ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance

description

  1. OCAHO Reduces Penalties for Two Related Companies

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    In a calendar year with few decisions, Office of Chief Administration Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued its last one in U.S. v. Integrity Concrete/American Concrete, 13 OCAHO no. 1307 (2017). In this decision, OCAHO substantially reduced the penalties assessed against Integrity Concrete, Inc. and American Concrete, Inc., which essentially acted as joint employers. This decision only involves the amount of the penalties as Respondents agreed to the liability.

    Factual Scenario for Integity

    Integrity, located in San Diego, CA, was served with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) in January 2015. Thereafter, ICE served Notice of Suspect Documents on Integrity listing eight employees whose I-9 forms could not be verified as authorized to work. Integrity responded none of the eight employees were employed anymore.

    About seven months later, Integrity was served with a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF), which charged the company with the failing to timely prepare I-9 forms for five employees, failing to ensure that three employees properly completed Section 1 of their I-9 forms, and failing to properly complete Section 2 or 3 of the I-9 forms for 16 employees. ICE assessed a fine of $24,684 based upon a baseline penalty of $935 and 5% enhancement for lack of good faith and seriousness of the violations.

    In Integrity’s answer, it challenged the penalties asserting it was a small employer, numbering 28 employees, which should account for a 5% statutory reduction in the penalty, bad faith should not have been found, and the penalties assessed would place an undue hardship on the company.

    Factual Scenario for American

    American, also located in San Diego, CA, was served with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) in January 2015. Later, American was also served with a Notice of Suspect Documents listing four employees whose I-9 forms could not be verified as authorized to work. American responded none of these employees were employed at its company. ICE assessed a fine of $24,684 based upon a baseline penalty of $935 and a 5% enhancement for lack of good faith and seriousness of the violations.

    ICE also served a separate NIF on American alleging it failed to timely prepare I-9 forms for 10 employees. ICE proposed a fine of $5,390 based on a baseline penalty of $440 plus 5% enhancements for lack of good faith, seriousness of the violations, and employment of three undocumented workers. American filed an Answer asserting it should have received 5% mitigation for each of these factors: small size of its workforce (48 employees), good faith, and the non-statutory factor of leniency toward small businesses.

    OCAHO’s Decision

    The first factor discussed was whether Integrity and American should receive 5% mitigation for being a small employer. ICE asserted the fact that both employers had small workforces, 48 and 28 employees, was inappropriate for determining whether they were small employers. ICE argued it should focus on gross sales and gross assets. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for OCAHO disagreed and applied appropriate caselaw to find both to meet the definition of small employers; thus, they were entitled to the statutory 5% mitigating factor.

    Next the ALJ focused on whether Integrity and/or American should be assessed 5% enhancement for bad faith or 5% mitigation for good faith. ICE asserted three reasons for a finding of bad faith: Integrity backdated one I-9 form; both companies did not complete I-9 forms for some employees until after the NOIs issued; and their failure to present evidence that they utilize E-Verify.

    Although backdating alone is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the ALJ found several factors supported a finding of bad faith. However, the ALJ noted the use or non-use of E-Verify is not a factor which should be reviewed in determining good faith/bad faith.

    Concerning the employment of undocumented workers as an enhancement factor, the ALJ stated ICE failed to provide any evidence of their undocumented status. Rather, their enhancement was based on inclusion in the Notice of Suspect Documents. As the ALJ correctly pointed out, an allegation of undocumented status, which is essentially what placement on a Notice of Suspect Documents means, is not sufficient to prove undocumented status. Thus, no enhancement was added for this factor.

    Another issue involving Integrity was whether it established an inability to pay/hardship. The ALJ did not find such, despite a loss of over $600,000, because Integrity paid approximately $500,000 in salaries and benefits – much of which was paid to its shareholders.

