III. Harmless error in NOF; employer had notice of basis for
denial [new]
The panel agreed that the CO misstated the Board's interpretation of the business necessity
test. However, because: (1) the CO provided ample opportunity for Employer to submit
specific documentation on rebuttal; (2) the CO noted the correct regulatory provision and noted
that Employer must rebut by documenting business necessity; and (3) Employer has not
suggested that any other documentation would have been provided otherwise, any such error is
harmless. Cherokee Town & Country Club, Inc., 92-INA-148 (Dec. 8, 1993).
In the NOF and the FD the CO incorrectly cited to § 656.24(b)(2)(ii) rather than
§ 656.21(g). Citing Liaison Center of the General Chamber of Commerce of the
Republic of China, 90-INA-140 (Apr. 29, 1991), the Board held that this error was
harmless. Here, it was clear from Employer's rebuttal that it understood the grounds for
denial in the NOF. Hence, there was adequate notice of the deficiencies in Employer's
application for labor certification. Family Liquors & Grocery, 95-INA-125
(Dec. 23, 1996).