This guide is for the attorney, paralegal or HR lead writing a PERM job's requirements. A requirement that goes beyond what's normal for the occupation has to be justified as a business necessity, and the ETA-9089 asks about each kind directly, so the decision belongs at intake, before the wage request.
The test, 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(h)(1)
Requirements "must be those normally required for the occupation and must not exceed the Specific Vocational Preparation level assigned to the occupation as shown in the O*NET Job Zones," unless documented as arising from business necessity. To establish it, "an employer must demonstrate the job duties and requirements bear a reasonable relationship to the occupation in the context of the employer's business and are essential to perform the job in a reasonable manner."
When a requirement needs it
| Requirement | Needs business necessity when | Rule | ETA-9089 question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any requirement | It isn't normal for the occupation, or it exceeds the occupation's SVP level in the O*NET Job Zones | § 656.17(h)(1) | G.9 |
| A foreign language | Always, whether required or preferred | § 656.17(h)(2) | G.8 |
| A combination of occupations | Unless the employer has normally employed people for the combination, or workers in the area customarily do it | § 656.17(h)(3) | G.7 |
| Living on the employer's premises | A related test for household domestic workers: the requirement must be essential, with no cost-effective alternative | § 656.17(j)(2) | G.6 |
The test has two parts and both must hold: the requirement bears a reasonable relationship to the occupation in the context of this employer's business, and it's essential to performing the job in a reasonable manner. Convenience on its own doesn't meet the second part.
Reading the SVP level
20 C.F.R. § 656.3 (2025) defines Specific Vocational Preparation as "the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation." O*NET assigns each occupation a Job Zone, and each Job Zone carries an SVP range.
| SVP level (§ 656.3) | Lapsed time | O*NET Job Zone, SVP range |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Over 1 year up to and including 2 years | Zone 3 covers 6.0 to below 7.0 |
| 7 | Over 2 years up to and including 4 years | Zone 4 covers 7.0 to below 8.0 |
| 8 | Over 4 years up to and including 10 years | Zone 5 covers 8.0 and above |
The Job Zone ranges are from O*NET OnLine's Job Zone help page, read October 16, 2026. A job in a Zone 4 occupation that asks for more preparation than its range allows is the case question G.9 is there to catch.
A foreign language needs its own proof
Section 656.17(h)(2) allows business necessity for a language from the nature of the occupation, such as a translator, or from the need to communicate with "a large majority of the employer's customers, contractors, or employees" who can't communicate effectively in English. The second route has to be documented with the number and proportion of those clients, contractors or employees, or a detailed plan to market in another country, plus a detailed explanation of why the job needs frequent contact with them.
Where the explanation goes
The ETA-9089's general instructions require one section of Appendix C, "a brief explanation justifying the response," for each of questions G.6 through G.12 answered Yes. For G.9 the instruction is to "explain briefly how the job requirements are supported by business necessity." Each Appendix C entry holds up to 1,500 characters. The documents behind it stay in the audit file, to be produced if DOL asks.
Six places the regulation checks a requirement
- Above the norm without an explanation. G.9 answered Yes needs the Appendix C entry, and the file needs the documents behind it (§ 656.17(h)(1)).
- A language justified by preference. The rule asks for counts, proportions or a marketing plan, and why this job needs the contact (§ 656.17(h)(2)).
- More than the worker had at hire. If the worker already works for the employer, the employer can't require more of U.S. applicants than the worker had when hired, with two narrow exceptions (§ 656.17(i)(3)).
- Alternatives that aren't equivalent. Alternative requirements "must be substantially equivalent" to the primary ones. And a current employee who qualifies only through the alternatives leads to denial unless the application states that "any suitable combination of education, training, or experience is acceptable" (§ 656.17(h)(4)), which is the choice question G.4b records.
- Others hired with less. The employer must not have hired workers with less training or experience for substantially comparable jobs (§ 656.17(i)(2)).
- Ads that ask for more. No ad may list requirements or duties beyond the ETA-9089 (§ 656.17(f)(6)).
What the denial data can and can't show
The denial rates page measures denials from DOL's own published files by offered wage, occupation, state and three factors the ETA-9089 records: a layoff, the worker's ownership interest, and a job that isn't full time. Business necessity isn't one of them, so the site has no measured rate for how often an explained requirement is accepted.
What this guide can't decide
- Whether a requirement is justified for your job. That's a judgment on the employer's business and the job's duties, made by the attorney on the case. Nothing here is legal advice.
Related
- The PERM employer questionnaire, for asking about requirements at intake
- The PERM recruitment report, which ties each rejection back to the requirements
- Answering a PERM audit, for when DOL asks for the documents
The free case app at PERM Tracker for attorneys keeps each case's dates and deadlines in one place while the requirements get settled.