    In determining the amount of the penalties, the ALJ was disturbed by the fact that $935 was the baseline penalty for Integrity while only $440 was the baseline penalty for American. Although the ALJ correctly noted the difference in the percentage of errors on the I-9 forms was the basis of the different baseline penalty, he found the companies should be assessed at approximately the same dollar amount and compliance rate alone is insufficient to justify wide variation. Thus, the ALJ assessed $400 baseline penalty for substantive paperwork violations and $500 for failure to prepare I-9 forms.

    Based on this analysis, Integrity was found to have committed five violations for failing to prepare and/or present I-9 forms. Each of these violations will be assessed at $500, with the enhancement factor for seriousness of the violations and mitigation factor for the small size of the business cancelling each other. Accordingly, Integrity is liable for $2,525 under Count I. Under Counts II and III, Integrity was liable for substantive violations for failure to properly complete three I-9 forms and 19 substantive paperwork violations, all assessed at $400 each. Therefore, Integrity is liable for $11,325.

    American was found liable for 11 substantive violations for failing to prepare and/or present I-9 forms. Each of these violations will be assessed at $500, which includes the $500 base fine, with the enhancement factor for seriousness of the violations and mitigation factor for the small size of the business cancelling each other. Accordingly, American is assessed a total civil penalty of $5,500.

    Conclusion

    OCAHO may have slowed down on adjudication of cases but they will be back to speed once they get their allotment of ALJs. In the meantime, now is a great time to conduct an internal I-9 audit under the supervision of an experienced immigration compliance attorney. To find out more about internal I-9 audits as well as other employer immigration compliance issues, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, and is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  2. ICE Continues its Inspections of California Employers

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    As I have discussed in a recent blog entry (http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10373...ilent-Raids%94), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is seemingly targeting California employers for inspections of their I-9 forms. In the past week, Bee Sweet Citrus in Fowler, California and about seven other Fresco area employers have received ICE visits for the purposes of subpoenaing their I-9 forms and other paperwork. In previous weeks, ICE targeted 77 employers in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento.

    ICE spokesman, James Schwab, said the work site enforcement actions are nothing new and remain a priority of Homeland Security Investigations, a part of ICE, to ensure employers are in compliance with the law. However, this statement seems contradictory to ICE acting Director Homan’s statement that ICE was increasing their inspections by 400 to 500%.

    As many of my readers know, once an employer receives a Notice of Inspection/subpoena, it has 3 days to produce its I-9 forms to ICE for their inspection. In the inspection (also referred as an audit), ICE reviews the I-9 forms to determine whether all employees are legally authorized to work and whether there are substantive paperwork violations on the I-9 forms. If undocumented workers are employed, ICE may return to the employer and detain the undocumented workers. Alternatively, ICE may issue a Notice of Suspect Documents to the employer stating which employees do not have valid work authorization. If after the employer gives its employees an opportunity to provide valid documentation (“newer and better documentation”), the employees fail to provide such, the employer must discharge those employees. If the employer is knowingly employing undocumented workers, it faces penalties of up to $4473 per employee for first offenses. Additionally, substantive paperwork violations on I-9 forms are penalized at $224 to $2236 per I-9 form.

    At Bee Sweet Citrus, at least 40 workers quit after ICE delivered the NOI/subpoena, seemingly because they knew they were undocumented and were afraid of being detained by ICE. Jim Marderosion, president of Bee Sweet Citrus, said his workers were aware the ICE agents were coming and that was enough for some employees not to return to work. It’s unclear how the workers knew of the inspection as normally ICE does not provide advance notice.

    Marderosian said “One woman who has worked for me for nearly 20 years came up to me, gave me a hug and told me that she had to leave; she couldn’t take a chance.” Marderosian also stated “What good does it do to make these workers lose their jobs. They will have to find work somewhere. Some way or another they are going to have to feed their families.” This story was first reported by Robert Rodriguez of The Tribune, http://www.sanluisobispo.com.

