E-Verify & I-9 News

[Editor’s Note: today’s post was written by Kim Kiel Thompson, partner in the Atlanta office of Fisher & Phillips LLP and chair of the firm's Global Immigration Practice Group. Visit their Cross Border Employer blog.]

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post was written by guest blogger Robert F. Loughran, a Partner in FosterQuan, LLP and managing partner of its Austin office. He is board certified in immigration and nationality law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has 20 years of experience representing and advising multinational companies on U.S. and global immigration law. This article was originally published in Texas Lawyer.]

In 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service issued thousands of notices of inspection and subpoenas. In 2012, enforcement efforts against employers will intensify.

In 2006, ICE created the position of forensic auditor. It greatly expanded their numbers in 2009, providing specialized skills for and adding uniformity to a process that special agents/criminal investigators had handled for the preceding 20 years. The number of permanently staffed ICE forensic auditor positions has grown, as has the number of worksite enforcement special agents. When the government staffs up to this degree, the level of enforcement rises with an internal momentum that should last for years.

Given this continuing immigration enforcement focus, in-house counsel need to ensure that their companies comply with the myriad of immigration laws and regulations. It’s helpful to break efforts up in the time before a subpoena arrives and the time after the government issues a notice of inspection or immigration-related subpoena.

In-house counsel can educate managers and the human resources department to avoid common mistakes in connection with Form I-9.

• Unnecessary reverification. No one needs to calendar the expiration date of a driver’s license or an alien resident card (a green card) for re-verification. In-house counsel should train relevant departments that asking an employee to re-establish continued employment eligibility following an identity document’s expiration date some years after employment and requiring presentation of additional documentation could open up an employer to charges and fines related to document abuse and potentially even discrimination and disparate treatment.

• Overzealous self-help. When performing self-audits, human resources staff sometimes write in, complete or correct section No. 1 of Form I-9. In-house counsel should warn HR that completing this section is entirely the responsibility of the employee, who must personally complete the employee attestation. Only the employee — not HR — should make fixes to section No. 1, lest the attestation be undermined.

• Going too far. More is not necessarily better. HR and managers frequently fill out too many columns regarding documents — filling in Form I-9 columns A, B and C. The legally correct approach is to fill out column A or B and C. Such errors indicate that the employer has required the prospective employee to present more forms of identification and/or employment eligibility documents than the law requires.

This is risky, and the legal department should explain why: Subjecting only people who appear to be minorities or born in other countries to excessive documentation requests could create a rebuttable presumption of discriminatory employment practices.

• Lack of objectivity. When bringing a new administrator or HR representative on board, some organizations do not think ahead about who is going to complete the Form I-9, witness the presentation of documents and attest that they are genuine. That can result in the new hire attesting to herself about her presentation of employment eligibility verification documents: “I attest that I have presented my employment eligibility verification documents to myself and they appear genuine and relate to the individual named (me).”

Handling an ICE Subpoena

Minimizing liability and correcting misguided HR practices before a government inquiry or investigation is the most effective method for reducing liability. Once ICE issues a subpoena, the opportunity for self-help and mitigation drops significantly.

Now is the time for the legal department to develop policies identifying the company’s first responders. These people will address any inquiries from unscheduled government visitors. Then, it’s time to ensure training for the receptionist.

Investigators normally will enter the worksite through the main entrance. Management should instruct the person who serves as visitors’ first point of contact to notify the first responder immediately when government officials arrive. It’s important to stress that that person refrain from discussing any company or employee information with the investigator.

Ideally, any paperwork the company files with the CIS will include only accurate, consistent information about the company. Files at the company should be centrally located, so that the first responder quickly and easily may access information for verification purposes. It will be helpful for the first responder to have payroll records, employee records showing date of hire and work location, and corporate financial information easily accessible.

In-house counsel should know that the posture of an employer who is not under investigation is radically different from the posture of an employer who has received a subpoena. Once ICE issues a subpoena, responding prudently is as important as the company’s ongoing business operations. It can become a considerable management and operations distraction, but it’s critical.

• Move quickly. Once the government issues a subpoena, the company must respond in final form within three days. The legal department needs an initial analysis of potential exposure within the days following the government’s appearance on its doorstep, so lawyers can decide whether the company’s strategy should be responsiveness or point-by-point contention.

• Just say “no.” ICE often attempts to outflank future challenges to its notices and subpoenas by securing permission to review company documents. It may be tempting for employees to grant that permission. The mere presence of ICE agents may intimidate receptionists and lower-level employees, leading those workers to hand over whatever the agents request — sometimes more.

But in-house counsel should inform all employees that all communication with the government goes through the legal department. Generally speaking, there is a three-day notice to locate, assemble, analyze, chart, photocopy and deliver documents. It is invaluable for the legal department to analyze existing liability before ICE begins building its theory of the case.

The legal department should teach employees at all levels that no one should attempt to have a friendly conversation with ICE agents. The company gains little and loses much when employees chit-chat about deficiencies, mistakes, practices, etc. It is human nature to attempt to establish good faith and lack of personal culpability; however, lack of malice aforethought and innocence are distinct concepts.

Government agents are trained to gather evidence of employer wrongdoing and to prepare a case to be forwarded to the U.S. attorney for potential prosecution. Private sector understandings of what is reasonable and appropriate may be very distinct from the expectations of a government investigator.

• Cooperate. Without being unnecessarily forthcoming and waiving rights of representation and response time frames, the legal department should coach first responders and other involved employees not to act cantankerous and combative with the agent during the investigation. Some company owners react with a sincere and emotional response that the government unfairly is singling them out and persecuting them in industries rife with violators.

But the reality is that the government has broad rights in immigration law. It eventually will get much, if not all, of what it seeks. In-house counsel should caution first responders and company leaders that it’s counterproductive to draw attention, potentially securing the lasting focus of an investigator, who has tremendous discretion and resources.

Compliance starts with comprehensive policies, a trained, well-informed staff and consistent practice.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

Here’s the latest addition to our continuing series of educational videos:
Form I-9 Best Practices for Remotely Hired Employees

How to avoid the 5 common mistakes when completing the Form I-9 for remote hires. Tracker Corp’s Brian Fancher explains the best way to work with a Notary Public and an employer representative for onboarding employees who are unable to visit your Human Resources dept. to complete the I-9 form.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger John Manley, U.S. Immigration Attorney and Co-Liaison to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.]

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan has ordered The French Gourmet, Inc. to forfeit $109,200 in illicit proceeds gained from the illegal hiring practices and pay $277,375 for its felony conviction of employing more than 10 illegal alien workers in a 12-month period.

This case has gained considerable attention and is a reminder to employers to make sure they have a proper I-9 Compliance Program.

In this case, the French Gourmet operated a restaurant, bakery and catering business for decades in La Jolla. All three defendants pleaded guilty in October to having hired numerous illegal alien workers between 2005 and 2008, and continued to employ the unauthorized workers knowing the aliens did not have legal authority to work in the United States. The defendants further admitted to hiring and employing illegal alien workers continuously as early as 2003, despite being fined in the 1990s by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for employing illegal aliens. The pattern of illegal activity continued until May 2008 when agents from HSI searched the restaurant and arrested 18 illegal alien workers. The company admitted they repeatedly rehired illegal alien workers, even after the company received “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration advising employees’ names did not match the Social Security numbers reported by the company on its tax returns. Source: ICE

These are heavy fines for a small business to pay. It would not surprise me if the company filed some sort of bankruptcy petition after this. ICE, however, can and will go after companies. Companies should consult with immigration lawyers to to ensure proper I-9 compliance.

According to ICE, “criminal prosecutions are just one of many tools ICE HSI uses to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce. That enforcement strategy also includes the expanded use of civil penalties, employer audits and debarment. In fiscal year 2011, ICE criminally charged a record-breaking 221 owners, employers, managers and/or supervisors – up from 196 in fiscal year 2010. In addition, during fiscal year 2011, ICE HSI initiated audits involving 2,496 employers nationwide – surpassing the record number conducted in all of fiscal year 2010. That figure includes 83 businesses in the San Diego area. Likewise in fiscal year 2011, ICE issued 385 final fine notices totaling more than $10 million to employers across the country, again surpassing the record fine total in fiscal year 2010.”

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post was written by guest blogger Robert C. Divine, Chairman of the Immigration Group of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell, & Berkowitz, P.C.]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) in the U.S. Department of Justice recently published a three-page “Fact Patterns Flyer,” listing examples of immigration status and national origin discrimination in employment.  In viewing the set of employer actions purely from the point of view of discrimination, the OSC accidentally gives the false impression that certain actions are appropriate if all workers are treated the same, and employers should be counseled not to take that implication.

