ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance


  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.


    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
  2. ICE to Increase Worksite Immigration Enforcement Actions in Tennessee

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ICE Shield.jpg 
Views:	50 
Size:	5.5 KB 
ID:	1249

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), plans to increase worksite immigration enforcement actions across Tennessee in 2018, according to Robert Hammer, an assistant special agent in charge of HSI in Nashville, Tennessee. As previously reported, Thomas D. Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has stated there will be 4 to 5 times increase in worksite enforcement actions, usually referred to as inspections, in 2018. See

    Hammer made this statement after the indictment of 20 undocumented workers for using fake IDs to work in a sensitive air cargo area at Memphis International Airport. Hammer also stated worksite immigration investigations will likely focus on "critical infrastructure," such as airports, defense contractors, food distribution and other businesses that have an impact on the general safety and welfare of the community. The emphasis on critical infrastructure is because the agency is making it one of its priorities.

    Although the Obama Administration greatly increased worksite immigration enforcement actions from 2009 through 2014, it curtailed these operations in the last two years of its administration. The Trump Administration’s increase will more than double the highest number of worksite immigration enforcement actions under the Obama Administration. Increased enforcement could have a big impact on companies and industries that use immigrant labor, especially in those states which do not require the use of E-Verify.

    If an employer receives a Notice of Inspection from ICE, its I-9 forms may show the employment of undocumented workers and the employer may have knowingly hired unauthorized workers, which is against the law. Alternatively, an employer may not have knowingly hired unauthorized workers but still those undocumented workers must be discharged (unless they quit) or the employer will be fined.

    If you want a full discussion of the possible criminal and civil sanctions against employers for violating immigration laws, I recommend you read my book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at There are chapters dedicated to civil penalties and criminal sanctions for violating immigration laws.
  3. ICE’s Inspection Costs Bakery 800 Employees in its Workforce

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cloverhill Logo.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	3.4 KB 
ID:	1241

    As I have discussing in this blog, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is ramping up it worksite enforcement activities. Recently, after ICE issued a Notice of Inspection (NOI) and Notice of Suspect Documents to an unnamed staffing company for Cloverhill Bakery of Chicago, Illinois, approximately 800 employees were terminated or quit due to being undocumented workers.

    Cloverhill Bakery, a part of the Swiss-based international company, Aryzta AG, lost about 35% of its workforce due to the staffing company’s employees being undocumented. As one can imagine, losing 35% of your workforce has made it difficult to meet production of products for its customers, fast-food chains and supermarkets.

    Although press reports referred to ICE’s action as a raid, it was not such; rather it was an inspection of the staffing company’s employees’ I-9 forms. The inspection of the I-9 forms is accomplished by the delivery of a NOI/subpoena by ICE agents.

    The NOI was issued earlier in 2017 and caused one of the largest groups of employees to lose their jobs due to lack of work authorization in 2017. Since the NOI occurred earlier this year, ICE did not take any actions to detain the 800 undocumented workers. Recently, ICE announced that it planned to detain undocumented workers found at employers’ facilities.

    If you are worried that your company is going to be the next ICE target, I recommend you get prepared now. The best way is to have an immigration attorney, well-versed in I-9 forms and worksite enforcement, conduct an internal I-9 audit. Alternatively, if you want to get a better understanding of immigration compliance for employers, I recommend you read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at
  4. How to Get Ready for an ICE Audit? (part 2)

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Get Audit Ready.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	9.6 KB 
ID:	1237

    As previously stated, Tom Homan, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), announced an increase of I-9 Inspections/Audits "by four to five times." What can employers do to decrease their vulnerability to significant penalties if one is audited? There are two things to do which go hand in hand – implement an immigration compliance policy and conduct an internal I-9 audit. On November 13, 2017, I discussed implementing an immigration compliance policy This blog will focus on conducting an internal I-9 audit.

    An internal I-9 audit (also called a self-audit) is the best prevention tool to avoid costly penalties if ICE conducts an inspection of your I-9 forms pursuant to a Notice of Inspection/subpoena. An internal I-9 audit is not required by law but is highly recommended. However, unless such an audit is conducted by, or under the close supervision of, an immigration compliance attorney, an employer may do more damage than good. A classic example of doing more damage is finding errors on the I-9 forms, completing new I-9 forms, and destroying the existing I-9 forms.

    An employer should conduct internal I-9 audits yearly or less frequently, depending on size of company and number of employees hired each year. An employer may choose to audit the I-9 forms of all current employees, all current employees and former employees for the last two years, or a sample of I-9 forms selected based on neutral and non-discriminatory criteria. If a subset of I-9 forms is audited, the employer should consider carefully how it chooses I-9 forms to be audited to avoid discriminatory or retaliatory audits. Thus, one should not audit only those employees with permanent resident cards or foreign-sounding last names.

    If errors are found on I-9 forms, they should be corrected by the employee for Section 1 errors and the employer for Sections 2 and 3 errors. For corrections in Section 2, it should be the employer’s representative who originally reviewed documents and signed the certification. If that person is no longer employed, it is usually best to complete a new I-9 form. However, if it is a minor error, such as failure to include an expiration date in List A or List B where the document is attached to the I-9 form or the employer’s address is missing, another HR representative can make the correction.

    If an I-9 form is missing data, such as the title of a document or expiration date, one may add that information in a different color pen, initial, and date the correction. If information is put in the wrong list, i.e., Social Security card in List B and driver’s license in List C, draw arrow in different color pen to correct list, and initial, and date the correction.

    To correct multiple errors on an I-9 form, a new I-9 form may be completed and attached to the old form. Or if entire sections of the I-9 form were left blank, one may complete just that section and attach it to the old I-9 form. In making corrections or attaching a new I-9 form, always include a note concerning the reason changes were made to the existing I-9 form or a new I-9 form was completed. It is sufficient to state the errors were located in an internal I-9 audit.

    Other helpful ideas to implement in an internal I-9 audit are:
    1. Establish a re-verification tickler system to ensure I-9 forms are checked in a timely manner;
    2. Establish a backup system to ensure timely compliance with I-9 form rules when a human resource professional is out of the office;
    3. Segregate I-9 forms from other personnel records;
    4. Consider using an electronic Form I-9 product to automate the collection of information, to reduce errors, speed up the production of information in the case of a government audit, and ensure timely re-verification of I-9 forms.

    For more information on how to conduct an internal I-9 audit in advance of an ICE inspection, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at
  5. Missing Deadline for Providing I-9s to ICE is Costly

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	staffing.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	6.2 KB 
ID:	1195

    OCAHO’s recent decision in U.S. v. Alpine Staffing, Inc., 12 OCAHO no. 1303 (May 2017), demonstrates how untimely presentation of I-9 forms can be costly to an employer.

    Alpine Staffing is a small staffing company in Minnesota. It received a Notice of Inspection (NOI) on August 23, 2013 informing the company that it needed to present all of its I-9 forms for current employees and former employees for the past 2 years by August 29, 2013. On that date, Alpine Staffing delivered many I-9 forms to ICE. The following day Alpine Staffing discovered 271 additional I-9 forms. It immediately delivered the additional I-9 forms to ICE. On October 1, 2013, the company discovered another 39 Forms I-9 and thereafter delivered those to ICE.

    After a review of the I-9 forms, ICE issued a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) and then a Complaint which alleged in Court I – failure to timely present or prepare 345 Forms I-9 and Court II – company failed to ensure 132 employees properly completed Section 1 of the I-9 form and/or the company failed to properly complete sections 2 or 3 of the I-9 forms. ICE sought $367,000 in penalties.

    Alpine Staffing’s principal defense was it was unaware of a specific deadline for presentation of I-9 forms to ICE. However, this defense was belied by the fact that they presented numerous I-9 forms on August 29, 2013, the date that ICE stated the I-9 forms were due. Thus, OCAHO found all I-9 forms delivered after August 29, 2013 were untimely presented.

    OCAHO affirmed ICE’s assessment of $770 per I-9 form for the 34 instances of failure to prepare an I-9 form for those employees. However, OCAHO gave Alpine Staffing a break on the untimely presented I-9 forms. For those presented a day late, OCAHO set a penalty of $500 each, rather than $770. For those I-9 forms delivered at a later date, OCAHO set a penalty of $600 each, rather than $770. Overall, the penalty assessed for the failure to prepare or untimely present I-9 forms was set at $185,000. ICE had sought $256,000. Concerning the 130 Court II violations, OCHAO reduced the penalty from $770 to $700 per I-9 violation. Overall, OCAHO assessed penalties of $276,000. Thus, Alpine Staffing received a reduction of about 25% in penalties.

    This decision shows the importance of locating and providing all I-9 forms covered by the NOI by the deadline. The company’s error appears to be caused by the fact that their I-9 forms were not kept in one location. It is certainly best to keep all a company’s I-9 forms in one location at the company’s facility.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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: