May 24, 2012

I-9 Compliance Revisited

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) audited the I-9 records of 2,400 employers in fiscal year 2011, double the number audited two years ago. The Wall Street Journal reported that in the past few weeks ICE has sent 500 Notices of Inspection to employers.
 
A recent case, US v. Alyn Industries, Inc., decided by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), provides some useful information for employers concerned about their I-9s. The timing of ICE’s activities is also worth noting.

Alyn Industries received a Notice of Inspection (NOI) of its I-9s in July, and attempted to fix 1-9 problems before ICE arrived.  Important note: an NOI provides the employer with 72 hours’ notice that ICE is coming to inspect its I-9s, but an employer’s I-9s should be in order before the NOI arrives.  The Alyn Industries decision states that corrections after the NOI arrives, but before the actual inspection occurs, will not avoid fines.  Therefore, it is advisable to schedule an internal I-9 audit annually to ensure that, in the event of an inspection, your I-9s are ready to go.

Alyn Industries was also fined for its complete failure to prepare and/or present an I-9 form for two employees.  The lesson here: if an I-9 goes missing, complete a new one immediately - do not back-date.

The Company was also fined because an employee failed to complete Section 1 of the I-9.  The employer is responsible for being sure the employee completes Section 1 properly.  It is therefore critical to review diligently what the employee writes in Section 1 of the I-9, to point out any missing information, and request the employee to complete Section 1 fully.  While this defect was deemed serious, it was not considered to be as serious as the employer’s failure to complete or sign Section 2 of the I-9. 

Failure to provide sufficient information on an I-9 is known as a paperwork violation.  These errors are assessed in accordance with certain statutory parameters, and range from $110 to $1,100 per violation. OCAHO considered the following factors in reviewing the $63,767 fine in this case: 

  • size of the employer’s business
  • good faith of the employer
  • seriousness of the violation(s)
  • whether the employees involved were employment authorized or not
  • a history of any previous violations by the employer. 

 

To summarize: NOIs are increasing.  ICE looks dimly on corrections occurring after the NOI is received by the employer but before the inspection 72 hours later, and an employer is liable for an employee’s failure to complete Section 1.  The good news in this case is that the employer’s fine was reduced from $63,676 to $43,000. However, legal fees and expenses surely added considerably to that employer’s ultimate cost.  Most importantly, no fine would have been assessed if the employer’s I-9s were complete and correct when the NOI was first received.

As the Alyn Industries case reminds us, prudent employers should review their I-9s at least annually.   

© 2012 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Of Counsel

Jennifer’s practice includes a broad range of immigration and labor and employment matters. She is a multi-lingual attorney able to handle all immigration matters, including H-1B visas, L-1A, L-1B, and H visas, J-1 visas, E-1, E-2, and Australian E-3 visas, F visas and the OPT period option, O visas, TN visas, pre-PERM and PERM labor certifications, permanent resident, investor-, employment-, and family-based visa petitions, deportation and political asylum cases, and naturalization matters.

After completing law school, Jennifer received a number of Immigration Law...

919-783-2955

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

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.