Articles Posted in I-9

E-Verify, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States, has resumed operations following the temporary re-opening of the government. All E-Verify features and services are now available.  Employers who participate in E-Verify must create an E-Verify case by February 11, 2019 for each employee hired while E-Verify was unavailable.

Although E-Verify Form I-9 support representatives were unavailable during the government shutdown and E-Verify service was disrupted, employers were still required to complete and retain Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for every person hired for employment in the U.S. during that time, as long as the person works for wages or other remuneration.

Due to the large volume of accumulated cases, delayed processing times are expected. Longer than normal delays and response times for E-Verify Support requests are also expected.

I-9 and E-Verify compliance enthusiasts report a noteworthy trend in recent cases brought to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). Many of the recent cases in which OSC has reached settlements with employers for work authorization noncompliance were initiated by a referral from USCIS’s Verification Division Monitoring and Compliance Branch (M & C Branch).

The E-Verify Statute requires that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ensures the security of the E-Verify System. The authority to monitor and provide oversight is based on Section 404(d) of the E-Verify statute and the Memorandum of Understanding which E-Verify employers are required to enter into with DHS.

The M & C Branch describes their mission as overseeing the usage of E-Verify and detecting and reducing misuse with the responsibility of protecting the integrity of the E-Verify Program. In addition to acting as a customer service center for confused or novice E-Verify employer-participants, M & C Branch monitors E-Verify system usage to identify potentially noncompliant employer-participants.

On February 18, 2014, unofficial minutes were published from a November 19, 2013 meeting with USCIS and ICE regarding Form I-9. One of the most important matters discussed in the meeting was the inability of an employee to provide his or her I-94 number on the first day of employment due to technical issues within the CBP’s online I-94 system. USCIS rejected suggestions that would allow for employment without providing the I-94 number (e.g., implementing a procedure comparable to the Receipt Rule used in Section 2). USCIS stated that adopting such suggestions would constitute rulemaking. USCIS instead relied heavily on CBP’s statement that it neither has nor ever had glitches in its system. USCIS emphasized the regulation that if the employee’s I-94 number is required to complete Section 1 and the number is not known, then the employee cannot work for pay as the Form I-9 cannot be completed. This also means that the employer cannot open an E-Verify case for that individual.

A second important issue discussed was whether birth certificates issued by hospitals are acceptable List C documents. The Form I-9 Manual (M-274) reads that only birth certificates issued by government authorities are acceptable. USCIS’s I-9 Central guidance on the matter states that USCIS cannot comment on state law or whether a hospital may have the authority to issue birth certificates under that state law. USCIS was asked revise and clarify the guidance to recognize that state laws may have changed in the decades between birth certificate issuance and presentation to complete the Form I-9. USCIS refused this suggestion and in response repeated the I-9 Central guidance language on the issue.

In U.S. v. Occupational Resource Management, Inc., OCAHO addresses key issues in the adjudication of I-9 violations allegations, 10 OCAHO no. 1166 (2013). We discuss below two of these important matters and how they emphasize the importance of employers’ use of E-Verify.

1) Constructive knowledge

Federal regulations prohibit hiring a foreign national worker knowing that he or she is unauthorized to work in the United States. Regulations define “knowing” as including both actual and constructive knowledge. However, OCAHO admits in Occupational Resource Management (ORM), that its “case law respecting constructive knowledge has not been fully developed.” On one hand, OCAHO case law does show that an employer cannot cultivate “conscious disregard” or “deliberate ignorance” with regards to employees’ employment eligibility. Generally, when an employer receives specific information that casts doubt on an employee’s work authorization and continues to employ the individual without taking adequate steps to reverify his or her employment eligibility, OCAHO may find the employer had constructive knowledge.

One of the key responsibilities of an employer during I-9 and E-Verify employment eligibility verification is to avoid discrimination. The anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §274B, 8 U.S.C. §1324b, prohibit four types of conduct:

(1) Citizenship or immigration status discrimination (actual or perceived)

(2) National origin discrimination (actual or perceived)