Misleading Examples. For instance, the list includes when an employer “rejects valid work authorization documents from non‐U.S. citizens but accepts the same documents from U.S. citizens,” implying that it would be lawful for an employer to reject Social Security cards as List C documents of work authorization for I-9 purposes for ALL workers, whether they check Section 1 to reflect U.S. citizenship, nationality, permanent residence, or foreign national status.  But it is unlawful to refuse a Social Security card as a List C document from ANY worker if the document reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the worker.

The list finds unlawful discrimination when an employer “Demands that lawful permanent residents present new ‘green cards’ when theirs expire but does not ask U.S. citizens to produce new documents when theirs expire,” implying that it would be okay if the employer required re-verification of everyone whose documents presented in the I-9 process expire, such as green cards and U.S. passports.   But it is always unlawful to require ANYONE with permanent status to present new documents for re-verification.

The list includes several actions “on a selective basis,” including when an employer “Terminates or suspends employees for whom it receives TNCs,” “Pre‐screens using E‐Verify,” “Pre‐screens all applicants using E‐Verify,” “requires employees who receive TNCs to provide additional documentation establishing their work authorization,” and “Re‐runs employees through E‐Verify when re-verifying Employment Authorization Documents, and then terminates or suspends employees who receive TNCs.”  But it is NEVER appropriate to do these things, even if they were done with ALL applicants or employees.

We can appreciate that DOJ might use unlawful discrimination as a theoretical basis for pursuing action against employers who do these things, but DOJ should be more careful about the implications of what it says in an environment in which employers are naturally confused and easily mislead.

The Problem of “Coming Clean.” The OSC opens a special can of worms with its example of an employer who “Fires work‐authorized workers for lying about their prior undocumented status, but does not fire other workers for lying about different aspects of their background.” Could an employer have a policy NOT to fire ANY workers for past lies in certain circumstances including when presenting a newly obtained legal status in his real identity?

This whole issue arose out of the 1986 immigration amnesty law.  It made little sense for Congress to pass a law legalizing persons who had been in the U.S. unlawfully for certain periods of time, only to have their employers fire them when they presented anew their true identity, and a federal court upheld a discrimination charge against an employer who did that.  The old INS used to state on its web site that it was acceptable for an employer to allow continued employment of a worker who presented a new, valid identity, having legalized his status (but warning employers to be mindful of their general honesty policies).

Ironically, when the Justice Department tried to prosecute Tyson Foods in 2003 for knowing employment of  unauthorized workers, the prosecutor included this practice as an example of Tyson’s alleged callous indifference to the law prohibiting employment of unauthorized workers. On cross examination, Tyson’s lawyer elicited testimony from the company’s ethics officer (my client) about the company’s reliance on the INS web site, projecting on the wall of the courtroom the web site and a follow up email from an INS “business liaison” officer.  The jury was flabbergasted at the government’s overreaching and acquitted Tyson as a corporation, despite some other blatant practices of a wayward local manager.

After INS was merged into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, USCIS continued to include on its web site in various places a statement that it was not unlawful to accept a worker’s true identity after previously presenting a false identity:

DISCOVERING FALSE DOCUMENTATION

False documentation includes documents that are counterfeit or those that belong to someone other than the employee who presented them. It occasionally happens that an employee who initially presented false documentation to gain employment subsequently obtains proper work authorization and presents documentation of this work authorization. In such a case, U.S. immigration law does not require the employer to terminate the employee’s services. However, an employer’s personnel policies regarding provision of false information to the employer may apply. The employer should correct the relevant information on the Form I-9.

USCIS removed this statement around 2009 without explanation, and it has not included this language or anything close in its Handbook for Employers that guides employers in the I-9 process.

Some ICE investigators have not seemed to appreciate the “Catch 22″ an employer faces when a worker reveals past false identity and newly lawful status. I have seen ICE use evidence of the practice of retaining such employees as grounds for prosecution, even long after the Tyson case. I have used USCIS’ former web site as proof to DOJ prosecutors of the government’s sanction of the practice and of the pitfalls of prosecution on that basis, with success.  I had wondered where the government stood on the issue now, and the new OSC discrimination listing seems to give cover to employers who don’t want to lose a good employee who now has become legalized and wants to “come clean.”

But this does not mean ICE likes it, and for various reasons employers should consider policies to treat all serious lying as a basis for termination, including resume fraud and false identity.  Employers also should consider a policy that prior false statements are not necessarily grounds for termination if revealed in the context of the worker volunteering the truth.  And an employer considering a policy to accept newly confirmed authorized identities should consider limiting the policy to employees who volunteer this, not those who come up with a new identity only when confronted with problems about the currently used identity.

Obviously, the Office of Special Counsel is trying to help by publishing examples of what constitutes unlawful discrimination, but employers need to avoid becoming confused by the possible implications of the listing in the “Fact Pattern Flyer.”

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

Effective today, November 28, 2011, employers hiring individuals for employment in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) must use the standard Form I-9 for all new hires and reverifications in the CNMI.

In 2009, U.S. immigration law began extending to the CNMI as a result of Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), and required CNMI employers to use Form I-9 CNMI to verify the work eligibility of all new hires, regardless of citizenship.

Form I-9 CNMI contained additional List A documents issued by the CNMI government that are not acceptable on the standard Form I-9.  These additional documents were only acceptable until Nov. 27, 2011.

By Nov. 28, 2011, all workers who previously held CNMI-issued employment authorization must have another basis of work authorization under U.S. law, or have a petition pending for CNMI-only transitional worker status as described below, to continue working in the CNMI.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post features guest blogger Angelo Paparelli, Partner and Certified Immigration Law Specialist (CA) at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP.]

Angelo Paparelli talks about how companies can best prepare for an ICE audit of their Form I-9s, by converting paper i9s to an electronic system (like Tracker I-9) and consulting a law firm with I-9 expertise, such as Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, to do a preliminary audit to fix any problems. Visit Angelo’s blog, Nation of Immigrators.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post was written by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, partner-in-charge of Immigration Practice, King & Ballow, LLP.]

A recent Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) decision, U.S. v. Alyn Industries d/b/a Electronic Source Company, 10 OCAHO No. 1141 (2011), demonstrates continuing evidence of differences between Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and OCAHO in the calculation of fines from ICE audits.

In Alyn Industries, the company disputed ICE’s calculation of fines due. The company conceded it violated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by: (1) hiring two employees without preparing an I-9 form; (2) hiring 59 employees without properly completing Section 2 of the I-9 form; and (3) hiring one employee without ensuring the employee properly completed Section 1 of the I-9 form.

ICE sought a total of $63,767 for the 62 violations. ICE calculated the fine by determining 100% of the I-9s contained substantive errors. Thus, under ICE’s Guide to Civil Monetary Penalties, Alyn was assessed the highest amount for a first offense – $935 per violation. The Guide has the following sliding scale:

Percentage of Substantive Violations            Fine

0 – 9%                                                                                       $110
10 -19%                                                                                   $275
20 – 29%                                                                                 $440
30 – 39%                                                                                 $605
40 – 49%                                                                                 $770
50% and Over                                                                       $935

[Editor's note: for more details on fines, see ICE's Form I-9 Inspection Overview.]

Additionally, there are five aggravating or mitigating factors, each worth 5%. The five factors are: size of business, good faith, seriousness of violations, whether any employees were unauthorized, and history of previous violations.

ICE determined 10% should be added to $935 due to the company’s lack of good faith and seriousness of the violations. Thus, $935 + 10% = $1,028.50 x 62 violations = $63,767. Alyn challenged ICE’s determination of aggravating and mitigating factors, asserting it was a small business that acted in good faith and had no previous violations. Thus, it asserted the fine per violation should be reduced by 15%.

Alyn asserted it was a small business because it employed 62 employees in July 2009, the time of the I-9 audit, and was down to 50 employees in December 2010. Moreover, it had a net loss of about $271,000 in 2010 and net income of only about $78,000 in 2009. ICE argued Alyn was a moderate sized business, which should not be the basis of an aggravating or mitigating factor.

OCAHO found Alyn was a small business since prior case law defined companies with less than 100 employees to be a small business. However, OCAHO declined to use the size as a mitigating factor, because it was not a “failing ‘mom and pop’ operation.”

