Follow Us:

I-9 Survey: Immigration Compliance Group is Interested in Hearing from you

December 19th, 2011

Hello:

Headed into a new year, this is a good time to give thought to what as an HR professional you’d like to see implemented at your place of employment where compliance issues are concerned.

Take a minute and go through our survey.  Or, if you prefer, email us and let us know what your top 3 compliance projects or concerns are for 2012 – info@immigrationcompliance group.com

We’d like to hear from you.

OSC Worksite Discrimination Webinars

December 15th, 2011

OSC is conducting a free, live webinar series on Worksite Discrimination. If you’re a worker or worker advocate, they have a monthly worker/advocate track webinar. Employers/HR professionals are invited to join their monthly  OSC Employer Training webinar.  The webinars are conducted live from OSC’s headquarters in Washington, DC.   You might want to check this out.

Here is a link to the OSC Powerpoint used in today’s Employer Worksite Discrimination Webinar.  It was a very informative and well done presentation.

Should you wish to discuss how best to implement policies and procedures that will enhance your compliance program, we’d be glad to hear from you:  info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or 562 612.3996.

Immigration InFOCUS News for December 2011 from Immigration Compliance Group

December 5th, 2011

The Immigration Compliance Group InFOCUS News and update is available for December 2011.  If you’re not signed up to receive our free news and information, we invite you to do so here.

In this issue we address the Outmoded H-1B Cap, H.R. 3012 that eliminates country limits for skilled worker green-cards that just passed the House, application processing times,  miscellaneous News Bytes, and other new in the immigration community.

Should you wish to contact our office to discuss business immigration or employment eligibility verification issues, we’d be glad to hear from you.

House Votes to Eliminate Country Limits for Skilled Worker Green-Cards

November 30th, 2011

H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, introduced on September 22, 2011 by Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT), eliminates the employment-based per-country cap entirely by fiscal year 2015 and raises the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7% to 15%.

On 10/27/11, the House Judiciary Committee held a markup and H.R. 3012 was reported favorably out of committee by a voice vote. An amendment from Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) that would make adjustments to the three year phase-in period was accepted. H.R. 3012 must next be scheduled for House floor debate which may occur in the next few weeks.

On 11/29/11 the House passed H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act by a vote of 389-15 with no additional amendments. The measure now moves on to the Senate for consideration.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who heads the Senate Judiciary panel on immigration, said he planned to move the bill as quickly as possible in the Senate, “where we expect it to find overwhelming support.” He said the legislation would “remove outdated constraints that prevent us from attracting the kind of innovators who can create job growth in America.”

Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the measure “makes the system a tiny bit fairer” and does “demonstrate that Congress can do something on immigration, however small.”  She cited estimates that while someone from England might wait two or three years for a green card, an Indian could conceivably be on the waiting list for decades.

Under current law, no more than 7% of the visas issued per year in any one immigrant visa category can go to natives of any one country.  On the employment-based immigrant visa side, natives of India and China face longer waits than natives of other countries, because natives of those countries send more high-skilled immigrants to the US than any other country.  On the family-based immigrant visa side, natives of Mexico and the Philippines face longer waits than natives of other countries, because there are more immigrants and US citizens with family ties to those countries than there are to other countries. HR 3012 will eliminate, over a three year period, the per-country limit in the employment-based system, but it will not raise the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the USA.

We will keep you posted on developments as this bill moves to the Senate.  We link to an excellent article on the subject.

I-9 Form: OSC Releases Brochure on Immigration & National Origin Discrimination

November 28th, 2011

We recommend that every employer read this brochure very carefully. As it clearly states, the: “OSC vigorously investigates and prosecutes such claims of discrimination.  Employers found to be engaging in discriminatory activity may be required to pay civil penalties and any appropriate back pay to injured parties.”

The case examples provided with accompanying fines mentioned in the brochure are excellent studies for HR professionals that deal with I-9s on a daily basis. We highly recommend that you print this out and add it to your M-274 Employer Handbook.  Make sure that all HR representatives, HR and hiring managers involved with the I-9 process has a copy of this brochure.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at:  info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com, or by phone 562 612.3996.

I-9 Form, ICE Audit, E-Verify: Recent Blog Posts

November 14th, 2011

Here is a selection of some of our more recent and popular blog posts:

I-9 Form Compliance:  What’s Hidden in your Paperwork

I-9 News:  ICE Inspection I-9 Overview

I-9 Audit Case Study:  Ketchikan Drywall Services

Important Electronic Vendor Guidance

What are Technical and Substantive Violations?

Employer Fined for Discrimination

SSA No-Match Letters:  OSC’s Position on Employer Action

I-9 Penalties:  Highest Civil Penalty Assessed Since Enactment of Anti-Discrimination Provisions

Gov. Brown Signs Bill Prohibiting E-Verify for Local Governments in CA

E-Verify Self Check Releases in 16 More States and is also in Spanish

I-9 Form Compliance: What’s Hidden in your Paperwork?

November 8th, 2011

Do you need an I-9 Audit?

Most employers think that because they have never filed an immigration case for a foreign worker, that they do not need to worry about their I-9’s or immigration laws. This type of thinking in today’s enforcement climate, is indeed risky business.

YOU MAY BE AT RISK.

What most employers do not understand is that employment verification requirements are governed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). The provisions of the law hold every employer in the USA responsible for verifying the identity and work authorization status of the employees that they hire. The means by which this is done is the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form that every employee must fill out on the day of hire or earlier (both citizen and non-citizen).  Employers are being fined for clerical and technical mistakes and violations on their I-9 forms, whether an employee is a US citizen or non-citizen  – it makes no difference.

Penalties and Fines

The penalties for ignoring the legal requirements of the I-9 process can be quite severe, even in cases of unintentional omissions and uncorrected I-9 mistakes. Civil penalties for such errors may range from $110 to $1,100 for each affected employee.  A business with thousands of employees and multiple worksites may face a significant financial burden in noncompliance penalties.  The fines may be further increased if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that an employer knowingly hired unauthorized foreign nationals, and can range from $375 to $16,000 per violation with repeat offenders on the high end. Employers and their representatives convicted of having engaged in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized foreign nationals, may also face criminal charges and fines of up to $3,000 per employee and/or six months’ imprisonment.  Other federal criminal statutes may provide higher penalties in certain fraud cases.

“FINES CAN RANGE FROM $375 UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $16,000 PER VIOLATION”

Employers and individuals who commit citizenship status or national origin discrimination may be ordered to pay civil fines and attorneys’ fees. The penalties range from $375 to $3,200 for the first offense for each individual discriminated against; from $3,200 to $6,500 for the second offense; and for subsequent offenses, not less than $4,300 up to $16,000 per violation for each affected person.

How We Can Help?

Our I-9 audits can help employers:

  • Become aware of the reoccurring mistakes and violations contained in their I-9 population and correct the I-9 form before the government intercedes
  • Provide a confidential “Risk Assessment Report” on your overall Form I-9 program and make proactive recommendations for compliant I-9 processing and management
  • Develop reasonable I-9 policies and procedures that make sense for your business

Internal training on all Form I-9 requirements and procedures including but not limited to:

  • I-9 laws and regulations
  • How to complete and correct the Form I-9
  • Required Documents and Examination
  • Re-verification of the Form I-9
  • Discrimination and Penalties
  • What to do if ICE comes knocking?
  • Best Practices for Employer Compliance – and more

Don’t wait! Call (562) 612-3996

Or fill out the form here if you’re interested in an I-9 audit for your business or wish to inquire about other compliance services and solutions that we offer.

E-Verify Self Check Releases in 16 more states and in Spanish

October 28th, 2011

The initial launch of E-Verify Self Check was in March of this year. Self Check provides a free Internet portal through which individuals in the USA can check their own employment eligibility status before formally seeking employment.

Today, USCIS announced Self Check is now available in Spanish and accessible to residents in 16 additional states: California, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

From this page you can navigate to the Spanish language version, Director Mayorkas’ Press Conference and an Interactive Preview and Presentation in both English and Spanish.

We have a group on LinkedIn – check us out!

I-9 Audit Case Study

October 24th, 2011

Ketchikan Drywall Services (KDS), a drywall and framing company in Washington, was found to have committed 225 separate I-9 violations for which they were fined  $173,250 ($770/each) discovered during an ICE I-9 audit.

ICE subpoenaed employees’ I-9s and supporting documentation dating back 3+ years.  KDS initially provided approximately 454 I-9 forms with ‘some’ supporting documentation.  More than a year later, KDS provided another 81 I-9 forms, totaling 535.

ICE issued a NOI (Notice of Intent) to fine 271 I-9 form violations for a fine of $286,000.  KDS disputed the fine, the case went before OCAHO (Office of the Chief Administrative Law Hearing Officer) who rigidly found no reason at the time to reduce the fine.

With over 250 violations, there were obviously a number of issues, such as:

1)      Were employees recalled from layoff or rehired?  The company hired a lot of seasonal employees.  If you are recalling from layoff, there is no need for a new I-9 form.  If you’re rehiring, then Section 3 needs to be filled out (if rehired within 3 years), or a new I-9 form.

2)      Whether supporting documentation was sufficient when the I-9 has none of the information filled out in Section 2?  The Administrative Law Judge stated that the supporting documentation could only be reviewed if there was human error in transcribing information onto the I-9 form.

3)      Whether late production of a permanent resident card alleviates a substantive violation for no status box being checked when the Section 1 was originally filled out; and whether certain recorded information in Section 1 can alleviate a substantive violation for failing to check a status box or more than one status box?  There were a number of issues with employees who failed to check a status box for citizen, permanent resident, or authorized to work or who failed to write in any information.  The fact that the employer later presented LPR cards, was of no value – it was still considered a substantive violation.  If the citizen box was checked with permanent resident or authorized to work, it was considered a substantive violation because the checked boxes are contrary to each other.

There were a number of other violations such as:

4)     Failure to sign the form

5)      Failure to list any or all the necessary information in List A, B or C

6)      Acceptance of improper documentation

Overall, there were 271 I-9 forms with substantive violations out of 535 presented I-9s –  50% of the I-9s, $110 to $935 per violation.  They got hit with a fine at the top of the range, $935.  ICE indicated that they could be fined $286K.

In the end, the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) found that ICE proved 225 substantive violations in the 535 I-9 forms for a 42% violation rate, which equated to a base fine of $770 per I-9, or $173,250.

This case represents a prime example of what we see in our I-9 audit practice whether you have a diverse workforce or not, clerical errors and oversights play a huge part in the process and they equate to technical and substantive errors – an exceedingly expensive outcome for something that can be averted with the development of a compliance program that works for your business, with regular audits and training.

We link to the Final Decision and Order

Check out our group on LinkedIn, I-9 Smart Solutions for Employers.

H-1Bs and Change in Jobsite Locations

October 20th, 2011

This issue is currently under examination within the H-1B policy review working group as part of the comprehensive USCIS policy review.  It has long been fraught with confusing and sometimes contradictory policy guidance regarding when a change in employee work location requires a new H-1B petition.

The fact is that not every change in jobsite location represents a ‘material change’ and not every change equates to a change in the conditions of employment, particularly if the change is in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) upon which the Labor Condition Application and the prevailing wage is based.

It has long been the policy articulated in the October 23, 2003 Efren Hernandez letter (AILA Doc. No. 03112118), that changes in job site location do not require amended H-1B filings as long as a Certified Labor Condition Application is in place; an LCA posting notice under DOL regulations was completed, and other wage and hour obligations are met.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is requesting that USCIS “issue clear and unequivocal guidance confirming the provisions in the Hernandez letter so that petitioners and USCIS can follow and rely upon it.”

We will keep you informed concerning this matter as developments occur.