A. In general

A job opportunity has been described without unduly restrictive requirements where the requirements do not exceed those defined for the job in the DOT and are normally required for a job in the U.S. Lebanese Arak Corp., 87-INA-683 (Apr. 24, 1989) (en banc); Duarte Gallery, Inc., 88-INA-92 (Oct. 11, 1989). Hence, prior to an analysis of business necessity, consideration must be given to whether the particular job requirement is normally required or falls within the applicable DOT code. Tri-P's Corp., 87-INA-686 (Feb. 17, 1989) (en banc).

1. Normal requirement in the U.S.

An employer's statement that a particular job requirement is normally required is not sufficient to establish that the requirement is normally required for the job in the United States. Tri-P's Corp., 87-INA-686 (Feb. 17, 1989) (en banc).

2. DOT specifications

To determine whether a particular job requirement falls within the applicable DOT code, the CO must determine the job title which best describes the job and determine whether the job requirements specified by the employer fall within those defined in the DOT. LDS Hospital, 87-INA-558 (Apr. 11, 1989) (en banc). If the requirement or job duty is one listed in the DOT, it is not considered unduly restrictive. Garland Community Hospital, 89-INA-217 (June 29, 1991); A-Transmission Discount, 88-INA-118 (Mar. 27, 1990); Polytechnic University, 88-INA-282 (Oct. 25, 1989); Duarte Gallery, Inc., 88-INA-92 (Oct. 11, 1989); Immaculate Conception Catholic School, 88-INA-554 (Sept. 25, 1989); Bel Air Country Club, 88-INA-223 (Dec. 23, 1988).

B. Evidentiary and procedural matters

1. Requirement that employer identify its requirements on ETA 750A

An employer must use items 14 and 15 on the ETA 750A to notify the CO of its minimum requirements so that the CO may, if necessary, challenge the stated requirements as unduly restrictive or as not the actual minimum, thus protecting U.S. applicants who may be discouraged from applying for the job by advertised requirements which are unduly restrictive or not the actual minimum. Bell Communications Research, Inc., 88-INA-26 (Dec. 22, 1988).

2. Correction of restrictive requirement during rebuttal

During the rebuttal period an employer may correct a job opportunity described with unduly restrictive requirements by deleting the offensive requirement,

• Standard Oil Company, 88-INA-77 (Sept. 14, 1988) (employer's deletion of one of the three job requirements deemed unduly restrictive and its reasonable explanation in its rebuttal of the necessity for the other two requirements, which the CO did not discuss in his Final Determination, constitute documentation that the job opportunity was described without unduly restrictive requirements).

  or by reevaluating candidates without considering the requirement.

• H.C. LaMarche Ent., Inc., 87-INA-607 (Oct. 27, 1988) (employer could not be denied labor certification for failing to justify unduly restrictive requirements when, given the alternative between justifying the requirements and reevaluating all applicants under less restrictive requirements, employer chose to reevaluate under the less restrictive requirements).
  

3. Rejection on lawful grounds does not cure unduly restrictive requirement

The fact that U.S. applicants meet the restrictive requirement, but are rejected for other reasons, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the requirement is unduly restrictive. Colorgraphics Corp., 87-INA-600 (Nov. 20, 1987) (en banc).