We have written many articles over the years on what happens when ICE serves an employer with a Notice of Inspection (NOI); see below for links to our articles and resources.  Today, ICE released a new Fact Sheet that referrences the  IRCA law in the 1st paragraph, and then summarizes the order in which an ICE administrative inspection proceeds, the types of notices that are issued following an I-9 ICE audit, how fines are determined based upon knowingly hiring and continuing to employ violations, to substantive and uncorrected techical violations, and how these fines and penalties are calculated.

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 effected 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 ICE 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 statues may provide higher penalties in certain fraud cases.

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 and not more than $16,000 for each person effected.

The trend toward increased scrutiny of immigration employment practices will likely continue in the foreseeable future. With immigration reform still uncertain, ICE continues to step up enforcement activities with a deluge of NOI’s to employers every few months.  These recent developments have made it even more critical that employers maintain a strong immigration compliance profile.  Employers can no longer afford to think that because they don’t hire foreign nationals, they don’t have any I-9 issues or need to comply with I-9 immigration regulations.

The key to I-9 compliance for most organizations starts with a thorough self-examination of existing paper I-9’s, E-Verify submissions (if applicable), standard operating procedures, and past practices. While there are many checklists and do-it-yourself guides, free webinars and Podcasts available on the Internet and elsewhere, consulting an experienced immigration consultant or attorney in the practice area can save employers hours of research, provide a solution tailored to your organization and save you thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

You should strongly consider an independent I-9 audit if…

1. You’ve had a turnover in the HR position(s) charged with the responsibility of handling and processing I-9 Forms
2. None of the staff charged with the I-9 process has been formally trained
3. You already know that you have I-9 document violations, errors and unintentional mistakes
4. You have recently gone through a corporate reorganization, merger or acquisition
5. You know you have an on-boarding process that is complex, such as multiple jobsite locations where the I-9 process takes place
6. When you haven’t documented your I-9 Form policies and procedures in a policy statement or procedures manual
7. If you have a large volume of foreign worker I-9 forms
8. If you do not have a calendar system for re-verification or terminated employee retention
9. If you do not have a centralized I-9 recordkeeping process
10. If you are photocopying documents presented during the I-9 process for some and not for others
11. You participate in government contracts and have been asked to perform an I-9 audit
12. You have not performed a random or full audit within the last year by either an internal individual who is familiar with I-9 compliance rules but does not deal with I-9s on a regular basis, or by a reputable independent I-9 auditor.
13. You’ve never performed a self-audit or had any outside provider perform an I-9 audit
14. You do not know how to make corrections to the I-9 form
15. You’ve received SSA No Match Letters
16. Your industry is being targeted by ICE
17. You’re unaware that a new I-9 form was released and do not have a process in place for staying current with regulations and procedures

Immigration Compliance Group regularly represents clients from all industries to develop effective I-9 policies and compliance programs.  By establishing and maintaining effective corporate policies and procedures, many of the above-mentioned warning signs can be addressed proactively in an audit before the government does one for you.

New ICE Fact Sheet

I-9Audit.com – Our Employer Resource Center Articles

We expect the newly revised, 2-page I-9 form will be released in the first quarter of 2013.

Some Background …On March 27, 2012 USCIS released an initial draft of the I-9 form for public comment.  The new version is very different than the current I-9 form in use, with several new fields, a new layout and a form that is double the size.

USCIS received an amazing 6,200 comments and suggestions on the initial draft and then published an updated version of the form with instructions that includes several changes to the first draft published in May (see below). You can find more information about the newly proposed revisions to the Form I-9 here.   Please note that this proposed form is not in use; we are still using the form with the revision date of August 7, 2009 until further notice.

To help ensure compliance with the new changes, employers need to be ready to supply the necessary information, prepared to update training materials, and to partner with third-party I-9 experts.  With the right preparation and education, employers can be confident that they are meeting requirements and avoiding the hefty fines that come with mistakes as they develop the workforce that will help them meet company hiring requirements and goals, while maintaining a compliant workforce.

If you haven’t taken the time to do some comparing between the proposed I-9 form and the current one, here are some highlights that may assist you in ramping up for the upcoming changes.  Overall, we note:

• Improvement in heading lines for the document fields clarify where List B and C information should be placed on the form.
• Perjury language has been repositioned and enumerated for clarification and readability to avoid any confusion.
• New language helps employers understand what documents are acceptable for non-immigrant aliens, and the instances in which a Social Security Card does not grant an individual permission for work.
• The new form asks for “the employee’s first day of work for pay.” Although this has always been  the implied definition of “start date”, it is now described as such in the proposed new version.

Section 1

1. Last and First Name Fields: The form now shows “Last Name (Family Name)” and “First Name (Given Name)”, rather than the reverse.

2. Maiden Name is now called “Other Names Used (if any)”. Instructions state:  “Provide all other names used, if any (including your maiden name).  Write N/A if you’ve not had other legal names.”

3. Address – Must be a US address, except for border commuters from Canada and Mexico.

4. The Social Security Number boxes are now formatted to fit the requisite 9 digits.  Instructions now indicate that SS number are required for employers enrolled in E-Verify.

5. Email Address and Telephone Number – New fields.  Optional, per the instructions, but not marked as such on the form.  Note:  Though these fields are optional, many feel that the DHS should not have this information, as it could be used to contact individuals directly to probe for potential employer violations.

6. A-Number vs. USCIS Number: The instructions note that the “USCIS number is the same as the A-number without the “A” prefix. Another clarification: Foreigners authorized to work can provide either the A-Number/USCIS Number OR the Form I-94 number.

7. Form I-94 Admission Number: find the admission number on Form I-94 or “as directed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in connection with your arrival in the United States.”  – leaving room for future CBP changes.   Note: The CBP has started the process of creating a new identification number for non-citizens to be used throughout the immigration process.

8. Barcode: – A space for a 3-D Barcode has been added to page 1 and 2, along with a “Do not write in this space” notation.   We are unsure at this time concerning the purpose of the barcode.

9. Stop Sign Icons:  The form now has two “Stop Sign” icons at the bottom of page 1, instead of “Go to Next page.”  This is to clearly prevent employees from accidentally completing section 2.

Section 2

10. Includes words concerning an “Authorized Representative,” that a designated agent or notary can act in an agent capacity in completing Section 2.

11. Moved the employee name fields (Last, First, and Middle initial) underneath the Section 2 heading and added the words “from Section 1” indicating that it is acceptable for the employer to enter this data.

12 Added new fields for the document title and issuing authority of second and third list A documents which more frequently pertain to foreign employees with certain document types.

Section 3 and List of Acceptable Documents

Minor changes, mostly related to formatting and clarification of the “Social Security Account Number card” restrictions.

Should you wish to consult with us on compliance matters, please refer to our compliance services and solutions here  or contact our office at info@immigraticompliancegroup .com or call 562 612.3996.

It has been recently reported that ICE is launching another round of worksite investigations, but this time, returning to employers that have already been through a federal investigative audit in the last three years.  We’ve not seen this before. Approximately 500 employers are being re-visited by ICE Special Agents to confirm that non-compliant activity identified during prior audits has been resolved.

Employers must make sure they are hiring only people who can work legally in the U.S. Businesses that previously have received warning letters or administrative fines may now be the subject of yet more fines if ICE Special Agents determine that  the employer continues to make the same mistakes.

Bear in mind, that several Federal agencies have the authority to review your I-9 forms, these agencies consist of ICE, The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) and the DOL, Wage and Hour Division.  Each of these agencies investigate violations in the I-9 process, and we strongly advise that employers need to be prepared for a visit from any one of them.

ICE has recently announced their enforcement related statistics in the area of I-9 compliance for 2011, as follows:

• 2,496 I-9 audits were conducted
• 3,291 worksite enforcement cases were initiated
• Criminally arrested 221 employers
• Issued 385 Final Orders for $10.4+ million in fines; and
• Debarred 115 individuals and 97 businesses

These enforcement statistics should indeed be troubling to employers, particularly given that  they don’t reflect the number of ICE notices (such as the Notice of Discrepancies or Notice of Suspect Documents) that are sent to employers, who are otherwise compliant, but may have accepted fraudulent documents or whose employees may have purchased the identity of a US citizen for work authorization purposes, despite your best efforts.  As a result of this, employers across the country have had to terminate thousands of employees and incur the expense of hiring and training new employees.

ICE expects to audit some 3,000 employers in 2012.  We recommend that you hire experts in the field to conduct either a partial or full audit, depending upon your circumstances, train personnel who are charged with the processing of your I-9 forms, and develop a written policy statement that reflects your goals for remaining compliant.

The Justice Department has reached a settlement agreement with University of California San Diego Medical Center for $115,000 (one of the higher civil penalties we’ve seen) for a complaint filed on Dec. 6, 2011, alleging that the medical center failed to comply with proper I-9 Form employment eligibility verification processes for non-citizens who are authorized to work in the United States.

Specifically, the DOJ’s complaint alleged that UCSD medical center engaged in a pattern of subjecting 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 the same of US citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing unfair documentary burdens on work-authorized employees during the hiring and employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin. Clearly put, it is illegal to discriminate against work authorized individuals.  You simply cannot specify which documents are to be presented.  This is considered document abuse.

