Not a question of lie to aviod any glitches still there
check what AILA Suggested, in Shusterman.com in 4th paragraph
4. PERM: Approvals and Denials Issued Under New System
On May 23, the Department of Labor's (DOL's) office in Chicago sent out the first PERM approvals. The next day, the DOL office in Atlanta followed suit.
Thus, as promised, DOL had made good on it's promise to approve PERM applications within six to eight weeks of submission.
However, the number of approvals was eclipsed by the number of denials. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the denials can be roughly grouped into five categories, three of which have resulted from glitches in the online system and two of which are proper denials.
Proper PERM denials include the following:
PERM requires that the employer's actual street address be listed on form ETA-9089, not a P.O. Box. In order to verify the location of an employer, a street address is necessary. ETA-9089s which do not include the employer's street address will continue to be denied.
Attorneys and employers should list on form ETA-9089 online the recruitment which took place during the 180-day/30-day windows. The one exception to this is the one step permitted within 30 days for professional positions. Otherwise, recruitment which occurred prior to the 180-day window or within the past 30 days should NOT be included on the form. Such recruitment may be included in the audit file, but if it appears on the form itself, the PERM application will be denied.
PERM denials based on glitches in the online system include the following:
For professional positions, "more than one additional recruitment step was conducted less than 30 days from the date the application was filed." On these applications, clearly only one step was conducted during that 30-day window. Apparently, the program was improperly kicking out all recruitment conducted within the past 30 days.
For household domestic positions, denials were being erroneously issued for failure to post a notice despite 20 CFR 610(d)(2) which states that no posting is necessary for a worker in a household where there are no other U.S. workers.
"The alien's qualifications listed on the application do not meet [the minimum requirements stated on the application]." The answer to question H.6 (Is experience in the job offered required for the job?) had been yes, as had been the answer to question H.10 (Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable?). On those applications, question J.18 (Does the alien have the experience in the job offered required in H.6) was answered no, but question J.20 (Does the alien have the experience in the alternate occupation specified in H.10) was answered yes. This combination of answers should be acceptable, but the system was improperly kicking them out as denied.
In each of the above three instances, the DOL has acknowledged that decision logic of its program was in error, and states these problems have been fixed.
We will continue to report on the status of the PERM program.
