USCIS has indicated that not all SSA documents referring to the ownership of the SSA account or reflecting an application for a new card, are valid receipts for the I-9 process.  So, what constitutes a valid SSA replacement receipt?

The only receipt from SSA that is acceptable under the receipt rule is a receipt that states “This is a receipt to show you applied for a social Security Card and the application was for a lost, stolen or damaged document.”  Any other receipt would not be acceptable.  Your employee may present a receipt for the application for the replacement of any List A, List B, or List C document. The receipt is valid for 90 days. When it expires, the employee must show you the replacement document for which the receipt was given.

After the receipt expires, you should:

1) Cross out the word “receipt” and any accompanying document number

2) Record the number and other required document information from the actual document presented.

3)  Initial and date the change.

You cannot accept a receipt for the I-9 Form for an initial or renewal employment authorization, but can accept a receipt for the application for replacement of a lost, stolen or damaged employment authorization document. You cannot accept receipts if employment will last less than three days.

The Three-Day Business Rule

Q:  How does an employer that is operational over the weekend but whose HR office (which is open during regular business hours but closed on weekends) count the 3-business days for I-9 purposes?

A:  Employers are required to complete the I-9 Form within 3 business days of the employees first day of work for pay.  If the business is operational on the weekends, this counts towards the 3 day timeframe for I-9 completion.  Thus,  in order to remain in compliance for businesses that operate on the weekends, we suggest that the first day of work for pay be on a week day when the HR office representatives who are trained in I-9 procedures are available.

Please see our attached brochure and contact our office to discuss your compliance needs.  Our talented staff can walk you through our customized services and solutions.

The OSC has provided a valuable resource in sharing their letter responses to various employment eligibility verification compliance inquiries from stakeholders. The topics include: Non-Discrimination Practices, Pre-Employment Inquiries, Form I-9  Document Abuse, SS No-Match Letters, Dishonesty/Falsification Issues, using acceptable language for job postings, and much more.

Here are a few citations:

Re:  Question Concerning Re-Verifying Work Authorization when Discrepancies with SS are Discovered: “An employer is only under a duty to investigate further if it knows or has knowledge that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an individual is not authorized to work in the United States.  There are many possible reasons for why an employee’s name and Social Security number may not match.  Therefore, employers should not draw conclusions about an employee’s work authorization status based solely on information indicating that the employee’s name and Social Security number cannot be found in a system of records-whether the records are directly managed by the Social Security Administration or any other private or public entity. Furthermore, the mere receipt of a no-match letter or other no-match notice does not, standing alone, constitute ‘constructive knowledge’ on the part of an employer that the referenced employee is not work authorized. Only the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is legally authorized to conclusively determine an individual’s authorization to work.  OSC also cautions employers against providing an unreasonably short period of time to clear up a Social Security no-match…” It it strongly recommended that you consult with a qualified attorney in employment-related immigration law before jumping to any conclusions that might possibly escalate into a very unpleasant scenario for all parties concerned.

Question re Modifying the List of I-9 Acceptable Documents:  “Document abuse occurs when an employer either demands that a worker produce more or different documents than those identified in the Form 1-9 process, or refuses to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine, based on national origin or citizenship status.  To the extent that an employee either inadvertently or mistakenly indicates an incorrect immigration status in Section 1 of the Form 1-9, the limitation of documents in Section 2 may prevent that employee from presenting valid documents) acceptable for 1-9 purposes. Similarly, if the list excludes one or more documents that an employee of a particular status may possess, the limitation of documents may also prevent that employee from presenting his or her valid documents) acceptable for 1-9 purposes.”  We caution you to discuss issues such as this with experienced counsel in employment-related immigration matters before action is taken.

We trust that you will find this information useful as it relates to the enforcement of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Please check out a list of our compliance  services and solutions. Please be reminded that we invite you to contact our office with your employment-related immigration matters (I-9 audits, training, policy development and more).

About the OSC:  The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) enforces the anti-discrimination provision (§ 274B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.  his federal law prohibits: 1) citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, 2) national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, 3) document abuse (unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification, Form I-9, process, and 4) retaliation or intimidation.

This brochure outlines some excellent Do’s and Don’ts pertaining to how to interact with employees during an ICE audit; however, these suggestions additionally apply to all audit situations such as outside 3rd party audits by attorneys or compliance experts, as well as internal self-audits.

It is recommended that you have an established procedure for interacting with employees whose I-9 forms require correcting; i.e, how to inform them that you are seeking information from them, what to communicate to them, and how much time to allow them to respond.

Should you wish to discuss the particulars of your compliance program, please feel to contact our office for more information.

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

Leslie Davis is the Managing Director of Immigration Compliance Group and is an expert in employer compliance matters.  The firm also specializes in US and Canadian business immigration.

Here is another example of one of the major blunders made by employers in 2011 which is to require specific work authorization documents (permanent resident cards or employment authorization card) of non-US citizen employees rather than permitting them to choose from the list of acceptable documents on the I-9 form.

The Justice Department announced today that it reached a settlement with BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc., a leading provider of ship repair services, to settle allegations that its subsidiary, BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards Alabama LLC, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by imposing unnecessary and additional document requirements on newly hired permanent residents (green-card holders) when establishing their eligibility to work in the USA by requiring them to present Permanent Resident Cards, a/k/a/ “green-cards,” as a condition of employment.

The investigation was initiated after BAE Southeast Alabama suspended a lawful permanent resident even though he had presented valid documents sufficient under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to establish his work authorization on three separate occasions.

BAE agreed to pay a fine of $53,900. The lawful permanent resident who was suspended was previously reinstated and fully compensated by BAE.  BAE agreed to ensure that the employment eligibility verification policies and procedures of all its subsidiaries comply with the law, to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, and to produce Forms I-9 for inspection for three years.  We cannot emphasize enough the importance of employers with subsidiary companies and multiple jobsite locations establishing written, uniform policies and procedures concerning employment eligibility compliance matters.  We also recommend that an I-9 Compliance Manager be appointed to oversee adherence to your compliance standard operating procedures for all subsidiary companies at all locations.

The INA requires employers to treat all authorized workers in the same manner during the employment eligibility verification process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status.  Employees may choose which document(s) they want to present from the list of acceptable documents.  Employers must accept any document from List A or combination of documents (one from List B and one from List C) as long as it the documents reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.  To act in any other manner can be an unfair immigration related employment practice in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.

We frequently are asked:  If an employee writes down an Alien Number or Admission Number when completing Section 1 of the I-9 form, may I ask to see a document with that number?  The answer to this, based upon the above, is “no”.  It is your responsibility to ensure that your employees fully complete Section 1; however, the employee is not required to present a specific document in order to complete this section.  When the employer completes Section 2, you may not ask to see a document with the employee’s Alien Number or Admission Number or otherwise specify which document(s) an employee may present.

Should you wish to communicate with our office regarding audits, training and policy development, please email us at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.  Please sign up for our free news and visit our Blog and employer compliance resource center at:  www.I-9Audits.com

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.

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.

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.

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.