For Immediate Distribution

Immigration Solutions Announces Relaunch to Immigration Compliance Group and New Websites to Assist Employers with Business Immigration

Employers concerned about U.S. business immigration issues, as well as I-9 employment eligibility verification and compliance are getting help from new websites announced by Immigration Compliance Group.

—

Long Beach, CA, September 29, 2011 – Immigration Compliance Group has announced the launch of its new name and websites to help employers faced with business immigration and compliance issues.

Their websites are located at www.immigrationcompliancegroup.com and www.I-9audits.com, and offer help with business immigration issues, corporate employment verification compliance, I-9 employment eligibility audits and training, as well as help in developing a comprehensive employment authorization and immigration-related compliance program.

Business managers and human resource professionals know the value of degreed, skilled worker foreign nationals, especially in the science, technology, engineering and healthcare occupations.  As the workforce becomes more global in scope, employers are increasingly learning that it is essential to understand and effectively adhere to immigration compliance laws and regulations.

“Employer immigration compliance is becoming more complex because enforcement through investigations and audits by USCIS, ICE, SSA and DOL is increasing.  In order to effectively deal with these issues and avoid the very severe consequences for non-compliance, employers must take the time to develop a strategy and be prepared in advance with an immigration compliance program,” explained Leslie Davis, Managing Director of Immigration Compliance Group.

“Immigration Compliance Group offers customized programs that meet the unique business immigration needs of our clients.  We provide onsite or offsite audits, training, policy development, and ongoing consultation and  compliance news and updates,” she added.

With the demise of immigration reform in Congress, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is stepping up enforcement of existing laws prohibiting the employment of illegal workers and fining employers for I-9 violations. These recent developments have made it even more critical that employers maintain a strong immigration compliance profile.

Press Contact:

Leslie Davis | Immigration Compliance Group | 562 612.3996 | info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com

Escondido Disposal, Inc., a refuse and recycle company and an E-Verify participant,  recently had to fire approximately 55 of its 200 employee workforce following an ICE audit when it was revealed that their documents were fraudulent.  The employer was not fined because ICE investigators found that the employer was examining the documentation to the best of their ability and knowledge.  This is noteworthy to emphasize.

Jeff Ritchie, VP of Escondido Disposal, said he was shocked to learn last month that 1/4 of his workforce lacked valid identity and employment authorization documents.  “We’re as vigilant as possible,” said Ritchie, noting that many of the employees were hired before the implementation of E-Verify.  “A big drawback of E-Verify is that it doesn’t go back and check existing employees,” said Mayor Sam Abed.  This is exactly the reason why employers must be proactive and have their I-9 records audited and train their staff, and then select a future date, and start fresh,  to go “electronic” with an I-9 program or E-Verify.

We note that the City of Escondido created a partnership with ICE in May 2010 in which ICE agents assist patrol and police officers in identifying illegal immigrants charged with crimes and consequently, Escondido-based companies appear to be more likely targets for audits.  ICE officials continue to state that they select businesses for audits based up0n tips and the type of business, with companies that affect “critical infrastructure and key resources” more likely to be audited.

For more on this story.

We have heard similar stories such as this over the last few years.  The charges against Taqueria El Balazo stem from a 2008 incident in which U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  agents raided 11 El Balazo restaurants and arrested 63 undocumented workers, drawing the ire of immigration advocates across the Bay Area.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, they later re-hired at least 10 of the illegal employees after receiving written notification from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security investigators informing them of the employees’ identities. BIG mistake!

Proprietors of the restaurant chain behind Haight Street’s popular Taqueria El Balazo pleaded guilty to a series of violations surrounding immigration, social security, and tax evasion practices.  The owners  told the court they under-reported employee wages to the payroll company; they admitted that, based upon their actions, the amount of employment taxes paid to the Internal Revenue Service were understated, and admitted to hiring employees they knew were not legally allowed to work in this country. According to the plea agreement, between August 2007 and August 2008, they employed more than 100 illegal aliens.

Owners, Marino and Nicole Sandoval. are scheduled to be sentenced December 14^th and could face up to 20 years in prison and a half a million dollars in fines, according to San Ramon Express News. Sandoval’s brother, Francisco Sandoval, who owns and operates the restaurant chain with the couple, pleaded guilty to tax charges last August.

Taqueria El Balazo currently operates nine restaurants throughout the Bay Area in addition to its Haight Street outpost.

For more on this story:  http://www.sanramonexpress.com/news/show_story.php?id=4368

What do restaurant owners need to consider:

• Are you training your employees who are charged with employment eligibility verification?  How thorough are you when it comes to the I-9 process of employment verification?  It’s time to get serious about this.
• Have you been proactive and called for a Form I-9 Audit by a qualified and experienced immigration firm that specializes in this practice area?  We strongly recommend you consider this.
• Are you screening, coaching, training and counseling your employees to ensure compliance with immigration laws?

This is very serious business for all employers and is the major enforcement tool for the economic and political climate we are in at the present time.  The goal on both the state and federal level is to punish egregious employers and convince farmers, restaurant owners, clothing manufacturers, meatpackers and other employers to change their behavior.

Plain and simple, the national debate is heating up over mandatory E-Verify.  Some members of Congress seem intent on pushing the issue without taking into account the harm they will cause for American businesses and workers.  Now is the time to get your house, so to speak, in order.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reported that it had reached a settlement with Brand Energy and Infrastructure Services and its subsidiary, Industrial Services LLC (ISI) on July 21, 2011. The DOJ reports that Industrial Services engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination while completing Form I-9 on its non-citizen workers requiring specific employment documentation beyond what was required by law.

The investigation was prompted after a work-authorized immigrant lost his job when he could not comply with ISI’s request to provide specific employment documentation beyond what was required by law.   Further investigation revealed that ISI’s Prairieville, LA office required all newly hired non-U.S. citizens to present documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security upon hire.  The company did not require U.S. citizens to present any particular documents.

ISI has agreed to pay $43,560 in civil penalties and $7,200 in back pay, plus interest, to the injured party.   Brand and ISI have also agreed to monitoring provisions, as well as training for their human resources personnel.

What employers need to know: You just cannot presume that the employees charged with  managing your I-9 program are compliant with the law and adhering to anti-discrimination rules and regulations if you’re turning a blind eye to your compliance issues, the consequences of which today  are severe and expensive – not to mention the bad press that accompanies such an investigation. Employers must accept ANY acceptable document from List A that appears to be genuine and that relates to the worker, or a combination List B plus a List C document.  Additionally, employers are not to require more documentation than what is itemized on the List of Documents for Form I-9.

Let’s re-visit ICE’s list of best practices that include the following as a reminder to employers:

• Internal compliance & training program

• Polices/procedures safeguard against discrimination incl. training

• Require I-9 process only by those trained

• Secondary review for each I-9

• Annual I-9 audits by external auditing firm or trained person not involved in I-9 process

• Written I-9 policy

• Protocol to respond to tips/information/constructive knowledge

• Maintain copies of documents

• Participation in E-Verify/SSNVS

We are available  to assist you with your compliance  needs.  Please visit our Employer Resource Center and contact us should you wish to discuss our services and solutions.

Kinro Mfg. a subsidiary of Kinro Inc., which is wholly owned by White Plains, N.Y.-based Drew Industries Inc., has been fined a $25,000 civil penalty and $10,000 in back pay to the injured party for engaging in a pattern/practice of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process.  The company is a manufacturer of components for recreational vehicles and manufactured homes.

Kinro has also agreed to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, to produce Forms I-9 for inspection and to provide periodic reports to the DOJ for one year.

According to the department’s findings, the company subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security in order to verify their employment eligibility, but did not require U.S. citizens to show any specific documentation . The charging party, a lawful permanent resident, filed his charge of discrimination after he was required to provide additional proof of his employment eligibility not required by law before he could begin work at the company.

View Press Release

A southern Arizona tomato grower has pled guilty and was sentenced for knowingly hiring and employing illegal immigrants from Mexico, despite the company’s knowledge that these employees were unauthorized to work in the U.S.

Kenneth Ward, HR Director, pled guilty to similar federal charges in 2007 and is awaiting sentencing. In his guilty plea, he alleged that four top company officials, whom he didn’t name, knew of the illegal hiring and that the number of employees illegally hired was more than 1,000.

Eurofresh’s CEO, Johan van den Berg, denied all those allegations in response to questions  on 8/26/11 and said that Ward was fired more than four years ago after the company learned he had been bringing in illegal immigrant employees without higher officials’ knowledge.

The plea agreement said that payment is to compensate for the money Eurofresh earned from the hiring of 17 illegal immigrants from Mexico over the last decade for supervisory jobs. Eurofresh does not agree that the $600,000 is an amount directly related to the violations. Rather, it is a negotiated amount between Eurofresh and the Justice Department. The company will also be required to remain on probation for five years until the judgment is satisfied in full.

Since the illegal hiring was discovered, Eurofresh has implemented tight systems and regular audits to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs there and is an E-Verify user.

For more on this story.

The highest civil penalty paid through settlement since the enactment of the INA anti-discrimination provisions in 1986 was assessed today against Farmland Foods in the amount of $290,400.

This is a very strong reminder that any request for specific documentation is unlawful if it is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. Employers, however, who make such requests to clarify ambiguity or conflicts in the employee’s presented documents should not be held liable for document abuse.  The employer’s discrimination must be knowing and intentional.

An employer SHOULD NOT:

1. Set different employment eligibility verification standards, or require that different documents be presented by employees, because of national origin and citizenship status.  For example, employers cannot demand that non-U.S. citizens present DHS-issued documents.  Each employee must be allowed to choose the documents that s/he presents from the list of acceptable Form I-9 documents. For example, both citizens and work authorized aliens may produce a driver’s license (List B) and an unrestricted Social Security card (List C) to establish identity and employment eligibility.

2. Request to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of the Form I-9 because the employee looks or sounds “foreign” or because someone states that s/he is not a U.S. citizen.

3. Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document has a future expiration date.

4. Request during reverification that an employee present a new unexpired employment authorization document (EAD) if s/he presented an EAD during initial verification. For re-verification each employee must be free to choose to present any document either from List A or from List C. Refugees and asylees may possess EADs, but they are authorized to work based by virtue of their immigration status and may present other documents that prove work authorization from List A or List C to show on re-verification, such as an unrestricted Social Security card.

5. Limit jobs to U.S. citizens unless U.S. citizenship is required for the specific position by law, regulation, executive order, or federal, state, or local government contract. On an individual basis, an employer may legally prefer a U.S. citizen or national over an equally qualified alien to fill a specific position, but the employer may not adopt a blanket policy of always preferring citizens over non-citizens.

6. Refuse to accept documents during the employment eligibility verification procedure that are acceptable documents under the law, that relate to the individual, and that appear on their face to be genuine (also called “document abuse”). An employer cannot be held liable for document abuse unless the employer’s refusal to honor documents is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. For example, an employer should not be held liable if it refuses to honor documents that conflict with statements made by the employee.

7. Engage in intimidation, threats, coercion, or retaliation, including discharge, against an employee who exercises his/her rights under IRCA’s anti-discrimination provision. This protection extends not only to an employee who is the target of discrimination, but also to an employee who may speak up in support of the targeted employee.

Should you have any questions concerning this “balancing act”, please do not hesitate to contact our office for more information.

Immigration Solutions August 2011 newsletter is now available, full of updates and information that you will find extremely useful.  This month we take a look at:

With a 2nd wave this year of Notices of Inspection (NOI’s) sent to employers across the country, and I-9 administrative audits being ICE’s driving force in determining whether an employer is adhering to employment laws –  it is a costly mistake for employers to presume that they can fly under ICE’s radar.  An ICE investigation can be triggered at any time by SSA No-Match letters, a tip from a disgruntled employee, a terminated employee, a customer, a competitor, or other “concerned citizens.”

With the above being said, we thought this would be a good time to review exactly what takes place when an employer is served with an NOI – starting with immediately contacting an attorney that specializes in employer compliance matters. Not all immigration or corporate attorneys do…so do your homework, or just call us.

Employers are allowed by law 3 days notice to respond by producing the I-9 records and other requested information.

The administrative inspection process is initiated by the service of a Notice of Inspection (NOI) upon an employer compelling the production of Forms I-9. Often, ICE will request the employer provide supporting documentation (an invasive Document Subpoena), which may include requests for a copy of your I-9 Compliance Policy, Employee Roster, copies of Payroll Summaries, I-9 forms for current and terminated employees, Quarterly Wage and Hour Reports, SSA Mismatch correspondence,   E-Verify and/or SSNVS documents, Articles of Incorporation, and business licenses.

ICE agents or auditors then conduct an inspection of the Forms I-9 for compliance. When technical or procedural violations are found, pursuant to regulations at INA §274A(b)(6)(B) (8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(6)(B)), an employer is given ten (10) business days to make corrections. An employer may receive a monetary fine for all substantive and uncorrected technical violations. Employers determined to have knowingly hired or continued to employ unauthorized workers will be required to cease the unlawful activity, may be fined, and in certain situations may be prosecuted criminally. Additionally, an employer found to have knowingly hired or continued to employ unauthorized workers may be subject to debarment by ICE, meaning that the employer will be prevented from participating in future federal contracts and from receiving other government benefits.

Monetary penalties for knowingly hiring and continuing to employ violations range from $375 to $16,000 per violation, with repeat offenders receiving penalties at the higher end. Penalties for substantive violations, which includes failing to produce a Form I-9, range from $110 to $1,100 per violation. In determining penalty amounts, ICE considers the size of the business, good faith effort to comply, seriousness of violations, whether the violation involved unauthorized workers, and history of previous violations, amongst other factors.

ICE will notify the audited party, in writing, of the results of the inspection once completed. The following are the most common notices:

Notice of Inspection Results – also known as a “compliance letters,” used to notify a business that they were found to be in compliance.

Notice of Suspect Documents – advises the employer that based on a review of the Forms I-9 and documentation submitted by the employee, ICE has determined that the employee is unauthorized to work and advises the employer of the possible criminal and civil penalties for continuing to employ this individual. ICE provides the employer and employee an opportunity to present additional documentation to demonstrate work authorization if they believe the finding is in error.

Notice of Discrepancies – advises the employer that based on a review of the Forms I-9 and documentation submitted by the employee, ICE has been unable to determine their work eligibility. The employer should provide the employee with a copy of the notice, and give the employee an opportunity to present ICE with additional documentation to establish their employment eligibility.

Notice of Technical or Procedural Failures – identifies technical violations identified during the audit and gives the employer 10 business days to correct the forms. After 10 business days, uncorrected technical and procedural failures will become substantive violations.

Warning Notice – issued in circumstances where substantive verification violations were identified but circumstances do not warrant a monetary penalty and there is the expectation of future compliance by the employer.

Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) – may be issued for substantive, uncorrected technical, knowingly hire and continuing to employ violations.

We’d like to close with emphasizing the importance of creating an I-9 compliance policy that is integrated with your overall personnel policy.  A comprehensive written policy will help establish guidelines for all employees to follow, will establish good-faith efforts towards compliance, and potentially could mitigate penalties.  A company should also designate an overall I-9 compliance administrator. To ensure consistency, designate one person who is charged with centralized oversight, management, and training of the company’s compliance program.  To provide guidance to hiring managers about I-9 procedures, managers should know who must complete Form I-9; when and how to conduct verification; what permissibly may be asked prior to the actual hiring; what limits may be placed on hiring of certain individuals; what, how, and for how long I-9 records should be maintained.

.. We link to an inspection process chart that is a good illustration of the various steps in the NOI process

.. We also link to a copy of an ICE NOI and a Document Subpoena

.. For a list of I-9 Technical and Substantive Violations

We work with our clients to create compliant workforces, and now is the time to be proactive if you absolutely know that you have problems with your I-9 forms; and, by the way, most employers do.  We encourage you to be proactive and take action now before you pay the high price of being put in a position where your options have considerably diminished.

We are happy to hear from you and are very flexible with our package of compliance services and solutions.  Our talented team is read to assist you with whatever you’d like to accomplish with your compliance program.  Visit our I-9 Resource Center here

It has been reported that this latest wave of I-9 inspection notices to employers brings the total number of ICE I-9 audits to 2,338 for this year.  This exceeds their record-breaking audit total from 2010 of 2,196.  Average audit fines appear to be exceeding $110,000.

I-9 audits today are the key driving force of the Agency’s efforts in determining whether businesses are violating U.S. employment laws by hiring unauthorized workers.

“The inspections will touch on employers of all sizes and in every state in the nation, with an emphasis on businesses related to critical infrastructure and key resources,” ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said in a statement.   Although ICE has not disclosed the names of the companies being targeted, they do include both large and small businesses in some 17 business sectors, including garment, construction, agriculture, food production, fast food chains, hospitality and financial services industries, as well as IT, healthcare, transportation, postal and shipping, commercial nuclear reactors and drinking water and water treatment.

For employers, the audits can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. The possibilities range from fines and being barred from competing for government contracts to criminal charges of knowingly employing illegal workers, evading taxes and engaging in identity theft.

In the past, ICE agents have initiated audits in one region, and companies in the same business were unlikely to face inspection elsewhere. But “businesses can no longer assume an audit is isolated in one location. It’s spreading nationwide,” said Julie Myers, ICE chief during the Bush administration.  Larger employers have been increasingly targeted since the establishment earlier this year of an ICE audit office outside Washington.  It has been reported that several utilities and food production companies in Montgomery, AL have received notices of inspection from ICE, and were surprised because they have been participating in E-Verify.  Participating in E-Verify doesn’t mean you won’t be audited.

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.

What’s the solution? One of the most cost-effective and convenient ways to take action is to conduct a preemptive partial (10-20% of your workforce) or full audit to see what’s buried in your I-9 paperwork. Analyze the results and initiate targeted training and institute a standardized policies and process for handling and managing your I-9 function.  This can easily be accomplished both onsite and offsite.  These steps are especially critical for companies that have a large number of employees, multiple locations, several people involved with the I-9 process and a high turnover rate.

Here is a list of our services and solutions and here is our I-9 Employer Resource Center

__________________

About Immigration Solutions

For those of you who may be first time readers, Immigration solutions provides US and Canadian business immigration services to employers and individuals and additionally provides a full range of I-9 employment eligibility compliance services for employers that require I-9 audits, training, and compliance policy development.