## Facts

- A private household employer, Marion Graham, filed an application for permanent labor certification for Gladys Yolanda Ulloa as a live-in housekeeper.
- The application required the housekeeper to reside in the employer’s home.
- The Certifying Officer denied the application, treating the live-in requirement as presumptively “unduly restrictive” under 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(2).
- The employer submitted a rebuttal asserting the live-in condition was justified by business necessity based on household needs and job duties.
- The Certifying Officer issued a final determination again denying certification, concluding the employer did not rebut the presumption.
- The employer appealed to the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA).

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a housekeeper to live on the employer’s premises is an unduly restrictive job requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(2).
2. Whether the employer established business necessity sufficient to rebut the presumption against a live-in requirement for labor-certification purposes.

## Decision

- BALCA affirmed the denial of labor certification.
- BALCA held the live-in requirement was presumptively unduly restrictive and the employer failed to establish business necessity to justify it.
- Because the restrictive requirement was not justified, the application could not be approved.

## Legal Principles

- Under 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(2), employers seeking labor certification must state job requirements without unduly restrictive conditions that could deter qualified U.S. workers.
- A live-in requirement for domestic employment is presumptively unduly restrictive and shifts the burden to the employer to prove business necessity.
- Business necessity requires showing the restrictive requirement reasonably relates to the occupation and is essential to perform the described duties in a reasonable manner.
- Generalized assertions of preference, convenience, or lifestyle considerations are insufficient to meet the business-necessity burden where less restrictive alternatives (such as live-out work with scheduling adjustments) could reasonably permit performance of the duties.

## Conclusion

BALCA upheld the denial because the employer did not provide sufficiently concrete, job-related evidence that living on the premises was essential to perform the housekeeper duties, leaving the live-in requirement an impermissible restriction on U.S. worker availability for labor-certification purposes.


Matter of Marion Graham, No. 88-INA-102 (B.A.L.C.A. 1990)