The following are excerpts from a meeting between the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA) and ICE/HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) from November 19, 2013 that represents some material changes in regulations concerning several important issues such as pre-population, how many violations per I-9 is permitted, E-Verify and new hires, and more, as follows:

Electronic I-9s

 AILA Question: In the January 2013 liaison meeting with AILA, and again in April 2013, ICE HSI indicated that pre-population of Section 1 of an electronic Form I-9 did not comply with regulations. In the April 2013 liaison meeting with AILA, USCIS confirmed that pre-population of Section 1 in an electronic Form I-9 was not acceptable, regardless of whether the company’s representative signed the translation section.  AILA has received information indicating that HSI has recently announced that it has no position on pre-population of Section 1 of an electronic I-9.  Can HSI please clarify for AILA what its current position on pre-population is? Does HSI consider pre-population acceptable under certain circumstances? What are those circumstances?

ICE Response: What may constitute “pre-population” varies substantially. In reviewing any specific pre-population practice, ICE will examine the company’s practices overall to determine
whether a violation occurred and a sanction should be imposed.

How many Notices of Inspection did HSI serve in 2013?

ICE Response: ICE served 3,100 NOIs.

Multiple penalties for single I-9

AILA Question: AILA members have reported that employers have been assessed separate fines for every error on one Form I-9. In other words, a Form I-9 with five errors will generate a fine that is five times more than a Form I-9 with one substantive error. OCAHO cases and ICE’s “Form I-9 Inspection Overview” Fact Sheet indicate that “the standard fine amount” is calculated against each Form I-9 with substantive violations, regardless of the number of substantive violations on the Form I-9. Please confirm that a form with one substantive error would generate the same fine as a form with five substantive errors in the same Form I-9 audit.

ICE Response: There can only be two violations per Form I-9: (1) a knowing hire, continuing to employ violation; and/or (2) a paperwork violation. Only one paperwork violation should be assessed per Form I-9. If more than one paperwork violation per I-9 is cited, attorneys should raise the issue with the ASAC or SAC.

Pervasive single error on I-9s: AILA Question:  We frequently work with employers who due to a training error make the same error on the Form I-9 (such as repeatedly omitting the List C issuing authority). As it is one pervasive error, it does not indicate the more pervasive problems or potential disregard for the verification process, as would employers whose forms I-9 have many different errors. Would HIS consider adjusting its penalty matrix or making some other accommodation to take into account the fact that one common mistake on multiple Forms I-9 should not lead to the same penalty as different or multiple mistakes on the same number of multiple Forms I-9?

ICE Response: ICE is considering this issue. ICE acknowledged that one pervasive error on multiple I-9s seems like a different level of violation than wide-ranging multiple errors. ICE agreed to consider ways to address this.

I-9s for owners of closely held corporations. AILA Question: The OCAHO decision in Santiago Repacking, 10 OCAHO No. 1153 (Aug. 24, 2012) held that an owner in a closely-held corporation, who also works there and draws a paycheck, does not need to have an I-9 form. Please confirm that HSI follows this decision.

ICE Response: ICE stated that it follows all OCAHO decisions.

NOI Notices

AILA Question: The current NOI notices include language that suggests that HSI will require employers to provide access to their electronic I-9 systems. Is this a current practice? If so, what have been the results of these audits? Has HSI considered any employer’s I-9s to be uniformly invalid due to non-compliance of the electronic system used, or does HSI determine whether the electronic I-9s have substantive/technical deficiencies on a case-by-case basis for each I-9?

ICE Response: In some cases ICE has asked the employer to provide a live demonstration, not just a canned demonstration. This applies to both commercially available software and in-house applications.

E-Verify Q&A

Roll-over of employer data. AILA Question: At recent meetings, USCIS has informed AILA that future releases of E-Verify would enable an employer who terminates its MOU (at least for reasons of merger or change in designated agent) to have continued access to its prior E-Verify records and allow transfer of historical data to the updated account. What is the status of this development? If an employer with a terminated MOU needs access to historical E-Verify information, what is the process for obtaining it?

USCIS Response: There is currently no mechanism for an employer to continue to have access to E-Verify data after termination of an MOU.  Once an account is closed, all access to the account and its associated records are terminated. USCIS is developing a method and/or feature for the retention of historical E-Verify data, but there is no tentative date set for this enhancement. At this time, the best workaround to preserve E-Verify records is for the employer and E-Verify Employer Agent to create and retain a complete user audit report for themselves and their clients. From within the Administrator’s functions, an employer can create an Excel spreadsheet with all of the information.  Note that this report would not relieve the employer’s responsibility under the MOU for either copying the E-Verify receipt number on the Form I-9 or attaching the E-Verify record to the form.

AILA Question: What if an electronic I-9 vendor or Employer Agent goes out of business: can an employer have direct access to the information?

USCIS Response: Under data privacy rules, E-Verify is required to “archive” old data, which essentially means that the data is no longer available. The protocol anticipates archiving at the ten year anniversary of data collection, but so far, only pre-1996 data is subject to immediate archive.  Eventually all E-Verify data will be subject to archiving rules. Verification recommends as a best practice that employers print-out and retain the E-Verify records.

E-Verify and Re-hires

AILA Question: It appears that Verification recognizes that an E-Verify query is not always necessarily a rehire situation where the employer is allowed under I-9 regulations at 8 CFR §274a.2(c)(1)(i) to continue to rely on the re-hired employee’s original I-9.  The following guidance is posted in E-Verify FAQs:

Do I need to create a case in E-Verify if my company rehires an employee?

If you rehire a former employee within three years of his or her previous hire date, you may rely on the information on his or her previous Form I-9.  If you rehire an employee for whom you never created an E-Verify case and the employee’s and the employee’s previous Form I-9 lists an expired identity document (List B), then you may either:

–  Complete Section 3 of the employee’s previous Form I-9 and not create a new case for the employee in E-Verify or

–  Complete a new Form I-9 for the employee and create a new case for the employee in E-Verify

See the Handbook for Employers: Instructions for Completing Form I-9 (M-274) for more   information on rehires.  The above guidance, however, does not address the proper way for an employer to treat employees in the most common rehire circumstances – (1) where the rehired employee was not subject to E-Verify at the time of the original hire; and (2) where a rehired employee was previously run through E-Verify and does NOT have an expired identity document. The current guidance suggests, but does not state explicitly, that an E-Verify query based on the rehire date is required in situation (1) and that an employer should not re-query the rehired employee in (2). It was suggested that USCIS provide further clarification to the E-Verify rules for rehired employees and suggested the following amendment to the FAQ as follows:

An employer may rely on previous E-Verify queries for rehired employees in certain circumstances.  If you rehire a former employee within three years of his or her previous hire date, you may rely on the original Form I-9 as long as the work authorization (List C) documentation originally presented by the employee is still valid. If the rehire date is more than three years from completion of the original I-9, or if the employee’s work authorization has since expired, you must complete a new I-9 and run a new E-Verify query using the rehire date as the date of hire.  For purposes of E-Verify, where the employer can rely on the original I-9 and the rehired employee was subject to an earlier E-Verify query, you may continue to rely on the earlier query. If the rehired employee was not previously subject to an E-Verify query and the employee’s identity document is still valid, you may run the E-Verify query based on the data in the original I-9, but using the rehire date as the E-Verify hire date. If, however, the rehired employee’s identity document (List B) has expired, you cannot run an E-Verify query as the system will not accept expired documents. In that case, then you may either:

– Complete Section 3 of the employee’s previous Form I-9 and not create a new case for the employee in E-Verify or

– Complete a new Form I-9 for the employee and create a new case for the employee in E-Verify,  using the rehire date as the E-Verify hire date.

USCIS Response: USCIS updated the rehire section in the newest version of the E-Verify user manual and now provides the following guidance:

If you never created a case in E-Verify for the employee, you must have the employee complete a new Form I-9 and create a case in E-Verify. If you previously created an E-Verify case, but did not receive an employment authorized result, you must have the employee complete a new Form I-9 and create a case in E-Verify.  If you previously created a case in E-Verify for the rehired employee and received an employment authorized result, complete Section 3 of the employee’s previous Form I-9 and do not create a new case for the employee in E-Verify. Alternatively, you may choose to complete a new Form I-9 and create a case for the employee in E-Verify.  Employers are reminded that if you rehire your employee within three years of the date that the initial Form I-9 was completed, you may complete a new Form I-9 for your employee or complete Section 3 of the previously completed Form I-9. If more than three years has elapsed since the initial Form I-9 was completed, employers must complete a new Form I-9 for a rehired employee and create a case in E-Verify for the rehired employee.

That’s all for now.  We will continue to update as announcements are made concerning new interpretations concerning I-9/E-Verify compliance matters.

Infosys is India’s second largest software exporter, and has about 30,000 workers in the U.S. (160,000 worldwide) with $6B in sales.

After years of investigation, it was found that Infosys “knowingly and unlawfully” brought Indian workers into the United States on B-1 business visitor visas( since 2008), to circumvent  the higher costs and delays of a longer-term employment-related visa, such as the H-1B visa that the workers should have had.  It was found that Infosys systematically submitted misleading information to US immigration authorities and consular officials to obtain the B-1 visas that do not permit employment, unfairly gaining a competitive edge and undercutting American workers qualified for the jobs

Press release states: “Infosys failed to maintain I-9 records for many of its foreign nationals in the United States in 2010 and 2011 as required by law, including a widespread failure to update and re-verify the employment authorization status of a large percentage of its foreign national employees…more than 80 percent of Infosys’s I-9 forms for 2010 and 2011 contained substantive violations.”

The largest fine of its kind, was paid out as follows: $5 million to Homeland Security Investigations, $5 million to the Department of State, and $24 million to the DOJ.

How can employers protect themselves?

The five federal agencies charged with workplace enforcement are not only going after businesses that are known to employ undocumented workers, but they are also making examples out of industry leaders across the country creating headline news. It goes without saying, that this is now a topic that should be on HR executives’ action list.  Turning a blind eye can be exceedingly costly and cause great damage to a company’s reputation.

For more on this Story:  CBS Reports   NY Times

For more on our services and solutions

Updated entry re below post: 10/11/2013

In an update to the statements made by ICE to AILA (the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association) in their April 11, 2013 liaison meeting, ICE HSI Worksite Enforcement representatives recently announced to stakeholders that it now has no position on pre-population of Section 1 of the I-9 by electronic I-9 programs, reversing its position from being “not permissible.”  This appears to represent an important change from the position the agency announced to AILA and several other organizations in early April that pre-population of Section 1 by electronic I-9 programs is always prohibited.

The AILA Verification and Documentation Liaison Committee will seek clarification of ICE’s recent statements and the impact on employers and electronic I-9 programs at the fall liaison meeting.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ICE HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) directorate strongly spoke out against I-9 pre-population  at a recent AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) meeting indicating that it was inappropriate and that pre-populating Form I-9 is considered unacceptable practice and a violation.  More recently, OSC in a response to a TAL (Technical Assistance Letter), also spoke out against pre-population stating their concern regarding Section 1 containing outdated or incorrect information.

In light of this change in policy, software providers and employers who use electronic I-9 software should consider this most recent announcement.  We caution employers to review their hiring procedures as it relates to this compliance issue with their software providers.

For more information on I-9/E-Verify employer compliance, please refer to our employer resource center.

This employer really crossed the line in continuing to employ unauthorized workers AFTER an ICE audit of their I-9 records commenced, and failed to produce I-9 records for them on 3 previous occasions while transferring them to other jobsite locations.

Here’s the story….  The charges against the owner and Production Manager, Yoel A. Wazana, Wazana Brothers International, Inc., based in Van Nuys, CA, doing business under the name Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE), are the result of an investigation into MSE’s hiring practices that was initiated by HSI in 2007. According to court documents, shortly after MSE received notification in April 2007 that HSI planned to audit the company’s payroll and hiring records, Wazana directed that about 80 of MSE’s most experienced employees – at least 53 of whom did not have work authorization – be relocated to another manufacturing facility. When investigators requested hiring records from MSE on three separate occasions, the company failed to provide paperwork for those unauthorized workers. The plea agreements filed in this case also describe how, after learning of the ICE audit, Wazana conducted meetings with MSE’s assembly line workers, instructing them to obtain valid work authorization documents and return with those documents, suggesting that he did not care if the documents were actually theirs.

In February 2008, HSI special agents executed a search warrant at MSE’s Van Nuys plant. During the enforcement operation, special agents arrested eight current and former company workers on criminal charges and another 130 employees on administrative immigration violations.  The felony charge of false representation of a Social Security number carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

MSE has agreed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor count of continuing employment of unauthorized aliens. In a plea agreement filed last month, the firm admits hiring approximately 55 unauthorized workers, and then continuing to employ them after the ICE audit had begun. The company admits that it knew, or deliberately avoided knowledge of the fact, that the individuals were not authorized to work in the United States.

The company’s plea agreement represents a global settlement of criminal and civil charges against the firm. Under the terms of the plea agreement negotiated by ICE and the United States Attorney’s Office, MSE agreed to pay approximately $267,000 in civil and criminal fines.

Beyond the monetary sanctions, the plea agreement calls for the company to be on probation for three years, during which time it will implement a series of stringent measures to ensure it is complying with the nation’s hiring laws. Those steps include retaining an independent compliance monitor (this is the first time we’ve heard of an ‘independent compliance monitor’ being mentioned) to oversee the completion and maintenance of the firm’s hiring records, and providing training to employees regarding federal hiring laws. The plea agreement takes into account the company’s willingness to take responsibility for its prior criminal conduct and to implement a rigorous program to ensure full compliance with federal hiring laws in the future.

In 2009, HSI implemented a new, comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce. Under this strategy, HSI is focusing its resources on the auditing and investigation of employers suspected of cultivating illegal workplaces by knowingly employing illegal workers. In the last year, HSI has levied a record number of civil and criminal penalties against employers who violate immigration laws.

An employer’s blatant disregard for employment-related immigration law has been proven time and time again in our blog reporting of these cases to be an expensive, painful, reputation damaging and unnecessary path.  Call our office to establish a compliant workforce, 562 612.3996.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

“Homeland Security Investigations is committed to holding businesses and their managers accountable when they knowingly hire an illegal workforce,” –John Kelleghan, Special Agent in charge of HSI Philadelphia.

Homeland Security, the FBI, and ICE did much more than hold GPX/GPX, USA, a seismic surveying company and their field supervisor, Donald Wiggill, “accountable,” by charging the company with a total maximum fine of $10 million, a probation term of five years on each count, and a special assessment totaling $8,000; Wiggill faces an unconscionable indictment of 100 years in prison on all 20 counts, a fine of $5 million, a supervised release term of 60 years, and a special assessment of $2,000. The Texas based company failed to verify the immigration status of nineteen employees and did not prepare the required Form I-9 and supporting documentation concerning the immigrants’ authorization to work in the United States.

John Kelleghan of Homeland Security further justified the Philadelphia HSI decision to levy such harsh punishment for I-9 non-compliance saying, “HSI and our law enforcement partners will continue to ensure that employers follow our nation’s hiring laws, which ultimately protect job opportunities for the nation’s legal workers, and levels the playing field for those businesses that play by the rules.”

The proportionality of the punishment sought for the crime is extremely shocking. Our blog has recently covered the penalties imposed upon, HerbCo, Chipotle, and most recently ABC Tree Professionals, which pale in comparison to the punishment GPX is now facing.

GPX is being treated like a national security threat for mishandling nineteen employees Form I-9s. The difference between thousands of dollars versus millions of dollars in fines, in addition to 100 years of jail time, is the involvement of the FBI and the Homeland Security. GPX is charged with harboring and transporting illegal aliens and conspiracy to commit those offenses as outlined in an indictment by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Smith. Whether GPX was honestly aware of their employees’ immigration status is still unknown, however proper planning and implementation of I-9 compliance would have saved the company millions in civil penalties and avoided a hundred years of jail time. With the stakes elevated so tremendously high by this multi-departmental crackdown on workforce compliance –  who can afford not to get their legal documents in order?

To protect your business and your employees please contact one of our immigration professionals at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

We had the ICE IMAGE Training and Forum in Los Angeles last week on May 3rd where they explained the benefits of the IMAGE Program and followed up with releasing all the Powerpoint Presentations through email after the event.  They have made some excellent information available to the public on their website; namely:

1. An HSI I-9 Presentation
2. An IMAGE HSI Presentation
3. OSC IMAGE Event Presentation
4. Self Check User Presentation
5. E-Verify Presentation

We felt that their perspective on the above topics was critical information to  be shared and analyzed alongside your other resources.  They can be accessed here.

Please know that we are available to assist you with your compliance program and offer practical and sustainable services and solutions to assist you in establishing a compliant workforce.

ICE and HSI worksite enforcement activities strike again – this time it’s temp agencies!

In an ICE Press Release today, it was announced that during an ICE and HSI investigation, it was found that a 2-location temp agency was knowingly supplying undocumented unskilled and skilled warehouse and janitorial workers to their clients as a part of their labor pool.

Clinton Roy Perkins, the owner of Can Do It Inc. in Bensenville, IL, was sentenced on February 16th to 18 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for knowingly hiring illegal aliens at the staffing companies. He pleaded guilty in September 2010. On Feb. 25th, U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall also ordered the forfeiture of $465,178 in proceeds obtained as a result of the criminal activity.

Perkins admitted to knowingly hiring more than 10 illegal aliens from Mexico between October 2006 and October 2007.  Perkins did not require the workers to provide documents establishing their immigration status or lawful right to work in the United States.

Perkins and his son-in-law, Chrispher Reindl, paid the illegal workers’ wages in cash; did not deduct payroll taxes or other withholdings. Perkins and Reindl directed low-level supervisory employees to transport illegal workers back and forth between locations near the aliens’ residences in Chicago and work sites in the suburbs. Both also provided bogus six-digit numbers – purporting to be the last six digits of the aliens’ Social Security numbers – to a company, knowing that their workers were in the country illegally and did not possess valid Social Security numbers.

In a quote from special agent in charge of ICE HSI in Chicago:  “We will hold employers accountable for their actions.  Mr. Perkins knowingly hired an illegal workforce and circumvented our nation’s immigration laws for financial gain. The goal of our enforcement efforts is two-fold – reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce.”

ICE was assisted in the investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General in Chicago. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher R. McFadden and Daniel May, Northern District of Illinois, prosecuted the case.

One of Mississippi’s most successful and largest private employers pled guilty in federal court last week to knowingly violating federal criminal conspiracy laws in its employment of illegal aliens at the company’s electrical transformer plant in Laurel, MS following an investigation by ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).  The company agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine, which is larger than normal for such a conviction, the U.S. Justice Department said in a news release.

Immigration agents detained more than 600 illegal immigrants at Howard Industries’ electrical transformer plant during a massive raid on Aug. 25, 2008. Those detained in the raid came from countries including Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru, and most of them were deported, though a few were convicted on identity theft charges for using fraudulent documents and providing fake papers to other workers.

The company said in a statement that it was pleased to resolve the investigation “based on the actions of its former human resources manager Jose Humberto Gonzalez.”  Gonzalez is the only company executive who has been charged in the case. He pled guilty in December 2009 to conspiracy and admitted that he hired hundreds of people who he knew were in the country illegally.  

The company had repeatedly denied allegations that it had knowingly hired individuals without work authorization, putting all of the blame on its HR manager, Jose Humberto Gonzalez, who was charged in a 25-count indictment with conspiracy and employee verification fraud.   He faces a maximum of 5 years of imprisonment on the conspiracy charge and on each employee verification fraud count. He also faces a minimum of 2 years imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft charge and possible fines up to $250,000.

Howard Industries was charged with knowingly and willfully conspiring to encourage and induce undocumented workers to reside in the US, and knowingly conspiring to conceal, harbor and shield from detection such workers.  As it turned out, Howard Industries waived indictment and agreed to plead guilty to the one-count felony of  conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States which calls for a term of not less than one and not more than 5 years of probation and a fine of up to $500,000. However, this fine was substantially enhanced to $2.5 million due to the nature of the crime (harboring), the number of workers involved (100 or more), and the size of the company.

Apparently Gonzalez would routinely hire unauthorized workers who presented false identity documents, including green-cards and Social Security cards, and then would complete the I-9 with the fake information.  Gonzalez was also accused of submitting SSNs to the Social Security Administration to verify their numbers and then disregarding the results if they came back as invalid.

E-Verify doesn’t protect against identify fraud: Howard Industries was using E-Verify and ran every applicant through the system, but E-Verify doesn’t detect identify fraud and shouldn’t be used as a substitute for I-9 compliance.  The case at hand teaches a lesson about the E-Verify program, in that using E-Verify doesn’t insulate an employer against penalties and doesn’t provide a safe harbor against worksite enforcement.

So what’s an employer to do?

If you are contemplating ‘going electronic’, whether that be an electronic I-9 system or enrolling in the E-Verify program, it is imperative that you find out what condition your I-9’s are in.  This is done by having a qualified immigration attorney that specializes in compliance issues perform either a partial or full audit on your I-9’s so that the reoccurring errors and violations buried in your paperwork can be identified, corrected, and your staff properly trained.  We additionally encourage our clients to work with us in establishing policies and guidelines as to how they want to process and manage the I-9 function at their organization and document this, and make sure that everyone involved with the process is trained and fully understands your internal policies.

We link to the ICE press release

For more information on our employer compliance services and solutions

Dec. 13, 2010:  US Attorney Thomas E. Delahanty II of the District of Main, announced that George Valvanis pled guilty to one count of engaging in a pattern or practice of recruiting or hiring illegal aliens unauthorized to work in the United States, and to one count of using a false attestation in an immigration document. The case was investigated by ICE and  Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

According to court records, Valvanis managed several Dunkin’ Donuts stores located in the Portland area. Between 2001 and 2009, he knowingly employed 18 illegal aliens to work in his stores. Valvanis faces a maximum prison term of five years on the false attestation charge and six months on the alien hiring charge.

Dunkin’ Donuts Manager, in conspiracy, knew that the employees were unauthorized to work in the U.S, and falsely attested on the I-9 that they had examined the documents presented, and the documents appeared to be genuine and that the employees were eligible to work in the U.S

“ICE HSI will hold employers who knowingly hire an illegal workforce accountable for their actions,” said Bruce M. Foucart, special agent in charge of ICE HSI in Boston. Foucart oversees ICE HSI throughout New England. “Our office will continue to investigate and find employers who flout our laws and hire illegal labor, in order to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce. ICE HSI will use enforcement tools, civil and criminal, when appropriate to bring about compliance.”

The president of a Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., furniture manufacturing business was charged Monday with criminal violations stemming from a probe by ICE ‘s Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) into allegations the company hired unauthorized alien workers.

The president and principal shareholder of Brownwood Furniture,  Rick Vartanian, is charged in a criminal action with one count of obstruction of justice and one misdemeanor count of continuing to employ unauthorized workers. Court documents from November 2009 indicate that Vartanian told ICE that unauthorized workers identified during an earlier HSI audit were no longer employed by the company, when, in fact, the company continued to employ 18 of those workers and had taken steps to shield them from detection by HSI. HSI agents executed a search warrant at the company in December 2009 and discovered the 18 unauthorized employees still working there. Vartanian, who has already agreed to pay a $10,000 fine, faces a statutory maximum sentence of 66 months in prison.

This action comes  not more than 3 weeks following previous action taken against Brownwood Furniture’s vice-president, Michael Eberly, charged in a criminal case filed Oct. 12th  with one count of continuing employment of unauthorized workers, a misdemeanor. Eberly is scheduled to make his initial court appearance Nov. 19th.  According to the charging document, Eberly knew that many of the furniture company’s workers were unauthorized and continued to employ them. Eberly, who has agreed to pay a $5,000 fine, also faces a maximum sentence up to six months in prison.

The investigation was a result of an anonymous tip  that resulted in an investigation in July 2009 where it was discovered that 61 of the firm’s 73 employees had submitted invalid documents to obtain their jobs. After HSI notified the company about the discrepancies, the executives told investigators the unauthorized workers had been terminated. However, when HSI agents executed a search warrant at the business in Dec. 2009, they encountered 30 unauthorized workers, 18 of whom had purportedly been terminated following the July audit.

We refer to the ICE Press Release