Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration – Potential Problems in I-9 Compliance. By Bruce Buchanan

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration – Potential Problems in I-9 Compliance. By Bruce Buchanan

    Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration – Potential Problems in I-9 Compliance

    by


    Although most individuals and immigration lawyers, study President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration to determine what individuals will be eligible for relief, we need to think about potential I-9 compliance issues which may arise with millions of individuals receiving employment authorization documents (EADs) for the first time through expanded DACA and the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program.

    The largest potential issue is where a current employee receives an EAD but previously he provided fraudulent documentation, such as a fraudulent permanent resident card, EAD, or Social Security card, to his employer.  That employee then presents a new and valid EAD to the HR manager and confides the prior documentation was fraudulent. What should an employer do in this situation? Much depends on your company’s policy on presenting fraudulent documents or lying on a company or government document.

    There are several options. The first is to accept the new EAD, have a new I-9 form filled out and attach the old I-9 form to the new one with an explanation of the circumstances of completing the new I-9 form. If your company has a policy or practice of copying the underlying documentation, or is required to under state law, the new EAD should be copied. This option should only be utilized if your company does not have a policy or practice of automatic termination for presenting fraudulent documents or lying on a company or government document.

    A second option is to inform the employee that your company has a policy prohibiting employment of employees who have presented fraudulent documents or lied on a company document. Thus, the employee is going to be terminated. However, if the company does not have a policy prohibiting their re-hire, the company may offer to re-hire the employee and fill out a new I-9 form with an explanation of the circumstances.        

    The third option is to inform the employee that your company has a policy prohibiting employment of employees who have presented fraudulent documents or lied on a company or government document and that employee is not eligible for rehire. Thus, the employee must be terminated without a chance of rehire. This action is particularly harsh but may be the only way for an employer to go if it wants to remain consistent with its policy.

    The option that a company chooses will be dictated by your company’s policy and practice. If you don’t have a policy concerning employment of employees who have presented fraudulent documents or lied on a company document, it is time to start thinking about getting one. Consult with a qualified immigration compliance attorney to develop an I-9 policy that addresses these matters and best practices.

    A second concern is a reminder on how employers should treat EADs.  For some employers, the EAD may be a document that they rarely see.  The four largest groups who receive an EAD are individuals on TPS or OPT, asylees (for the first year of asylum), and individuals who have pending adjustment of status cases.  Thus, it is important to remember several things about an EAD.

    First, it is a List A document, if it has a photograph on it. Thus, one should not ask for a driver's license or Social Security card to accompany the EAD card.  Second, in Section 1, the employee must list the expiration date of the EAD and their A number or I-94 Admission number next to the box - “Alien authorized to work”  

    Additionally, EADs expire within two years of the issuance.  Thus, employers should have a tickler system to remind employees, at least 120 days before an EAD’s expiration, of their need to renew their work authorization or provide other documentation concerning their work authorization. (Employees who received EADs during their adjustment of status process will likely have a permanent resident card or can provide an unrestricted social security card.)

    If you keep these points in mind, you will have less I-9 compliance issues, at least as it relates to EADs.

    ***

    Bruce E. Buchanan is an attorney at the Nashville and Atlanta offices of Siskind Susser, P.C., where he primarily represents employers in all aspects of immigration law, with a special emphasis on employer immigration compliance, as well as employment/labor law matters.  Mr. Buchanan received his law degree from the Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1982. He served as senior trial specialist for the National Labor Relations Board for 20 years before going into private practice in 2003.  Mr. Buchanan has also served from 1991 to 2003 as Adjunct Professor at William H. Bowen UALR School of Law.

    Mr. Buchanan is a guest blogger on employer immigration compliance issues for LawLogix, located at http://www.lawlogix.com/blog?type=Electronic%20I-9 and writes a blog or article on similar issues for ilw.com, located at www.EmployerImmigration.com, and HR Professionals Magazine. He is also the editor of the Tennessee Bar Association's Immigration Law Section Newsletter and Labor & Employment Law Newsletter.   

    Mr. Buchanan is Chair of the TBA's Immigration Law Section. He serves on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s National Verification Liaison Committee. Mr. Buchanan also serves on the Board of Directors of the United Cerebral Palsy of Middle Tennessee. He is a member of the Middle Tennessee Chapter of SHRM, SHRM – Atlanta, and the Associated General Contractors – Middle Tennessee Branch. 

    This post originally appeared on LawLogix on December 16, 2014. Reprinted with permission


    About The Author

    Bruce E. Buchanan

    Bruce E. Buchanan is an attorney at the Nashville Office of Siskind Susser, P.C. He represents individuals and employers in all aspects of immigration law, with an emphasis on immigration compliance for employers, and employment/labor law. Mr. Buchanan received his law degree from the Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1982 and a B.S. degree from Florida State University, where he graduated magna cum laude. Mr. Buchanan has been in private practice since 2003. Beforehand, he served as Senior Trial Specialist for the National Labor Relations Board for 20 years. He also served from 1991 to 2003 as Adjunct Professor at William H. Bowen UALR School of Law, where he taught courses in Labor Law and Employment Law. Mr. Buchanan was chair of the Tennessee Bar Association's Immigration Law Section from 2011 to 2012 and has been the editor of the TBA's Immigration Law Section Newsletter and the TBA's Labor and Employment Law Section Newsletter since 2009. Mr. Buchanan is a frequent writer and speaker on immigration compliance as well as labor law, wage & hour law and proposed federal legislation. He is a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and serves as the Advocacy Liaison of the Mid-South Chapter of AILA. Mr. Buchanan also serves on the Board of Directors for the Nashville International Center for Empowerment (NICE) and is an associate member of the Mid-Tennessee Chapter of the Associated Builders & Contractors. Mr. Buchanan is admitted to practice in Tennessee, Florida, and Arkansas, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits and the U.S. District Courts for the Middle District of Tennessee and the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

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

      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.
      ImmigrationDaily

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

      by


      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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    Working...
    X