No announcement yet.

Article: Form I-9 Basics Every HR Should Know by Giselle Carson


  • Article: Form I-9 Basics Every HR Should Know by Giselle Carson

    Form I-9 Basics Every HR Should Know

    by Giselle Carson

    [Editor’s Note: With the revised Form I-9 required to be used by all employers tomorrow, today's blog is courtesy of Ms. Giselle Carson, Attorney at Marks Gray, P.A. in Jacksonville, Florida.]

    Immigration reform continues to be at the top of the 2013 agenda for President Obama and the Congress.  Any reform will likely include continuing worksite enforcement and fines for employers that fail to properly verify their workforce and an expansion of (even mandatory) E-Verify.  Additionally, USCIS released a revised and expanded Form I-9 which must be in use by tomorrow, May 7th.

    Employers are likely to be engaged in responding to an I-9 Notice of Inspection, determining whether to settle or litigate a Notice of Intent to fine; and acting on a Notice of Suspect documents.

    Favorable decisions from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO)can help you evaluate your company’s current status and plan for training and attorney-directed compliance audits.

    What are the employer’s employment verification obligations?

    The I-9 has two main parts: Section 1 is completed and signed by the employee attesting as to his/her status; and Section 2 is completed and signed by the employer and contains specific information about the documents examined to establish the employee’s identity and eligibility for employment. Employers can, but are not required, to copy the documents they examine.

    How are penalties determined?

    Monetary penalties are assessed for I-9 substantive and uncorrected technical violations.  The minimum penalty for each violation is $110, and the maximum is $1,100. Additionally, ICE has a Guide to Administrative Form I-9 Inspections (the Guide) which contains a matrix whereby a baseline penalty is calculated and can be aggravated or mitigated by other factors.

    Whether a violation is technical or substantive is also based on the seriousness of the error and whether or not it could have led to the hiring of an unauthorized alien. Technical or procedural errors are certain minor, unintentional violations such as failure of the employee to include his or her address and/or date of birth.  In the case of a technical violation, the employer must be given notice and ten business days to correct the error before it can be fined.

    The difference between a technical and substantive violation can mean a difference in how much employers pay in penalties.  To date, the INS Virtue Memorandum is by far the most helpful guide.

    Can ICE’s I-9 paperwork penalties be negotiated or litigated?

    Yes.   Although ICE has broad authority and discretion in deciding how to assess and negotiate penalties; its internal guidelines have no binding effect in OCAHO. If ICE’s proposed penalties are unreasonable or disproportionate considering the facts, and ICE will not negotiate a reasonable reduction in the penalties, the employer should consider requesting a hearing with OCAHO.

    What factors determine whether an employer is liable for the “knowing hire” or continuing to employ an unauthorized worker?

    In addition to I-9 paperwork violations, an employer could be liable for the knowing hire of unauthorized workers.  Under the regulations, “knowing” includes actual and constructive knowledge. Actual knowledge is established through evidence that the employer, or its agent, knew that the worker was not authorized to work.  When the evidence demonstrates an employer should have known that the worker was not authorized, constructive knowledge is inferred.

    Employers found to have knowingly employed an unauthorized worker may be fined, could be subject to cease and desist orders, be criminally prosecuted, and may be subject to debarment from federal contracts.

    If an employer fails to complete section 2 of Form I-9 but retains copies of the documents provided by the employee is the employer relieved from liability for a substantive paperwork violation?

    No.  I encounter this violation often when auditing I-9s.  The copying or keeping an electronic image of the document presented by an employee does not relieve the employer from the requirement to fully complete section 2 of the Form I-9. (8 C.F.R. 274a.2(b)(3), emphasis added).

    The future of the Form I-9?

    I-9 audits and fines are going to continue throughout 2013 and beyond.  In 2007, ICE conducted only 250 I-9 audits. The number has increased to 3,000 per year recently.

    More than $87 million in fines have been issued to employers for employment verification violations. Any company, regardless of geographic location, size, and composition of workforce or industry can be audited at any point in time.

    Taking proactive steps by providing attorney-led training and auditing can not only save an employer significant amount of money and time but it can also help to avoid bad publicity and additional compliance responsibilities.  Auditing, correcting and evaluating a potential penalty is complicated … Start now to protect your business!


    To discuss this topic further or learn more about how an Electronic I-9 compliance & E-Verify system can help you meet federal and state law requirements, please call 877-725-4355 or click here. Our electronic I-9 experts and trusted attorney partners will be happy to address your unique I-9 and E-Verify challenges.

    This article originally appeared on LawLogix Group Inc. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Giselle Carson is a Shareholder at Marks Gray, P.A. and practices in the area of U.S. and global immigration, corporate and business law, and civil litigation.  She current serves as the International Chair for the Jax Regional Chamber of Commerce.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM