May 23, 2012

Failure to Complete I-9 within 3 Days is "Substantive" Violation

Gregory P. Adams
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Administrative & Regulatory / Immigration / Labor & Employment
All Federal / All International
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Download PDF
Reprints & Permissions

A recent decision issued by the Department of Justice's Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Office ("OCAHO"), found that an employer's failure to complete Section 2 of the I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) form within three business days was a "substantive" rather than technical/procedural violation. This is an significant change that could result in employers facing increased fines. In an audit, an employer has the opportunity to request 10 days to correct "technical/procedural" errors and avoid I-9 fines and penalties. An employer does not have the opportunity to correct "substantive" violations. Click here to read the OCAHO decision.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Gregory P. Adams
Partner

Gregory P. Adams is a Partner in the Corporate Department and Chair of the Immigration Practice Group. Greg concentrates his practice on U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law. He counsels domestic and international businesses, educational institutions, and not-for-profit entities regarding temporary and permanent business-, employment-, and investment-related U.S. visas. He has represented high tech (Route 128/495) clients on immigration cases for two decades, including development of immigration policies and the architecture and procedures for handling large volumes of cases. Greg also...

gregory.adams@dinsmore.com
513-977-8125
www.dinsmore.com

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.