DOL Sample Cases

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.
Category: Computer and IT Professionals, Engineers, PERM - Labor Certification, DOL
Status:

USDOL had denied a series of cases for many employers represented by various law firms. The ground of denial was that when "engineering" was one of the acceptable majors for an IT job, that created too much ambiguity for a case to be approved. DOL stated that there are fields of engineering, such as Agricultural Engineering, which are clearly inapplicable to IT positions.

This ruling had become a nation wide issue. 

We filed an MTR pointing out the defects, legal and factual, in the ruling. We also indicated our willingness to litigate this highly unfair ruling in federal courts.  DOL has, most appropriately, reversed their decision. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: BALCA, EB2 Green Card, PERM - Labor Certification, DOL
Status:

We filed a PERM application under EB-2 for a Senior Programmer Analyst’s position early this year. Three months later, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Audit Notification. Immediately following our response, DOL denied the application, citing that our audit response did not include a copy of the job order. Our response, in the form of an MTR (Motion to Reconsider)/Appeal, included a clear exposition of the law and a BALCA decision in which the Administrative Law Judge held that the job order is not a mandatory document required to be submitted, and therefore, the denial was erroneous. Given that the denial reason was clearly an error on DOL’s part, we requested the case be placed into the government error queue so that the case would quickly be reopened and approved. Within one week, DOL certified the labor application.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: PERM - Labor Certification, Physicists, DOL
Status:

It is HIGHLY unusual for a PERM case to have such a convoluted history, but here is one where success came after two denials.

We filed a PERM application under EB-2 for a Physicist’s position for which no formal training was required. The job also did not require employment experience, but did require hands-on work in a university research laboratory with a particular equipment.  DOL denied the application stating essentially that the job requires training.  According to them, “hands on work” is the same as formal training.

We responded with an MTR/Appeal asserting that this was not an appropriate ground for denial and that no formal training was required or available in these technologies. We submitted that hands-on work in a university research laboratory does not constitute formal training. Upon consideration, DOL agreed with us and reopened the application.

A year and a half later, DOL issued an Audit Notification. Immediately following our response, DOL denied the application for the second time, stating (incorrectly) that the advertisements were defective due to some technical reasons. Our response, in the form of another MTR/Appeal, included a clear exposition of the law. Given that the denial reason was clearly an error on DOL’s part, we requested the case be placed into an expedited review so the case would quickly be reopened and approved. To our relief and joy, within one week DOL certified the labor application.

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
Category: BALCA, PERM - Labor Certification, CO
Status:

In a case decided yesterday, we had filed an appeal to BALCA against a PERM denial by the Certifying Officer (“CO”).  The ground for denial was that the Job Order did not provide the exact salary offered to the foreign worker.  We showed in our appeal that the fault lay with the Job Order form of the State Workforce Agency.  The form did not permit us to enter the higher end of the wage range for our job, where we had offered a wage range instead of an exact figure.  The CO appears to have agreed with us and has withdrawn denial and certified our case. 

DISCLAIMER: PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.