Rejection of U.S. workers: Employer did not contact any of the U.S. workers, but rejected them all
as overqualified or having experience that was not relevant: the job, however, did not require any experience:
denial of labor certification affirmed
Rejection of U.S. workers: Employer did not provide documentation requested by the CO to establish that
a practical test is normally required of U.S. workers: Employer's stated reason in rebuttal for rejection of several applicants -
that they did not have experience in the industry was not stated in the ETA 750A, and therefore could not be used
to reject the U.S. workers: reasons given for rejection of workers in the rebuttal were different than those given in
the recruitment report: denial of labor certification affirmed
Rejection of U.S. workers: an employer cannot reject an applicant based on
conjecture that the applicant does not plan to stay in the job permanently
Rejection of U.S. workers: although An employer can lawfully reject U.S. workers who do not respond to
reasonable requests for verification of employment history and educational credentials, where
there was no indication that the Employer made any request for employment verification
directly from the applicant, or that the applicant was notified that there was a problem
with verification of her previous employment, and the Employer provided no
documentation or specifics regarding its attempts to verify the applicant's employment, denial
of labor certification was affirmed
Bona fide job opportunity: ability to pay: in rebuttal, the Employer's only documentation relating to ability to pay the alien's salary
was an unsigned tax return which, even if gauged from the perspective of adjusted gross income or net income, failed to show
sufficient funds to pay the salary (panel evidently did not consider additional evidence of net worth submitted with petition for review):
Employer also failed to provide entertainment schedule requested by the CO
Unduly restrictive job requirements: kosher cooking specialization: facts of the case similar to Martin
Kaplan, 2000-INA-23 (July 2, 2001) (en banc): Employer's self-serving statements did not provide sufficient
documentation to establish business necessity
Unduly restrictive job requirements: Oriental, Italian and
Mediterranean style of cooking: Employer submitted evidence to show that she was under medical
direction to eat a specialized diet: this evidence, however, merely showed that the Employer should
eat certain types of food, and did not prove that a domestic cook must have two years of experience
to prepare this or other types of food
Failure to state grounds for review: Employer's statement that "the following request for review of the denial
made upon this case is herein provided." did not state grounds for review: the Employer did not assign error to the CO's
findings, make any other statement of disagreement with the CO, or state any grounds on
which the review was to be based: Employer offered to comply with CO's direction to recruit using the local labor union: panel
held: "The Employer's offer to cure the deficiencies by re-recruitment does not equate to stating grounds for review. See B &
B Richmond Construction Corp., 1995-INA-442 (Jan. 28, 1997)."
