ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage


Immigration Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily

Bloggings on Immigration Law

by Richard M.Green

Do Computers Run the PERM Program?

On March 9, 2010 Nathan Littauer Hospital & Nursing Home filed a PERM application on behalf of an employee. PERM is the usual first step in employment based immigration. It involves a test of the labor market and attestation that there are no US citizens or permanent residents ready, willing, and qualified to do the job offered to the non-citizen.

The employer (or more probably their attorney) made one little mistake on the PERM ETA 9089 form. The employer failed to answer question J-23 which indicates if the Employer is presently employing the beneficiary. The employer did complete section K where they indicated that the beneficiary was presently employed by the employer and that the beneficiary had been employed by the employer since 2005.

On April 26, 2010 the Department of Labors [DOL] computers analyzed and denied the Employers application. In the denial, the DOL cited the sole reason for denial was the failure to answer question J-23. Under the Department of Labors regulations, failure to complete all the questions on the PERM application is grounds for a denial of a PERM application.

On May 6, 2010, the Employer asked the Certifying Officer to reconsider his denial. In this request, the Employer stated that the failure to answer question J-23 is a typographical error, and the answer to question J-23 can be found in the employment history (section K -6 and K-7) of the form. This was the first opportunity for the Department of Labor to exercise common sense. They missed it. On June 29, 2010 the Department of Labor forwarded this file to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) and requested their denial be affirmed.

On August 16, 2011 the BALCA vacated the DOLs decision in this case. BALCA observed that the folks at the DOL did not have to look beyond the same page of the original application to determine the response to the inadvertently omitted section of the application. We find that the [DOLs] denial based on a pro forma computer check was arbitrary and capricious. BALCA remanded the application to the DOL for further processing.

This is not the first such BALCA remand. Similar remands for silly mistakes made by immigration lawyers include Matter of Yesmeena Corp (Failure of attorney to date box N-3), Matter of Heso Electric (Failure of preparer to answer question M-1 but suppled preparer information in box M and signed applicaiton) and matter of Shastriji Penn. Donuts Corp. (Question M-3 preparer's title left blank). I wish the people at the Department of Labors Employment & Training Administration would realize that people make mistakes, and that some mistakes are harmless. I also wish that they would realize that policy decision to eschew common sense and litigate every possible grounds of denial of a PERM application all the way to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeal serves only to drive up the costs for employers and delay the final determination of an otherwise meritorious PERM application.

About The Author

Richard M.Green is a Huntington Beach attorney with more than a decade of experience helping clients achieve their immigration and naturalization goals. Since just a few months after he was admitted to the bar in 1998, his practice has been primarily focused on immigration law. text

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.