In PERM, wage level is not a “checkbox” or a number you pick after the fact. It’s the logic spine of the case: the level must make sense with the job’s duties, the minimum requirements, the supervision/independence profile, and the worksite context. When level selection is weak, the case rarely fails “because of one field.” It fails because the file starts describing two different jobs across PWD → ads → Notice of Filing → ETA-9089.
Disclaimer: This guide is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration processes and agency practices change over time. For case-specific strategy and document choices, consult a qualified immigration attorney. No outcome can be guaranteed.
What this playbook is (and isn’t): It is not a recruiting checklist and not a step-by-step PWD tutorial. It’s a wage-level decision framework you can apply before recruiting starts—so you don’t end up rewriting ads, restarting timelines, or explaining obvious “senior duties + level 1 wage” contradictions later.
The 3 rules that prevent most wage-level problems
- Duties outweigh titles. “Senior” in a title doesn’t automatically mean Level 3–4, and “Engineer” doesn’t mean Level 1–2. The file follows the work performed.
- Minimum requirements must be honest. You can’t describe high-autonomy ownership work and then pretend the role is entry-level via artificially low requirements.
- Zero tolerance for “version drift.” PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089 must tell one consistent story—no hidden upgrades, no late edits.
How DOL infers wage level: duties vs requirements vs industry context
Wage level is ultimately a reasonableness test: does the requested level fit the job as described? NPWC doesn’t “grade” your company. It evaluates how the role reads on paper—especially the interplay between what the worker will do, what the employer says is minimally required, and how much independent judgment the role implies. In practice, wage level problems almost always come from mixed signals inside the employer’s own documents.
Plain English: If the duties describe ownership, architecture, risk decisions, leadership, or “self-directed” work—trying to frame the role as Level 1 is not “saving money.” It’s creating an internal contradiction. That contradiction tends to surface later as recruiting friction (ads don’t match PWD), document rework, or credibility issues if the case is scrutinized.
The three signal buckets that drive level logic
- Duties (what the job does): execution under direction vs independent problem-solving vs design/ownership of systems, standards, or a domain.
- Minimum requirements (what the employer requires to enter): degree/major, years of experience, mandatory skills/certifications, and “must” leadership expectations.
- Context (how the job is positioned): supervision model, regulated environment, worksite complexity (including remote/hybrid and multi-location realities).
Four selection frameworks: junior / mid / senior / lead
The quickest way to avoid a wage-level trap is to make the team agree on the role’s seniority narrative before ETA-9141. The goal is not to “force a level.” The goal is to ensure that duties, minimums, and the supervision profile are written like a single, consistent job. Use the ladder below as a practical calibration tool for HR + hiring manager + counsel.
Junior (often consistent with Level 1)
Performs defined tasks with close guidance, limited autonomy, and clear check-ins. Minimums are typically baseline: standard degree and/or limited experience. The defining feature is learning and execution, not design ownership.
Mid (often consistent with Level 2)
Owns well-bounded deliverables, solves routine-to-moderate problems independently, and coordinates with peers. Minimums reflect solid hands-on experience. The role influences outcomes within a component, but does not set overall direction.
Senior (often consistent with Level 3)
Designs solutions, drives technical or operational decisions, mentors others, and handles ambiguity. Duties show independent judgment and ownership of complex components or processes. Minimums should not read like entry-level if the duties are senior.
Lead / Principal (often consistent with Level 4)
Leads a domain, sets standards, manages cross-functional risk, and influences strategy. A “lead” profile is hard to reconcile with low minimums without creating credibility issues. If the business needs a lead, the file should reflect that reality consistently.
Table: seniority signals that commonly collide with low levels
| Signal in duties/requirements | Why it pushes level logic upward | How to prevent a later trap |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture / design ownership (sets standards, defines direction) | Implies independent judgment and responsibility for systemic outcomes. | Either accept the senior narrative or narrow the duties to execution on an established design (only if true). |
| Mandatory mentoring/leadership | Built-in influence over other workers is not an entry-level hallmark. | If mentoring is “nice-to-have,” avoid making it a “must.” If it is a must, align level narrative accordingly. |
| Regulated / high-risk environment (compliance, security, safety) | Often requires proven competence and autonomy due to impact and risk. | Describe duties concretely and avoid adding heavy responsibility language unless the role truly carries it. |
| End-to-end ownership across a broad scope | End-to-end typically means low supervision and independent prioritization. | If the work is actually split across roles, reflect the boundaries; if not, don’t force an entry narrative. |
| High experience threshold (many years / rare stack / mandatory credentials) | A high entry threshold conflicts with an entry-level story. | Remove artificial barriers unless truly necessary; if necessary, keep them consistent across PWD, ads, and ETA-9089. |
Red flag: A “senior” job described in duties, but an “entry” job described in minimum requirements. This is the classic “senior duties, level 1 wage” trap. Fix it early by aligning the narrative—before the first ad goes live.
Wage-year updates and PWD validity windows: where calendars break
Teams often plan PERM like a straight line: get PWD, run ads, file ETA-9089. In reality, the timeline has fragile joints: (1) wage data updates by “wage year,” and (2) PWDs have validity windows. If the case drifts—because the role changes, the worksite changes, or recruiting gets delayed—you can end up with a PWD that no longer matches the job you’re recruiting for, even if the original filing looked correct.
Core idea: A correct PWD can still become a problem if the employer’s “job story” changes after the PWD is issued. Most wage-level disputes are really alignment disputes: the documents stop describing the same role.
What “wage-year mismatch” looks like in practice
- PWD validity expires before ETA-9089 is filed → a fresh PWD may be required, and timelines may need a reset.
- Duties or minimums quietly change (new mandatory tool, new experience, new license) → the issued PWD no longer fits the updated role.
- Worksite/remote posture changes (hybrid cadence, primary location, multi-location) → geography and wage data linkage shifts.
- Ads “improve” the role to attract candidates → ads become more senior than PWD, creating an internal contradiction.
This visualization is a workflow model (not a statistical frequency chart). The best defense is a single master calendar: PWD issue date + validity window, ad start/end dates, NOF posting dates, and a target ETA-9089 filing date—owned by a single coordinator.
PWD → ads → NOF → ETA-9089 alignment spine (no breaks)
Think of PERM as one consistent narrative repeated in different formats. If any stage describes a different job—different requirements, different worksite story, different seniority—then the file stops reading like a controlled compliance process and starts reading like a set of inconsistent artifacts. Wage level selection is part of that narrative: the level must be plausible for the duties and minimums the employer publishes.
PWD (ETA-9141) anchor
Locks the SOC, geography, wage level, and wage rate logic. Everything downstream must remain consistent with this “job version.”
Recruiting ads market-facing
Ads should not quietly add mandatory skills or upgrade seniority beyond what PWD supports. If they do, the record starts describing a different role.
NOF (Notice of Filing) internal control
NOF is the internal posting for the same position. When NOF language diverges from ads or PWD, it signals “version drift” inside the employer’s own file.
ETA-9089 single source of truth
Finalizes the position and minimums. Late edits (especially to match a specific candidate) are one of the most expensive ways to create alignment breaks.
Table: common alignment breaks and how to prevent them
| Where the break happens | How it shows up | Prevention before recruiting |
|---|---|---|
| PWD vs Ads | Ads introduce “must” items not in PWD (license, language, tool), or duties read materially more senior than PWD. | Freeze a canonical duties + minimums package. Publish ads only from that package. Any change triggers a re-review. |
| PWD vs Geography | PWD is tied to one location while the real job is remote/hybrid/multi-location with a different primary worksite story. | Lock the worksite narrative first (primary location, hybrid cadence, known alternates), then build PWD and ad texts around it. |
| NOF vs Ads | NOF describes a different version of the job (conditions, location, minimums) than the ads used for recruiting. | Use one master text set for both NOF and ads; add a checklist step where HR confirms textual consistency before posting. |
| ETA-9089 vs Everything | 9089 adds requirements or location details late to match a candidate or “tighten” the role after recruiting started. | Adopt a “no late edits” policy. If the job truly changed, re-sync honestly with updated PWD and recruiting rather than cosmetic rewrites. |
This alignment spine becomes especially sensitive for remote/hybrid and multi-location cases, where geography and wage data are tightly linked. If the “place of performance” story changes midstream, the file can become inconsistent even if everyone acted in good faith.
HR/manager errors: “senior duties, level 1 wage” and other traps
The costliest wage-level error is rarely “the level number.” The costliest error is internal inconsistency—when the business describes a senior-impact role, but HR attempts to keep it “junior” in minimum requirements or ad language. That creates two job versions: one implied by duties and expectations, and another implied by minimums and wage level. In PERM, two job versions are a timeline killer.
Fast diagnostic: If the hiring manager says “this person will own the domain and drive design decisions,” but the paperwork reads “entry-level with minimal experience,” the file is telling two stories. Fix it before recruiting, not after it.
Table: common mismatches and how to correct them without self-deception
| Mismatch | Why it’s risky | Cleaner correction path |
|---|---|---|
| Senior duties (ownership, architecture, leadership) + entry minimums | Documents describe different jobs; later explanations look like retrofitting rather than compliance planning. | Either accept a senior narrative consistently (including level logic) or truly narrow the role scope and reflect that everywhere. |
| Ads include “must” skills not in PWD | Reads like narrowing the U.S. worker pool and breaks PWD ↔ recruiting consistency. | Publish ads from a frozen canonical minimums package. If a “must” is real, it belongs in the PWD and ETA-9089 too. |
| Worksite story changes after PWD (remote/hybrid/multi-location) | Geography and wage data linkage shifts; the file becomes inconsistent even if the team’s intent was reasonable. | Lock the worksite narrative early. If it changes, treat it as a re-sync event, not a cosmetic edit. |
| Late edits to match a candidate | Creates “version drift” and weakens credibility of the recruiting record. | Adopt a “no late edits” rule. If the job truly changed, re-run the correct sequence rather than patching. |
Pre-recruiting checklist: lock the job story before the first ad
Use this checklist in a 20–30 minute working session (HR + hiring manager + counsel). The goal is to produce one consistent “job story”: duties, minimums, worksite narrative, and level logic that remain stable throughout PWD, recruiting, NOF, and ETA-9089.
1) SOC fit check (duty-first): confirm SOC mapping based on duties, not title marketing.
2) Canonical duties set: 5–7 core duty bullets that match reality (avoid inflated “lead” language unless the role truly carries it).
3) Minimum requirements frozen: degree/major, years of experience, mandatory skills/certifications/languages—only what is truly required at entry.
4) Seniority narrative agreed: junior/mid/senior/lead—ensure duties and minimums reflect the same narrative (no “senior duties with entry minimums”).
5) Worksite story locked: primary location, hybrid cadence, travel expectations, known alternate worksites—one consistent story across all artifacts.
6) Calendar ownership: document PWD issue date + validity, recruiting windows, NOF posting dates, and target ETA-9089 filing date in a single master calendar.
7) “One-job test”: if an officer reads duties + minimums + wage level, does it look like one real job—not a negotiated compromise between different versions?
Related internal guides
- multi-location alignment spine — how remote/hybrid and multi-location narratives interact with wage data and why “where the work is performed” must stay consistent end-to-end.
- recruiting timeline & pitfalls — timing windows, documentation traps, and the most common points where PERM recruiting gets derailed.
Official sources for wage data and rules
- DOL — Foreign Labor Certification Wages: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/wages
- FLAG — Prevailing Wages (NPWC / ETA-9141): https://flag.dol.gov/programs/prevailingwages
- FLAG — OFLC Wage Search: https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search
- FLAG — Wage Data Downloads (wage years): https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-data-downloads
- BLS — OEWS tables: https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
- DOL — NPWC PWD policy guidance (PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/eta/oflc/pdfs/npwhc_guidance_revised_11_2009.pdf
- eCFR — 20 CFR Part 656 (PERM regulations): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-656
- eCFR — 20 CFR 656.40 (Prevailing wage determination): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-656/section-656.40
