BALCA on verfication of sponsorship: Matter of Alfonso's Mexican Food

"The CO concluded, “Because the contact with the employer’s contact could not be made, and sponsorship and the employer’s awareness of the application, therefore, could not be verified, the application is denied.” ... Notably, verification of sponsorship by telephone is not a regulatory requirement, but rather a tool that the CO has utilized as part of its preliminary screening. In the instant case, the Employer’s application was mailed to ETA and included Alfonso Luna’s sworn statement under penalty of perjury certifying to the conditions of employment outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c). (AF 29). This signed statement alone places the Employer in full compliance with the regulatory requirements listed at 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c). ... We find that the Employer has fully complied with 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c), and therefore, denial of certification on this ground is improper. Based on the foregoing, we find that the most appropriate remedy is to remand this case to permit the CO to follow the procedures at Section 656.31(b) to investigate fraud, the procedures at Section 656.20(d)(1) to issue a written request for information to verify the Employer’s sponsorship, or to continue processing the Employer’s application." - Matter of Alfonso's Mexican Food, Mar. 26, 2012.