Source: http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2012_12_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2014-08-22 09:48:22
Document Index: 247726417

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 212', '§ 656', '§ 656', '§ 204', '§204', '§ 214', '§ 655']

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Labor (DOL) has a statutory responsibility to ensure that no foreign worker (or “alien”) is admitted for permanent residence based upon an offer of employment absent a finding that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the work to be undertaken and that the admission of such worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. INA § 212(a)(5)(A)(i).The DOL fulfills this responsibility by determining the availability of qualified U.S. workers before approving a permanent labor certification application and by ensuring that U.S. workers are fairly considered for all job opportunities that are the subject of a permanent labor certification application. Accordingly, the DOL relies on employers who file labor certification applications to recruit and consider U.S. workers in good faith. Attorneys, agents, and foreign workers are prohibited from interviewing and considering U.S. workers during the permanent labor certification process, as described in 20 C.F.R. § 656.10 (b)(2)(i) and (ii). However, the DOL does not prohibit attorneys and agents from performing the analyses necessary to counsel their clients on legal questions that may arise with respect to this process. The employer, and not the attorney or agent, must be the first to review an application for employment, and must determine whether a U.S. applicant’s qualifications meet the minimum requirements for the position, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed.
The DOL has indicated that good faith recruitment requires that an employer’s process for considering U.S. workers who respond to certification-related recruitment closely resemble the employer’s normal consideration process. Yet, real world recruiting is at times impossible when the DOL sets forth “unreal” recruitment standards for employers! As an attorney who regularly counsels employers filing PERM labor certifications, I have found that one of the most difficult concepts for some employers to grasp is the resume review process and how it ought to be conducted in the PERM process.It’s hard for an employer to comprehend why they have to continue to assess an applicant who upon receipt of an e-mail from the employer, responded that he was “away” and would get back to the employer at some point in the following week; or an applicant who, when contacted, had no recollection that he had even applied for the job and needed to be informed of the job opportunity and the employer’s business; or an applicant who only listed “Software Engineer” as his experience leaving the employer unclear as to what skills he may possess. As reasons for rejection of applicants, employers sometimes state,“applicant is far too overqualified and I would never hire him for this position” or “these applicants went to foreign universities and I know they require sponsorship.” While these reasons may be acceptable in the employer’s normal consideration process, neither is a valid reason for rejection in the PERM process.Some employers become frustrated and push back. I find that I very often have to preface my comments with “We are not operating in the real world here…” Currently, and for some time now, every PERM audit letter requests verification of the unavailability of US workers. A request for resumes and applications for all US workers who applied for the job opportunity seems to have become the standard. The DOL specifically wants to review documentation of the employer’s contact with applicants and its assessment of the qualification of applicants.Yet, other than the expectation that the employer conduct “good faith” PERM recruitment, the DOL has not issued significant guidance with regard to resume review. But it is possible to glean some information from recent decisions by the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA). In particular, two specific cases, involving Supervised Recruitment, shed some light on how the DOL expects employers to conduct resume reviews.
In Matter of Goldman Sachs & Co., 2011-PER-01064 (June. 8, 2012), the employer, indicated on the ETA Form 9089 that it would accept for the position of Financial Analyst, “any suitable combination of education, training and experience,” language 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). During Supervised Recruitment, the employer submitted an expert opinion to the DOL detailing why thirty-five U.S. worker applicants had each been rejected without interview. As examples, BALCA highlighted one applicant who was rejected despite his “substantial academic business credentials” and because he did not possess “narrowly focused” experience necessary for the position and another applicant who the employer described as having “a long and varied career in accounting and financial reporting” but lacking in certain specific experience. The Certifying Officer (CO) denied the labor certification finding that the employer rejected U.S. workers for other than job related reasons. The CO specifically emphasized that the employer had indicated its willingness to accept “any suitable combination of education, training or experience” and had not taken the time to explore and evaluate the suitability of the applicants’ education, training or experience. The DOL cited 20 C.F.R. § 656.24(a)(2)(b) and stated that “where there is a reasonable possibility the applicant may meet the job requirements, it is incumbent on the employer to further investigate the U.S. applicant’s qualifications.” In its request for reconsideration, the employer argued, inter alia, that it has no duty to interview candidates who fail to show on their resumes that they satisfy the major job requirements. BALCA held that the CO did not question the employer’s business necessity for its job requirements, but instead questioned the fact that the employer rejected without interview applicants who appeared facially qualified for the position and did not address how they were unqualified even possessing a combination of education, training and experience. BALCA upheld the CO’s denial and cited Blessed Sacrament School, 96-INA-52, slip op. at 3 (Oct. 29, 1997) which held that where the applicant’s resume shows a broad range of experience, education and training that raises a reasonable possibility that the applicant is qualified even if the resume does not expressly state that he or she meets all the requirements, an employer bears the burden of further investigating the applicant’s credentials.
