Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: OCAHO Rejects Employer’s Unique Defense to Form I-9 Violations. By Bruce Buchanan

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: OCAHO Rejects Employer’s Unique Defense to Form I-9 Violations. By Bruce Buchanan

    OCAHO Rejects Employer’s Unique Defense to Form I-9 Violations

    by


    The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), in United States v. Buffalo Transportation, Inc. (October 2015), found Buffalo Transportation, Inc. (BTI) committed over 100 Form I-9 violations and rejected a unique defense raised by BTI. However, OCAHO reduced the proposed penalties from about $110,000 to $75,600.

    ICE’s Findings of Violations

    After service of a Notice of Inspection (NOI), Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determined BTI had a 100% error rate on its 139 Forms I-9. Specifically, ICE alleged BTI failed to prepare or present 84 I-9 forms and failed to timely prepare I-9 forms for 54 employees. ICE based its proposed $109,675 penalty on a baseline amount of $935 minus 5% mitigation for each of these factors - small size of the employer, lack of bad faith, absence of undocumented workers, and no history of prior violations. ICE then enhanced the baseline amount by 5% to account for the seriousness of the violations. As a result, the assessed penalty for 100% violations was set at $794.25 per violation. To my knowledge, this is the first time that ICE mitigated a proposed penalty for absence of undocumented workers. Usually, this is considered a neutral factor.

    Employer’s Affirmative Defenses

    After requesting a hearing with OCAHO and receiving a formal complaint from ICE, BTI raised seven affirmative defenses, all of which OCAHO found had no basis under the law. The most unique defense was that ICE should be estopped from assessing fines from the 138 substantive violations because it waived its right to do so by failing to reference these employees in the previously served “Notice of Technical or Procedural Failures” on BTI. OCAHO did not find this defense applicable because the “Notice of Technical or Procedural Failures” contained a provision stating “Additional failures to meet the employment verification requirements of section 274A(b) of the INA may have been discovered. These failures are not included in this notification and may result in the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Fine.” (NIF)

    Substantive v. Technical Errors

    OCAHO stated there is a distinction between substantive paperwork violations and technical violations, which can be corrected to avoid fines. When ICE found six technical errors, it issued the Notice of Technical or Procedural Failures, which included the language quoted above regarding ICE’s ability to issue a NIF based on additional I-9 failures. The basic reason why the Notice of Technical Failures is issued first is because if the technical errors are not corrected, then they become substantive errors.

    OCAHO concluded ICE followed the law in first issuing the Technical Errors notice and later the NIF. BTI failed to provide any support for this position in OCAHO case law, relevant statutes or pertinent regulations. Therefore, ICE did not violate BTI’s due process rights and BTI failed to establish its estoppel defense.

    Retention of I-9s – How long?

    BTI also argued that it was not required to retain five of the I-9 forms in question for former employees, because it was beyond the retention period. The retention period is “three years after the date of hire or one year after the date the individual’s employment is terminated, whichever is later.”

    In this case, the date of inspection was August 28, 2013, thus, this was the date to apply in the retention period test. BTI was successful in arguing it did not need to retain I-9 for three former employees. It should be noted BTI did not have any I-9 forms for the three employees in question; if it had, ICE could have audited those I-9 forms and reviewed them for substantive or technical errors.

    ICE’s Conclusions and Penalties

    OCAHO found BTI did not rebut any of the violations; therefore it found 135 violations. BTI asserted its violations of failing to prepare or present I-9 forms for numerous employees was not a serious violation. OCAHO case law has repeatedly stated these are serious violations. Therefore, the 5% penalty aggravation was justified under the law.

    Despite the numerous serious substantive violations, OCAHO determined that a civil penalty of $794.75 for each violation was too high because penalties in this range are reserved for the “most serious and egregious violations.” OCAHO determined that 81 violations for failure to prepare I-9 forms was more serious than the 54 instances when BTI did not timely complete the I-9 forms within three days of hire. Thus, OCAHO assessed the failure to prepare the I-9 forms at $600 per violation and the other violations at $500 each. Accordingly, the total penalties were $75,600.

    Takeaway

    Even though BTI was only successful in removing three violations, it was successful in reducing the penalties by about 30 percent. This is another instance which reflects the success in litigating I-9 form penalties before OCAHO. Of course, this assumes the employer could not persuade ICE to lower the fines sought in the NIF in order to resolve the case. Many times you can obtain a sizeable reduction in penalties in negotiations with ICE and avoid the cost of litigation. 

    This post originally appeared on LawLogix. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Bruce E. Buchanan is an Attorney at the Nashville and Atlanta Offices of Siskind Susser, P.C. He represents individuals and employers in all aspects of immigration law, with an emphasis on employer immigration compliance, as well as employers in employment/labor law matters. He is Past-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 also serves on the Board of Directors for the Nashville International Center for Empowerment (NICE) and the United Cerebral Palsy of Middle Tennessee and Middle Tennessee Seminole Club. He is an associate member of the Mid-Tennessee Chapter of the Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC).


    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