    To learn more about employer immigration compliance and steps you can take to prevent I-9 violations and hiring undocumented workers, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  3. Cost of Immigration Violations Continue to Rise

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Effective January 20, 2018, the civil penalties for a variety of immigration-related violations increased dues to an adjustment for inflation. Below is a chart setting forth the old and new amounts:

    Type of Violation Old Amounts New Amounts
    I-9 substantive violation $220 - $2191 $224 - $2236
    Knowingly employing undocumented worker $548 - $4384 $559 - $4473
    Unfair Documentary Practice $181 - $1811 $185 - $1848
    Immigration-Related Discrimination $452 - $3621 $461 - $3695

    These increases are another reason to conduct an internal audit of your I-9 forms. Through such, an employer can remedy or mitigate many violations before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Immigrations and Employees Rights Section (IER) discovers them. To learn more about employer immigration compliance and steps you can take to prevent I-9 violations and hiring undocumented workers, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  4. What is Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 3711)?

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Legal Workforce aCT.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	5.7 KB 
ID:	1233

    Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 3711), which proposes numerous changes to current law, including requiring every employer in the U.S. to use E-Verify or an electronic employment eligibility verification system.

    Here is a summary of the bill’s key provisions:

    • Mandatory employer participation in the E-Verify phased in over a two-year period based on the size of the employer;
    • Conditional job offers, based on passing E-Verify, which is contrary to current law, which prohibits use of E-Verify until a job offer is accepted;
    • Within 6 months of the bill’s enactment, these current workforce employees would have to have their employment eligibility reverified: employees who require a federal security clearance; workers assigned to a federal contract; and federal, state, and local government employee;
    • Beginning 30 days after the bill is enacted, an employer would be allowed to voluntarily use E-Verify to reverify the employment eligibility of any current employee, if the employer reverified all individuals at the same geographic location or employed within the same job category;
    • Employers would also have to use E-Verify, according to the phase-in timeline for employers based on their size, for workers with expiring work authorization;
    • Many documents, that are currently acceptable, would no longer be acceptable for proving employment eligibility;
    • Employers would be relieved of liability for any employment action taken with respect to a worker if the employer had verified the worker’s identity and employment eligibility and relied on information provided by E-Verify in good faith;
    • Would substantially increase penalties for employers who knowingly hired or employed unauthorized workers and who failed to use E-Verify or knowingly submitted false information to E-Verify, but fines for knowingly hiring or employing an unauthorized worker could be waived if the employer established that it acted in good faith;
    • Would preempt states and localities from passing employer sanctions and employment eligibility verification laws; but, it would allow states to use business licensing and similar laws to penalize employers for not using E-Verify. It would also allow a state, at its own cost, to enforce the provisions of the Legal Workforce Act if it followed the federal regulations, rules, and guidance implementing the act.


    I will keep you apprised of any actions taken toward passage of the Legal Workforce Act though it is highly unlikely that this bill will pass the U.S. Senate.
  5. IER Settles Immigration-Related Retaliation Claim Against InMotion Software

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	InMotion.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	6.0 KB 
ID:	1230

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice has reached a settlement with InMotion Software LLC (InMotion), a software developer and recruiter in Texas, resolving their investigation into whether the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    Based on its investigation, the IER concluded InMotion retaliated against a work-authorized job applicant (Charging Party) after she protested InMotion’s requirement that she provides a Permanent Resident Card (green card) even though she had a valid employment authorization card issued by the USCIS. After the Charging Party complained that InMotion’s request constituted discrimination under the INA, InMotion removed her from its pool of candidates available for job placement. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from retaliating against or intimidating workers because they have opposed employer conduct that may violate that provision or have participated in the IER’s activities to enforce it.

    Under the settlement agreement, InMotion will pay $3621, the maximum civil penalty for an instance of retaliation, to the U.S. government, remove any references to the investigation or settlement from the Charging Party’s personnel file, post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, provide all newly hired employees with a Lists of Acceptable Documents to provide with the I-9 form, train its staff, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for one year.

    Companies need to be aware of the laws relating to retaliation if an employee files an anti-discrimination claim or alleges such discrimination. For the answers to these issues and many others related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: