Posts Tagged ‘Hot Questions’

OCAHO Issues Summary Decision; Imposes $9,500 Fine for Employer who Failed to Properly Complete Form I-9

Thursday, August 9th, 2012

In a decision dated June 7, 2012, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”) handed down a substantial fine against a small business employer for failure to properly complete Form I-9.

In particular, Administrative Law Judge Ellen K. Thomas ruled that failure to complete Form I-9 Section 2 by reporting only List B on the I-9 constitutes a “substantive violation” of federal employment verification laws, even if photocopies of List A and/or C documents are kept in employee files. This finding is opposed to a ruling that such a failure to complete Section 2 would constitute a mere “technical violation” were lesser fines would have been imposed.

In U.S. v. Four Seasons Earthworks, the 22-person employer was served with a Notice of Inspection and Administrative Subpoena by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).  Upon review of I-9s relating to 19 employees – including several family members of the family-owned business – ICE found that the employer entered information in Form I-9 Section 2 corresponding only to a List B document. Under the I-9 regulations and instructions, an employer must verify employment eligibility by inspecting a List A document (substantiating both identity and employment authorization, such as a U.S. passport) or by inspecting a List B (substantiating identity, such as a state driver’s license) and List C document (substantiating employment authorization, such as a social security card). The employer must then use those documents to fill out the form properly.

The employer argued that because it made photocopies of List A or List B and List C documents, it nonetheless complied with the regulations and any such violations should be considered to be merely technical. However, the OCAHO ruled that the regulations specifically provide that photocopying does not relieve the employer from the requirement to fully complete Section 2.

This case should serve as a warning to other employers to ensure that I-9s are properly completed and that Human Resources personnel are properly trained. It is important to note that both ICE and the employer were in agreement that each worker for the company was authorized to accept employment. Nonetheless, because the employer failed to properly complete Section 2, the violations were ruled to be substantive. Under the law, employers can face penalties ranging from $110 to $1,100 for each Form I-9 substantive violation.

In determining the level of the penalties, the ALJ found that there were mitigating factors that warranted a reduction in penalties including the following: 1) the employer was a small business; 2) it suffered an economic downturn and a related business went bankrupt; 3) it acted in good faith; and 4) its violations were not as serious as the total failure to complete an I-9 or obtain an employee signature. As such, the ALJ imposed a fine of $500 for each violation. Indeed, the employer could be considered to be fortunate to an extent considering that it could have faced a fine of $20,900 had these factors not been in its favor. Other companies in this situation might not have been so “lucky.”  The case is important as it shows that even small employers with a legal workforce can face substantial fines simply because their I-9s are not properly completed.

Contact your Klasko Law attorney for guidance regarding federally mandated Form I-9 for employers and other issues relating to employment verification and worksite compliance.

Share

KRSS’ New E-Verify State-by-state Legislation Survey

Thursday, April 26th, 2012

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Arizona’s legislation mandating the use of E-Verify for its in-state employers last year, several other states have followed suit and enacted their own E-Verify provisions.

In order to make some sense of these disparate laws, our team has updated and reorganized our informational State-by-State Legislation Survey which can be found on our Worksite Compliance web site. We have summarized employer E-Verify obligations when conducting business in, or contracting with entities of, the 50 states and D.C.

E-Verify laws are in a near-constant state of change and the question of whether your organization is required to enroll depends upon federal, state, and local laws. For more information on how E-Verify might impact your business, contact your Klasko Law attorney.

Share

U.S. Department of State Provides May-July 2012 Visa Date Movement Forecast; No Further EB-2 Visas Authorized for China and India Born Applicants Until FY2013

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

As Bill Stock mentioned in a client alert last month, the Department of State has halted the dramatic acceleration of India and China’s EB-2 priority dates which we had observed throughout much of 2011. Instead, the Visa Control Office of the State Department predicted significant retrogression in these two categories, walking back priority dates approximately three years from May 1, 2010 to August 2007.

In response to questions from the immigration law community last week, Department of State Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Charlie Oppenheim provided an updated forecast of employment-based visa date movements for the months of May through July:

Employment-Based Priority Dates (May-July 2012)

Preference Category

Projected Movement from April 2012 Visa Bulletin

First Expected to stay current
Second – Worldwide Expected to stay current
Second – India & China Retrogression to August 15, 2007 (now May 1, 2010)
Third –Worldwide Three to five weeks forward (now April 8, 2006)
Third – India Two weeks forward  (now September 1, 2002)
Third – China Up to six weeks forward (now March 1, 2005)
Fourth Expected to stay current
Fifth Expected to stay current

Mr. Oppenheim has confirmed that, effective March 23, 2012, no further EB-2 visas will be authorized for China-mainland born and India applicants with priority dates of August 15, 2007 or later. Mr. Oppenheim stated that visa applicants processing in April at consulates abroad will still receive visas, as those numbers were allocated before the cut-off date was established.

We have recommended that any EB-2 adjustment applicant with a priority date before March 2010 file immediately, so that his or her application is received at USCIS on or before April 30, 2012. USCIS will continue to accept for processing those applications for adjustment of status for individuals with priority dates prior to the date established in the April 2012 Visa Bulletin until the end of this month. Those cases with priority dates of August 15, 2007 or later will be forwarded to and held by Visa Control at the Department of State in a “pending” file until new visas are available on October 1, 2012, the beginning of the 2013 fiscal year. Applicants will still be eligible for employment authorization and advance parole travel authorization. The May Visa Bulletin is expected to address the EB-2 movement.

Contact your Klasko Law attorney if you have specific questions regarding eligibility for filing of adjustment of status and other benefits.

Share

Director Mayorkas Proposes EB-5 Processing Improvements

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

USCIS Director Ali Mayorkas’ proposal for reforming and improving the EB-5 process has the potential to be a major step forward in making the EB-5 program more user friendly for real estate developers and other businesses seeking foreign investment capital.

Director Mayorkas’ proposal has three major elements.

One element of great importance is providing for accelerated processing (target two months) and premium processing (15 day processing) for “shovel ready” projects. This would apply to the regional center designation application, the exemplar I-526 project preapproval and the petitions of the investors in these projects. Although the definition of “shovel ready” is ambiguous and might better be defined as a project for which the developer is ready to seek investment capital, the concept is a very important one. Present processing times are unrealistic, and developers cannot be expected to wait the 12 to 18 months necessary for a regional center to be approved, a project to be approved, and an investor’s petition to be approved.

The second key component of the Mayorkas proposal involves the hiring of qualified expert personnel to adjudicate regional center designation applications and project pre-approval applications. Director Mayorkas proposes to add economists and business analysts for this purpose. Economic development specialists might also be added to the USCIS staff. The issues to be adjudicated in these applications are both complex and technical, and the Immigration Service needs to bring to the task professionals experienced in dealing with these issues.

The third major component of the Mayorkas proposal is to change the regional center and project pre-approval process from an adversarial to a consultative process. The Director proposes to change the present petition filing/RFE/RFE response process into one where the developer would have the right to a hearing with the expert professionals described above in order for the Service to articulate any questions or concerns and for the developer and his team of professionals to provide answers. This should result in faster, better and more informed adjudications.

The public has had an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Although commenters no doubt suggested improvements to the proposal, there is no question that implementation of the proposal, with whatever changes are deemed appropriate, will be a major step forward in making the EB-5 program more attractive for businesses seeking capital. This would be consistent with President Obama’s Select USA Initiative to attract more foreign direct investment into the U.S.

Although the proposal is a major step forward, it means nothing unless and until it is actually adopted by USCIS. The public eagerly awaits notification of its implementation.

Share

Supreme Court Breathes New Life into Hazelton Controversy

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated an order ruling unconstitutional the Illegal Immigration Relief Act ordinance of Hazelton, Pennsylvania. At issue is the local law that would penalize landlords who knowingly or with reckless disregard rent to an “illegal alien”, which is defined as “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States” according to federal law. Separate provisions penalize employers hiring aliens without work authorization.

The Court remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of its rationale in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting. As we mentioned last month, the Court’s ruling in Whiting will have nationwide effects and may lead to varying state law approaches to immigration-related laws and penalties.

It is important to note, however, that while the law at issue in Whiting and that enacted by Hazleton have some similarities, the Supreme Court has only upheld non-federal laws dealing with employment eligibility and the corresponding penalties for noncompliance. It remains to be seen how the Third Circuit will reconsider the legal issues presented by the Hazelton ordinance.

Share

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Mandating Use of E-Verify

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an opinion upholding the “Legal Arizona Workers Act” which mandates private employers’ use of E-Verify and supplies state-law sanctions against those who knowingly or intentionally employ aliens without work authorization.

The decision has far-reaching effects outside of Arizona. By upholding the law, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for 50 different state laws regarding employment eligibility verification and the penalties for noncompliance. As such, employers need to be aware of the laws in their state when hiring new personnel. For further information regarding E-Verify, visit our Worksite Compliance web site. Contact your Klasko Law attorney if you have specific questions regarding employment eligibility verification for your company or organization.

Share

Keeping the Green Card You Worked So Hard to Get

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

I am often consulted by permanent resident clients who have been spending, or are planning to spend, significant time abroad and want to avoid losing their hard-earned permanent resident status.  These clients normally come with one of two preconceptions:

1) As long as I visit the United States at least once every six months, I’ll be fine; or

2) If I leave for any length of time, I’ll put my status in jeopardy.

The actual rules are much more complex and nuanced, but fortunately, can often be used correctly to maintain status for significant periods of residence abroad.

The two most important rules for permanent residents to know are 1) abandonment can be an issue at any time, even where the permanent resident visits the United States each six months; and 2) CBP at the airport cannot actually “take away” permanent resident status (though they can try to cajole/pressure the permanent resident to give it up voluntarily).

If you are planning any significant time overseas, please review our Green Card Holder’s Guide to Travel, Residing Abroad and Preventing Loss of Permanent Resident Status, or have a consultation with one of our lawyers.

Share

Pilot Program in Texas Speeds Some Green Card Decisions

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

Kweku from New Jersey just submitted a question about a pilot program at the USCIS Texas Service Center, which makes decisions in employment-based green card applications from residents of the Eastern United States:

Hi,
I read about a PLUS Pilot program employed at the Texas service center (TSC) under which the entire I-140 and I-485 package is reviewed by one officer? Does this translate into faster processing times for the I-485 especially if your PD is current?

The aim of TSC’s PLUS Pilot Program is to adjudicate concurrently filed I-140/I-485 petitions within 90 days.  To accomplish this, the same officer is adjudicating both the I-140 and the I-485.  However, we have been told that the I-140 and I-485 units have not been merged, and not every concurrently filed petition is adjudicated under “the Plus.”

In our experience, only about 50% of concurrently filed petitions tend to receive this expedited review, which can result in a decision on permanent residence only three to four months after filing.

Readers are also well advised to consider that the faster decision may not be a grant, but may be a Request for Evidence, and that the purpose of the PLUS program is to make a fast decision whether to RFE the I-140 so as to avoid giving the applicant an employment authorization document and advance parole document if the officer is not sure that the I-140 can be approved.

Share

New Guidance Issued for Employers on Application of the Employ American Workers Act

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

The Federal Reserve recently issued guidance in the form of an FAQ for employers who accept funds under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) as part of the Employ American Workers Act.

Although the government has published a list of TARP recipients, no such comprehensive list of FRA Section 13 recipients exists. However, in its new guidance, the government explains which entities are considered to be recipients of Section 13 funds. The determination depends upon the type of borrowing arrangement between the entity and the Federal Reserve. Interestingly, the guidance explains that once a recipient has paid back the funds received under Section 13, they are no longer subject to the H-1B additional attestation requirements.

Employers that receive funding under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or FRA Section 13  funding will be required to take additional steps when filing H-1B temporary worker petitions with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. Specifically, these employers will be required to make attestations as part of the H-1B application that they took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the H-1B worker is sought and that no U.S. worker was displaced by the H-1B worker in an equivalent position.

Share
       
Copyright © 2013 Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Disclosure: Law firm web sites such as this one are considered 'Attorney Advertising' by the State Bar of New York.