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



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. Bay Area Restaurants Fear ICE I-9 Audits

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Restaurants in the Bay area of California are on pins and needles fearful of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) continued assault on California due to California passing laws viewed by ICE as restricting their ability to find and detain undocumented individuals. As discussed in prior blogs, ICE has been very active in delivering Notices of Inspection (NOI)/subpoenas to California employers.

    In an article in San Francisco Chronicle, https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaura...r-12823400.php, Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, was quoted as stating “Everyone is fearing a day that ICE could show up at their doors.”

    When ICE conducts an I-9 inspection/audit, their agents show up at employer locations and serve a subpoena and NOI demanding the employer produce the I-9 forms of current employees, and often former employees, within three days of service. Often, these inspections are referred to as “silent raids” because they can have the same effect as a raid – loss of employees through ICE detention, terminations or quick abandonment of jobs.

    Nick Cobarruvias, co-owner of Son’s Addition, employs roughly 29 people at his restaurant. He said about two-thirds are immigrants. Cobarruvias said one employee recently failed to show up for work for several days. Both he and staff members tried contacting him to no avail. “It turned out he was picked up by ICE. Just wrong place, wrong time,” Cobarruvias said. “This is the new reality we’re dealing with. People talk about it like it’s theoretical, but this is really happening.”


  2. ICE v. California – The Battle Continues

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC


    As any reader of this blog (or casual reader of immigration news) knows, the Trump administration has declared war against the State of California due to the State’s passage of various laws designed to protect undocumented immigrants as well as employers from unwanted federal intrusion into workplaces. Earlier this year, Thomas D. Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has criticized California for their efforts to protect undocumented immigrants and limit law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with immigration officials. Homan recently added “We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court, and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”

    Upon this backdrop, in early March 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California alleging three new state laws designed to protect certain undocumented immigrants from deportation by the federal government are unconstitutional. This article will focus on the employment-related statute - Immigrant Worker Protection Act. The DOJ is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit California from enforcing Immigrant Worker Protection Act against private employers.

    Under the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450), which became effective January 1, 2018, California has placed restrictions on how private employers in California must respond to ICE efforts to ensure immigration compliance, by requiring ICE agents to provide a judicial warrant to employers to access non-public portions of worksites. Thus, employers may not simply consent for ICE to have access to non-public portions of the worksite. Additionally, employers are prohibited from sharing confidential employee information, such as Social Security numbers, unless required to do so in a Notice of Inspection or provided a judicial warrant. The law also requires employers to provide employees and their authorized representatives, within 72 hours, with copies of written ICE notices providing results of inspections.

    According to the DOJ lawsuit, “These provisions, individually and collectively, have the purpose and effect of interfering with the enforcement of the INA and IRCA’s prohibition on working without authorization. California has no lawful interest in protecting unauthorized workers from detection or in shielding employers who have violated federal immigration law from penalty. These provisions, as applied to private employers, violate the Supremacy Clause by, among other things, constituting an obstacle to the United States’ enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against federal immigration enforcement.”

    California officials, including California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, assert they have the constitutional right to govern their state as they see fit because “States and local jurisdictions have the right to determine which policies are best for their communities.”

    “There is real uncertainty about who will win it,” said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University. That's in part because the legal landscape on federal vs. state rights related to immigration is not clear. Lower courts have split on whether it is legal for the federal government to require local law enforcement to hand over immigrants. The lawsuit is a risky endeavor for the Trump administration because if it loses, it will potentially empower other states that want to defy the president to pass similar laws.
    I will keep you updated on this litigation. For a review of all employment and immigration-related state laws and other issues related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book I co-authored with Greg Siskind, available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  3. 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.
  4. ICE Targeting California for More “Silent Raids”

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law


    On the heels of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) worksite enforcement actions/inspections against 97 7-Eleven convenience stores, ICE announced it has conducted I-9 inspections of 77 employers in the San Francisco and Sacramento areas. ICE did not identify any of the businesses its agents visited in the Bay Area and the Sacramento region. However, just the fact that ICE served subpoenas on so many employers demanding their I-9 forms and then announced it to the media, demonstrates ICE is trying to put the fear of government action in the minds of every employer, especially in California.

    When ICE conducts an I-9 inspection, their agents show up at employer locations and serve a subpoena and Notice of Inspection (NOI) demanding the employer produce the I-9 forms of current employees, and often former employees, within three days of service. Often, these inspections are referred to as “silent raids” because they can have the same effect as a raid – loss of employees through ICE detention, terminations or quick abandonment of jobs.

    According to James Schwab, a spokesman for ICE, their operation is part of a strategy that is “focused on protecting jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminating unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthening public safety and national security.”

    It is interesting that ICE chose California for these actions as ICE and the Trump administration are involved in an assault on California due to their recent legislation declaring California as a sanctuary state. Thomas D. Homan, acting director of ICE, has criticized California for state and local efforts to protect undocumented immigrants and limit law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with immigration officials. Homan recently stated “We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court, and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”

    California recently enacted legislation requiring employers notify their workers of such an ICE audit and provide them with the results. The law also mandates that employers ask ICE to obtain a judicial warrant in some situations though not for NOIs. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra recently held a press conference where he warned California employers of the consequences of violating this legislation. Thus, many California employers are perplexed as to how to be in abeyance of both federal and state immigration laws.

    Angelo Paparelli, a prominent immigration attorney with Seyfarth Shaw, stated “Serving 77 notices of inspection on different employers in the last three days within a single area of responsibility, in this case, San Francisco, appears unprecedented.”

    After the businesses comply with the subpoena/NOI, ICE auditors will carefully review the I-9 forms to determine whether undocumented workers are employed at the business and whether the I-9 forms have substantive errors, which could cost $224 to $2236 per I-9 form. 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 or face fines of up to $4473 per employee.

    I will keep you apprised on further developments of these “silent raids” and the 7-Eleven ones. If you are concerned about your I-9 forms and the legal status of your employees, I urge you to retain an immigration attorney trained in worksite enforcement, who can spearhead an internal I-9 audit.

    If you want a full discussion of internal I-9 audits and other important immigration compliance issues, I recommend you read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  5. California AG Threatens Actions Against Businesses if Don’t Abide by State Law

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    California Attorney General Xavier Becerra held a press conference on January 18, 2018, wherein he warned California employers that businesses will face fines of up to $10,000 if they assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in potential workplace raids or other similar actions. Becerra’s warning was in response to fears of mass workplace raids due to ICE’s statement that it plans to target Northern California communities for deportations due in part to the state’s “sanctuary” law. Specifically, ICE’s acting director Thomas Homan has told Fox News that “California better hold on tight... If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”

    Attorney General Becerra stated, “It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office.” Becerra was referring to the new state law called the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” which went into effect on January 1, 2018.

    As I previously discussed in my blog (see http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10179...udits-and-More), California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act requires the following:

    1. employers must notify their employees by written notice within 72 hours of Notice of Inspection (NOI) of I-9 records;
    2. employers must notify their employees, individually, of the results of the I-9 audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within 72 hours of receiving the results of the NOI;
    3. ICE agents are to provide a judicial warrant to employers to access non-public portions of worksites; and
    4. employers are prohibited from sharing confidential employee information, such as Social Security numbers, unless required to do so in a NOI or provided a judicial warrant.


    The law does not restrict ICE from providing a NOI to an employer demanding the employees’ I-9 forms within three days of service of the NOI and the employer being required to honor it.

    For a review of all employment and immigration-related state laws and other issues 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 2 12 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: