PERM DOES NOT REQUIRE ORIGINAL TEAR SHEETS

by






In that same meeting, (See Here) DOL eased the minds of labor certification practitioners who have had to many times scramble to obtain original tear sheets of the ads that were run for the PERM cases. To the complaint that it is increasingly difficult to obtain hardcopies of newspaper classified ads and many newspapers instead provide electronic tear sheets showing the name of the newspaper, date of publication, and an image of the entire newspaper page where the ad was placed, and for OFLC to confirm that an electronic tear sheet was an acceptable alternative or whether additional documentation such as an affidavit from the newspaper was required, OFLC responded that electronic tear sheets are sufficient evidence of newspaper ads, and there is no requirement to submit the original paper tear sheet or any supplemental affidavit, but that it was important to ensure that the electronic tear sheet contained all of the required information and had a legible image of the ad as it appeared in the newspaper.








Reprinted with permission.






About The Author









Alan Lee, Esq.


The author is an exclusive practitioner of immigration law based in New York City with an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for 20+ years, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-2015), and recognized as a New York Area Top Rated Lawyer. He has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Epoch Times, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS; testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings; and is a regular contributor to Martindale-Hubbell's Ask-a-Lawyer program. His article, "The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis" was Interpreter Releases' cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004; his 2004 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged Legacy INS' policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof, although its central holding that the government had to notify approved immigrant petition holders of the revocation prior to the their departure to the U. S. for the petition to be able to be revoked was short-lived as it was specifically targeted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (which in response changed the language of the revocation statute itself). Yet Firstland lives on as precedent that the government must comply with nondiscretionary duties established in law, and such failure is reviewable in federal courts. His 2015 case, Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., with the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS (AAO) set nation-wide standards on the definition of "doing business" for multinational executives and managers to gain immigration benefits.




The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
ILW.COM
.