Special handling is a distinct PERM pathway for college & university teachers where the recruitment is anchored in a real competitive faculty search, and the employer must be able to show the sponsored candidate was best qualified overall. Compared to the standard PERM flow (20 CFR 656.17), it is not enough to “check the ad boxes.” Your case strength comes from the selection record: committee-approved criteria, ranking logic, and clean job-related dispositions for U.S. applicants.
Disclaimer: this material is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. DOL rules and adjudication practices can change; decisions for a specific case should be made with qualified counsel. Audits and outcomes are fact-specific; no result can be guaranteed.
Core takeaway: special handling is won by a provable selection trail and a defensible selection date. Most audits/denials collapse on (1) an unclear or contradictory selection date, and (2) a weak or inconsistent recruitment record (criteria, logs, and dispositions that don’t match the ad/ETA-9089).
What “special handling” is and how it differs from standard PERM
- Who it covers: teaching-focused faculty roles (positions that include actual teaching). Pure research-only roles can be a gray area and should be classified carefully.
- Adjudication focus: not only “was recruitment done,” but “does the file show a credible, competitive selection and that the beneficiary was best qualified overall.”
- Time gate: ETA-9089 must be filed within 18 months of the selection made after the competitive recruitment process.
- Typical risk: mismatches between committee criteria, the job ad, and ETA-9089 (requirements, preferences, and “why others were rejected”).
18-month rule: defining the “selection date” and calculating deadlines
The rule is simple on paper: a special handling ETA-9089 must be filed within 18 months after a selection is made following a competitive recruitment and selection process for a college/university teacher position. In practice, most failures happen because teams don’t define the “selection date” consistently across HR, the search committee, and counsel.
Working definition: treat the selection date as the first defensible moment when the institution can document that the committee (or authorized decision-maker) has made the hiring decision after the competitive process — and can point to a signed selection memo, final ranking matrix, and a clear trail to the offer.
How to define a defensible selection date (what holds up in audits)
- Use one primary “anchor” document: a signed
Selection Memoreferencing the competitive process and the final ranking/criteria exhibit. - Make it consistent with the offer trail: the offer letter and acceptance should not imply the decision was made earlier or later than your chosen date.
- Avoid “soft dates”: “committee liked candidate X,” verbal approvals, or informal emails are not strong anchors by themselves.
- Freeze your story: once the date is set, every exhibit should reinforce it (minutes, ranking matrix version, HR approvals, routing).
Deadline math: 18 months is a cap, not a target
Treat the 18-month window as an absolute ceiling and plan to file earlier. Many universities lose cases by waiting for “perfect timing” and then getting hit by internal routing delays, missing ad proofs, or last-minute requirement mismatches.
- Recommended operational target: aim to file by month 15 from the selection date, leaving a buffer for corrections and exhibit gaps.
- What typically eats time: PWD alignment, job description cleanup, locating ad proofs, rebuilding logs, and reconciling committee criteria with “minimum requirements.”
18-month window: recommended buffer vs. absolute deadline
Recruitment record: which artifacts matter most
A strong special handling file reads like a replayable hiring process. The officer should be able to follow: (1) what the market saw (ads and proofs), (2) how the committee evaluated candidates (criteria + ranking), and (3) why the selected candidate was best qualified overall (selection memo + supporting exhibits).
Audit mindset: DOL is not trying to judge academic merit. They are checking whether your process is competitive, documented, and consistent, and whether your reasons for rejecting U.S. applicants are job-related and aligned with the requirements you publicly stated.
Artifacts that do the heavy lifting
- Ad text (final) + posting proofs: what candidates actually saw, with dates and platform identification.
- Committee criteria/rubric: minimum vs preferred, and a repeatable evaluation method.
- Ranking matrix (final): the cleanest way to show “best qualified overall” without over-writing narratives.
- Selection memo (signed): your anchor for selection date and your “why this candidate” summary with exhibit references.
- Applicant pool log + disposition reasons: a controlled list of job-related reasons that match your requirements.
- Offer trail: offer letter + acceptance and internal approvals if they corroborate timing.
What to keep, what it proves, and what usually breaks
| Artifact | What it proves | Best practice | Common break point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final ad text + proofs | Market exposure + what requirements were communicated | Freeze the exact text and save screenshots/tear sheets with dates | Edits “after the fact,” missing dates, missing platform identification |
| Criteria/rubric | Evaluation was structured and not tailored post-hoc | Separate minimums from preferred; keep the rubric version that pre-dates selection | Rubric created after selection; criteria too narrow; criteria not reflected in dispositions |
| Ranking matrix (final) | “Best qualified overall” in a compact, reviewable format | Use one final matrix; keep brief notes that map to rubric categories | Multiple conflicting versions; subjective notes (“fit”) without job-related anchors |
| Applicant log + dispositions | U.S. applicants were reviewed and rejected for job-related reasons | Standardize reasons; keep them tied to minimums/rubric | Vague reasons; reasons that imply unstated requirements |
| Selection memo (signed) | Selection date + “why selected” + exhibit map | Reference ranking/criteria; attach exhibit list; ensure date matches offer routing | Unclear selection date; memo conflicts with emails/offer letter timing |
Committee notes: what to include (and what to avoid)
- Use job-related language: “does not meet minimum degree/experience,” “missing required teaching component,” “lower rubric score in X.”
- Avoid subjective labels: “culture fit,” “personality,” “liked more,” “better vibe,” “not exciting.” Those can become liabilities.
- Keep the log clean: detailed narrative notes can exist, but your core file should be anchored in rubric categories and outcomes.
Audit file: document checklist and retention logic
The goal of an audit file is not volume. It is retrievability: the ability to prove what happened, when it happened, and why the institution made the selection — without rebuilding the story from memory. A well-built audit packet also protects the school internally: it standardizes records across departments and prevents “lost proofs” when staff changes.
Retention rule: keep the ETA-9089 and all supporting documentation for 5 years from the filing date. Operationally, many institutions keep faculty search packets longer under internal retention schedules, but your PERM compliance baseline should always meet the 5-year federal requirement.
Audit file structure that works (and scales across departments)
- One “Date Map” page on top: posting dates → selection date → filing date, with exhibit references.
- Foldered evidence (ads/proofs, committee packet, applicant log, offer trail, ETA-9089).
- One consistent naming convention so the next HR partner can find proofs in minutes.
- Clean dispositions (job-related, tied to minimums/rubric) as the default standard.
Audit packet checklist (what to include and why it matters)
| Packet item | Why it matters | What “good” looks like | Typical audit trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date Map + exhibit index | Shows the 18-month window logic and where evidence is located | 1-page timeline + “Item → Exhibit” list | Officer can’t reconcile dates quickly |
| Ads + posting proofs | Confirms market recruitment and the public-facing requirements | Final ad text + dated proofs (screenshots/tear sheets/invoices) | Missing dates, missing platform identification, post-hoc ad edits |
| Committee criteria + ranking | Supports “best qualified overall” with repeatable criteria | Rubric (minimum vs preferred) + one final ranking matrix | Criteria created after selection or inconsistent with dispositions |
| Applicant log + dispositions | Shows U.S. applicants were considered and rejected for job-related reasons | Standardized reasons tied to minimums/rubric | “Not a fit,” vague notes, reasons that imply unstated requirements |
| Selection memo (signed) + offer trail | Anchors selection date and ties it to the outcome | Selection memo references exhibits; offer letter/acceptance consistent with timing | Conflicting dates across memo/emails/offer routing |
Operational tip: keep a “PERM-ready” copy of the committee packet that is already sanitized for job-related language. Detailed internal notes can exist elsewhere, but the PERM file should be able to stand on its own without subjective commentary.
Common failure modes: what breaks special handling cases
Special handling is predictable: if the file is internally consistent, it tends to survive. If there’s a mismatch between requirements, criteria, and dispositions — or if the selection date is muddy — the case becomes hard to defend. These are the patterns that most often trigger audits, RFEs, or denial logic.
1) Requirement mismatch (ad ↔ ETA-9089 ↔ committee criteria)
This is the #1 preventable issue: the committee evaluates using one set of criteria, but the ad/ETA-9089 reflects another. That looks like tailoring the process around the beneficiary.
Fix: lock “minimum requirements” early, label preferences as preferences, and keep dispositions tied to minimums/rubric categories.
2) Overly narrow criteria that read like “built for one person”
Hyper-specific combinations (a niche subfield + unique methodology + rare course mix) can look like market exclusion. Even if academically reasonable, it needs careful handling in the file.
Fix: move non-essential items into “preferred,” and if a criterion is truly necessary, keep a short business-necessity style explanation tied to duties/curriculum needs.
3) Missing logs or weak dispositions (“not a fit”)
Vague reasons are a gift to an auditor. Special handling still requires job-related dispositions and a credible review of U.S. applicants.
Fix: one applicant log + standardized disposition reasons (degree/experience/teaching record/rubric score), and keep subjective notes out of the PERM-facing file.
Quick “audit-readiness” test
If you can answer “yes” to all four, you are operating in the low-risk zone:
1) selection date is anchored by a signed memo; 2) dates align across exhibits; 3) criteria/rubric existed before selection; 4) dispositions are job-related and match the stated minimums.
Audit/RFE response strategy: what to say, what not to say
Strong audit responses are structured, not emotional. Your goal is to make review mechanical: the officer reads “Item 3” and immediately sees “Exhibit C” that answers it, with consistent dates and controlled language.
A response framework that works
Convert the audit letter into “Item → Exhibit.” One item, one or more clearly labeled exhibits.
Lead with dates. Start with the Date Map: posting proofs → selection date → filing date.
Then prove “best qualified overall.” Criteria/rubric → ranking matrix → selection memo → offer trail.
Do not invent new minimum requirements. If something was “preferred,” keep it “preferred” in the narrative.
Avoid subjective language. Use “per rubric,” “per documented ranking,” “did not meet minimum,” “lower score in X.” Do not use “fit,” “personality,” or “more likable.”
Mini-templates: “Faculty recruitment packet map” (file names explained)
Use this as a standardized packet structure. It makes audits easier because it turns your file into a navigable set of exhibits rather than a pile of PDFs.
Assembly rule: build 01_Date-Map and 03E_Selection-Memo first, then attach the ad proofs (02*), ranking (03D), applicant log (04*), and offer trail (05*). If those six components align, your file reads as coherent and audit-ready.
Official sources
- 20 CFR §656.18 (special handling; 18-month filing window): eCFR — §656.18
- 20 CFR §656.10(f) (retain ETA-9089 + supporting documentation for 5 years): eCFR — §656.10
- DOL FLAG — PERM program overview: flag.dol.gov/programs/perm
- BALCA PERM Digest (case law digest): dol.gov — BALCA PERM Digest
- DOL/FLAG processing times (for operational planning): flag.dol.gov/processingtimes
Final pre-filing checklist: (1) selection date is anchored by a signed memo and matches offer routing; (2) the filing plan has buffer inside the 18-month cap; (3) criteria/rubric pre-date selection and map to ranking; (4) applicant log uses job-related standardized dispositions; (5) ad proofs are complete and dated; (6) the audit packet is organized as “Cover → Date Map → Ads → Committee → Pool → Offer → ETA-9089.”
