(a) Review of the labor certification application may lead to an audit of the application. Additionally, certain applications may be selected randomly for audit and quality control purposes. If an application is selected for audit, the Certifying Officer shall issue an audit letter. The audit letter will:
(1) State the documentation that must be submitted by the employer;
(2) Specify a date, 30 days from the date of the audit letter, by which the required documentation must be submitted; and
(3) Advise that if the required documentation has not been sent by the date specified the application will be denied.
(i) Failure to provide documentation in a timely manner constitutes a refusal to exhaust available administrative remedies; and
(ii) The administrative-judicial review procedure provided in § 656.26 is not available.
(b) A substantial failure by the employer to provide required documentation will result in that application being denied under § 656.24 and may result in a determination by the Certifying Officer pursuant to § 656.24 to require the employer to conduct supervised recruitment under § 656.21 in future filings of labor certification applications for up to 2 years.
(c) The Certifying Officer may in his or her discretion provide one extension, of up to 30 days, to the 30 days specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Before making a final determination in accordance with the standards in § 656.24, whether in course of an audit or otherwise, the Certifying Officer may:
(1) Request supplemental information and/or documentation; or
(2) Require the employer to conduct supervised recruitment under § 656.21.
[69 FR 77386, Dec. 27, 2004, as amended at 71 FR 35523, June 21, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “5 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (b)(2). The Certification Application is analyzed by the DOL and, if it satisfies the essential requirements, it is then “certified” and constitutes a valid Labor Certification.”
United States v. Silverio Ramirez & Angelica Vitug, 420 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “for Appellant at 34; see also former 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 et seq. Whether or not the New Jersey agency reviewed the applications, however, the fact is that it forwarded them to the U.”
In Re Soininen, 853 A.2d 712 (D.C. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Soininen did not provide notice to the DOL that she was not acting as an attorney, see 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 , and she gave no notice at all to her clients of this important circumstance.”
Eric G. Hall & Hall Enter., Inc. v. Ann D. McLaughlin Sec'y of Labor, 864 F.2d 868 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§ 656.20 (c)(8), 656.50. 2 This per se rule barring certification for self-employed persons is applied not only to solo practitioners, but also to aliens who have an ownership stake in a corporation under circumstances deemed to amount to self-employment.”
Masonry Masters, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 742 F. Supp. 682 (D.D.C. 1990).
· cites it 2× “To satisfy itself that the second part of this test has been met, the DOL requires the employer to show that it has sufficient funds to pay the wage offered the alien, 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (c)(1), and that “[t]he wage offered equals or exceeds the prevailing wage determined…”
Beverly Enter., Inc. v. Herman, 119 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000).
“at 18 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (c)(2)). The DoL also points to its regulations under the “H-2A program,” which permits entry of foreign workers into the U.”
Indus. Holographics, Inc. v. Donovan, 722 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1983).
“See 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.20 et seq. (1983). If an employer wishes to hire an alien for work in the United States, these *1364 regulations require the employer first to recruit among American workers offering the “prevailing wage” and “prevailing working conditions” to determine…”
United States v. Ryan-Webster (4th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “5 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (b)(2). The Cer- 2 On March 1, 2003, the INS, which was formerly part of the Depart- ment of Justice, became the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Ser- vice in the Department of Homeland Security.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.