PERM audited and denied. Please help

[h1Bacer]

Hello All,

 

I received an audit on my PERM and was denied last week.

 

The reason the CO states is that there were layoffs in my company and there was one US worker qualified for the job and was not contacted.

 

However in the ETA 9089 form that I was sent for signatures (durign audit) I  see that we reported correctly for whethere there were layoffs and whether we contacted the laid off people (yes for both)

 

I am not sure why the DOL denied after that, so I want to check what kind of proof should we submit in order to make a point that we indeed contacted them. 

 

Please suggest who I could get accurate information from.

 

Thank you!!

[JoeF]

Your employer and his lawyer have to handle this. You have to stay out of it. Your apparent involvement could have contributed to the denial.

[t75]

Your employer and the attorney were advised of the reason for the denial. YOU cannot do anything about the application. YOU should not be checking on the proof since YOU will not be submitting anything. How would YOU know anything about your employer's relationship with any other past or present employee? If YOU know about any contract for rehire with a laid off employee, your employer violated that individual's privacy rights.  The adjudicator has every right to question your employer's procedures.

 

YOU should discuss your concerns with the attorney. Other than that, your interference in the PERM application demonstrates that the petition on your behalf was properly denied. You also need to look for an employer who does not involve their employees improperly in the process as your current one has done with you.

,

[ateetshah]

Your employer and the attorney were advised of the reason for the denial. YOU cannot do anything about the application. YOU should not be checking on the proof since YOU will not be submitting anything. How would YOU know anything about your employer's relationship with any other past or present employee? If YOU know about any contract for rehire with a laid off employee, your employer violated that individual's privacy rights. The adjudicator has every right to question your employer's procedures.

YOU should discuss your concerns with the attorney. Other than that, your interference in the PERM application demonstrates that the petition on your behalf was properly denied. You also need to look for an employer who does not involve their employees improperly in the process as your current one has done with you.

,

And YOU are wrong in making all the assumptions. Please talk to qualified immigration attorney before posting or accusing somebody without known facts.

[JoeF]

And YOU are wrong in making all the assumptions. Please talk to qualified immigration attorney before posting or accusing somebody without known facts.

YOU don't know the facts, either. All posts in forums are based on what the OP chooses to tell us.

If the OP wanst a better answer, the OP would have to provide more information. It is THAT simple.

[pontevecchio]

Obviously DOL determined that the company lied based on facts available to them.  You can get a second opinion about the matter from another Lawyer. Rather academic now unless your company will spend big bucks on your behalf to challenge any denial as legally defective.

[ateetshah]

YOU don't know the facts, either. All posts in forums are based on what the OP chooses to tell us.

If the OP wanst a better answer, the OP would have to provide more information. It is THAT simple.

Well I wish it'd be THAT simple. We don't live in a perfect world. Making baseless claims with accusations is worse than half knowledge.

[JoeF]

Well I wish it'd be THAT simple. We don't live in a perfect world. Making baseless claims with accusations is worse than half knowledge.

You don't know if the claims were baseless.

You can have the opinion, but there are no facts to support your assertion.

The bottom line: Don't claim something is baseless if you don't have the facts.

[ateetshah]

You don't know if the claims were baseless.

You can have the opinion, but there are no facts to support your assertion.

The bottom line: Don't claim something is baseless if you don't have the facts.

Agree. But don't opine and reply also if you don't know the facts. It is THAT simple.

[JoeF]

Agree. But don't opine and reply also if you don't know the facts. It is THAT simple.

Well, the OP told us that he had some knowledge of the interviews in the PERM process.

That's something that is bad, and can indeed result in a denial, because it implies interference.

[t75]

OP is making claims about knowledge that he should not have and is seeking information about the "proof" that needs to be submitted. He is too involved in the process for it to have been a legitimate search.

[chakrakr]

 

YOU should discuss your concerns with the attorney. Other than that, your interference in the PERM application demonstrates that the petition on your behalf was properly denied. You also need to look for an employer who does not involve their employees improperly in the process as your current one has done with you.

,

You know NOTHING .   Under certain circumstance , Employee need to sign some of the PERM forms .   This is a legal requirement.     OP did just that  and while signing he saw what is written on the form.  Anyone who signs a paper closing his eyes is a fool.  

 

If you do not like the law , as a USC  you should ask your Government to change the law.  You and JoeF  just started assuming that OP have been improperly involved in the process.  OP has neither got involved improperly nor did imply anyway that he had  any "knowledge of the interviews" except for what was written on the forms which he had to sign per PERM regulation.

 

Again,  if you guys have a problem with PERM regulation  take it up with YOUR Government   instead of accusing someone.

[t75]

OP uses the term "we" repeatedly. That indicates HIS personal involvement.  If he was not he would have used "my employer" or "the attorney".

Actually, many USCs would like to see the change that any advertisement for PERM that finds a qualified USC or LPR candidate result in the USC or LPR being hired and the PERM candidate unemployed instead. The fact that these are job advertisements for which there is really no job is a significant issue.

[chakrakr]

OP uses the term "we" repeatedly. That indicates HIS personal involvement.  If he was not he would have used "my employer" or "the attorney".

Actually, many USCs would like to see the change that any advertisement for PERM that finds a qualified USC or LPR candidate result in the USC or LPR being hired and the PERM candidate unemployed instead. The fact that these are job advertisements for which there is really no job is a significant issue.

 

You have some strange logic ?  When I work for a company,  I refer to any company matter as "our" matter.  Hope you know "we"  does not mean "I". 

 

OP was signing a form and noticed that Employer made some mentions.  So what do you suggest,  people should close their eyes when signing some document ? 

 

Whatever change you want   is a business between you and your Government.  If your Government does not care for you , do not accuse others.