Over the last year, employers have continued to experience unannounced site visits by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), and it is expected that site visits will increase in 2011.  FDNS conducts site inspections to verify the information that employers provide in their immigration petitions. Most recently, site visits have focused on approved H-1B, L-1 and some O-1 petitions. Some employers have reported receiving multiple site visits pertaining to separate petitions and foreign workers.

In this series, we will address questions and inquiries that we have received pertaining to USCIS site visits.  If your company is contacted by an FDNS officer, you should call your designated Immigration Solutions professional immediately to discuss options, including the possibility of having counsel present during a site visit.

1)  Why is USCIS making employer site visits?   Site visits are conducted as part of a Benefits Fraud Assessment (BFA). BFAs are initiatives that review specific immigration programs – such as the H-1B or L-1 program – to determine the incidence of fraud in that particular program. A BFA typically lasts for several months. During this time, USCIS will randomly select a large number of petitions or applications for benefits in the particular category being assessed. These cases are assigned to FDNS officers, who visit the premises of sponsoring employers to verify the existence of the employer, the validity of the information the employer has provided in an immigration petition, and whether sponsored foreign nationals are working in compliance with the terms of their admission to the United States.

In addition to verifying the validity of data contained in an immigration petition, FDNS officers use information collected during site visits to help USCIS develop a fraud detection database. FDNS officers gather information to build profiles of the types of companies that have records of good faith use of immigration programs and records of immigration compliance, and also to identify factors that could indicate fraud. 

2)  Does USCIS give advance notice of a site visit?   Not necessarily. In most cases, officers from the FDNS unit will arrive at the worksite unannounced, though occasionally an officer may call the company to inform it of an impending visit.

3)  Can your attorney be present during the site visit?  You can ask to have counsel present during the site visit, especially because your attorney has submitted a Form G-28 notice of appearance of attorney, confirming that the company has legal representation in connection with each petition it files.  FDNS officers will not typically reschedule a site visit to accommodate the presence of an attorney, but may agree to allow counsel to be present by phone. In the alternative, you may contact your Immigration Solutions with questions during a site visit. If the officer is resistant, you should explain that having the company’s immigration counsel present or available by phone will help the employer respond fully and accurately to the officer’s questions and requests for information.

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

As always, we welcome your feedback. If you are interested in becoming an Immigration Solutions client, please call our office at 562 612.3996 and request a consultation. We handle a broad range of business related immigration matters and have an active employer compliance practice and consult on proper I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) best practices, auditing, training, and work with our clients to develop compliant immigration policies and procedures.  We offer these services, as well, to government contractors and advise on FAR E-Verify enrollment and compliance issues.  Visit our new I-9 Employer Resource center here

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

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

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

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

It is common knowledge that the U.S. government has been performing widespread investigations and audits of employers cracking down on the employment of undocumented workers.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) recently reported record-breaking figures citing the highest deportation numbers and the most employer audits in our nation’s history.

Because of this, employer compliance is becoming more complex and enforcement activities are increasing at a record rate. The days of thinking that immigration enforcement is only targeting industries that employ a diverse workforce, such as health care, hospitality, restaurant, garment and the construction business, are long gone. Every employer must be aware of immigration laws as they relate to the processing and management of their I-9 forms and other compliance programs.  Many audits have resulted in fines for well known and respectable employers, large organizations and those that employ foreign workers, as well as small businesses that unintentionally filled out I-9 forms incorrectly.  Document mistakes – missing signatures, dates, over-documentation problems on I-9’s, have resulted in fines from $110 to $1,100 per mistake.

A recent examples of an I-9 document violation is a Colorado restaurant franchise that was fined $32K after an ICE inspection – not for hiring any illegal workers, but for I-9 document errors.

Chipotle Restaurant chain in Minnesota has recently been in the news for hiring illegal employees.  Pursuant to an ICE I-9 audit, Chipotle was forced to terminate some 50 workers.  There appears to be widespread I-9 restaurant investigations taking place in Minnesota.  Other restaurant chains in the area such as McDonald’s and Sizzler are concerned and have begun to proactively look into E-verify, the Internet-based system operated by USCIS in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that is free to employers and available in all 50 states.

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.   It is recommended that you consult with a licensed immigration or employment attorney who is knowledgeable in the practice of  employer compliance, specifically I-9 audits, training and policy development that can possibly save you thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Visit our new I-9 Employer Resource Center for helpful information and for our services and solutions.

USCIS has posted an Executive Summary of a listening session it hosted on November 2, 2010 regarding the Form I-9. The summary presents stakeholder comments, suggestions and concerns for how to improve the form itself and the overall I-9 process. There were many worthwhile suggestions that we hope USCIS will strongly consider.

In this climate of excessive worksite enforcement, we note that there was particular emphasis on USCIS providing better, more clear I-9 employer tools and support. Employers were also confused as to how to correct the I-9 form and who corrects what (which is covered in audits and training performed by qualified attorneys skilled in the area of employer compliance).

Should you wish to discuss your compliance concerns and issues, please contact our office. We also have an excellent employer compliance resource center that you can access at www.I-9Audits.com.

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 I-9 form is required documentation for all US citizens and non-citizens …every single employee must fill out an I-9 Form.

In our employer compliance audit practice, we find that every employer has I-9 violations, from minor clerical errors and unintentional mistakes, to document discrimination issues due to lack of training on I-9 regulations and document requirements.

Immigration attorneys, HR professionals, auditing firms and other professionals, if skilled in the practice area of employer compliance audits, could qualify as a viable vendor in handling I-9 audits, training and policy development.

There are a lot of do and don’t lists, blog postings, podcasts, free seminars and more on this topic which is why you should most particularly pay close attention as to whether or not the provider has a broad understanding of employer immigration compliance law and policy.  Discuss with them their previous and current experience, can they answer your questions, what services do they provide, what solutions are they proposing to suit your specific needs, and what type of follow-up consultation do they provide post-I-9 project completion.

Immigration Solutions regularly represents clients from all industries in developing effective I-9 policies and compliance programs. We assist our clients proactively in establishing and maintaining effective corporate policies and procedures, before one of the five government agencies involved with enforcement knocks on your door.

The Justice Department announced on November 10th that it has reached a settlement agreement with Hoover Inc., a leading manufacturer of vacuum and carpet cleaners with facilities in Ohio and Texas, to resolve allegations that Hoover engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination by imposing unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles in the I-9 process upon lawful permanent residents.

According to the department’s findings, Hoover required all permanent residents who presented a permanent resident card (green card) for I-9 purposes to produce a new green card when theirs expired. In contrast, Hoover’s U.S. citizen workers were not required to present new documents. Like U.S. citizens, permanent residents are always work authorized, regardless of the expiration of their documentation. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from treating permanent residents differently than U.S. citizens in the I-9 process.

Under the terms of the settlement, Hoover has agreed to pay $10,200 in civil penalties. Hoover will also train its human resources personnel about employers’ nondiscrimination responsibilities in the I-9 process, and it will provide periodic reports to the department for one year.  Here’s the Press Release

This is one of several recent settlements brought by the DOJ against employers that engage in document abuse.  This occurs when employers treat employees differently based on national origin or citizenship status during the I-9 process.

What does this ruling mean for employers?

Although some I-551 Permanent Resident Cards have an expiration date, employment authorization continues and there is no need to reverify this document upon expiration.  An expiration date on the Form I–551 reflects only that the card must be renewed, not that the bearer’s work authorization has expired,  8 C.F.R.§ 274a.12(a)(1). Further Question 39 on Pg. 36 of the M-274 Handbook states:  You may not re-verify an expired U.S. passport or passport card, an Alien Registration Receipt Card/Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551), or a List B document that has expired.

Here are some examples of prohibited practices that fall under document abuse:

1) Setting different employment eligibility verification standards or requiring different documents based on national origin or citizenship status. One example would be requiring non-U.S. citizens to present DHS-issued documents like “green cards”

2)  Requesting to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of the Form I-9 because an employee appears foreign or the employee indicates that he or she is not a U.S. citizen.

3)  Refusing to accept a document or hire an individual because an acceptable document has a future expiration date.

4)  Limiting jobs to U.S. citizens unless a job is limited to citizens by law.

5)  Asking to see a document with an employee’s alien or admission number when completing section 1 of Form I-9.

