Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Another Employer Fined Millions for Immigration Violations

In keeping with the recent trend, ABC Professional Tree Services, Inc. (ABC) has become yet another company to hand over an exorbitant amount of money to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration violations. ABC recently agreed to pay $2 million in forfeited funds to DHS following an investigation revealing that 30% of its workforce was undocumented. The $2 million reflects the amount of revenue gleaned from the services provided by ABC’s undocumented workers from 2006 to 2011. The company chose to pay the forfeited funds and adhere to revised immigration compliance procedures so as to avoid criminal prosecution.

ABC, a business that provides vegetation management across the United States, was initially investigated in 2008, after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents received complaints that many of the company’s employees were undocumented. The agents conducted traffic stops on ABC crews, detained employees who were determined to be unlawfully present, and reviewed I-9 forms for about 2,500 ABC employees. Those efforts revealed that a significant number of employees had presented invalid personal identification documents at the time of hire and that ABC had falsely attested on I-9s that the work authorization documents presented by new hires appeared genuine. Additionally, the company had consistently failed to take corrective action in response to “no-match” letters received from the Social Security Administration during the employment verification process.

Other companies (and executives) who have been fined by DHS or forfeited significant amounts of money this year include Atrium Companies ($2 million), Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI) ($2 million), HerbCo ($1 million), Sun Drywall and Stucco, Inc. ($225,000), LTCI Ltd. ($223,000), and J & J Industrial Supply ($150,000).

As evidenced by the examples above, ICE has maintained a focus over recent years targeting employers with fines and lawsuits, rather than going after undocumented workers themselves. Employers must therefore be vigilant with respect to immigration compliance and work verification practices. Although some companies have been guilty of intentional violations, the truth is that most are not. The I-9 requirements are complicated and confusing, and many employers find themselves in rapidly sinking quicksand when they thought everything was being handled correctly. It is for this reason that the assistance of immigration counsel, to both evaluate current procedures as well as help implement new ones, can prove invaluable.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Shareholder

William J. Flynn, III is the Practice Leader of the International Practice Group.  His practice includes a large immigration practice representing foreign nationals and U.S. corporations that employ foreign nationals. In this capacity, he represents clients before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of State.

813-222-1166

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.