ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)

Rate this Entry
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (“BALCA”) recently reviewed timing inconsistencies that are listed in the federal regulations that govern the recruitment validity periods for labor certifications. The employer submitted a labor certification for a “Stonemason.” The Form 9089 was mailed to the Department of Labor on September 11, 2009 and received by this agency on September 14, 2009. The employer listed on the Form 9089 that it had placed a state workforce agency job order from March 17, 2009 until April 15, 2009. The Certifying Officer (“CO”) denied the application because it stated that the job order was placed more than 180 days from the date that the Form 9089 was filed. BALCA reviewed 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2), which states that “if the application is for a nonprofessional occupation, the employer must . . . place a job order and two newspaper advertisements within 6 months of filing the application. The steps must be conducted at least 30 days but no more than 180 days before the filing of the application.” BALCA noted that these statements can be contradictory. In the instant case the employer did submit its application within six months of March 17, 2009 because six months from this date is September 17, 2009. However, there are more than 180 days between March 17, 2009 and September 14, 2009. Consequently, BALCA stated that it would “decline to penalize an employer for the inconsistency [of the federal regulations].” While this case does support the idea that recruitment may occur in the six months prior to filing a labor certification, Hammond Law Group urges employer’s to file all cases within the 180 day period in which recruitment occurred to avoid the potential for denial. This post originally appeared on HLG's Views blog by Cadence Moore. http://www.hammondlawgroup.com/blog/

Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to Facebook Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to Twitter Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to Google Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to StumbleUpon Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to Reddit Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to Digg Submit "BALCA Notes Timing Inconsistency in 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e)(2)" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: