If the CO challenges requirements or job duties listed in the DOT, this amounts to a challenge of the job itself. Although an employer must establish that a bona fide job opportunity does exist,

• See Chapter 6 (Bona Fide Job Opportunity).

it does not have to prove the necessity for the job itself.

• Lebanese Arak Corp., 87-INA-643 (Apr. 24, 1989) (en banc); Abedlghani & Houda Abadi, 90-INA-139 (June 4, 1991); Joon Sup Park, 89-INA-231 (Mar. 25, 1991); Ching and Yeou Lin, 89-INA-28 (Feb. 14, 1990); Dr. & Mrs. Shinn Shyng Chang, 88-INA-536 (Sept. 21, 1989); Annar Mangalji, 88-INA-177 (Oct. 12, 1988).

  See also Information Industries, Inc., 88-INA-82 (Feb. 2, 1989) (en banc), in which the Board noted that the business necessity test developed therein applied only to restrictive job requirements, and not to job duties.

For example, an employer does not have to establish the business necessity for a foreign language tutor,

• In Dr. & Mrs. Shinn Shyng Chang, 88-INA-536 (Sept. 21, 1989), the CO challenged the business necessity of a Child Tutor's being required to instruct the employers' children in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese. The panel found that, in effect, the CO was impermissibly challenging the employers' desire to employ a Chinese language tutor for their children -that is, the CO was impermissibly challenging the business necessity of the job itself rather than the job requirements.

or a general houseworker to care for an elderly couple.

• In Mr. & Mrs. Hubert G. Peabody, 90-INA-230 (Apr. 30, 1991), a panel held that the employer did not have to prove the need for a general houseworker to care for an elderly couple, where the employer offered to delete the occasional live-in duties and all the duties were within the DOT description of the job.