The takeaway from Goldman Sachs, and the concept that can be difficult to explain to employer clients, is that regardless of how convinced the employer may be that the U.S. worker applicant is unqualified for the position based only on his resume, if there is even a hint that the applicant may appear qualified to the untrained eye of a CO, it is worth the employer’s time to interview the applicant. During an interview, the employer can zero in on the specific requirements of the offered position and better assess the applicant’s qualifications. In JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2011-PER-01000 (Jul. 16. 2012), the employer’s requirements included “Proficiency in Excel or Access,…understanding of databases (Lotus Notes and SharePoint), must have experience liaising with a technology team to develop/update product enhancement tool, databases and work flow engines…” The CO denied the case after concluding that U.S. worker applicants had a combination of education, training and experience equivalent to the employer’s job requirements and could acquire Access and SharePoint skills while on the job.
Rather than focusing, as it did in Goldman Sachs, on whether or not the employer had a duty to interview the U.S. workers to better assess their qualifications, the key issue for BALCA was whether or not the employer’s stated minimum requirements were established as a business necessity. BALCA stated that the employer had submitted a business necessity explanation in its Recruitment Report detailing why it requires an understanding of Lotus Notes and SharePoint and why job training was not feasible; the CO did not contend that these requirements were unduly restrictive; and the resumes of the U.S. worker applicants showed that they did not have the required skills. Based on this, BALCA held that the CO cannot dismiss the employer’s stated requirements and substitute his judgment for the employer’s. Confused much? The JP Morgan case emphasizes the importance of submitting a compelling business necessity argument in response to PERM audits. That way, if and when the employer rejects U.S. workers, the reason will be clear to the CO. But does the employer have to interview when the applicant’s resume does not list all the requirements or not? I think the clear answer is that the employer should always err on the side of interviewing the applicants. If there is even a hint of a question as to whether the applicant may appear qualified, the employer should interview. If the applicant failed to list the one technology required for the position but listed 5 similar technologies, the employer should interview. If the employer has stated that it will accept any combination of education, training and experience and the applicant has broadly listed his experience as simply “Software Engineer,” the employer should interview. While the DOL claims that the employer’s consideration of these applicants should resemble its normal consideration process, it just cannot. In normal consideration processes, the employer may utilize its judgment to reject any applicant deemed unqualified. When it comes to the PERM process, the employer must go out of its way to demonstrate to the DOL that it has, in good faith, tried it’s best to find a U.S. worker to fill the offered position. In addition, the employer should take pains to explain in great detail, if audited, specifically why each applicant was not qualified for the offered position, providing evidence of any interviews and other communication with the applicants. Posted by
added). This
surviving relatives should do and how their requests will be handled. The
approved or remains pending: (l) SURVIVING
(F) an asylee (as described in section 208(b)(3) ). As
able to file their green card applications. Mahjouba
advance parole. Henri
date was current at the time of filing. Helene decided to use her EAD to work and her advance parole to travel,
and the families’ adjustment applications were pending. Tragedy
became very ill and died from a rare form of cancer. Henri was hit by a drunk driver and killed. The
in the United States, grieving and wondering what will happen to us now? It
kids should be protected in the same way. So long as they meet the requirements of the law – that is, at least one
green cards. Unfortunately,
at p. 15 (and AFM 10.21(7)). As
submitted on USCIS’s draft memorandum. Specifically, AILA demonstrated that the automatic revocation provision
does not apply where INA § 204(l) applies. The automatic revocation regulations purport to
themselves of humanitarian reinstatement See AILA
and an Amendment to Chapter 21.2(h)(1)(C)” (June 1, 2010) at p.6. Putting
request benefits from USCIS under INA section 204(l).” See Ombudsman Report at p. 2. Reviewing
renew their EAD and AP to work and travel, respectively, without issue. Maybe. More on that aspect below. Karim
can get some direction from AFM 10.21(7). That section, as noted above, dictates that Mahjouba’s I-140 petition
10.21(c)(3). So,
revoked petition and the death certificate of the qualifying relative. Although it is not stated
matching up the request to each family member’s file. Once the request is
to state: While there are no other rules or precedents on how to apply this
It is unclear what guidance, given the lack of “other rules and precedents”, terms like “may be appropriate” or “generally appropriate” provide to the adjudicating officer, but one would hope that given Congress’s intent to protect individuals in Karim’s position, and the fact that the statute clearly states it covers those with “pending or approved” petitions, that, barring other grounds of ineligibility, the I-140 should be reinstated and the adjustment applications and related applications should continue, as if his wife had not died. Presumably, Helene could submit a similar packet to ensure the protections of §204(l) are applied to her and her family. In her case, she need not request reinstatement, but presumably she too would need to provide proof of her spouse’s death, and demonstrate residence in the United States at the time of his death and her intent to continue to reside in the United States. Because her husband’s I-140 is still pending, the best guess is that she needs to send the information to the Service Center processing his I-140. As
acknowledgement that their applications are being adjudicated. A
family take the risk of traveling? One would counsel probably not, because even though the advance parole
reinstated by USCIS. One
the priority date to become current. The Policy Memo provides little clear guidance: Because section 204(l) of the Act does not waive the
immigrant visa. Footnote
2 states: The alien must have been continuing to reside in the
the residence requirements when the officer adjudicated the petition. One
National Visa Center to prompt their case into active status? Since
because he or she was not yet a lawful permanent resident or citizen). These
under the H-1B cap, what to do? One could perhaps try to request deferred action on humanitarian grounds
204(l) was meant to provide. USCIS
compliance with the actual statute. USCIS should stop regarding these requests as discretionary (“shall be
INA Section 204(l),
Last week’s blog summarized the nonimmigrant options
the “Culture of No” within USCIS, whose officials generally places a small
or through “Series A and B” rounds of shares. Startups may also operate in more
“stealth mode” so as not to attract the attention of competitors and may not
visa, it is true that 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) requires the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, which includes the employer’s ability to “hire,
pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of such employee.” Can the
company are different. This can be shown through a “board of
beneficiary’s employment (such as the right to hire, fire, pay, supervise or
otherwise control the terms and conditions of employment).” Some of the
formalities serve legitimate business interests and avoid the “piercing of the corporate
veil”, by providing the patina of control over individual initiative they may
ability to discipline or fire her. Indeed, noted attorney David Ware asks a good question: “What
tears, not to mention money, in an entity holding this power?” If we expect the entrepreneur to take a
Although Mr. Ware’s
beneficiary’s decisions. There is nothing preventing the other individual from
difficulties for an H-1B entrepreneur that may be beyond the USCIS’s control.
a regular prevailing wage. Also, a DOL rule at 20
CFR § 655.731(c)(9)(iii)(C) states that any attorney fees paid by the H-1B
H-1B visa law requires the petitioner to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree
under the occupations listed in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook
but may yet require at least a bachelor’s degree. It is hoped that USCIS
position requires a bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, an MBA degree should be
goes beyond the “Culture of No.” The USCIS should think of immigration in a
of innovation. As T.S Elliot famously reminded us: “Only those who risk going
too far can possibly find out how far it is possible to go.”