6)  Asking a lawful permanent resident to re-verify employment eligibility because the person’s “green card” has expired.

Should you have any questions, or know that your I-9’s have problems, be smart and proactive and contact an experienced professional in this field who knows the law and can assist you.

We have a terrific I-9 Resource Center for Employers and are available to design a cost-effective audit and training program to suit your particular needs.

Our November Special Edition Newsletter on Employer Compliance is now available.  We reference what employers need to be aware of in light of the results of the mid-term elections, the increase in enforcement that is predicted to continue and how best to protect  yourself in this business climate.

Check out our new I-9 website and take the free Survey.

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

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

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

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

We refer to the ICE Press Release

It’s common knowledge that the U.S. government has been performing widespread investigations and audits of employers to crack down on employment of undocumented non-citizens. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) recently reported record-breaking figures citing the highest deportation numbers and the most employer audits in our nation’s history, and states:

“Since January 2009, ICE has audited more than 3,200 employers suspected of hiring illegal labor, debarred 225 companies and individuals, and imposed approximately $50 million in financial sanctions-more than the total amount of audits and debarments than during the entire previous administration.”

Because of this, employer compliance is becoming more complex and enforcement activities are increasing at record pace. The days of thinking that immigration enforcement is only targeting industries that employ a diverse workforce, such as healthcare, hospitality, restaurants, garment and the construction business, are long gone. Every employer must be aware of immigration laws as they relate to the processing and management of their I-9 forms and have a trained staff for those charged with the responsibility of managing I-9’s.  Many audits have resulted in fines for well known and respected employers,  for those that employ foreign workers, as well as businesses, both large and small, that unintentionally filled out I-9 forms incorrectly.  Document mistakes – missing signatures, dates, over-documentation problems on I-9’s, have resulted in fines from $110 to $1,100 per mistake.

Recent examples of I-9 violations and penalties involve:

1. A Colorado restaurant franchise who was fined $32K after an ICE inspection – not for hiring any illegal workers, but for I-9 document errors.
2. The clothing giant, Abercrombie & Fitch was recently fined over $1 Million when an I-9 audit revealed multiple technology errors with the electronic I-9 system they were using, shedding light on the fact that employers are not only responsible for the people that  they hire, but also for the internal systems that they choose to use to verify the eligibility of their workforce.
3. The Department of Justice recently settled with Catholic Healthcare West, the 8th largest  hospital provider in the nation, on discrimination against work-authorized individuals.  CHW agreed  to pay $257,000 in civil penalties, the largest amount ever paid to resolve such allegations.  This settlement sends a strong message to all employers how important it is to have a staff properly trained on I-9 regulations and on all sections of the form.  All workers who are authorized to work in the USA have the right to look for a job without encountering discrimination because of their immigration status or national origin”, said Thomas E. Prerez, Asst. Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

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 and Podcasts available on the Internet and elsewhere, consulting a licensed immigration or employment lawyer who is familiar with I-9 and E-Verify compliance issues can save employers hours of research, provide a solution tailored to the organization and save the employer thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

Visit our new I-9 Employer Resource Center and contact our office.  We work  proactively with our clients to provide comprehensive, and cost-efficient assistance in developing and maintaining best practices necessary to assure compliance with USCIS and Department of Labor regulations.

FedEx Corp. will pay the state of Montana a $2.3 million settlement over misclassification of FedEx Ground drivers as independent contractors, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock announced Oct. 21.

The settlement follows a yearlong investigation by Montana that found FedEx Ground drivers are employees, not independent contractors, and that FedEx owed unemployment taxes, penalties and interest, according to the attorney general’s office.

Montana will reimburse drivers $1.1 million for unemployment insurance coverage that was paid by them. The remaining $1.2 million will go to the state’s general fund.

FedEx did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement.

“As a result of the investigation, FedEx will change its business practices in Montana,” according to the attorney general’s office. FedEx Ground will “implement a new pickup and delivery model in Montana,” the office reported.

What does this mean for employers? Although you are not required to fill out I-9 forms for independent contractors or their employees, you must not knowingly use contract labor to circumvent the law against hiring unauthorized aliens.

Should you have any questions regarding this or require any other type of employer compliance consultation, please contact us.   Please take a look at our new I-9 Employer Resource Center.