Source: http://www.abilblog.com/us-blog/category/balca
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:06:59+00:00

Document:
Recently, in the representative case, Matter of Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corp, 2013-PER-01488 (BALCA, September 29, 2016), the Board of Alien Labor Certifications Appeals (BALCA) reversed 382 PERM denials finding, most significantly, that the employer’s failure to apprise US workers of its wage adjustment – a variable amount of money to be paid to the employee depending on where they’re geographically based – was not a valid ground for denial.
As eligible, you may be paid a geographically based Cost of Labor Adjustment (COLA) of $250.00 per pay period for Washington, D.C., which is an annualized amount of $6,000. Your COLA on the 15th and last day of each month in accordance with the Company’s current payroll policies and practices, along with your regular base salary. [sic] If your work location changes, then there will be an adjustment to COLA effective the first day of work in your new work location. COLA is subject to regular review and may be increased or decreased, or replaced by another compensation component upon certain promotions.
The Certifying Officer (CO) found that the employer’s Notice of Filing (NOF), which advised of a long and short term travel requirement, failed to also appropriately apprise US workers of the actual terms and conditions of employment. The CO found that the NOF violated 20 CFR §656.17(f)(3) which states that advertisements must “provide a description of the vacancy specific enough to apprise the U.S. worker of the job opportunity for which certification is sought” and 656.10(d)(4) which requires that the NOF “contain the information required for advertisements by §656.17(f).” The CO also found that the job order, Sunday newspaper advertisements, local newspaper advertisement, job search website advertisement and private employment firm advertisement failed to apprise US workers of the COLA and therefore did not appropriately apprise them of the job opportunity in violation of 656.17(f)(3). The CO, in denying the application, held that US workers were not properly notified that they would be appropriately compensated based on the specific geographic area of assignment, which could have impacted whether or not they were willing to apply for the job opportunity.
In its Request for Reconsideration/Request for Review, the employer argued that COLA was a “per diem benefit payment” which did not need to be disclosed based on BALCA’s previous decision in Matter of Emma Willard School, 2010-PER-01101 (BALCA, September 28, 2011). In Emma Willard, BALCA held that there is no obligation for an employer to list every item or condition of employment in its advertisements and listing none does not create an automatic assumption that no employment benefits exist. I previously blogged about this decision here. The employer argued that COLA is a not a guaranteed benefit and can be increased, decreased or replaced by other compensation at any time and to insist that such a benefit be disclosed would be similar to insisting that the employer also disclose benefits such as parking and gym memberships, which the regulations do not require.
BALCA found that the CO correctly classified COLA as a wage adjustment because it is a set amount “per pay period”, even if the exact amount may change, and is paid on the 15th and last day of each month along with the base salary. BALCA further found that this is different from a per diem benefit, which refers to something paid on a daily basis (citing Mirriam-Webster’s definition of “per diem” as “by the day”) or to reimbursements for travel receipts or meals (pointing to the U.S. General Services Administrations’ definition of “per diem” as an allowance for lodging…meals and incidental expenses). BALCA cited the case of Crowley v. U.S., 57 Fed. Cl. 376, 381 (2003) where the court cited a 1990 Conference Report discussing the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act which stated that a locality adjustment was considered part of base pay. BALCA therefore held that, based on the federal government’s characterization of a locality benefit as part of base pay, COLA must also be considered part of base pay. Since COLA is a wage and not a benefit, BALCA held that the holding in Emma Willard did not apply.
If COLA is a wage adjustment then isn’t the employer required to list it in all its advertisements and on the NOF? BALCA held that since there is no requirement that an employer list a wage in its newspaper advertisements, the employer’s failure to do so is not a violation of the regulations. Also, citing its decision in Symantec Corporation, 2011-PER-01856 (Jul. 30, 2014) which I previously discussed here, BALCA held that the job order and additional recruitment steps could not held deficient pursuant to 656.17(f)(3) because 656.17(f) applies only to newspaper advertisements. If the advertisements were not deficient, then 656.24(b)(2) is not a valid ground for denial because the employer did properly recruit for the position.
But BALCA has left a pretty bloody trail when it comes to lack of disclosures in the NOF. In Matter of KFI, Inc. 2009-PER-00288 (Aug. 25, 2009) BALCA affirmed a PERM denial based on the employer’s failure to list the CO’s address on NOF in violation of 656.10(d)(3)(iii). In Servion Global Solutions, Inc., 009-PER-00282 (Jun. 23, 2009) BALCA held that failure to state the rate of pay constituted grounds for denial. In Matter of Innopath Software, 2009-PER-00153 (Sept. 2, 2009), BALCA held that the absence of the employer name on the NOF, although it was posted in a conspicuous location at the place of employment, was not harmless error. In Matter of G.O.T. Supply, Inc., 2012-PER-00429 (Oct. 6, 2015) BALCA affirmed the CO’s denial where the company president’s name but not employer’s name was listed on the NOF. BALCA said persons providing information to the CO need the employer name as it appears on Form 9089. The NOF is required to contain certain information as specified in 20 CFR § 656.10(d) which provides that the NOF “must state the rate of pay (which must equal or exceed the prevailing wage entered by the SWA on the prevailing wage request form).” Failure to list the rate of pay wage in the NOF usually constitutes grounds for denial of certification. But this time, the deficiencies of the PERM process and the Form 9089 could not be overcome.
Despite its conclusion that the regulations could reasonably be interpreted to require an employer to state a wage adjustment on a NOF, BALCA declined to affirm the denial because the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has issued no guidance whatsoever alerting employers that this type of wage adjustment needs to be specifically disclosed in the advertising and on the ETA Form 9089. BALCA also noted that there is “neither an instruction nor a current mechanism by which an employer may enter this information on the Form 9089 and cited Federal Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (Feb. 20, 2009) in which case the fact that certain mandatory language pertaining to an alternative requirement under Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc), did not appear on the ETA Form 9089 was not fatal as there is no space on the form for such language. Because employers have not been provided with notice of its regulatory interpretation concerning the requirement that COLAs be disclosed and a mechanism by which to disclose COLAs, BALCA could not find the NOF defective.
