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


中文移民日报




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

View RSS Feed

Recent Blogs Posts

  1. When does an Employer Need to Re-Verify?

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law



    In our book, I-9 and E-Verify Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379),
    Greg Siskind and I discuss reverification. Here is an excerpt from the book.

    3.1 What are the Form I-9 re-verification requirements?

    If an employee is not a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or noncitizen national, he or she is likely working based on a status with a defined end date. For these employees, the employer must note the expiration date of their documents on the Form I-9 and then must pull the employee’s Form I-9 before the expiration date and re-verify that the employee’s status has been extended. Employers should establish a reliable tickler system to prompt re-verification. Aside from complying with the re-verification rule, this system will also ensure that an employer that needs to extend a work visa for an employee will not forget to take care of this critical task (something that is, unfortunately, neglected by many employers and can result in an employee falling out of legal status). Green cards and passports with expiration dates do not need to be re-verified.

    3.2 What if the re-verification section of the form has been completed from a prior re-verification?

    In this case, an employer can complete and sign Section 3 of a new Form I-9. The employer should put the employee’s name in Section 1 and retain the new form with the original.

    3.3 Can an employee present a Social Security card to show employment authorization at re-verification when he or she had presented an expiring Employment Authorization Document or Form I-94 at the time of hire?

    Yes, an employee may present a Social Security card to show employment authorization at re-verification as long as the Social Security card is not restricted with a statement such as “not valid for employment,” “valid for work only with DHS [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] authorization” or “valid for work only with INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] authorization.” If the Social Security card has this language, it is not a valid List C document. This type of Social Security card must be accompanied by an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to be valid. Employers may not specify which documents an employee may present either at the time of hire or at the time of re-verification. An employee may have become a lawful permanent resident or otherwise received employment-authorized status allowing the employee to obtain a Social Security card, absent the sponsorship of the employer, so the employer should not assume the employee is unauthorized.

    3.4 What if a new Form I-9 comes out between the date the initial Form I-9 is completed and the time of re-verification?

    If a new Form I-9 has been released between the date of hire and the date of re-verification, the employer should complete Section 3 of the new version of the Form I-9 and accept only documentation of employment eligibility from the Lists of Acceptable Documents in the Form I-9 instructions. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will accept use of Section 3 on the existing completed Form I-9 if it has not been previously completed for prior re-verification.

    3.5 Do past employees resuming work with a company need to complete a new Form I-9?

    Returning employees often do not need to complete a new Form I-9, but if that is not done, the employer needs to re-verify the employee’s work authorization in Section 3 of the Form I-9, if the formerly listed work authorization has expired. If a new version of the Form I-9 has come out since the last time the Form I-9 was completed, the employer may complete a new form or use Section 3 of the existing completed Form I-9. And if the form has been completed in Section 3 from a previous re-verification, the employer should complete Section 3 of a new Form I-9.
    For an employee to be considered a “rehire,” the employer must be re-hiring the employee within three years of the initial hiring date of the employee, and the employee’s previous grant of work authorization must not have expired. Employers must:
    1. record the rehiring date;
    2. if the formerly listed work authorization has expired, write the document title, number, and expiration date of any eligible document presented by the employee;
    3. sign and date Section 3; and
    4. if the re-verification is recorded on a new Form I-9, write the employee’s name in Section 1.

    Of course, it may be easier just to complete a new Form I-9, and an employer can certainly opt for this. Note that the rules on returning employees also apply to cases of recruiting or referring an individual.

    3.6 What if a rehired employee is rehired after a new version of the Form I-9 is released?

    If the Form I-9 has been modified since the form was completed on the date of hire, the employer may complete Section 3 of the existing completed Form I-9 or Section 3 of the new form and attach the old form. The employee should provide documentation of continued employment authorization from the current Lists of Acceptable Documents provided in the Form I-9 instructions.

    3.7 What if an employee changes his or her name?

    An employee’s name change should be recorded by the employer in Section 3, although it is not mandatory to complete Section 3 for a name change. If an employee requests such, it is a best practice for the employer to request a document reflecting the name change, such as a marriage certificate or divorce decree.
    Reverification is often misunderstood by HR. Thus, it is important to know how to re-verify. It’s also important to know when not to re-verify. This is covered elsewhere in the book. The most important point on when not to re-verify is this – do not reverify after a permanent resident card, passport or driver’s license expires.
  2. Letters of the Week: March 26 - April 1

  3. Trump, Dems can solve the DACA problem by redefining it. By Nolan Rappaport


    © Greg Nash

    President Donald Trump and Republican congressmen have been trying unsuccessfully to cut a deal with the Democrats that would provide lawful status for the undocumented aliens in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

    The negotiations have seemed promising sometimes, such as when Trump offered a legalization program for 1.8 million undocumented aliens with his Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security, but the Democrats would not agree to the concessions he was demanding in this four-pillar proposal.

    I hope the Democrats are not holding out for a DREAM Act like the American Hope Act of 2017, which would have legalized millions of undocumented aliens who came to America as children. I call it “The False Hope Act” in a previous article I wrote about it.

    DREAM Acts have been pending since 2001. The Democrats could have passed one during Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a strong majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, a filibuster-busting majority in the Senate. But they chose not to do it.

    It might be more productive at this point to put negotiations about DACA and DREAM Acts aside and try a different approach. My suggestion is to work on creating a place in the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program for the DACA participants.

    This little-known humanitarian program makes lawful permanent resident (LPR) status available to undocumented alien children in the United States who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by one or both parents and who should not be returned to their own countries.

    The SIJ Program

    Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...-redefining-it

    Published originally on The Hill.

    About the author. Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.





    Updated 03-27-2018 at 09:40 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  4. Right Wing Attacks on Trump for Failure to Insist on Border Wall Funding Confirm Wall as Symbol of Anti-Immigrant Racism. Roger Algase

    Update, March 26 as of 4:00 pm:

    For a report on more radical right wing invective against Donald Trump, who is arguably the most extreme right wing president America has had since Calvin Coolidge, mainly focusing on the border wall issue, see: alternet.org

    https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...-turning-trump

    My original comment follows:

    Ann Coulter, Fox News commentators and other leading figures on America's far right blasted Donald Trump over the weekend for signing an omnibus spending bill that contains virtually no funding for his long promised Mexican border wall. Coulter, with her characteristic lack of restraint, called the Congressional Republicans "swine" for supporting the spending bill, and tweeted that Trump should be impeached.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38...g-a-negotiator

    Fox News Hosts Laura Ingraham and Dean Hannity also joined a host of other familiar right wing figures in condemning Trump for, among other things, failing to insist on wall funding as a condition for signing the bill.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38...-spending-bill

    So far as appears in news stories about the wall, experts agree that the wall is useless and unnecessary as a security measure, especially with illegal Mexican border crossings reportedly now at record lows.

    http://www.straitstimes.com/world/un...ss-experts-say

    Indeed, even among commentators who believe that reducing illegal immigration is of prime urgency, there is a respected school of thought which argues that internal enforcement is more effective than increased border measures in general.

    Therefore, what can account for the fury of familiar right wing names such as Counter, Ingraham and Hannity, not to mention Drudge and Limbaugh, who are normally among Trump's strongest supporters on immigration policy?
    Does the lack of funding for the border wall mean that America is about to receive a big new influx of "dangerous" illegal immigrants compared to present levels?

    No one is making any such argument seriously. To the contrary, the right wing rage against Trump's inability to date to persuade Congress to agree to provide more funding for his wall (and not through lack of trying on his part) shows the importance of a wall as a symbol of hatred and rejection of Latino and other non-white immigrants in general.

    This is hardly any secret to people like Coulter, who has written an entire book, Adios America, arguing that admitting Latino and other immigrants of color, could in effect, lead to the destruction of America. There is certainly no lack of other comments on the far right by public figures, such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who, in effect, argue that preserving America depends on preserving what they see as the fundamentally white, European character of American society - a doctrine which is also vociferously maintained by openly white nationalist figures such as the ones who lead the notorious rally in Charlottesville which Trump was so reluctant to condemn.

    And despite all of the talk about the wall as an alleged means for combating illegal immigration, it is clearly meant by its proponents to be symbol of rejection of legal immigration as well.

    Indeed there is a strong argument that in the Trump era, the entire focus of the anti-immigrant movement has shifted away from stopping illegal immigration to stopping or reducing non-white immigration in general, legal and illegal.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...112-story.html

    See also Dara Lind's perceptive article in vox.com

    https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/906042...igration-trump

    Building a border wall is a symbol of this shift, and that is why Trump's failure to obtain Congressional for funding this wall is creating so much fury among his right wing supporters.
    __________________________
    Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 30 years, Roger's practice has been concentrated in skilled and professional immigration, including H-1B, Labor certification and other employment and family-based work visas and green cards.

    Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com





    Updated 03-26-2018 at 03:01 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

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: