U.S. Department of Labor Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals
800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N
Washington, DC 20001-8002
(202) 693-7365 (FAX)
Issue Date: 15 June 2007
In the Matters of:
PARADIGM INFOTECH, INC.,
Employer,on behalf of
NANDKUMAR GOSAKI, BALCA No. 2007-INA-00003
BALCA No. 2007-INA-00003
ETA No. P-04264-05932
PURNA KATRAPATI, BALCA No. 2007-INA-00004
BALCA No. 2007-INA-00004
ETA No. P-05005-11345
JEEVAN PATIL, BALCA No. 2007-INA-00005
, BALCA No. 2007-INA-00005
ETA No. P-04278-12427
AJAY KUMAR VASIREDDY, BALCA No. 2007-INA-00006
BALCA No. 2007-INA-00006
ETA No. P-04278-12609
Appearances: Harvey Shapiro, Esquire
New York, New York
For the Employer and the Aliens
Certifying Officer: Stephen W. Stefanko
Before: Chapman, Wood and Vittone
Chapman, Wood and Vittone
Administrative Law Judges
JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Administrative Law Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
These appeals arose from the Employer.s request for review of the denial by a U.S. Department of Labor Certifying Officer (.CO.) of alien labor certification in the above-captioned matters. Permanent alien labor certification is governed by Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(5)(A), and Title20, Part 656 of the Code of Federal Regulations.1 Because of the similarity of the factsand issues raised, these cases have been consolidated for decision. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.11.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In late 2003 and early 2004, the Employer, Paradigm Infotech, Inc., filed a number of applications for labor certification to enable the alien workers to fill the positions of .Programmer Analyst. and .Software Engineer . Application..2 In each application the Employer listed the business address at which the incumbent would work as .various worksites in the United States..3
2 In each application the Employer listed the business address at which the incumbent would work as .various worksites in the United States..3The CO issued a Notice of Findings (.NOF.) proposing to deny certification for each of the applications based on violations of 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(c)(8).4 The CO advised the Employer that it was concerned with the legitimacy of the position in Erie, Pennsylvania at the time of filing and whether the office was established for the purpose of obtaining alien labor certifications. The CO noted that an application for alien employment certification is to be filed with the State Workforce Agency (.SWA.) having 1 This application was filed prior to the effective date of the .PERM. regulations. See 69 Fed. Reg. 77326(Dec. 27, 2004). Accordingly, the regulatory citations in this decision are to the 2004 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations published by the Government Printing Office on behalf of the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Record Administration, 20 C.F.R. Part 656 (Revised on Apr. 1, 2004), unless otherwise noted. We base our decision on the record upon which the CO denied certification andEmployer.s request for review, as contained in the appeal file (.AF.) and any written arguments. 20 C.F.R. §656.27(c) jurisdiction over the area of intended employment; however, for job opportunities which involve flexi-place work arrangements where the alien works in the field or from home or when frequent location changes are required, he advised that applications must be filed with the SWA having jurisdiction over an employer.s headquarters or main office. The CO observed that the Employer.s website indicated offices in Maryland, Wisconsin, Los Angeles, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, but that he had been advised by the Los Angeles Office that the company.s headquarters were in Columbia, Maryland. The CO observed that it appeared that the Employer may have filed the applications in Pennsylvania not only to benefit from shorter processing times compared to Maryland, but also to avoid paying higher prevailing wages (as much as $10,000 less per year in the Erie,
Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") versus the Columbia, Maryland MSA). The NOFs were detailed and provided specific instructions on what the Employer.s rebuttal was to address. The Employer submitted almost identical rebuttal in each of the applications.5
The Employer contended that a Pennsylvania office was established to service its largest clients based in northwestern Pennsylvania, and that pursuant to Article 2.6 of the IT Resource Company Agreement with one of the companies (copy submitted), the Employer had agreed to open an office in northwest Pennsylvania on or before April 1, 2003. The Employer further stated that some travel to client sites would be required by the prospective employee as indicated in the labor certification application. As directed by the CO, the Employer submitted numerous documents including client lists, a lease agreement, photos of the office, payroll records, staffing charts, tax returns and recruitment reports.
The CO issued Final Determinations denying labor certification in each of the applications now before us on appeal.6 The CO found that the contracts and purchase orders submitted by the Employer verified its relationship with both companies in Erie,
2 2007-INA-03 at AF 203; 2007-INA-04 at AF 205; 2007-INA-05 at AF 204; 2007-INA-06 at AF 202.
3 Id. (one also stated .including PA. 2007-INA-03 at AF 203).
Id. (one also stated .including PA. 2007-INA-03 at AF 203).4 2007-INA-03 at AF 199-201; 2007-INA-04 at AF 201-203; 2007-INA-05 at AF 200-202; 2007-INA-06 at
5 2007-INA-03 at AF 9-198; 2007-INA-04 at AF 8-200; 2007-INA-05 at AF 9-200; 2007-INA-06 at AF 8-
6 2007-INA-03 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-04 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-05 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-06 at AF 4-7.
2007-INA-03 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-04 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-05 at AF 4-7; 2007-INA-06 at AF 4-7.