<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Klasko, Rulon, Stock &#38; Seltzer, LLP: Blog &#187; No-Match</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.klaskolaw.com/tag/no-match/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.klaskolaw.com</link>
	<description>Klasko, Rulon, Stock &#38; Seltzer, LLP is nationally renowned for providing creative solutions to many of the most complex issues in immigration law to multinational corporations, small businesses, hospitals, universities, research institutions and individual clients.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:49:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>DHS Rescinds No-Match Rule</title>
		<link>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/10/08/dhs-rescinds-no-match-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/10/08/dhs-rescinds-no-match-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nihsanullah@klaskolaw.com</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Worksite Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I-9 Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No-Match]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No-Match Rule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.klaskolaw.com/?p=338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule rescinding the Social Security &#8220;No-Match&#8221; regulation. The so-called No-Match rule would have charged an employer with having &#8220;constructive knowledge&#8221; of the unauthorized employment of its employees if the employer failed to take certain steps in response to receiving a No-Match letter from the Social Security Administration, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-07/pdf/E9-24200.pdf">final rule </a>rescinding the Social Security &#8220;No-Match&#8221; regulation. The so-called <a href="http://www.worksite-compliance.com/social-security-no-match-letters.php">No-Match rule</a> would have charged an employer with having &#8220;constructive knowledge&#8221; of the unauthorized employment of its employees if the employer failed to take certain steps in response to receiving a No-Match letter from the Social Security Administration, informing it that an employee’s name and Social Security Number provided for a W-2 earnings report did not match SSA&#8217;s records.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span id="more-338"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The No-Match rule was never implemented due to a <a href="http://www.worksite-compliance.com/articles-events.php?action=view&amp;id=35">preliminary injunction </a>issued by the Northern District of California. Immigration advocates had sharply criticized the No-Match rule on the basis that N0-Match letters were often issued erroneously as a result of inaccurate SSA records, typographical errors, and unreported name changes. Recently, DHS decided to do away with the No-Match rule in favor of focusing its enforcement efforts on E-Verify, which is viewed as a more powerful method of identifying unauthorized workers. You can read more about DHS&#8217; about-face on the No-Match rule <a href="http://www.worksite-compliance.com/articles-events.php?action=view&amp;id=72">here</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<p class="addtoany_share_save_container">
    <a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?sitename=Klasko%2C%20Rulon%2C%20Stock%20%26amp%3B%20Seltzer%2C%20LLP%3A%20Blog&amp;siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.klaskolaw.com%2F&amp;linkname=DHS%20Rescinds%20No-Match%20Rule&amp;linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.klaskolaw.com%2F2009%2F10%2F08%2Fdhs-rescinds-no-match-rule%2F"><img src="http://blog.klaskolaw.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_120_16.png" width="120" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a>

	</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/10/08/dhs-rescinds-no-match-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No-Match Regulation Delayed Again</title>
		<link>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/06/15/no-match-regulation-delayed-again/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/06/15/no-match-regulation-delayed-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kkalmykov@klaskolaw.com</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Worksite Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I-9 Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No-Match]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.klaskolaw.com/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 10, 2009 the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a request with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for an extension until July 10, 2009 to file a memorandum in support of lifting the injunction against the implementation of the Social Security No-Match regulation. DOJ also requested an extension for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="line-height: 15pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">On June 10, 2009 the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a request with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for an extension until July 10, 2009 to file a memorandum in support of lifting the injunction against the implementation of the <a href="http://www.worksite-compliance.com/social-security-no-match-letters.php" target="_blank">Social Security No-Match regulation</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>DOJ also requested an extension for filing its response to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. </span></p>
<p style="line-height: 15pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">In August 2007, a group of immigrant rights organizations as well as business and employer groups asked the federal court to enjoin the regulation from taking effect. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In October of that year, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since that time the case has been in litigation.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 15pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">Since taking office, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has requested the court to grant several extensions of time so that the government could prepare their pleadings in the case. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to court records, the extensions are aimed at providing Secretary Napolitano with sufficient time to review the regulation in the “context of the Obama Administration’s overall immigration enforcement policies.&#8221; Since the Obama Administration took office they have taken a step back from the Bush Administration’s focus on enforcement actions against unauthorized aliens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, they have stated that their top immigration enforcement priorities are towards employers who hire unauthorized workers in violation of federal immigration law. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; mso-line-height-alt: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">The Social Security No-Match regulation provides that an employer&#8217;s failure to take reasonable steps after receipt of a Social Security No-Match letter can lead to a finding that an employer had &#8220;constructive knowledge” of the fact that an employee is an unauthorized alien. Under the Rule, employers would be exposed to increased liability if they fail to take a prescribed course of action termed a &#8220;safe harbor&#8221; upon receipt of a no-match letter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-line-height-alt: 10.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">The rule, while temporarily prevented from going into effect by a federal court in California, in many ways is only a codification of obligations employers have had since 1986. The Rule requires employers to take certain affirmative steps to resolve questions about an employee&#8217;s employment authorization; if the employer fails to take those steps, it can be found to &#8220;know” that the employee was not authorized. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-line-height-alt: 10.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-line-height-alt: 10.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">For more information on the no-match regulation and how I-9 compliance requirements affect your business  please visit our website <a href="http://www.worksite-compliance.com">http://www.worksite-compliance.com</a>.</span></p>
<p class="addtoany_share_save_container">
    <a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?sitename=Klasko%2C%20Rulon%2C%20Stock%20%26amp%3B%20Seltzer%2C%20LLP%3A%20Blog&amp;siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.klaskolaw.com%2F&amp;linkname=No-Match%20Regulation%20Delayed%20Again&amp;linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.klaskolaw.com%2F2009%2F06%2F15%2Fno-match-regulation-delayed-again%2F"><img src="http://blog.klaskolaw.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_120_16.png" width="120" height="16" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark"/></a>

	</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.klaskolaw.com/2009/06/15/no-match-regulation-delayed-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
