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

OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	doj.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	6.4 KB 
ID:	895 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ice_immigration_customs_enforcement.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	4.2 KB 
ID:	896 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ice_dentist.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	5.1 KB 
ID:	897


In the last decision of 2014 from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), the administrative law judge held that Dr. Robert Schaus, a dentist, was liable for failing to timely prepare and/or present I-9 forms for 10 employees at his dental office. The ALJ reduced his penalty from $10,030 to $5,400.

Dr. Schaus’s dental practice is located in Clarence, New York, where it operates as a sole proprietorship. After Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) served Schaus with a Notice of Inspection (NOI), he provided a list identifying the hire dates for eight current employees, and the hire and termination dates for three former employees, along with six I-9 forms and other requested documentation. Schaus identified two employees as working on an “as needed” basis and one employee who had been terminated when she joined the Army Reserves several years before.

Schaus argued that he did not need to retain the I-9 forms of current employees, who had worked greater than three years. OCAHO rejected this defense as it is fundamentally “wrong as a matter of law”. An employer must always retain the I-9 forms of current employees, including those employees who are working on an as-needed basis.

OCAHO dismissed one allegation related to the employee who had been terminated on September 20, 2010, when she joined the Army Reserves. Although the employee’s name was listed in quarterly reports for two years, no wages were reported in any of those quarters. Since the employee only was employed for five months, the duty to retain her I-9 form ended three years from her date of hire or April 19, 2013, four days before the NOI was issued.

Schaus also asserted that certain I-9s contained only technical violations -- the omission of a date in Section 2 of the I-9 forms. If so, Schaus would get the opportunity to cure within ten days’ notice from the government. However, the violations concerned the failure to promptly prepare the I-9 forms, which is a substantive violation. Thus, OCAHO rejected this defense. In doing so, it stated a violation is not cured by a belated (after the NOI was served) or partial completion of the I-9 forms.

In assessing the penalties for the paperwork violations, ICE set a baseline penalty of $935 for each of the employees hired before September 29, 1999, and $850 for each of the employees hired after September 29, 1999. ICE mitigated the penalty by five percent for each violation, based on the small size of Schaus’ business, and the absence of unauthorized workers. However, ICE aggravated the penalty by five percent for each violation, based on the business’s alleged bad faith in backdating the I-9s it presented and the seriousness of the violations. OCAHO agreed with the mitigation and aggravation of the penalties, except it determined the evidence did not support a finding of bad faith.

OCAHO reduced the penalty from $10,030 to $5,400 because it should be closer to the “midrange” of permissible penalties and more in line with those imposed on other small family businesses with similar violations. For the six violations involving failure to timely prepare I-9 forms, the penalty was set at $500 per violation. For the four violations involving the failure to present I-9s, the penalty was set at $600 per violation.

A copy of the OCAHO decision is available here.
Cite as U.S. v. Dr. Robert Schaus, D.D.S., 11 OCAHO no. 1239 (2014).

Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to Facebook Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to Twitter Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to Google Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to StumbleUpon Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to Reddit Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to Digg Submit "OCAHO Rejects Most of Dentistís Defenses" to del.icio.us

Updated 01-16-2015 at 09:54 AM by BBuchanan

Comments

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: