On Saturday, September 22, 2018, the Trump administration announced the upcoming publication of a proposed rule designed to redefine a status known as “public charge” — a category used to determine whether someone seeking permanent resident status is “likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” for those seeking to immigrate to the United States. This rule was signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on September 21, 2018 and will open for comment on the date of the official version’s publication in the Federal Register. As per past practices, the comment period should last for 60 days from the date of publication.

The 400 page rule expands greatly on how the government proposes to enforce a determination that a foreign national who is seeking a U.S. immigration benefit is or is likely to become a “Public Charge”, which means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense. Specifically, under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card) is inadmissible if the individual, “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings. If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted. (Note that there are many exceptions in which a public charge finding would not apply, including but not limited to: Refugees and Asylees, those who are victims of violence (VAWA), Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ), Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants, Amerasians, Afghan/Iraqi interpreters or U.S. Government employees, Cuban Adjustment Act applicants, NACARA applicants, etc.)

Currently, there is no formal definition of a public charge, but DHS states that “A number of factors must be considered when making a determination that a person is likely to become a public charge”. The proposed new rule would define a public charge as “an alien who receives one or more public benefits.” In the past, people have been at risk of being defined a “public charge” if they took cash welfare — known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Supplemental Security Income — or federal help paying for long-term care. (Immigrants must be in the country legally for five years before being eligible for TANF or SSI.) The new rule would expand the list to include some health insurance, food and housing programs. Specifically, it would penalize green-card applicants for using Medicaid under certain conditions, using food stamps, Section 8 rental assistance, federal housing vouchers and even enrollment in a Medicare Part D program subsidy.

Specifically, pages 95-96 of the proposed Rule lists the following that would be considered Public Benefits:
· Monetizable benefits: – Any Federal, State, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, including: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Federal, State or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the State context, but which may exist under other names);
– Benefits that can be monetized in accordance with proposed 8 CFR 212.24:
· Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or formerly called “Food Stamps”),
· Public housing defined as Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program;
· Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate Rehabilitation); and
· Non-cash benefits that cannot be monetized:
– Many Benefits paid for by Medicaid;
– Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Part D; Benefits provided for institutionalization for long-term care at government expense;
– Subsidized Housing under the Housing Act of 1937.

While public charge is an old idea dating back to the 1990s, the proposed changes are unprecedented. Including programs like Medicaid and food stamps, which are much wider in scope, is a significant change.

In the past, DHS has been forgiving regarding the issuance of immigration benefits if someone had obtained government benefits in the past, so long the individual can prove that he or she is not likely to become a public charge in the future. Under the proposed rule as currently envisioned, it is clear that DHS will not be forgiving now looking at multiple factors including age, health, and past employment history, and, most importantly, receipt of past public benefits.

If implemented as contemplated, DHS will look back within a 36 month period of receipt of government benefits in making their decision on admissibility. Immigrants are encouraged to reexamine any currently public benefits that he/she is currently receiving to determine whether in the upcoming months it will be necessary to drop-out of these public benefit programs once the new public charge rule formally goes into effect.

DHS estimates that 2.5 percent of eligible immigrants would drop out of public benefits programs because of this change — which would tally about $1.5 billion worth of federal money per year, but others expect a much larger impact, including a chilling effect on the use of routine health benefits, particularly for children. In the proposed rule, DHS itself notes that the changes could result in “worse health outcomes,” “increased use of emergency rooms,” “increased prevalence of communicable diseases,” “increased rates of poverty” and other concerns.

Fear of being deemed a public charge and being unable to attain lawful permanent residency, and ultimately U.S. Citizenship will necessarily result in a detriment to low-income immigrant populations and eventually, the separation of families.

This is an early step in the complex federal rule-making process and many things could still change. Once the proposed rule appears in the Federal Register, it opens a 60-day public comment period allowing members of the public to provide input. As such, a final rule is unlikely to take effect before 2019.

We recommend that any immigrant, regardless of immigration status, who has previously received a public assistance benefit in the past for themselves, or immediate family members, should contact an immigration attorney for evaluation of their case.

Fox Rothschild immigration attorney, Kristen Schneck will be speaking on this topic as a panelist on Oct 24th, at the DHS Advisory Committee meeting to be held in Pittsburgh hosted by the Allegheny Dept. of Human Services.

Fox Rothschild will continue to monitor and report on activity regarding these rule making efforts. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will publish a series of blog posts with more details and updated regarding the Public Charge proposed rule. As always, please refer to ImmigrationView for the latest information on topics of importance in the immigration law practice.
For questions or more information about this alert, please contact Mark Harley at (412) 391-2418 or mharley@foxrothschild.com, Alka Bahal at (973) 994-7800 or abahal@foxrothschild.com or any member of the firm’s Immigration Practice

 

 

President Trump signed a bill today, H.R. 6157, with a short-term continuing resolution (CR) preventing a government shutdown and extending certain programs, including the EB-5 Regional Center Program, through December 7, 2018.  Without the CR, the EB-5 Regional Center Program would have expired on September 30, 2018.  The CR extends the EB-5 Regional Center Program without any changes.  The spending bill includes funding for the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor.  We continue to closely follow activity on Capitol Hill as efforts towards EB-5 reform continue.

In our continuing series of reports, Charles (“Charlie”) Oppenheim, Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State, shares his most recent analysis of current trends and future projections for the various immigrant preference categories with AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association).

Below are highlights from the most recent “check-in with Charlie” (September 13, 2018), reflecting his analysis of current trends and future projections for the various immigrant preference categories.

This month, Charlie comments on the close of this fiscal year and the recovery in certain categories at the start of FY2019, provides his predictions on final action date movement in the coming months, and answers questions from the public.

Check-in with DOS’s Charlie Oppenheim: September 13, 2018

On September 14, 2018, USCIS announced that it would accept adjustment of status applications based on the “Dates for Filing” chart for both family-based and employment-based cases.  Since Charlie sets the “Dates for Filing” based on where he expects the final action dates will be in the next 8 to 12 months, these charts are also helpful in understanding how far the final action dates are likely to advance in the near term.

Family-Based Preference Categories

Since most family-based cases are processed at Embassies/Consulates, Charlie’s visibility into family-based demand is good, which avoids dramatic fluctuations in the final action dates.  These categories are expected to advance modestly or hold steady, except Mexico.  Given lower than anticipated demand members may see the Mexico family-based categories move more rapidly than normal.  Demand from China continues to be relatively low, whereas India demand has rebounded over the past year.

Employment-Based Preference Categories

EB-1:  For October, EB-1 Worldwide along with all other countries except China and India, advances ten months to April 1, 2017.  Charlie remains pessimistic that the EB-1 Worldwide final action date will advance before the end of this calendar year.  He forecloses the possibility of advancement in November and is pessimistic that there will be advancement in December but notes that there will be some forward movement in all EB-1 categories after the beginning of 2019.  Demand is sufficiently high that Charlie is unable to predict at this time whether this category will become current in FY 2019.  Charlie does not expect any advancement of EB-1 China or EB-1 India before January 2019 and believes it is “almost guaranteed” that both categories will be subject to a final action date through the fiscal year.

EB-2 and EB-3 Worldwide:  As previously predicted, EB-2 Worldwide and EB-3 Worldwide will return to current in October and will remain current for the foreseeable future and well into the next calendar year.  Charlie has not seen expected growth in EB-3 Worldwide.

EB-2 China and EB-3 China:  While EB-2 China recovers to April 1, 2015 in October, it will not surpass the EB-3 China final action date, which advances to June 1, 2015.  It is unclear whether EB-3 China’s two-month lead will be significant enough to spur downgrade demand.  If there are not as many downgrades, EB-3 China could advance more rapidly than expected.  Charlie has no visibility into EB-3 China “downgrade” demand until a visa number is requested, so this category may move modestly to avoid future retrogression.

EB-2 India and EB-3 India:  EB-2 India advances to March 26, 2009 in October, with EB-3 India trailing behind by less than three months at January 1, 2009.  Based on the dates for filing and depending on the level of demand in each of these categories, it is possible that EB-3 India may surpass EB-2 India at some point this fiscal year.

EB-3 Philippines and Other Workers Philippines:  As predicted, EB-3 Philippines and Other Workers Philippines will recover to June 1, 2017 in October. Nnly minimal movement during the first quarter of the fiscal year is expected.

EB-4:  As predicted, EB-4 Mexico will fully recover in October to its June Visa Bulletin date of October 22, 2016, EB-4 India will return to current, and EB-4 El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras remain at February 15, 2016 in October.  There will be forward movement in EB-4 El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras this fiscal year, but anything more than minimal movement is unlikely in Q1.  Due to visibility into preadjudicated cases filed prior to the imposition of a final action date in May 2016, as well as potential future demand by cases with old priority dates, Charlie is moving this category conservatively to avoid a future retrogression.

EB-4 India:  It is expected that this category will be subject to a final action date again, but that will not likely happen until late in the fiscal year.

EB-5 Non-Regional Center:  for China and Vietnam will advance to August 15, 2014 and January 1, 2016 respectively in October.

EB-5 China:  Demand remains high, so members should not expect much movement in this category throughout the fiscal year.  EB-5 Vietnam, in contrast, is likely to advance modestly early in the fiscal year until it reaches its per country limit, at which time, its final action date will track EB-5 China.

Expiration of Two Visa Categories

Unless reauthorized by Congress, the EB-4 Religious Worker and EB-5 (I5 and R5) categories will be unavailable after September 30, 2018.  If Congress reauthorizes these programs, the EB-4 Religious Worker category will become current in October, except EB-4 El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras which will have a final action date of February 15, 2016 and EB-4 Mexico, which will have an October 22, 2016 final action date.  If reauthorized, EB-5 Worldwide (I5 and R5) would become current, with EB-5 China (I5 and R5) subject to an August 15, 2014 final action date, and EB-5 Vietnam (I5 and R5) subject to a January 1, 2016 final action date.

QUESTION:  USCIS data from July 2018 indicates that there are only 473 pending applications for EB-3 India.  USCIS notes that this is for service centers only and doesn’t include field offices.  The number of EB-3 China cases is 161.  Do these numbers track to the information DOS is receiving from USCIS about pending demand?

CHARLIE’S RESPONSE: As these are USCIS statistics, I would suggest that you pose your question to USCIS.  However, I am told that the Service Centers have dramatically reduced their inventories as pending adjustment cases which were filed years ago have become current and were approved, and new cases are now being sent to field offices via the National Benefits Center (NBC).  If I were to speculate, the numbers posted likely represent only India and China cases that were pending and subject to a priority backlog on March 6, 2017, when USCIS started sending new cases to the NBC.  Therefore, it should be expected that the number of cases at the NBC and the field offices far exceeds those which remain at the Service Centers.

QUESTION: Can you explain why sometimes final action dates are the same for different countries in a certain preference category and why sometimes they are different?

CHARLIE’S RESPONSE: Whenever the total number of documentarily qualified applicants for an individual country or category exceeds the supply of numbers available for a particular month, it is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a final action date is established.  The final action date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who cannot be accommodated for a visa number.  For example, if the monthly allocation target for the China and India EB-2 preference categories were 250, and each country had demand in excess of 500, a final action date would be established so that only 250 numbers would be allocated.  In this case, the final action date for each country would be the priority date of the 251st applicant.  That date could be widely different based on EB-2 demand patterns for each country.

QUESTION: Using the EB-1 patterns we have observed over the past couple of years as an example, can you explain how “otherwise unused” numbers are allocated?

CHARLIE’S RESPONSE: Section 202(e) of the INA says that if there are “otherwise unused” employment numbers under the respective Worldwide preference limit, such numbers may be made available to those countries which have already reached the per-country preference limit.  In the past, EB-1 has been listed as “Current” for all countries for at least the first six months of each fiscal year because the worldwide level of demand at that time was insufficient to use all numbers available under the annual limit.  However, the “otherwise unused” numbers situation is constantly monitored, and subsequent changes in demand patterns can negatively impact the availability of future numbers to countries which had previously benefitted from their use.  Such increases in EB-1 Worldwide demand later in the year have eventually required the imposition of a final action date for EB-1 China and India to allow other countries that had not yet reached the per-country limit to remain “Current.”  Any remaining unused numbers are then made available strictly in priority date order without regard to country, and a single date would be applied.  That has been the case in past years when it has been necessary to apply a final action date to govern the use of a more limited amount of unused numbers (or none) available for use by China and India EB-1 applicants.  This is the reason why the October China and India EB-1 date is earlier than the Worldwide date, with both being required to govern number use within the overall annual limit.

You may access the September 2018 Visa Bulletin here and the October 2018 Visa Bulletin here.

___________________________

Alka Bahal is a Partner and the Co-Chair of the Immigration Practice of Fox Rothschild LLP, specializing in corporate immigration law and compliance.  Alka is situated in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though she practices throughout the United States and at Consulates worldwide.  You can reach Alka at (973) 994-7800, or abahal@foxrothschild.com.http://www.foxrothschild.com/alka-bahal/

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that the filing fee for premium processing will increase from $1,225 to $1,410, beginning on October 1, 2018.  According to USCIS, this 15% increase in price is in step with inflation since DHS last adjusted premium processing rates in 2010 and will allow USCIS to more effectively adjudicate petitions and maintain service to petitioners.  The new rule was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2018.

Premium processing is an optional expediting service that is currently authorized for certain employment-based petitioners filing Forms I-129 or I-140.  The premium processing fee is paid in addition to the base filing fee and any other applicable fees, which cannot be waived.  Under premium processing, USCIS has 15 days to process these specific types of employment-based immigration benefit requests.  Without premium processing, adjudication can take upwards of 4 months.

“Because premium processing fees have not been adjusted since 2010, our ability to improve the adjudications and service processes for all petitioners has been hindered as we’ve experienced significantly higher demand for immigration benefits.  Ultimately, adjusting the premium processing fee will allow us to continue making necessary investments in staff and technology to administer various immigration benefit requests more effectively and efficiently,” said Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore.  “USCIS will continue adjudicating all petitions on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet all standards required under applicable law, policies, and regulations.”

Premium processing is available for certain employment based nonimmigrant visas, including H-1Bs, L-1s, O-1s and Ps, as well as some employment base permanent residency categories.  Earlier this year, USCIS suspended premium processing for all H-1B petitions subject to the annual quota on H-1 visas (i.e. “cap cases”).  This suspension was initially slated to end on September 10, 2018, but USCIS has now pushed that date back to February 19, 2019.  Additionally, USCIS also announced that, as of September 11, 2018, it will expand the suspension to include H-1B petitions seeking to amend existing H-1B status, to request a change of employer, or to change status.  Only H-1B petitions seeking an extension of status (with no change in circumstances or employer) or H-1B petitions filed under the H-1B Cap Exemption will be able to file under premium processing beginning September 10, 2018.  In the absence of premium processing, USCIS may take four to six months (or longer) to complete the processing of an H-1B petition.

Employers and employees alike will have to take into consideration the impact of processing times and increased fees when planning to file nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions.  The unavailability of premium processing can impact the timing of employment and prolong restrictions on international travel.

___________________________

Alka Bahal is a Partner and the Co-Chair of the Immigration Practice of Fox Rothschild LLP, specializing in corporate immigration law and compliance.  Alka is situated in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though she practices throughout the United States and at Consulates worldwide.  You can reach Alka at (973) 994-7800, or abahal@foxrothschild.com.

On May 21, 2018, I posted a blog regarding the then Proposed USCIS Policy Change for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants and Unlawful Presence implications.  On August 9, 2018, USCIS issued a revised final policy memorandum, effective that day.  USCIS made changes to its proposed policy after considering feedback the agency received during the public comment period mentioned in the prior blog post.

Effective August 9, 2018 (last Thursday), F and M nonimmigrants who timely file for reinstatement of status with USCIS after falling out of status will have the accrual of unlawful presence suspended while their application for reinstatement is pending.  The reinstatement application is considered timely if filed within a five month window of the student falling out of status. If the reinstatement is ultimately denied, unlawful presence will start accruing on the day after the denial.

J nonimmigrant reinstatement requests are administered by the Department of State (DOS) and if the J-1 reinstatement applicant’s request is approved, unlawful presence will not accrue.  Likewise, Unlawful Presence would start to accrue in the instance of a denial, although DOS has not weighed in at this time as to when it will begin to accrue.

USCIS will host a stakeholder meeting on August 23rd.  Please refer back to this blog as more information becomes available.

 

On August 3, 2018, the US District Judge for District of Columbia, John D. Bates, ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore the DACA program. In the decision, the court stated, “The Court therefore reaffirms its conclusion that DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.” In addition, the court also denied the government’s motion to reconsider, stating that “The Court has already once given DHS the opportunity to remedy these deficiencies—either by providing a coherent explanation of its legal opinion or by reissuing its decision for bona fide policy reasons that would preclude judicial review—so it will not do so again.” However, the judge delayed the order until August 23, 2018 to allow the government to determine whether it will appeal the court’s decision.