The medical center has taken appropriate action to ensure compliance with INA’s anti-discrimination provision and has received Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) training on the proper use of work authorization documents.  They have also agreed to work with the DOJ to ensure compliance with proper I-9 processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the medical center agrees to implement new employment eligibility verification policies and procedures that treat all employees equally regardless of citizenship status. In addition, the medical center has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $115,000, conduct supplemental training of its human resources personnel on their responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process and work with the department to ensure compliance with proper employment eligibility verification processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities.

Heightened Enforcement Continues

During the past few years, we have seen unprecedented enforcement and legislative activity relating to Form I-9 and E-Verify worksite compliance.  Since fiscal year 2009, ICE has audited more than 6,000 employers, debarred 441 companies and individuals, and imposed more than $76 million in financial sanctions.  We have also seen an unprecedented increase in the number of enforcement actions brought about by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for discrimination in the I-9 process.  The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has robustly prosecuted claims of discrimination in the I-9 process resulting in fines and penalties against employers, as well as back pay to injured parties.

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 are not training your employees, then you are turning a blind eye to establishing a compliant workforce, the consequences of which today are severe and expensive – not to mention the bad press that accompanies such an investigation.

Employers cannot request specific documents (such as a green card), reject documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee presenting them, request that employees produce more documents than are required or treat groups of applicants differently when completing the I-9 form. You must examine 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, regardless of whether or not

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

• Use E-Verify,
• Use the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) for wage reporting purposes
• Establish a written hiring and employment eligibility verification policy.
• Establish an internal compliance and training program related to the hiring and employment verification process
• Require the I-9 process to be conducted only by individuals who have received appropriate training and include a secondary review as part of each employee’s verification to minimize the potential for a single individual to subvert the process.
• Arrange for annual I-9 audits by an external auditing firm or a trained employee not otherwise involved in theI-9 process.
• Establish a protocol for responding to letters or other information received from federal and state government agencies indicating that there is a discrepancy between the agency’s information and the information provided by the employer, such as SSA “No-Match” letters
• Establish and maintain appropriate policies, practices and safeguards to ensure that authorized workers are not treated differently with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee or during the Form I-9, E-Verify or SSNVS processes because of citizenship status or national origin.
• Maintain copies of any documents accepted as proof of identity and/or employment authorization for all new hires.

For more, refer to:

1) DOJ Press Release

2) DOJ Press Release on one of the largest settlements against a major healthcare system

3)  Our list of services and solutions

__________________

About Immigration Compliance Group

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.

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.

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.

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.

For Immediate Distribution

ICE announces record breaking 375% increase since 2008 in I-9 Form Audits – $36.6M this year in fines and forfeitures.

Long Beach, CA, October 17, 2011.  Employers must be proactive regarding worksite compliance matters.  Immigration-related employment regulations are complicated.  The truth is, it’s difficult for employers to keep up with the ever-changing world of employment laws and compliance issues. Even if you have a fully staffed human resources department, many critical compliance issues can go overlooked, such as formal training, audits and executive oversight that end up getting bumped for more pressing needs.

If you keep putting off a Form I-9 audit, you could most certainly find yourself in the middle of a complex investigation or lawsuit that will take center stage very quickly, that could have been avoided with some basic preventive maintenance.

“Our clients tell us that they award our bids and proposals because we have a process that we walk them through that is strategically planned and implemented, easily understood and efficient – from getting prepared for an outside audit, followed by targeted training and policy review and development that ensures the establishment of a successful compliance program. Continued education and information is available through our extensive outreach via monthly newsletters, client alerts, blog and social media.  Our suite of services and solutions are comprehensively packaged to bring sustainable results to our clients,” explained Leslie Davis, Managing Director of Immigration Compliance Group.

Immigration Compliance Group assists their clients with developing and implementing comprehensive tools, processes and standard operating procedures that enable them to remain committed to ongoing employment verification compliance.  “The reality is that the odds of encountering a Form I-9 audit have skyrocketed because of a pervasive business enforcement climate,” she added.  Now is the time to assess your weaknesses and minimize your liability.

Press Contact, Leslie Davis

Email:  info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com

www.immigrationcompliancegroup.com and www.I-9Audits.com

562 612.3996

::::::::::

Immigration Compliance Group focuses its practice on corporate employment verification compliance and US and Canadian inbound business immigration. Our team has a depth of experience in providing uniquely tailored services and solutions to assist clients in developing comprehensive employment authorization and immigration-related compliance. We conduct onsite and offsite partial and full I-9 audits for companies of all sizes, design training curriculum to assure that staff is knowledgeable concerning the management of their I-9 program, and we assist with policy development so that our clients have a plan and strategy that assures their compliance in a manner that makes sense for their business and evidences their good faith effort in establishing a compliant workforce.

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 no later than the first day of work for pay – this includes both US citizens and non-citizens.  We link to more information here

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.