Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

  • Articles RSS Feed

    Published on 08-09-2012 03:23 PM

    Bloggings on Immigration Law

    by Roger Algase

    Aug 08, 2012

    Published on 08-09-2012 03:22 PM

    Bloggings on Immigration Law and Policy

    by Greg Siskind

    August 08, 2012

    Published on 08-09-2012 03:20 PM

    ICE Re-Audits Employer, Alleged Knowing Hiring of Unauthorized Workers

    Ann Cun

    Imagine: immigration officers audit your company’s I-9 forms. Nine years later, the officers return to conduct a second audit and issues steep fines, in addition to charging your company with egregious, “knowingly hiring” violations. What to do?

    The latest decision released by the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) highlights a similar scenario. The decision reveals interesting points our readers may consider in their own I-9 processes.

    The Facts of the Case

    Associated Painters, Inc. (“API”), a private company based in Washington, received an audit of its I-9 Forms in October 2000. As a result of that audit, the government identified roughly 34 employees whose Section 1 information could not be verified. About a month later, the owner of API “released” the 34 employees. The owner also provided the government with a signed attestation promising the company would reverify any employee from that list of 34 should any of them seek re-employment with API.

    July of 2009, ICE revisited API and conducted a second I-9 audit. ICE subsequently found API rehired three employees from the original list of “34 employees” that were “released” back in 2000. The three employees used the same identifying information as in 2000, which led ICE to allege that API knowingly hired unauthorized workers. ICE issued a Notice of Fine. API requested a hearing on July 2010 with OCAHO challenging that particular allegation.

    Interesting Perspective from the Court

    This case wasn’t an issue of whether API had hired unauthorized workers but rather, whether API had known that the three employees it had re-hired over the course of nine years were unauthorized to work and then went ahead and hired them anyway. The actual knowledge (even constructive knowledge) of the fact that a worker is not authorized to work can get employers stiffer fines for violating immigration laws.

    In this case, Judge Thomas reviewed all of the facts that were in the record and arguments from both sides. API reasoned that it shouldn’t be held to the “knowingly hired” standard but rather, a lower standard of “negligence.” It argued that the following facts:

    • The company had a decentralized method of keeping records
    • The re-hiring of the three workers occurred in 2004, 2008 and 2008 (respectively)
    • Read More Read More
    Published on 08-08-2012 04:01 PM

    Bloggings on Nurse and Allied Health Immigration

    Chris Musillo

    August 07, 2012

    Published on 08-08-2012 03:46 PM

    Bloggings on Immigration Law and Policy

    by Greg Siskind

    August 07, 2012

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: