quantifi – recruitment report – reasons for rejection

BALCA found that the employer’s recruitment report merged the reasons for rejecting the two applicants, and while the reasons for rejection may have been lawful, the report did not specify which grounds apply to which candidate.

Issue Date: 12 May 2011
BALCA Case No.: 2010-PER-00894
ETA Case No.: A-07235-68661

In the Matter of: QUANTIFI, INC.,
Employer, on behalf of DEHUA ZHANG, Alien.

Certifying Officer: William Carlson
Atlanta Processing Center

Appearances: Jina X. Shaw, Esquire
Xu & Iacona, P.C.
Metuchen, New Jersey
For the Employer

Gary M. Buff, Associate Solicitor
Clarette H. Yen, Attorney
Office of the Solicitor
Division of Employment and Training Legal Services
Washington, DC
For the Certifying Officer

Before: Colwell, Johnson and Vittone
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 governing permanent alien labor certification found at Title 20, Part 656 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (“C.F.R.”).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On September 18, 2007, Quantifi, Inc. (Employer) filed an Application for Alien Employment Certification on behalf of Dehua Zhang (Alien) for the position of Software Engineer. (AF 112-125).1 The Employer indicated that the position requires a Master’s degree in Computer Science and 24 months experience in the job offered, or any suitable combination of education, training, or experience. (AF 113-114). The Employer listed the job duties of the position as “Responsible for Windows GUI, C++/Java Interop, and Web Services (XML/SOAP) development. [I]nvolve[d] in whole development lifecycle, i.e. requirement elicitation, object-oriented design and analysis, coding, debugging, and deployment.” (AF 114).

On October 19, 2007, the Certifying Officer (CO) issued an Audit Notification, directing the Employer to submit all recruitment documentation, including a recruitment report, as outlined in 20 C.F.R. §656.17(g)(1). (AF 109-111). The Employer submitted a response to the audit on November 19, 2007. (AF 68-108). The Employer’s recruitment report provided, in relevant part:

[Two] candidates responded and were evaluated for the position. Upon reviewing the CVs it was discovered that these candidates either lacked experience in developing or designing GUI on Windows platforms, lacked skills in designing new software or enhancements using C++/Java, or had little experience in the web-service applications, or currently doesn’t have
legal work authority. We had to reject these candidates on these grounds. The evaluation of the resumes indicated a serious gap in the skill sets required to meet the goals and objectives of the company.

(AF 93). On June 18, 2009, the CO requested additional information from the Employer, including “a copy of the complete, original response as submitted on November 19, 2007.” (AF 66-67). The Employer responded to this request on June 29, 2009. (AF 22-65).

On September 15, 2009, the CO denied certification on five grounds: 1) “[t]he employer’s recruitment report made only generalized statement that U.S. workers did not meet the employer’s minimum requirements;” 2) “[t]he notice of filing does not list the wage offered;” 3) “[t]he geographic area of employment contained in the job order does not match the geographic area of employment described in ETA Form 9089;” 4) “[t]he information listed in Section H of the ETA Form 9089 does not match the information contained on the Prevailing Wage Determination;” and 5) “the employer failed to submit an unaltered copy of the notice of fil[ing], prevailing wage determination (PWD), and the employer’s website advertisement.” (AF 18-21).

The Employer made a request for reconsideration on October 14, 2009. (AF 3-17). With its request for reconsideration, the Employer attached an amended recruitment report to explain why the two candidates were rejected. (AF 10-12). The Employer also explained that it did list the wage offered on an internal post, that its office changed locations, and that other inconsistencies were due to the fact that the Employer has “filed multiple Prevailing Wages with different drafts of job duties,” (AF 4), and that “there are multiple version[s] for each document.” (AF 5).

The CO issued a determination on reconsideration on June 2, 2010. (AF 1-2). On reconsideration, the CO accepted the Employer’s information concerning the notice of filing, job order, prevailing wage determination, and information provided in response to its additional audit information request. (AF 1). However, the CO still found the Employer’s recruitment report deficient. Per 20 C.F.R. §656.24(g)(2), the CO did not consider the Employer’s amended recruitment report attached to the request for reconsideration.

The CO forwarded the case to BALCA, and a Notice of Docketing was issued on July 22, 2010. The Employer filed an appellate brief on September 3, 2010, arguing that its first recruitment report met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(g)(1), and that the recruitment report submitted on reconsideration only clarified the content of the previously submitted recruitment report. Additionally, the Employer argues that the two applicants “were not U.S. worker[s] (Permanent resident or U.S. citizen).” (Emp. Br. at 4). Accordingly, the Employer argues that because neither of the applicants are U.S. workers, the Employer did not unlawfully reject U.S. workers. (Emp. Br. at 5). The CO filed a brief Statement of Position on September 7, 2010, arguing that denial was appropriate because the recruitment report that the Employer submitted with its audit response materials did not categorize the lawful-job related reasons for each rejection of U.S. workers. Specifically, the CO argues that it is unclear from the recruitment report what the particular reason was for rejecting each worker.

DISCUSSION

The Employer attached new documentation to its request for reconsideration. Under 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(g)(2), a request for reconsideration may include only:

(i) Documentation that the Department actually received from the employer in response to a request from the Certifying Officer to the employer; or

(ii) Documentation that the employer did not have an opportunity to present previously to the Certifying Officer, but that existed at the time the Application for Permanent Labor Certification was filed, and was maintained by the employer to support the application for permanent labor certification in compliance with the requirements of § 656.10(f).

BALCA has explained this regulation as only requiring the CO to consider additional documentation submitted with an employer’s request for reconsideration if the employer did not have the opportunity to submit it previously. See Denzil Gunnels d/b/a Gunnels Arabians, 2010-PER-628 (Nov. 16, 2010).

The Employer states in its brief that the documentation is not new documentation, but is “just an attempt to state the same reasoning in a different wording to avoid misinterpretation.” Emp. Br. at 6. The Employer then contends that this clarifying
document is actually a response to the audit request, and thus is documentation which was in existence at the time the application was filed. Id. at 7. However, the Employer already had the opportunity to present its reasons for rejecting the two applicants when it filed its audit response materials. As the Board has explained, PERM is an exacting process, designed to eliminate back-and-forth between applicants and the government, and to favor administrative efficiency over dialogue in order to better serve the public interest overall, given the resources available to administer the program. HealthAmerica, 2006-PER-1, slip op. at 19 (July 18, 2006)(en banc). That the Employer failed to present its reasons in a clear and cogent manner with its audit response materials does not mean that it lacked the opportunity to present this evidence. Accordingly, the CO did not err by refusing to consider this documentation on reconsideration, and BALCA cannot consider this documentation on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.26(a)(4)(i) and 656.27(c); Eleftheria Restaurant Corp., 2008-PER-143 (Jan. 9, 2009); 5th Avenue Landscaping, Inc., 2008-PER-27 (Feb. 11, 2009); Tekkote, 2008-PER-218 (Jan. 5, 2008).

When an employer files an application for permanent alien labor certification under the process for a professional position, the employer must conduct certain recruitment steps and be prepared to submit documentation of the recruitment steps in the event of an audit. 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(1). The PERM regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(g) provide, in relevant part:

Recruitment report. (1) The employer must prepare a recruitment report signed by the employer or the employer’s representative noted in § 656.10(b)(2)(ii) describing the recruitment steps undertaken and the results achieved, the number of hires, and, if applicable, the number of U.S. workers rejected, categorized by the lawful job related reasons for such rejections. The Certifying Officer, after reviewing the employer’s recruitment report, may request the U.S. workers’ resumes or applications, sorted by the reasons the workers were rejected.

Recruitment reports are required, in part, so that the CO can determine whether U.S. workers were rejected for lawful job related reasons. See Marlenny’s Haircutters, 2009-PER-13 (Jan. 29, 2009). Here, the Employer’s recruitment report stated that two candidates were evaluated and rejected. (AF 93). The Employer’s recruitment report merged the reasons for rejecting the two applicants, stating that they “either lacked experience […] or currently doesn’t have legal work authority.” Id. While these grounds may very well have been lawful, they are not specific as to which grounds apply to which candidate. Consequently, the Employer’s recruitment report does not comply with the requirements at Section 656.17(g), and the CO is unable to determine whether U.S. workers were rejected for lawful job related reasons.

In its appellate brief, the Employer argues that neither candidate was a U.S. worker; therefore, it need not categorize the lawful job related reasons for rejecting the applicants. The Employer’s circular argument is unpersuasive. While the regulation requires an employer to categorize the lawful job related reasons for rejecting U.S. workers, it is axiomatic that in order for the CO to determine whether a U.S. worker was rejected for a lawful job related reason, the candidates must be categorized in such a way as to discern who is and who is not a U.S. worker. In the instant case, without categorization, the CO was unable to determine if the candidates were U.S. workers.2 This led to the “misinterpretation” cited by the Employer. Emp. Br. at 5-6.

Because the Employer failed to categorize the lawful job related reasons for rejecting two applicants, the CO properly denied certification.

Based on the foregoing, 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 Moreover, contrary to the definition of “U.S. worker” offered by the Employer, (Emp. Br. at 4), the PERM regulations define a U.S. worker as a worker who is either (1) a U.S. citizen; (2) a U.S. national; (3) lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (4) granted status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under 8 U.S.C. 1160(a), 1161(a), or 1255a(a)(1); (5) admitted as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. 1157; or (6) granted asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158. 20 C.F.R. § 656.3.

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