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

The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their citizenship or immigration status, or based on their national origin, in the Form I-9 process. It is important for employers to develop, implement and enforce anti-discrimination policies, practices and procedures, and to ensure that all employees conducting Form I-9 verification or E-Verify confirmation understand all program rules. Employers should also provide appropriate and adequate employee education on employer responsibilities and worker rights.

To prevent discrimination, employer’s should treat all people equally when

• announcing a job
• taking applications
• performing interviews
• making job offers
• verifying the individual’s authorization to work
• hiring the individual
• terminating the individual’s employment

Employers also must not retaliate against a person who             

•  files a charge of discrimination with OSC or EEOC
• participates in an investigation or prosecution of a discrimination complaint
• asserts his or her rights or the rights of another person under anti-discrimination laws

The Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) investigates charges of employment discrimination related to an individual’s citizenship or immigration status or national origin.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also investigates employment discrimination based on national origin, in addition to other protected bases. OSC investigates national origin claims against employers with four to 14 employees, and EEOC investigates national origin claims against employers with 15 or more employees. 

There has been a high level of enforcement by OSC this year concerning the anti-discrimination provision, with three more cases recently publicized in the last month:

1. OSC settled with Texas-based Infinity Group who required non-citizens present specific DHS-issued documents such as green-cards or employment authorization to establish identity and employment authorization while similarly not requesting the same of US citizens.  They were fined $53,000, had to pay $35K in back pay to those who were damaged as a result of their practices.
2. OSC settled with PA-based Huber Nurseries for engaging in citizenship discrimination by preferring to hire temporary H-2A visa holders over Permanent Residents (green-card holders).  Huber has agreed to pay $2,250 in civil penalties to the USA and $59,617 in back pay to the six injured parties, who are former refugees; and
3. OSC settled with IBM for violating the anti-discrimination provision for placing online job postings for software developers with a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders.  IBM has agreed to pay $44,400 in civil penalties to the USA.

So, what’s an employer to do?

Employers must accept all documents that are indicated on the List of Acceptable Documents to complete the I-9 form as long as they appear reasonably genuine on their face and relate to the employee. For example, all individuals who possess a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card may present those documents to satisfy Form I-9 requirements. Employers may not request or require potential employees to produce “green cards” or United States citizens who look or sound “foreign” to produce birth certificates. The employee chooses which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to present.  Employers must assure that those charged with the responsibility of I-9 management are trained on I-9 regulations and the anti-discrimination provision of the INA – and they must not          

• Demand that an employee show specific documents
• Ask to see employment authorization documents before an individual accepts a job offer
• Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document will expire in the future
• Refuse to accept a receipt that is acceptable for Form I-9 purposes
• Demand a specific document when reverifying that an employee is authorized to work

We recommend that you take some time and read the OSC’s Guide to Fair Employment that can be accessed here, that contains some thought provoking What would you do? scenarios that start on page 6.

Should you have questions or require particular guidance on this topic, please feel free to contact our office.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

HerbCo International Owner Ted Andrews, Vice President David Lykin and General Manager Debra Howard will appear in Court on May 1, 2012, charged with re-hiring nearly two dozen of the 86 workers fired after an I-9 audit by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency back in February of 2011. A HerbCo employee tipped off authorities about the scheme to pay these 20 illegal workers roughly $40,000 in cash, despite being fired for non-conforming I-9 forms and failing to pass E-verify background checks.

During an ICE Audit of 334 I-9 forms, it was found that 214 employees had presented fraudulent documents.  All the employees listed in the social security “no-match letter” who were still employed, 86 of them, were terminated.

Under federal law, an employer is required to verify the identity and work authorization of every employee hired. However, there are limitations on how an employer can legally seek additional verification of documents they suspect to be fraudulent.

The HerbCo executives are expected to receive a year of probation for guilty pleas to their criminal charges. Prosecutors are seeking an additional $1M in fines from HerbCo, sending an obvious message to employers that hire illegal workers.

The US Attorney’s office stated the following regarding the amount of the fine, “Within the worksite universe of either the United States or the State of Washington, the defendants’ conduct appears unremarkable only because of the sheer numbers of other culpable employers who have not been prosecuted for similar conduct. Of 20 million illegal aliens residing in the United States and 230,000 in the State of Washington, 86 were employed at Herbco on April 15, 2011.”

For more information about how to safeguard your business from a costly I-9 audit, contact our firm at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

We  link to more on this, and here also.

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.