As an aside, it is also interesting to note that the foreign national resided in Florida rather than in Washington, DC, but BALCA did not attach any significance to this fact. It still raises a question about the importance of differentiating between a future job opportunity in a labor certification and a foreign national’s current employment. It was not clear in the representative case whether Washington DC, which was the subject of the COLA, would be the future position. The PERM labor certification was presumably filed using the employer’s headquarters, and indicated that it would involve working at “unanticipated client locations throughout the US.” If the current position provides a COLA, but the future position that is the subject of the labor certification does not, then the fact that the employer submitted a job offer letter with respect to the current position should not undermine the outcome of the labor certification. In responding to an audit notification, employers must clearly specify whether a job offer letter sent to a US worker applicant is applicable to the future PERM position or to the current position in order to attempt to stave off a similar denial.
Also quite interesting is BALCA’s insertion of a footnote acknowledging that the employer, in its prevailing wage request, negatively answered the question about whether the position will be performed at multiple worksites but then indicated on the Form 9089 that work would also be performed at “unanticipated client locations throughout the US.” BALCA acknowledged that the prevailing wage issued by the National Prevailing Wage Center may have been affected had the employer disclosed the roving nature of the position. BALCA provided no explanation as to why this did not constitute grounds for denial. Possibly because the immigration bar continues to beg in vain for clarification on issues related to roving employees.
This decision follows the trend of Infosys Ltd., 2016-PER-00074 (May 12, 2016), also cited in Cognizant, where BALCA held that it was not fundamentally fair to require an employer’s advertisements and Form 9089 to disclose the possibility of relocation in absence of notice or guidance especially since the DOL had previously approved over 500 similar PERM applications by the employer. In Infosys, BALCA recognized that PERM, an attestation-based program places a heavy burden on employers to be careful in preparing their applications but also places a related burden on the CO to ensure that employers are given adequate guidance on what will be demanded of them. These decisions highlight the frustrating deficiencies in the existing PERM regulations and Form 9089. Updates to the PERM program have long been anticipated by both employers and foreign nationals who each expect to benefit from the PERM modernization. DOL officials previously commented that they expect the new regulation to be finalized and implemented before the end of President Obama’s administration in January 2017.
What One Hand Giveth the Other Taketh Away: Are We Truly Welcoming Foreign Entrepreneurs to America?
The above is an extract from the USCIS’ Entrepreneur Pathways Portal which provides guidance on how entrepreneurs can obtain nonimmigrant visa status through a startup entity. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched its Entrepreneurs in Residence initiative in 2012 and later the portal. Prior to that, in an August 2, 2011 press release, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that "The United States must continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world to invest their talents, skills, and ideas to grow our economy and create American jobs.” Through the Entrepreneurs in Residence program, USCIS officers are supposed to be trained to recognize the unique nature of a startup and to understand that a nonimmigrant petition based on a startup will not present the characteristics typical of a petition filed through a more established business entity. Startups often lack a formal office space; they may operate in stealth mode in an effort to hide information from competitors; and the foreign national seeking nonimmigrant status in the US often has a majority interest in the startup. Unfortunately, too often a benefit conferred on one hand is taken away by the other hand. USCIS has created these seemingly great avenues for entrepreneurs but other USCIS initiatives and other agencies such as the Department of Labor (DOL) make it harder for those same entrepreneurs to continue to obtain benefits.
One example is the DHS’ proposed rule, “Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students with STEM Degrees and Cap-Gap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students,” which was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 for comment. In sum, the rule proposes to amend the F-1 student visa regulations regarding optional practical training (OPT) for certain students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) from U.S. institutions of higher education. Under the current rule, students can receive up to 12 months of OPT upon graduation. In 2008, the DHS published regulations authorizing an additional 17-months extension of the OPT period for foreign students who graduated in STEM fields. The new rule proposes to allow F-1 STEM students who have elected to pursue 12 months of OPT to extend the OPT period by 24 months. This new 24-month extension would effectively replace the 17-month STEM OPT extension currently available to these students. This is indeed a positive development, and it encourages talented foreign students to remain in the United States and contribute to the US economy.
A STEM graduate may also utilize the OPT period to work for their own startup. But one aspect of the proposed rule might mean that this STEM graduate may not be able to obtain the 24-month extension to continue working for the startup. One of the things that will be required under the proposed rule is the implementation of formal mentoring and training plans by employers for the STEM OPT employee. The employer must also implement a process for evaluating the OPT employee. The STEM OPT extension could be difficult to establish for the OPT employee who is the majority shareholder in their startup. It appears that here the government will want to see proof of the typical employer-employee relationship which totally goes against everything it tries to do through the USCIS Entrepreneurs Pathway portal and erodes the whole idea of the startup.
Even if the foreign national were to obtain nonimmigrant visa status, that status is temporary. If the foreign national is desirous of obtaining lawful permanent residence in the US through their own company, there s/he may face another roadblock.
Recently, in Step By Step Day Care LLC, 2012-PER-00737 (Sept. 25, 2015), the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) affirmed the denial of a PERM labor certification finding that the offered position was not open to U.S. workers because the beneficiary was in a position to control or influence hiring decisions regarding the job. The employer filed a PERM labor certification for the position of “Daycare Center Director” indicating on the application form that the company is a closely-held corporation in which the foreign national has an ownership interest. The DOL issued an audit request for documentation that included information on the business structure; a statement describing any familial relationships between parties with ownership interests in the company and the foreign national; the name of the employee with the primary responsibility for interviewing and hiring applicants; and the names of the employer’s officials who have control or influence over hiring decisions involving the job opportunity listed on the PERM application. The employer’s audit response showed that the foreign national beneficiary of the PERM application and her husband each held 50% ownership of the company, and they were here on E-2 visas. (The E-2 visa is one such visa that is encouraged for startups in the Entrepreneurs Pathway Portal). The foreign national was the Director and her husband was the Operations Manager. The recruitment was conducted by the company’s Assistant Director.
The Certifying Officer (CO) denied the application on the grounds that the employer had not overcome the presumption that exists that a job opportunity is not bona fide when the employer is a closely-held company where the beneficiary has an ownership interest or a familial relationship with the stockholders, officers, incorporators, or partners, and is one of a small number of employees. The CO took issue with the fact that the hiring official, the Assistant Director, was a subordinate of the beneficiary and is not the usual official having authority over hiring decisions.
In its motion for reconsideration, the employer explained that while the beneficiary and her husband typically made the hiring decisions in consultation with the Assistant Director, the hiring process was modified in for purposes under the labor certification recruitment because the beneficiary was also the co-owner. The employer held that neither the beneficiary nor her husband were involved in recruitment. The employer argued that the beneficiary and her husband each held E-2 investor visas as a result of purchasing the company and therefore the beneficiary’s stay in the US was not dependent on her position as Director and provided documentation to show that the position was a requirement for daycare businesses under Florida law and did not exist for the benefit of the foreign national beneficiary. The CO nevertheless upheld the denial.
Is so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her pervasive presence and personal attributes that the employer would be unlikely to continue in operation without the alien.
Good Deal, Inc., 2009-PER-00309 (Mar. 3, 2010) (citing Modular Container Systems, Inc., 1989-INA-228, (July 16, 1991) (en banc). The Board should also consider the Employer’s compliance and good faith in the application process. Id. No single factor, such as a familial relationship between the alien and the employer or the size of the employer, shall be controlling. See Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Implementation of New System, 69 Fed. Reg. 77326, 77356 (Dec. 27, 2004).
The employer's representative who interviews or considers U.S. workers for the job offered to the alien must be the person who normally interviews or considers, on behalf of the employer, applicants for job opportunities such as that offered the alien, but which do not involve labor certifications.
BALCA held that since the Assistant Director did not normally conduct interviews or consider applications, this regulation was not met. With regard to the employer’s statement that the beneficiary did not need the position since she held E-2 status, BALCA held that the filing of the labor certification indicated the beneficiary’s preference to remain in the position.
The foreign national entrepreneur who successfully obtains nonimmigrant visa status to run a business in the US could later be kicked out when that temporary nonimmigrant visa status expires. In the above discussed BALCA case, the beneficiary held E-2 status which could be extended indefinitely. However, a beneficiary with H-1B status would need to leave the US upon reaching the maximum 6-year limit. While there may be other options for entrepreneurs on a temporary visa to get permanent residency, such as through the national interest waiver or as a person of extraordinary ability, very few can qualify under these pathways. The majority of skilled foreign nationals get sponsored via an employer through the labor certification process, and the odds of winning labor certification substantially lessen when one is the owner or founder of the sponsoring entity. It is not clear how such conflicting policies could work to “[attract] individuals with great drive and entrepreneurial spirit” and “welcome and retain the next generation of foreign entrepreneurs who will start new businesses and create new jobs here in America.” What one hand giveth the other taketh away.
BALCA, What Have You Been Up To So Far in 2015?
I’m sure all PERM practitioners would agree that it’s always good (in fact necessary!) to check in with the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA). One never knows what issues BALCA will comment on next and as we navigate those often treacherous PERM waters, we need all the help we can get! Here are a couple of recent BALCA tidbits.
In Computer Sciences Corporation, 2012-PER-00642 (Jul 9, 2015) the Certifying Officer (CO) denied the PERM on the grounds that the Employer’s inclusion of the language, “Willingness to travel; may require work from home office” in its recruitment advertisements posted on its website and on a job search website, constituted terms and conditions of employment that exceeded those listed on the ETA Form 9089 in violation of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(6).
As background, employers recruiting under PERM for a professional position must complete the mandatory recruitment steps required by 656.17(e)(1)(i) as well as three additional recruitment steps provided in 656.17(e)(1)(ii).
The Employer’s advertisements posted on its website and on the job search website were in satisfaction of two of the three required additional recruitment steps. In reversing the CO’s decision, BALCA simply cited its en banc decision in Symantec Corp., 2011-PER-1856 (July 30, 2014) which I previously blogged about in greater detail here, and held that 656.17(f) does not apply to additional forms of recruitment. The Employer dodged a bullet here.
Once a PERM is denied, if the Employer files a motion for reconsideration, under 656.24(g)(2), this motion can only include (i) documentation that the Department actually received from the employer in response to a request from the CO to the employer; or (ii) documentation that the employer did not have an opportunity to present to the CO, but that existed at the time the PERM was filed and was maintained by the employer to support the PERM application in compliance with 656.10(f).
In New York City Department of Education, 2012-PER-02753 (June 19, 2015), the CO first denied the PERM application on the grounds that the Employer failed to provide a recruitment report that accurately accounted for the number of applicants for the job opportunity. The Employer filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that it properly accounted for all applicants. The CO, ignoring this request for reconsideration, issued a second denial letter, finding that the Employer did not provide job-related reasons for its rejection of US workers. Based on the documentation the Employer had submitted with the audit response, it appeared that US workers were rejected because they expressed disinterest in the position but the CO also reviewed the Employer’s interview notes that stated the candidates were available “immediately” or “soon.” The Employer filed a second motion for reconsideration explaining, not only that the CO cannot ignore the first motion and issue a second denial, but, moreover, that it had indeed lawfully rejected the US workers. Along with its motion the Employer provided a letter from its Executive Director explaining the company’s interview process and the fact that the Employer made the determination to reject the applicants after they expressed their disinterest at a second interview.
Since the Employer failed to properly explain its interview process and reasons for rejection in its audit response, BALCA found that the CO was justified in his denial of the case. However, in forwarding the case to BALCA, the CO acknowledged the letter that the Employer submitted along with its second motion explaining its hiring process. The CO did not refuse to accept it on the grounds that it was barred under 20 CFR 656.24(g)(2). Under that regulation, since the Employer’s had previously had a chance to submit this letter with its audit response but did not and since this letter was not documentation that existed at the time the PERM was filed, the CO would have been justified in refusing to accept it. But since the CO did not, the letter became part of the record that BALCA had to consider upon appeal. With the letter fully explaining the Employer’s interview process, BALCA had no choice but to find that the US workers had been lawfully rejected.
The take away from this case is how important it is to fully respond to an audit request. Had the CO rejected the Employer’s letter, the denial would have been upheld. As BALCA pointed out, the CO’s audit letter very clearly requested a report that lists the date(s) the employer contacted the US worker; the dates the employer interviewed the US worker; the specific reasons the US worker was rejected; and information that documents the employer contacted the applicant(s). In its audit response, the Employer failed to provide this detailed information.
In another case involving New York City Department of Education, BALCA upheld the denial of three PERMs finding that the typed name of the Executive Deputy Director at the bottom of the recruitment report did not constitute a valid signature. The CO had denied the Employer’s PERM after audit for failure to submit a signed report as required under 656.17(g)(1). The Employer, in its request for reconsideration, explained that it had a physically signed recruitment report in its audit file and this report, due to administrative error, simply was not included in the audit response. The Employer alternatively argued that the regulations do not require a handwritten signature and the typed name of the Employer’s Deputy Executive Director was satisfactory. The CO transferred the file to BALCA where each of the Employer’s arguments were shut down.
BALCA held that the fact that the Employer had a physically signed copy of the recruitment report speaks to the fact that the typed name on the bottom of the report submitted with the audit response was not intended to be a signature. The Employer argued that “original signatures” are not required. BALCA agreed that 656.17(g)(1) does not require an original signature but again stated that the typed name on the bottom of the report was not intended to be a signature – original or otherwise. The Employer argued that fundamental fairness ought to prevail as it had only failed to submit the physically signed report due to administrative error. BALCA held that the Employer had been given an opportunity to submit the signed report with the audit response and failed to do so. Finally, the Employer argued that each statement in the recruitment report was verified by other documentation submitted with the audit response and therefore the omission of the physically signed report was immaterial. BALCA, using one of its favorite quotes, held that “PERM is…an exacting process.” Essentially, because a signature is a regulatory requirement under 656.17(g)(1), then there must be a signature, no matter how unfair it may seem in light of all the facts of the case.
It’s really a shame whenever something so simple and unintended leads to a PERM denial or in this case, three PERM denials. But it highlights the importance of checking and rechecking an audit response before it is submitted and the importance of having, if possible, more than one pair of eyes review the response prior to submitting it. PERM can be a very unforgiving process.
In Presto Absorbent Products, Inc., 2012-PER-00775 (May 26, 2015), the CO denied the PERM finding that the Employer failed to provide lawful reasons for rejection. The Employer’s recruitment report stated that the Employer received eight resumes and that the applicants lacked experience. The Employer also stated that “All applicants were reviewed to determine if they would be able and qualified to perform the duties of the position within a reasonable amount of on-the-job training. All applicants were determined not to have been able and qualified for the position even with a reasonable amount of on-the-job training.” BALCA held that the regulation does not indicate a level of specificity beyond what the Employer provided and that “lack of experience” is a lawful reason for rejecting applicants.
While it is indeed heartening anytime BALCA errs on the side of reason, I don’t think PERM practitioners ought to rely too heavily on this decision and it’s always best to be as specific as possible in providing the reasons for rejection of US workers. For instance, instead of “lacks the technological experience” it would be clearer to state, “lacks experience in the required technologies such as C++, Java & PL/SQL” and instead of “lacks experience” it might be better to say “applicant possesses only 2 years of experience but the position requires 5 years of experience.” Even if it may appear silly to have to spell out the obvious, it might be valuable time and money saved by preventing an erroneous denial.
In Pentair Technical Products, 2011-PER-01754 (Aug. 5, 2015), the Employer used the San Antonio Express newspaper (the “Express-News”) for its first Sunday newspaper advertisement to recruit for a professional position in Pharr, Texas. The CO denied the PERM on the grounds that the Express-News is circulated in San Antonio, Texas and not in the area of intended employment – Pharr, Texas.
In a motion for reconsideration, the Employer argued that the Express-News is circulated in Pharr, Texas. The Employer argued that it chose the Express-News as it is the largest newspaper with general circulation in Pharr in order to reach the largest number of US workers. The Employer’s attorney also argued that he had personally contacted the Express-News and a representative at the newspaper had verified that the paper is circulated in Pharr, Texas. The CO nevertheless found that his denial was valid because San Antonio is four hours away from Pharr, well outside commuting distance and so the Employer had failed to advertise in the area of intended employment.
BALCA found that the issue of whether or not San Antonio is outside normal commuting distance from Pharr is relevant only if the Express-News were only available in San Antonio and not in Pharr. However, the record established that the Express-News is a newspaper of general circulation in Pharr. Accordingly, the fact that it is published in San Antonio is of no legal consequence.
BALCA pointed out that when a single area of intended employment is served by multiple newspapers, the CO ought not to be concerned with which paper reaches the most people but rather with whether the newspaper reached the intended audience and is a “newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment.” As an example, BALCA stated that if Trenton, NJ is the area of intended employment, whether The New York Post is more “appropriate” than The Trenton Times because it has more readers is irrelevant and there is nothing in the regulations that requires an employer to utilize the newspaper with the highest circulation in the area of intended employment or the newspaper published closest to the area of intended employment.
At first look, the case appears to be very encouraging. As long as the newspaper reaches its intended audience, all is well. Not so fast. This is another one of those cases where BALCA’s decision is expressly limited to the precise facts of the case. BALCA takes time to point out that in this case the CO did not deny the PERM based on a finding that the Employer had failed to utilize the “most appropriate” newspaper. The only issue raised in the denial was whether the Employer placed a newspaper advertisement in the area of intended employment so that is the only issue that BALCA has addressed. As to whether Express-News was the newspaper “most appropriate” to the occupation for which the Employer was recruiting, we will never know.
It can be very difficult for employers to decide where to advertise. This case answers the question of whether it is permissible to advertise in The New York Times for a position in New Jersey. Yes, it is permissible because The New York Times is a newspaper of general circulation in New Jersey. But this case does not provide any guidelines for an employer struggling to determine which newspaper is “most appropriate.” For instance, in recruiting for a professional position in New York City, how does an employer decide between The New York Post vs. The New York Times? It is significantly more expensive to advertise in The New York Times and so an employer may not want to do that unless that newspaper is the only newspaper that would be permissible under the regulations. What statistics would that employer need to examine? Should that employer just assume that The New York Times is the newspaper most read by professionals and therefore The New York Times will always be “most appropriate” in recruiting for any professional position? In a footnote, BALCA mentioned that the Employer utilized The Monitor as the newspaper for the second Sunday advertisement and that this was not challenged by the CO. BALCA pointed out that the regulations refer to “newspaper” in the singular in requiring advertisements to be placed “in the newspaper of general circulation in the area of intended employment.” BALCA commented that the regulations do not appear to contemplate a situation where more than one newspaper is circulated in the area of intended employment and the newspapers are equally appropriate given the employment at issue and the workers likely to apply for the job. BALCA conveniently declined to comment on that issue. So while it is great that employers can choose any newspaper as long as it is one of general circulation in the area of intended employment, employers need to remain concerned about ensuring that the paper chosen is the “most appropriate” paper and it’s probably just best to use the same paper for both of the Sunday ads.
These recent cases highlight the “little” things that can lead to a big denial of a PERM. Just reading these cases creates heightened awareness of potential issues and naturally leads to better and more focused reviews of documentation prepared during the PERM process and documentation submitted to the Department of Labor.
One of the most surprising lessons to learn for practitioners who regularly file PERM labor certifications is that past certifications do not always mean future certifications. In other words, just because 10 PERM labor certifications prepared in the same way have all been certified without issue does not mean that the 11th one will also be certified. That is the nature of PERM. The Department of Labor (DOL) is notorious for suddenly coming up with new and previously unheard of reasons for denial.
Most recently, there have been reports of a slew of PERM denials, primarily for physician and teaching occupations, on the basis that Section H.14 of the ETA Form 9089 indicates that a medical or other license is required, but Section K does not list that the PERM beneficiary holds a license. What makes these denials even more baffling is that in many of these cases, the foreign national’s work experience practicing medicine or teaching in the US was listed in Section K thereby providing proof that the foreign national was indeed licensed. Moreover, the ETA Form 9089 does not provide any specific section in which to list licenses. Most disturbing is the fact that the DOL did not previously deny any PERM applications for failing to list a license on the form. But that did not stop the denials from coming. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) recommends that denials of a PERM labor certification solely because of not listing a license should be reported to the AILA-DOL liaison committee. A motion for reconsideration should be filed at the same time.
In general, if an employer states that a specific position requires a license, the employer should indicate that the beneficiary has the license. The appropriate place to list the license is under K.9 so that the analyst can compare the requirements and the beneficiary’s qualifications. OFLC will issue an FAQ to spell this out more clearly. When stakeholders asked OFLC to consider in the future, issuing an FAQ in advance of the change in practice, OFLC agreed to take this into consideration if there is a decision to make a policy change. OFLC is continuing to examine how to address cases already denied on the basis that Section K did not list the license or certification. Employers with denials on this basis may wish to file a Request for Reconsideration of the denied case to at a minimum preserve the issue until OFLC develops further guidance.
Licensure, or eligibility for license, e.g., Medical License, Teacher Certification, Professional Engineer (PE).
Knowledge or coursework acquired in a course of study.
Professional certificates or diplomas, e.g., Microsoft certification, Health and Safety Certificate, CPR Certificate, Engineer-in-Training Certificate.
Board Certification, or Certification Eligible, e.g., Board Certification in Internal Medicine, Board Certification in Immigration Law.
Second degree, if required by employer, e.g., Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering, in addition to a Ph.D.
Degree or other credential required at H.4, “education: minimum level required,” does not match the foreign national’s credential at J.11, “highest level achieved relevant to the requested occupation” [e.g., H.4 requires a BS in Chemical Engineering; J.11 indicates foreign national has a (relevant) Ph.D. in Process Engineering, but foreign national also has a BS in Chemical Engineering that cannot be entered anywhere in Section J or K].
The issue of making every attempt to set forth the foreign national’s qualifications on the ETA Form 9089 in a manner that ensures the Certifying Officer’s (CO) comprehension was also highlighted in the Board of Alien Labor Certifications (BALCA) case, Matter of The Clariden School, 2011-PER-02857 (January 30, 2014). In that case, the primary job requirements for the position of “AMI Montessori Elementary Teacher” as listed on the ETA Form 9089 included a Bachelor’s degree in any discipline and AMI (Montessori) Certification. The Employer indicated in Section H.7 of the ETA Form 9089 that an alternative field of study was acceptable; specifically a Bachelor’s in Education plus AMI Certification. In Section H-8 the Employer also indicated that it would accept the alternative combination of a Master’s degree, and one year of experience. In Section H-14, the Employer noted that AMI Certification is required.
In Section J.11 of the ETA Form 9089 which requires the Employer to list the highest level of education achieved relevant to the occupation, the Employer checked “Other” from a list of options that included “None,” “High School,” “Associate’s,” “Bachelor’s,” “Master’s,” “Doctorate,” and “Other.” The Employer specified in Section J.11-A that the “Other” classification was AMI Certification. The Employer reported that the Alien obtained the AMI Certification in 2006 at the Montessori Institute of Milwaukee. The CO denied certification under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1) on the ground that the application did not indicate that the foreign national met either the primary or the alternative educational requirements of a Bachelor’s degree in any discipline or a Master’s degree in any discipline.
In its request for reconsideration/review, the Employer argued that it answered Section J.11 accurately because AMI Certification was the highest education level achieved by the foreign national and that such a certification is a level of education higher than Bachelor’s but lower than a Master’s or a Doctorate. The Employer pointed out that the motion for reconsideration was its first opportunity to explain and clarify its answer on the ETA Form 9089, Section J, and that it was supplying supporting documentation which included a document from the Montessori Training Center of Minnesota stating that one of the admission requirements for its AMI Montessori Diploma program is that the applicant holds a Bachelor’s degree.
The CO refused to bend and affirmed the denial arguing that the employer’s representation on the ETA Form 9089 that Other – AMI Certification is the highest education level achieved by the foreign national did not enable the DOL to verify from the face of the application that the foreign worker earned a Bachelor’s degree which is the minimum education level required. The CO then went on to present the novel argument that “there is sufficient free form space on the ETA Form 9089” for the employer to disclose, for example, that the foreign national possessed a Bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent) in addition to AMI Certification.
BALCA thankfully saw reason and held that while the initial denial could be understood since it is hardly intuitive that AMI Certification is a higher level of education than a Bachelor’s degree, the CO’s insistence that the Employer disclose the foreign national’s holding of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree be disclosed on the ETA Form 9089, even in the face of documentation on a motion for reconsideration showing that a Bachelor’s degree is a prerequisite for the foreign national’s admission to the Minnesota Montessori Training Facility for its AMI certification program, was unreasonable and unsupported by the regulations. BALCA was not persuaded by the CO’s claim that the ETA Form 9089 had adequate free form text fields finding, as any reasonable person would, that the form actually does not have any obvious free form space for clarifying why a person would necessarily have at least a Bachelor’s degree to have obtained an AMI certification.
Matter of Clariden and the recent PERM denials highlight the fact that practitioners need to find some way to list all of the foreign national’s credentials somewhere on the ETA Form 9089. While we await the DOL’s forthcoming FAQ, it is important to make every attempt to alert the CO that the foreign national possesses the qualification required for the offered position. If the offered position requires experience in specific technologies then these technologies need to be listed somewhere in the job descriptions of the foreign national’s past experience. If the offered position requires any license, certification, knowledge or anything other than work experience, it needs to be listed in Section K. This information can be listed in Section K.9 between asterisks or in capital letters or in any manner at the bottom of any job description for the foreign national’s past experience or it can be listed on its own in Section K.9.
The moral of the story is basically that anything which could remotely be unclear to the CO should be explained somewhere on the ETA Form 9089, notwithstanding the space limitations. But with regard to the recent Section K denials, the hope is that once the FAQ has been published the DOL will apply its requirement prospectively rather than to already pending cases. In such matters, the DOL really ought to hold itself accountable for setting a precedent for how the ETA Form 9089 should be completed merely by its certification of all prior cases.
In an October 2011 blog entitled, BALCA SAYS THERE IS NO NEED TO LIST EVERY BENEFIT OF EMPLOYMENT IN JOB ADVERTISEMENTS, with still no definitive word from BALCA on the home office issue, I discussed Matter of Emma Willard School, 2010-PER-01101 (BALCA, September 28, 2011) where the DOL’s CO (Certifying Officer) had denied the employer’s PERM application because the recruitment failed to state that subsidized housing was being offered to the qualified US worker. In that case, BALCA held that there is no obligation for an employer to list every item or condition of employment in its advertisements and listing none does not create an automatic assumption that no employment benefits exist. In my blog, I suggested that an employer whose PERM application was denied because the recruitment did not list a “work from home” benefit, might be able to argue, under Emma Willard School, that it was not required to list all benefits in its recruitment and that the choice not to list the “work from home” benefit should not serve to deter any US workers from applying for the position because US workers are savvy and well aware of the increasing flexibility offered by employers with regard to where they perform the duties of the job. While I presented an argument that could have been made after receipt of a PERM denial, readers of that blog would likely have taken away that it is certainly better to list the “work from home” benefit in all of the recruitment. BALCA has finally spoken on this issue and has made the requirement very clear.
In Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2011-PER-00955 (July 23, 2013), the employer filed a PERM application for the position of Field Service Engineer. In all its recruitment the employer listed Houston, Texas as the location for the job opportunity and conducted recruitment from that location. The PERM was audited and in its audit response, the employer explained that the primary worksite listed on the ETA Form 9089 was the same as the foreign worker’s home address because the Field Service Engineer would be permitted to work from home and travel to various client sites as necessary. The CO denied the application because the benefit of working from home was not offered to U.S. workers.
19. If an employer requires an employee to work from home in a region of intended employment that is different from the location of the employer's headquarters (i.e. work is required to be performed in a designated county or state that differs from the employer's headquarters), please confirm that the prevailing wage determination and recruitment can take place in the location of the employee's region of intended employment. Please confirm that the notice of posting under this circumstance should be posted at the company's headquarters.
If the 9089 form shows the worksite at a designated location other than headquarters, the PWD and recruitment would be for the worksite. AILA note: This issue essentially requires a strategy decision. The PERM form can state that the worksite is the home office, in which case the PWD and recruitment can be for the area of the home office, but the fact that the worksite is the same as the foreign national’s home address will be picked up by the PERM system and the case will likely be audited. This can then be addressed in the audit response and should not be a problem, if the case is otherwise approvable. Alternatively, the PERM form can state that the worksite is the headquarters office, but then the PWD and recruitment must be done for that location.
20. In the case of a telecommuter or an employee whose location is not specific to the job, please confirm that the notice of posting, recruitment, and prevailing wage determination should be based on the location of the employer's headquarters.
Please see answer to number 19 above.
The employer argued that its recruitment did not contain any terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those offered to the foreign national. The CO denied reconsideration and forwarded the case to BALCA.
BALCA held that the employer’s reliance on the minutes of the Stakeholders Liaison Meeting was misplaced and stated that while the employer may indeed conduct recruitment from the location where the foreign national resides and may list the foreign national’s address as the primary worksite on the ETA Form 9089, the minutes of the Stakeholders Liaison Meeting are silent on what geographic location should be included in the advertisements in cases where the applicant would work from home. BALCA found that applicants reading the employer’s advertisements would think that they were restricted to working in Houston, Texas when, in contrast, the foreign national was given the option to work from his home which did not necessarily have to be in Houston, Texas. BALCA held that the recruitment was unduly restrictive and misleading and could have prevented potential US applicants from applying for the job. Although the CO did not cite this in the initial denial, BALCA also found that the recruitment violated 20 CFR § 656.17(f)(3) and (4) because it was not specific enough to apprise applicants of where they would have to reside to perform the job and applicants were also not informed of the travel requirement that the employer explained in its audit response.
Time and time again we see that the fact that the PERM regulations provide no guidance on a particular issue is no defense when the DOL decides that an error has been made. As practitioners, we are left constantly trying to anticipate potential novel reasons for denial. We cannot confidently rely on existing guidance but must somehow anticipate future guidance and comply with that! One of the main takeaways from this case is that, as a rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to include in the recruitment any unusual benefit that will be given to (e.g. work from home, subsided housing) or requirement that will be asked of (e.g. travel, relocation, mandatory week-end employment) the qualified candidate for the offered position.
As usual, BALCA (Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals) decisions are very important for practitioners as they offer crucial insights into how to avoid some of the pitfalls in preparing and filing a labor certification application under Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) or into what arguments can be made in response to the unfortunate receipt of a PERM denial notice. BALCA recently issued some notable decisions.
While the Department of Labor (“DOL”) is obsessed about the employer presenting proof of publication of its recruitment, BALCA recently held, in an en banc decision, A Cut Above Ceramic Tile, 2010-PER-00224 (Mar. 8, 2012), that based on the history of the PERM regulations and the plain language of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(e)(2)(i), proof of publication of the State Workforce Agency (“SWA”) job order is not required supporting documentation.
The PERM regulations at 656.17(e)(2)(i) require an employer filing a PERM application to place a job order with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for a period of 30 days. That same section of the regulations also states, “[t]he start and end dates of the job order entered on the application serve as documentation of this step.” Pursuant to 656.10(f), all documentation supporting the PERM application must be retained for five years after filing the application. 656.17(a)(3) mandates that the employer must furnish “required supporting documentation” to the Certifying Officer (“CO”) if the PERM application is audited. A substantial failure by the employer to provide the required documentation will result in a denial of the PERM application. 656.20(b).
In A Cut Above Ceramic Tile, the employer attested, on an ETA Form 9089 filed on January 8, 2007, that, as part of its domestic recruitment efforts for the position of Tile Setter, it placed a job order with the SWA in the area of intended employment from July 13 to August 12, 2006. On June 11, 2009, the DOL issued an audit notification, which included the request for a copy of the job order placed with the SWA downloaded from the SWA internet job listing site; a copy of the job order provided by the SWA; or other proof of publication from the SWA containing the content of the job order. As part of its audit response, the employer included a copy of its completed Employer Job Order Information Sheet from VaEmploy.Com, the SWA for the state of Virginia. Citing 656.20(b) as authority, the CO denied the PERM application based on the employer’s failure to provide proof of publication of the SWA job order containing the content of the job order, as requested in the audit notification letter. The CO found that the employer’s submission of the Employer Job Order Information Sheet did not show the final content of the job order as run by the SWA.
The Employer filed a motion for reconsideration of the PERM denial arguing that the PERM regulations provide that the SWA job order is documented by the start and end dates entered on the ETA Form 9089. The employer also argued that it had tried to obtain proof of publication from the SWA but had been informed that proof of the publication of its job order had been deleted. The CO affirmed the denial and forwarded to case to BALCA which also affirmed the denial and held that the employer’s documentation only showed that the job order was placed for the required 30-day period but did not provide proof of its contents.
The Employer then filed a petition for en banc review which BALCA granted to resolve the issue of whether a CO may deny certification of a PERM application based on the employer’s failure to provide proof of the publication of the SWA job order. BALCA invited the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) to file an amicus brief which it did. There was a conflict between BALCA panels because, in another case, Mandy Donuts Corp., 2009-PER-481 (Jan. 7, 2011), a BALCA panel compared the PERM regulations at 656.17(e)(2)(i) on placement of the job order and the regulations at 656.17(e)(1)(i)(B)(3) and 656.17(e)(2)(ii)(C) on placement of a newspaper advertisement and pointed out that the PERM regulations for documentation of proof of newspaper advertisements specifically require the employer to provide copies of the newspaper pages in which the advertisement appeared or proof of publication furnished by the newspaper. The panel held that the PERM regulations only require “placement” of the job order for 30 days which is documented by the start and end dates entered on the PERM application.
The en banc panel in A Cut Above Ceramic Tile agreed with the Mandy Donuts panel and held that the distinction in the regulations is clear. The drafters of the regulation could easily have included a requirement that employers provide proof of publication of the SWA job order. In fact, the regulations governing the placement of a job order for the H-2B temporary nonagricultural labor certification program, also administered by the Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”) specifically require that the employer maintain a copy of the SWA job order or other proof of publication containing the text of the job order. 656.15(e)(1). The en banc panel reasoned that the ETA intentionally drafted the H-2B and the PERM SWA job orders regulations differently. In fact the ETA specifically stated in its response to comments regarding the audit process, that the employer is only required to provide the start and end date of the job order on the application to document the job order has been placed and the gathering of additional information on the job order from the SWA will not be necessary. See ETA, Final Rule, Implementation of New System, Labor Certification Process for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States [“PERM”], 69 Fed. Reg. 77326, 77359 (Dec. 24, 2004). Essentially, the CO does not have the power to request just any type of documentation and the employer’s application may only be denied under 656.20(b) when the absent documentation is required.
While this en banc decision may appear attractive, and is certainly useful when inheriting flawed cases, practitioners ought to continue the practice of printing copies of the job order to demonstrate good faith recruitment. The BALCA en banc panel made sure to comment, in note 5, that “the spirit and the context of the PERM regulations, which are grounded in attestations backed up by retained documentation to support attestations, strongly suggest that an employer should retain and be able to produce documentation about the content and dates of action on all elements of recruitment. We would anticipate that most employers recruiting in good faith will have retained documentation in some form to show the content of the job order, and if so be able to produce it.” However, it is now clear that failure to produce the SWA job order cannot be the sole basis for a PERM denial.
The use of private employment firms or placement agencies can be documented by providing documentation sufficient to demonstrate that recruitment has been conducted by a private firm for the occupation for which certification is sought. For example, documentation might consist of copies of contracts between the employer and the private employment firm and copies of advertisements placed by the private employment forms for the occupation involved in the application.
In Credit Suisse Securities, 2010-PER-103 (Oct. 19, 2010), BALCA rejected the employer’s argument that 656.17(f), requiring that advertisements placed in newspapers of general circulation or in professional journals state the name of the employer and provide a description of the vacancy specific enough to apprise U.S. workers of the job opportunity, was not applicable to the additional recruitment steps for professional occupations, and held that the regulation in fact governs all forms of advertisement. However, not all the additional recruitment methods for professional positions readily lend themselves to these requirements. For instance, when recruiting through private employment firms, it makes no business sense to indicate the name of the employer because an applicant could then bypass the headhunter and apply directly to the employer. Indeed, in Credit Suisse Securities, BALCA acknowledged in note 7 that the requirements of 656.17(f) only applies to advertisements, and that it was not making a determination with respect to job fairs, on-campus recruiting, private employment firms and campus placement offices.
BALCA noted its decision in Credit Suisse Securities but held that an advertisement placed by a private employment agency is different than one placed directly by the employer. BALCA referenced its decision in HSB Solomon, 2011-PER-2599 (Oct.25, 2011) that 656.17(f) does not apply to advertisements placed by private employment firms. However, World Agape Mission Church makes it clear that the employer still has a duty to recruit in good faith and to make the job opportunity clearly open to all U.S. workers even when using a private employment agency. Of particular note was the fact that the job posting provided applicants with sufficient information like the job title, job duties, and education/experience requirements, and even if it did not list the name of the employer, it listed a job number which matched the job number listed in the letter from the employment agency certifying its recruitment. This allowed the CO to match the listing to the agency’s advertisement even without the inclusion of the employer’s name in the posting.
As the supervised recruitment train keeps barreling through, we have to keep on the lookout for any BALCA decisions to help guide us through the process. BALCA recently issued two decisions worth reading.
In Kennametal, Inc., 2010-PER-01512 (Mar. 27, 2012), BALCA held that the employer had improperly rejected U.S. workers because it did not consider the possibility that certain applicants could become qualified after a reasonable period of on-the-job training. But most interestingly, BALCA held that the employer’s rejection of applicants for not possessing the requisite bachelor’s degree was unlawful and specifically listed examples of applicants who had an associates’ degree and 10 to 24 years of experience. BALCA held that because the employer indicated in its advertisements that it would “accept a combination of education, training and experience” (well-known to practitioners filing PERM applications as the Kellogg language based on Matter of Francis Kellogg, 94-INA-465 (Feb. 2, 1998) (en banc), the employer should have considered these applicants and interviewed them to further evaluate their skills. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the DOL routinely requests that employers list the Kellogg language in the supervised recruitment advertisements even where it is not applicable. Now, employers have to be alert to the fact that the DOL could then use that same Kellogg language against them to argue that they unlawfully rejected U.S. workers.
In JP Morgan Chase & Co, 2011-PER-00635, BALCA upheld the CO’s denial of the PERM application under supervised recruitment because the employer did not list the addresses of the U.S. worker applicants in the body of its recruitment report as required under the supervised recruitment regulations at 656.21(e)(3) despite the fact that the employer had submitted copies of all the resumes which listed the U.S. addresses of the applicants.
In Emma Willard School, the employer, a boarding school, conducted a recruitment effort for the position of “Spanish Instructor” and timely filed an ETA Form 9089. The CO issued an audit notification requesting that the employer submit “a detailed explanation indicating the reason the foreign worker currently resides with the employer.” In its timely response, the employer submitted documentation of the school’s philosophy, which states that the school “offers housing as a resource that benefits the faculty, staff, and program” and that a “significant majority” of teachers and key administrators live in school owned housing. The school’s housing guidelines indicated that the school provided on-campus housing, off-campus housing and dormitory apartments to selected faculty and staff as a benefit of employment.
The CO denied the PERM application citing six reasons for denial, all related to the employer’s failure to indicate, in its advertisements and Notice of Filing, the benefit of employer-subsidized housing. Four of the reasons for denial fell under 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f)(7). According to the CO, because the employer’s advertisements in the newspaper of general circulation, in a local or ethic paper, on the employer’s website and on job search websites did not indicate that the employer offered subsidized housing, the advertisements did not comply with 20 C.F.R. §656.17(f). Because the Notice of Filing also did not list this benefit, one denial reason fell under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(d)(4), which requires that the Notice of Filing contain the information required for advertisements. The final reason for denial fell under 20 C.F.R. §656.10(c)(8), which requires an employer to attest that “the job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any US worker.” The CO held that because the employer did not list the benefit of subsidized housing in its recruitment, the recruitment contained terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those offered to the alien, thereby disaffirming the employer’s attestation that the job is open to any US worker.
The employer submitted a request for reconsideration of the denial arguing that the regulations do not mandate that benefits be listed in advertisements. The CO forwarded the case to BALCA. In its brief to BALCA, the employer made the obvious point that many advertisements do not list employment benefits such as health insurance and vacation.
BALCA analogized the issue to the case of an employer not listing the offered wage in its advertisements. The choice not to list the offered wage would not lead to an assumption, on the part of the US worker, that the employer is offering no wage. Similarly, the employer’s choice not to list employment benefits would not lead a US worker to assume that there are no benefits involved in the position. BALCA held that the employer’s recruitment did not contain terms or conditions less favorable than those offered to the alien simply because the employer did not list wages or benefits of the position.
At every step of the persnickety PERM process the DOL claims it is only doing its job to protect US workers, but here it appears that BALCA is finally giving US workers the credit they deserve for being intelligent enough to recognize that a tiny advertisement could not possibly list ALL the terms and conditions of employment. Perhaps BALCA recognized that any US workers who were interested in the position with Emma Willard School would have naturally contemplated whether the boarding school provided boarding to its employees! Therefore, the employer’s decision not to list the subsidized housing benefit in the ad in no way deterred US workers from applying for the position.
Yet, careful not to paint with too broad a brush, BALCA made sure to limit its decision to the facts of the case and to state that “this decision should not be construed as support for an employer never having to offer or disclose a housing benefit to US workers.” Despite BALCA’s timidity, this decision is significant and bears on other situations as well. For instance, an employer whose PERM application was denied because the recruitment did not list a “work from home” benefit, might be able to argue, under Emma Willard School, that it was not required to list all benefits in its recruitment. While the DOL may argue that a “work from home” benefit is different from the subsidized housing benefit, the employer choosing to not list the “work from home” benefit should not serve to deter any US workers from applying for the position especially if the advertisement was placed in a national magazine. US workers are savvy and well aware of the increasing flexibility offered by employers with regard to where they perform the duties of the job. A prospective applicant can also inquire about this, and the advertisement on its own, without the listing of a “work from home” benefit should not deter US workers from applying for the position.
When will the DOL come to realize that US workers are smart enough to discern job advertisements themselves, and do not need this kind of misguided protection resulting in the needless denial of a labor certification for a much needed foreign national worker?

References: §656
 §656
 v. 
 § 656
 §656
 § 656
 § 656
 §656
 §656
 §656
 §656
 §656