The August 3rd decision will not make any new changes to the DACA program. It is still being implemented on the terms of the prior court rulings. USCIS is still accepting and processing DACA Renewal applications who have previously been approved for DACA as a result of the two nationwide injunctions issued in California and New York earlier this year. USCIS is still not accepting the new or initial applications for the first time.

Considering the pending litigation, the American Immigration Lawyer Association recommends the eligible DACA recipients who would like to renew their DACA to consult with an attorney and submit their DACA renewal application as soon as possible.

ICE workplace audits are on the rise.  And if you didn’t know, the federal government and California are not harmonious in their views on immigration issues. That means that ICE raids on California employers are likely to continue, especially in target industries such as hospitality, construction, agriculture, tech, and manufacturing. And if you want to minimize your company’s exposure to massive fines and possible criminal prosecution, this issue should be on your radar.

One of the biggest traps of late seems to be the I-9 form.  Under federal law, all employers in the US are required to complete the I-9 in order to verify the identity and employment eligibility of new hires. Employers are required to have a completed I-9 on file for every employee. The employee must complete Section 1 of the I-9 at the time of hire (and absolutely not before acceptance of a job offer). The employer must complete Section 2 of the I-9 within three business days of the hire date. I-9s must be retained for three years after the date of hire, or one year after the date employment ends, whichever is later.  Failure to abide by these rules can lead to very severe penalties and fines.

When ICE wants to examine your workforce, it provides a Notice of Inspection that gives you just three days to get your I-9s and payroll records ready for review. Once that happens, it is very hard to fix any problems you may have. There just isn’t time and ICE has discretion to disregard any remediation efforts after the service of the NOI.

What can be wrong with an I-9, you ask?  Well if our audits of I-9s are indicative, close to 50% if not more usually have problems, including:

Hand with pen fills in a paper form us immigration visa
  • Incomplete, with information, signatures, and dates missing.
  • Incorrect information, such as a document for List B or C in the List A column.
  • Signatures that don’t match the names on the documents.
  • Blank Section 2 with the List A or B and C documents simply attached.
  • Documents that don’t match the names on the form.
  • Older or incorrect versions of the I-9 used.
  • And on and on and on….

The I-9 may look like a simple form, but it is not and can cost the employer significant cash in fines … and possible criminal prosecution!  So if the person completing your new hire paperwork isn’t skilled or trained on how to complete this form, chances are your I-9s are imperfect.  It is not uncommon when we perform I-9 audits to see the same mistake(s) repeated over the course of thousands of I-9s!  That means risk, and these days, big risk.

The other problem is that you can’t just ask specific employees to re-verify their status, for example if there is a rumor that the employee may be undocumented, because that can lead to claims of discrimination. Remember national origin and citizenship status are protected categories. So the only way to fix the I-9s is to audit all of them, fix all of the mistakes that you can, and do it before any audit or notice of inspection from a government agency.

Oh, and please do not audit without the attorney-client privilege protection. The last thing you want are emails indicating that your I-9s are wrong, or your employees are illegal, and you knew about it and didn’t fix it. Knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ undocumented workers is a crime. Employers are subject to criminal prosecution—yes, that means possible jail time.

What can employers do proactively to mitigate civil penalties and exposure to criminal prosecution?

  • #1!  Work with counsel to conduct a proactive internal audit.  Doing so before ICE arrives with a NOI is the most effective way of mitigating fines.
  • Ensure your HR representative(s) responsible for completing I-9s with new hires is well trained and savvy as to what they legally can and cannot say to the employee during the verification process.  Simply asking the employee to present a specific document in the course of completing the I-9 is unlawful.
  • Conduct regular training for HR personnel and team leaders/managers who interact with employees as to the do’s and don’t’s of communicating with employees.
  • Establish immigration compliance I-9 and/or E-Verify standard operating procedures—also used to show good faith compliance and a factor for mitigating fines.
  • If storing I-9s electronically, check with counsel to ensure you are storing them properly and in a way that is not further exposing the company to additional violations.
  • Streamline your company I-9 process so as to minimize room for error in delinquent completion of the I-9 or mistakes on dates of hire.
  • Establish a ‘tickler’ calendar reminder system to handle reverification for those employee’s with work authorization documents containing an expiration date.  Remember- the burden is on the employer to ensure their employees are work authorized during the entire period of employment.
  • Act sensibly:  employers should not be overzealous in their employment verification practices as this too may lead to claims of discrimination and/or retaliation.

This is budget planning season for many employers.  Our advice is to add an I-9 audit to your budget for 2019.

Flag of New Zealand waving on flagpole on blue sky backgroundThe highly desirable E-1 and E-2 visas are now available for nationals of New Zealand.  Earlier this week, the President signed into law S. 2245, the Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors Act (‘KIWI Act’), thereby granting E-1 and E-2 visa status to certain New Zealand applicants.  The KIWI Act provides for reciprocal treatment of US nationals.

This will allow New Zealand nationals the opportunity to pursue E-1 trade and E-2 investment in the United States, a benefit long enjoyed by neighboring Australians.  The E-1 and E-2 visa will offer New Zealanders enhanced access to facilitate overseas business and investment in the United States which is believed will strongly benefit the economies of both countries.

USCIS announced yesterday that it has returned all FY2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions that were not selected in the “lottery”.

 You may recall that between April 2-6, USCIS received 190,098 FY 2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions.  In May, USCIS completed its computer-generated random selection process for 20,000 US advanced degree petitions as well as the 65,000 remaining FY2019 spots. Many of these petitions were subject to requests for more evidence (RFEs).  Simple division indicates that for FY 2019, ~45% of the H-1B petitions were selected for processing, leaving ~55% (or 105,098 petitions) to be returned.

 After August 13, 2018, petitioners who timely filed their FY2019 cap-subject H-1B petitions but did not receive an I-797 Notice of Action acknowledging receipt nor their returned petition (with unused filing fees), may contact USCIS.

 To discuss this, or how to be prepared for the FY2020 cap season, please feel free to email or call Ms. Wadhwani or your Fox Rothschild contact.

Catherine Wadhwani is a partner and co-chair of the Immigration Practice Group at Fox Rothschild LLP. She may be reached at cwadhwani@foxrothschild.com.

Businesswomen filling paperwork for agreement
Copyright: bignai / 123RF Stock Photo

More than 5,200 businesses around the country have been served with I-9 inspection notices since January in a two-phase nationwide operation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in what appears to be the largest I-9 inspection action ICE has undertaken to date.

This latest round of workplace audits on employers clearly indicates that the I-9 inspection is now a top priority in U.S. immigration enforcement policy that targets employers rather than employees via the workplace raids of the past.

This alert outlines the current processes in place for I-9 inspections and includes practical advice on how to respond to an audit as well as steps to take now to ensure that your business is in compliance.

Notice of Inspection – NOI

The inspection process begins with HSI serving a Notice of Inspection (NOI) on an employer, which informs them that HSI will perform a comprehensive review of (i.e. audit) their hiring records (specifically Form I-9s and associated documents) to determine compliance with employment eligibility verification laws.  Upon receiving an NOI, an employer is required to produce the company’s I-9s within three business days, after which ICE will conduct an inspection for compliance.

In Phase I of the current operation, between Jan. 29 and March 30, 2018, HSI served 2,540 NOIs and made 61 arrests.  During Phase II, between July 16 and 20, HSI served 2,738 NOIs and made 32 arrests.

ICE is the federal agency responsible for upholding the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), a law designed to protect jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminate unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthen public safety and national security.

Under IRCA, employers are required to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals they hire, and to document that information using the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9. ICE/HSI uses the I-9 inspection program to promote compliance with the law, part of a comprehensive strategy to address and deter illegal employment. Inspections are one of the most powerful tools the federal government uses to ensure that businesses are complying with U.S. employment laws.

A ‘Culture of Compliance’

Derek N. Benner, Acting Executive Associate Director for HIS, stated: “Employers need to understand that the integrity of their employment records is just as important to the federal government as the integrity of their tax files and banking records.  All industries, regardless of size, location and type are expected to comply with the law.”

Benner contends that worksite enforcement “protects jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, eliminates unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and strengthen public safety and national security.”

HSI increased the number of I-9 audits, Benner said, to “create a culture of compliance among employers.”

All employers in the United States are required to have a Form I-9 on file for all employees to verify their identity and authorization to work in the United States. The law requires that employers execute this process upon hire of an employee, review and record the individual’s original, valid identity documents and determine whether those documents reasonably appear to be genuine and related to the individual.

HSI follows a detailed process when conducting a Form I-9 inspection.  Guidance on that process and the associated civil fine structure can be found here.  This guidance outlines ICE’s process for a Form I-9 inspection, the penalties for various related violations, and the factors ICE considers during the course of the inspection and in determining a fine, including mitigating or enhancing factors involved.

Civil Fines and Potential Prosecution

Employers determined not to be in compliance with the law face the likelihood of civil fines and could ultimately face criminal prosecution if it is determined that they were knowingly violating the law. All workers encountered during these investigations who are unauthorized to remain in the United States are subject to administrative arrest and removal from the country.

Failure to follow the law can result in criminal and civil penalties.  In FY17, businesses were ordered to pay $97.6 million in judicial forfeitures, fines, and restitution, and $7.8 million in civil fines, including one company whose financial penalties represented the largest payment ever levied in an immigration case.  (See our earlier post on this topic.)

Monetary penalties for substantive and uncorrected technical violations, errors that the layperson often view as ‘paperwork errors’ range from $220 to $2,200 per violation and penalties for knowingly hiring and continuing to employ violations range from $3,548 to $19,242 per violation. In determining penalty amounts, ICE imposes a higher fine rate on employers with a higher percentage of I-9s with violations and then considers five factors to either enhance or mitigate fine amounts: the size of the business, good faith effort to comply, seriousness of violation, whether the violation involved unauthorized workers and history of previous violations.

What To Do if the Government Wants to Inspect Your I-9s:

  • Call your immigration attorney immediately. The time period for responding to ICE is short and it is critical that documents submitted in response to the notice be well-organized and presented in the best light possible.
  • DO NOT submit any documents to ICE without seeking the advice of counsel.
  • DO NOT consent to an immediate inspection if agents show up without warning. You have up to three days to respond/submit documents.
  • DO NOT submit more than what is asked for (such as expired I-9s for former employees, payroll records listing employees not subject to the inspection, etc.)
  • DO NOT let agents take original records without permitting you to take copies
  • DO NOT allow officers to talk with any employees or company officers before you call your attorney.
  • If Department of Labor agents show up for an inspection without notice, decline the inspection. They will notify USCIS/ICE.
  • DO NOT panic and try to correct or otherwise repair your records without the assistance of qualified immigration counsel. Corrections made or new I-9s prepared after the issuance of an NOI are not accepted by ICE, and may create the appearance of bad faith.

The Tools of Protection

Employers that have not yet received an NOI should take immediate steps to protect against possible future violations.

Two key tools in ensuring IRCA compliance are private internal audits and specialized training. Employers should conduct private internal audits with the assistance of a qualified immigration professional to review I-9 documents and correct any errors in advance of an inspection. This type of periodic audit can not only uncover problems in time to be corrected before the imposition of sanctions, but can also demonstrate the employer’s good faith efforts to comply with IRCA’s verification requirements, a mitigating factor in ICE’s penalty determination process. Because private I-9 audits can be performed over time nd at the employer’s convenience, it is less arduous for a company than the three-day audit period forced by an inspection notice.

Many problems with I-9s stem from simple misunderstandings of the procedures and requirements. This can easily be rectified by having a qualified attorney train your personnel about proper procedures. Because the work environment and employee culture changes with some frequency, along with periodic legal changes impacting the I-9 process, refresher training courses for already “expert” personnel are also recommended.

Although employers can select from a variety of service providers to meet their I-9 audit and training needs, legal professionals with experience with immigration, employment and labor law are better equipped to handle IRCA compliance issues, including audits, training and formal inspections. Fox Rothschild provides companies of all sizes with IRCA compliance training seminars and confidential, internal I-9 audits.

___________________________

Alka Bahal is a Partner and the Co-Chair of the Immigration Practice of Fox Rothschild LLP, specializing in corporate immigration law and compliance.  Alka is situated in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though she practices throughout the United States and at Consulates worldwide.  You can reach Alka at (973) 994-7800, or abahal@foxrothschild.com.