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. Effects of Temination of DACA on Employers

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	daca.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	4.7 KB 
ID:	1220

    Since President Trump’s announcement rescinding DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), media focus has been on the 800,000 DACA recipients – as it rightfully should be. However, there is going to be another entity impacted - employers of those 800,000 DACA recipients.

    Not only do employers need to be concerned about the loss of valuable employees, but employers need to be concerned with staying in compliance of immigration laws. It is fundamental immigration law that employees cannot legally work without proof of their identity and work authorization. Thus, when DACA recipients’ Employment Authorization Card (EAD) expire, employers will need to discharge DACA recipients, unless they have found another way to obtain work authorization (which is very unlikely).

    But before employers start discharging employees, one needs to be careful not to do so prematurely. During the period of DACA’s work authorization, even beyond March 5, 2018, when the USCIS will no longer approve DACA renewals, DACA employees can be authorized to legally work. It all depends on the EAD’s expiration date. Although no renewal EAD will be issued after March 5, 2018, this doesn’t mean all DACA recipients are not eligible to work after March 5, 2018.

    As an example, DACA employee Jose has an EAD which expires on March 4, 2018, so he can renew his DACA status and EAD (if the renewal is filed by October 5, 2017). Thus, he will be eligible to work until about March 2020. On the other hand, another employee, Mohammed, has an EAD pursuant to DACA, which expires on March 6, 2018. Unfortunately, March 6, 2018 is the date his employment must terminate. Thus, employers must be observant of the EAD’s expiration date.

    How does an employer even know whether the EAD is through DACA, TPS, or withholding of removal? There is a code on the front of the EAD card. For DACA, the code is C33. This code is different than codes for TPS or withholding - A10, A12 or C19.

    Some employers may ask why can’t I just discharge DACA recipients now. First, they are probably very good employees – as so many of them are proud to be legally working for the first time in their lives. Second, hopefully Congress is going to pass the DREAM Act or some other legislation that will provide for lawful employment for DACA recipients; thus, employers won’t have to face the issue. However, if an employer chose to discharge a DACA recipient based on his DACA status, it is very unlikely that the discharge would be unlawful under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Some small employers may be thinking I’m just going to look the other way and not terminate DACA recipients when their work authorization expires. Although I can understand employers not wanting to hurt their DACA employees, employers need to consider their own situation. If an employer continues to employ a worker after his work authorization expires, is not renewed, and no other work authorization is provided, they are subject to “knowingly” employing an undocumented worker. The fines for such a first offense range from $539 to over $4000, with a fine of over $3,000 being the most likely. If you have five DACA employees that you retain without work authorization, you are looking at a fine of $15,000 before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has even looked at your Form I-9s for substantive violations. So, your heart may tell you to keep DACA recipients without work authorization; but, listen to your head, which is filled with dollar signs for fines and penalties.

    For the answers to many other questions related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  2. OSC & ICE Publish Guidance to Employers on Internal I-9 audits

    By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DOJ.jpg 
Views:	99 
Size:	6.4 KB 
ID:	1018 Name:  ICE-seal_2.jpg
Views: 491
Size:  6.4 KB


    The Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have issued a six-page joint Guidance for Employers Conducting Internal Form I-9 Audits. In a later blog, I will discuss more of the specifics of the guidance.

    To ensure that these internal audits are conducted properly and do not discriminate against employees, ICE and OSC have collaborated to issue formal guidance on the topic. According to Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division, “without clear and effective guidelines, internal audits can create barriers to employment for work-authorized individuals.”

    The joint guidance was developed by the two agencies with significant input from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and stakeholders around the country. This guidance is part of the six-month action plan of the Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws.

    Among other things, the guidance provides employers with information regarding the scope and purpose of audits; considerations before conducting internal audits; details regarding how to correct errors, omissions or other deficiencies found on Forms I-9 and how to cure deficiencies related to E-Verify queries; and guidance regarding the anti-discrimination mandate.

    Updated 12-15-2015 at 11:41 AM by BBuchanan

  3. OSC Settles Dual Citizenship Discrimination Claim

    By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OSC.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	5.7 KB 
ID:	955Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TDEC_the_data_entry_company.jpg 
Views:	126 
Size:	3.6 KB 
ID:	957


    The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) reached a settlement with The Data Entry Company Inc. (TDEC), a government subcontractor located in Bethesda, Maryland. This case is unique because it involved a claim of discrimination based on dual citizenship.

    The OSC’s investigation found that on two occasions TDEC removed a U.S. citizen from its pool of applicants because she was a dual citizen, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, employers may not discriminate in hiring on the basis of citizenship status unless required by law, regulation, executive order or government contract.

    Under the settlement agreement, TDEC will pay $7,007.75 in back pay to the charging party and a $750 civil penalty to the United States. For the next two years, the company must also send all current human resources personnel and all new human resources personnel to attend a compliance training webinar presented by the OSC.

    TDEC further agreed not to remove dual citizen applicants from consideration for jobs that are open to other U.S. Citizens and for which a basic security clearance or higher level security clearance is required on the basis of their dual citizenship. This requirement will not apply if an applicable government contract prohibits employment of a dual U.S. Citizen, or if the company has received written notification from the government directly or indirectly stating that candidates with dual citizenship are not acceptable.

    A copy of The Data Entry Company Inc. settlement agreement can be viewed here.

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bruce Buchanan is an attorney with the law firm of Siskind Susser P.C. - www.visalaw.com - a full service U.S. immigration law firm representing employers and individuals nationwide for over 20 years. You can also follow Bruce on social media via Facebook and on Twitter @BuchananVisaLaw .
  4. USCIS myE-Verify Now Available Nationwide

    By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser



    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the expansion of myE-Verify services nationwide. After a limited roll-out in 2014, it now serves as a “one-stop shop” for employees nationwide to open and manage a personal account.

    To create an account, the user must also complete a Self Check with a result of "Work Authorization Confirmed."


    If the user is unable to complete Self Check, they cannot set up a myE-Verify account at this time.

    myE-Verify is meant to be a free and secure way for workers to participate in the E-Verify process by accessing features dedicated for employees. It is equipped with these services:

    1. myE-Verify accounts – a free personal account to manage use of one’s information in E-Verify and Self Check;

    2. Self Lock – allows individuals to place a “lock” on their social security number (SSN) to help prevent unauthorized or fraudulent use of their SSN by another person to illegally obtain employment authorization within E-Verify. If their SSN is used, it will result in a Self Lock mismatch. Self Lock will remain active for 1 year and individuals can unlock their SSN any time a new employer needs to verify their employment eligibility in E-Verify; and

    3. myResources – a multimedia library for employees with these components: Employee Rights Toolkit, Your Rights with myE-Verify, Your Employer’s Responsibilities, and Privacy is Our Commitment.

    According to USCIS, the following features are planned for release at a later date:
    -Document Expiration Reminders, to set up alerts when a document (like a passport or driver’s license) is about to expire.
    -Case Tracker, to allow a user to track the status of their E-Verify or Self Check and know if any action is required.
    -Case History, to allow a user to monitor where and when their information has been used in the E-Verify system.


    ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Bruce Buchanan is an attorney with the law firm of Siskind Susser P.C. - www.visalaw.com - a full service U.S. immigration law firm representing employers and individuals nationwide for over 20 years. You can also follow Bruce on social media via Facebook and on Twitter @BuchananVisaLaw .
  5. OCAHO Reduces Employer's I-9 Penalty by about 50%

    By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	doj.jpg 
Views:	886 
Size:	6.4 KB 
ID:	944Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ice_immigration_customs_enforcement.jpg 
Views:	134 
Size:	4.2 KB 
ID:	945 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	horno_mision_san_jose_panaderia.jpg 
Views:	190 
Size:	5.9 KB 
ID:	943

    In United States v. Horno MSJ, Ltd., 11 OCAHO no. 1247 (2015), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) reduced an employer’s penalties for I-9 violations from about $30,500 to $14,600.

    Horno Misión San José is a mom-and-pop bakery in San Antonio, Texas. After receiving a Notice of Inspection (NOI) in July 2012, Horno presented 26 Form I-9s to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In ICE’s Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF), it alleged 32 violations – failure to prepare/present I-9 forms for nine employees and failure to ensure 23 employees properly completed Section 1 or failed to properly complete Sections 2 or 3 of the I-9 forms.

    In a prehearing statement, Horno presented five I-9 forms that had not been previously submitted, and it presented numerous “modified” versions of the original I-9 forms it had previously submitted. The “modifications” involved signing the I-9 forms with post-dated signatures.

    Horno asserted that it did not have an obligation to provide I-9 forms for two employees because they quit before the orientation/hiring process was complete. However, the employees were paid and their paystubs showed each worked several days. Thus, Horno did have an obligation to complete and retain their I-9 forms and failed to do so.

    Many of the incomplete I-9 forms reflected substantive errors, such as failure of an Horno representative to sign the Section 2 certification; failure to record any information in Lists A, B or C; and no status box checked in Section 1. However, the OCAHO ALJ did not find Horno engaged in bad faith based upon its high rate of violations. It is well-established under OCAHO case law that bad faith requires a showing of culpable conduct beyond merely a high rate of violations.

    Horno was successful in arguing for a reduction of the proposed penalties. ICE sought a baseline penalty of $935 per violation based upon a violation rate of more than 90%. ICE aggravated the penalty by five percent for 13 employees’ I-9 forms because they were found to be unauthorized. Based upon the fact that Horno is a small business with an inability to pay the penalties, and the proposed penalties should have been closer to the midrange of penalties, the OCAHO ALJ reduced the penalties per violation to between $300 and $600 for a total fine of $14,600.

    Although Horno was successful in substantially reducing its penalties, it could have received a much lower penalty if it had engaged in a self-audit before the NOI was issued.

    A copy of the decision is available here.
    Cite as United States v. Horno MSJ, Ltd., 11 OCAHO no. 1247 (2015)

    Updated 04-15-2015 at 11:46 AM by BBuchanan

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: