![]() See, e.g., Sushi Shogun, 201 (May 28, 2013) (finding that HealthAmerica had effectively been overruled by the promulgation of 20 C.F.R. Under the current regulations, a typo on the Form 9089 that indicates non-compliance with the regulations may itself be grounds for denial of certification. Those amendments had the effect of overruling HealthAmerica's central ruling that the employer was permitted under the PERM regulations (as originally promulgated) to present with a motion for reconsideration documentation from its audit file establishing actual compliance with the substantive recruitment requirements of the regulations despite the appearance otherwise based on a typographical error on the Form 9089. HealthAmerica largely overruled in rulemaking: 2007 amendments to the PERM regulations state ETA's conclusion that BALCA misunderstood its intention to require letterperfect applications to implement that intention, ETA amended the regulations to prohibit modifications to applications once submitted, and to impose evidentiary limitations on the documentation that may be used to support a motion for reconsideration.Remand authority: Raises, but does not resolve, the issue of whether BALCA has remand authority.Letterperfect applications: PERM regulations (as originally promulgated) did not require applications to be "letterperfect.".FAQs: FAQs may not impose substantive rules whether an FAQ provides persuasive interpretative authority depends on the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade.The CO also abused his discretion when holding that the CO would only grant requests for reconsideration where DOL made the mistake. Showing actual compliance on reconsideration: The CO abused his discretion by refusing to consider newspaper tear sheets that an employer provided in its request for reconsideration, when the employer's Form 9089 contained a typographical error concerning the date of the newspaper advertisements and the tear sheets established actual compliance withe regulation on which the denial was based. ![]() ![]() The Board held that "an employer may not establish an alien’s one year of paid experience as a household domestic service worker under Section 656.21(a)(3)(iii) with documentation of experience obtained with a sponsoring employer." Household worker's paid experience cannot be established with experience with sponsoring Employer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |