Kinro Mfg. a subsidiary of Kinro Inc., which is wholly owned by White Plains, N.Y.-based Drew Industries Inc., has been fined a $25,000 civil penalty and $10,000 in back pay to the injured party for engaging in a pattern/practice of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process.  The company is a manufacturer of components for recreational vehicles and manufactured homes.

Kinro has also agreed to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, to produce Forms I-9 for inspection and to provide periodic reports to the DOJ for one year.

According to the department’s findings, the company subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security in order to verify their employment eligibility, but did not require U.S. citizens to show any specific documentation . The charging party, a lawful permanent resident, filed his charge of discrimination after he was required to provide additional proof of his employment eligibility not required by law before he could begin work at the company.

View Press Release

A southern Arizona tomato grower has pled guilty and was sentenced for knowingly hiring and employing illegal immigrants from Mexico, despite the company’s knowledge that these employees were unauthorized to work in the U.S.

Kenneth Ward, HR Director, pled guilty to similar federal charges in 2007 and is awaiting sentencing. In his guilty plea, he alleged that four top company officials, whom he didn’t name, knew of the illegal hiring and that the number of employees illegally hired was more than 1,000.

Eurofresh’s CEO, Johan van den Berg, denied all those allegations in response to questions  on 8/26/11 and said that Ward was fired more than four years ago after the company learned he had been bringing in illegal immigrant employees without higher officials’ knowledge.

The plea agreement said that payment is to compensate for the money Eurofresh earned from the hiring of 17 illegal immigrants from Mexico over the last decade for supervisory jobs. Eurofresh does not agree that the $600,000 is an amount directly related to the violations. Rather, it is a negotiated amount between Eurofresh and the Justice Department. The company will also be required to remain on probation for five years until the judgment is satisfied in full.

Since the illegal hiring was discovered, Eurofresh has implemented tight systems and regular audits to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs there and is an E-Verify user.

For more on this story.

The highest civil penalty paid through settlement since the enactment of the INA anti-discrimination provisions in 1986 was assessed today against Farmland Foods in the amount of $290,400.

This is a very strong reminder that any request for specific documentation is unlawful if it is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. Employers, however, who make such requests to clarify ambiguity or conflicts in the employee’s presented documents should not be held liable for document abuse.  The employer’s discrimination must be knowing and intentional.

An employer SHOULD NOT:

1. Set different employment eligibility verification standards, or require that different documents be presented by employees, because of national origin and citizenship status.  For example, employers cannot demand that non-U.S. citizens present DHS-issued documents.  Each employee must be allowed to choose the documents that s/he presents from the list of acceptable Form I-9 documents. For example, both citizens and work authorized aliens may produce a driver’s license (List B) and an unrestricted Social Security card (List C) to establish identity and employment eligibility.

2. Request to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of the Form I-9 because the employee looks or sounds “foreign” or because someone states that s/he is not a U.S. citizen.

3. Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document has a future expiration date.

4. Request during reverification that an employee present a new unexpired employment authorization document (EAD) if s/he presented an EAD during initial verification. For re-verification each employee must be free to choose to present any document either from List A or from List C. Refugees and asylees may possess EADs, but they are authorized to work based by virtue of their immigration status and may present other documents that prove work authorization from List A or List C to show on re-verification, such as an unrestricted Social Security card.

5. Limit jobs to U.S. citizens unless U.S. citizenship is required for the specific position by law, regulation, executive order, or federal, state, or local government contract. On an individual basis, an employer may legally prefer a U.S. citizen or national over an equally qualified alien to fill a specific position, but the employer may not adopt a blanket policy of always preferring citizens over non-citizens.

6. Refuse to accept documents during the employment eligibility verification procedure that are acceptable documents under the law, that relate to the individual, and that appear on their face to be genuine (also called “document abuse”). An employer cannot be held liable for document abuse unless the employer’s refusal to honor documents is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. For example, an employer should not be held liable if it refuses to honor documents that conflict with statements made by the employee.

7. Engage in intimidation, threats, coercion, or retaliation, including discharge, against an employee who exercises his/her rights under IRCA’s anti-discrimination provision. This protection extends not only to an employee who is the target of discrimination, but also to an employee who may speak up in support of the targeted employee.

Should you have any questions concerning this “balancing act”, please do not hesitate to contact our office for more information.

Immigration Solutions August 2011 newsletter is now available, full of updates and information that you will find extremely useful.  This month we take a look at:

Our complete and informational Employer Resource Center on all things I-9, can be found here.

Please take a minute to take our I-9 Survey on our website.

Senate Dems Robert Menendez (NJ) and Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced the CIR Act of 2010 that proposes major  overhaul to the immigration system, making changes in employment and family-based programs with enhancements to I-9 (employment eligibility verification) employer obligations.  Most feel that this will not be the avenue by which CIR is accomplished, but that many of its ideas, including those int the CIR ASAP Bill that was introduced by Luis Gutierrez (D/IL) and the REPAIR proposal introduced by Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) earlier this year, will all be considered when Congress decides to get serious about tackling immigration reform and actually start debating the issues.

The Bill does propose the creation of an Immigration Commission that would have authority to recommend yearly NIV and IV numerical limits.

The Bill proposes changes to the H-1B program by requiring employers to post the job opening on a new DOL website.  Employer with 50 or more employees would be prohibited from petitioning for additional H-1B workers if their workforce was comprised of more than 50% H-1B and L-1 workers, excluding those who are the beneficiaries of a pending or approved labor certification or employer-based immigrant petition.  Additionally, employers would be prohibited from placing H-1B workers at a 3rd party site, unless the worker was primarily supervised and controlled by the petitioner/employer.

DOL would be charged with additional authority to review LCA’s for fraud or misrepresentation and would have up to 14 days to certify an LCA (makes one wonder if we’d ever get a case out the door!)  with additional authority to investigate complaints against H-1B employers and to conduct employer H-1B compliance audits.  This is yet another reminder to employers to make sure that their Public Access Files are in order and that they are working with immigration attorneys who provide them with PAF files and overall compliance guidance and training.

Proposed changes to the L-1 Program would include requiring employers to offer L-1 employees insurance and other benefits on the same basis as that offered to US workers.  Increasing restrictions would be imposed on “new office” L-1 petitions and would require DHS to submit a report to Congress on L-1Blanket use.  On the positive side, the bill wold provide some relief for small employers seeking L-1A status for foreign nationals.  It would forbid adjudicators from using the small size of an L-1 employer as a negative factor in executive or managerial eligibility for L-1A status, but would increase DHS authority to investigate complaints against L-1 employers and impose new penalties upon employers who violate L-1 regs.

*** (Relief for Registered Nurses) *** — The Bill proposes to create a new H-2C temporary, nonimmigrant visa for occupations for which there is a shortage of American labor.  The initial H-2C visa would be valid for three years and renewed for three more years. With some exceptions, an H-2C visa could be revoked if the visa holder has been unemployed for more than 60 days.  After 4 years, an H-2C non-immigrant may file an application for adjustment of status, provided that he/she has been continuously employed, establishes progress toward civics and English proficiency, meets all criminal and other background checks and pays additional fines and fees.

There is a proposal to include a new H-1C program for lesser-skilled workers with job offers from US employers, and the creation of a premium processing program for administrative appeals of employment-based immigrant petition denials.

Relief for Undocumented Immigrants: Creates a provisional legal status, Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI), for undocumented immigrants who are present in the U.S. as of September 30, 2010, register with the government, have never committed a serious crime, and are otherwise admissible to the United States.  LPI status will be initially valid for four years, with the possibility of extensions.  LPI status confers work and travel authorization.  After six years in LPI/LPID status, an applicant may apply to become a lawful permanent resident, provided he or she continues to meet all eligibility requirements, including renewed biometrics and background and security checks, and also establishes basic citizenship and English skills, payment of all taxes, and compliance with Selective Service registration.

Employment-based Immigrant Petitions: The bill would recapture unused employment and family-based visa numbers from 1992 to 2007, and implement for future years  that unusued immigrant visa numbers roll over each fiscal year including the base amount of 140,000 –  plus numbers from 1992-2007 – and any unusued numbers from the previous year.  Those with approved visa petitions who are subject to wait times would be eligible to apply for AOS upon payment of an additional $500 filing fee and would be entitled to 3-year EADs and travel documents.  Those with pending immigrant visa petitions would be eligible to apply for AOS at the discretion of DHS.

We link to a complete summary of the CIR Reform Act from Immigration Policy Center.

Immigration Solutions will continue to update and report on any and all CIR issues as they arise.

California-based client receives FAR E-Verify contract language and waits until the 11th hour to get their I-9’s in order:

In order to properly enroll in the DHS FAR E-Verify free Internet-Based program, or a vendor-based Designated Agent program, the contractor must rely upon the accuracy of their I-9’s and the information provided by their employees on the I-9 form.  We recommend a proactive approach to this issue by obtaining a pre-EVerify I-9 audit (can be a random audit or a complete audit depending upon the condition of your I-9s) to pinpoint reoccurring issues and correc them – with accompanying I-9 compliance training and the establishment of policy and procedure around how your company will handle this function – then you’re ready to enroll in E-Verify.

If you have questions or require any of the above services, our distinguished team of attorneys and specialists are available to work with you on your compliance needs.

Leslie Davis, Managing Director
Immigration Solutions

[Courtesy of Tracker Corp]    On November 19, 2009, DHS announced issuance of 1,000 additional I-9 Audit notices to employers across the country, focusing in particular on those providing critical infrastructure and other key resources. This is on top of the 654 I-9 audit notices issued earlier this year. Speaking at a workforce symposium in Washington, DC, Assistant Secretary John Morton (of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]) reiterated the agency’s commitment to creating a culture of voluntary compliance through aggressive investigations and outreach programs. Assistant Secretary Morton also provided recent statistics, showing the increased level of investigations and fines:

DHS also released statistics from the 654 notices sent in July 2009. The ICE agents identified roughly 14,000 suspect documents, assessed over $2 million in fines, and issued warnings to 326 employers.

We link to the press release announcing these findings.  We link to more details on the locations of the 1,000 companies in the latest round of audits

We link to this for your reference. The American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA) is requesting that certain provisions in the handbook be clarified or corrected.

And want to remind you of our Audio Conference on July 29th concerning electronic maintenance of I-9s and how to defend yourself in an Audit.

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is launching a bold, new audit initiative by issuing Notice of Inspections (NOI’s) to 652 businesses nationwide – which is more than ICE issued throughout all of last year.  The notices alert business owners that ICE will be inspecting their hiring records (I-9s) to determine whether or not they are complying with employment eligibility verification laws and regs.

ICE stated in a July 1st News Release, “Employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the US.  This form requires employers to review and record the individual’s identity document(s) and determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and related to the individual”.

Contact Immigration Solutions for guidance on I-9 audits, transitioning to electronic storage, E-Verify training and procedures.  Now is the time to get your I-9 and employer compliance program in order. We have an experienced, excellent team to assist you.

We link to the ICE News Release

USCIS Handbook for Employers