ICE argued Alyn’s tenure as a business for over 10 years with revenue in the millions demonstrated it should have been able to train its management on verifying employment eligibility and its 100% failure rate showed its lack of good faith. Alyn asserted the errors were based on carelessness and after the I-9 audit, it enrolled in E-Verify and “instituted stringent compliance checks.” OCAHO was not persuaded by either party that good faith or lack thereof was an aggravating or mitigating factor.

Concerning the seriousness of the violations, OCAHO found all but two of the 62 violations were serious. However, OCAHO declined to use such as an aggravating factor.

Alyn argued because it did not have a history of previous violations, it should receive a mitigating factor. OCAHO found “never having violated the law does not necessarily warrant” leniency. Thus, this factor did not change the amount of the fine.

Despite not finding Alyn should receive any reduction in the amount of fines due to any mitigating factors, OCAHO concluded… [A]s a matter of discretion, a penalty nearer the mid-range are found more appropriate… and the penalties are accordingly set at $700 each for the 60 most serious violations and $500 each for the other two violations, for a total penalty of $43,000.

Although OCAHO denied this was a similar case to U.S. v. Snack Attack Deli (Subway), 10 OCAHO No. 1137 (2010), where OCAHO determined the company could not afford the fine sought by ICE, the result is eerily similar. In Snack Attack, OCAHO lowered the fines from $110,000 to $27,150 without any reasoned analysis.

The Alyn decision demonstrates OCAHO will continue to assert its discretion in determining the penalties and will not feel bound by ICE’s Guide in this determination.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, partner-in-charge of Immigration Practice, King & Ballow, LLP.]

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued Notices of Inspection (NOIs) to a number of employers on November 4, 2011. ICE will not release the number of NOIs, though it is believed to be about 500, or the names and locations of the businesses served with NOIs.

If your business was not targeted, count yourself lucky. If your business is served with a NOI, what should you do and what will happen during the inspection/investigation? Having represented clients in several ICE audits in past few years, here are my thoughts and insights.

The NOI, which begins the ICE audit, is hand-delivered by an ICE agent of Homeland Security Inspections (HSI) to the business with a demand to inspect the I-9 records plus other employment-related records, such as payroll records, Social Security no-match letters, and a list of related companies. An employer has three days to comply with the NOI and should never provide the requested records upon initial receipt of the NOI. Sometimes ICE is willing to provide more than three days, if requested. An employer should contact their immigration counsel immediately upon being served with a NOI.

During the period between the delivery of the NOI and the deadline to provide the I-9s and other records, the employer and immigration counsel have the opportunity to determine if all of the employees’ I-9s are in order and, if not, make any necessary corrections/additions plus determine whether all employees have proper work authorization. During these three days, the employer’s HR manager (or whoever is in charge of immigration compliance for the employer) and immigration counsel will be spending a lot of time together. You should delegate the gathering of non-I-9 related records to another management official besides the one in charge of I-9s.

ICE will then return to the employer’s facility and remove the I-9s and related records or the employer and counsel must hand-deliver them to the local ICE office. (Employers should always make copies of the I-9s before providing ICE with the original I-9s.) At this point, the I-9s are sent to an ICE auditor.

Following the audit, which may take 2 to 18 months, ICE will provide a Notice of Suspect Documents, if applicable. This notice lists the names of all employees who could not be authenticated as having valid work authorization. At this point, the employer must give notice, in writing or verbal, to each affected employee and provide him or her with an opportunity to correct any mistakes, provide proper work authorization documents, or assert ICE made a mistake. The employer then provides such documents or assertions to ICE for their review. If an affected employee does not comply, the employer should terminate the employee.

Moreover, if the employer terminates the affected employees after providing notice and an opportunity to provide new documentation, an employer will not be subject to any fines or penalties for knowingly employing unauthorized workers – unless ICE discovers other evidence that the employer was aware of the affected employee’s illegal status. The fact that the employer hired an illegal alien, who provided a false A number, permanent resident card, work authorization document or Social Security number, is insufficient to prove the employer knowingly hired any illegal aliens.

Thereafter, ICE will provide the employer with a Notice of Technical or Procedural Failures and the underlying I-9s that have such errors. The employer has 10 days to correct the technical errors. If they are correctable and corrected, ICE will not issue any fines for these violations.

The final step in the audit is a “Notice of Intent to Fine” for substantive and uncorrected technical violations and/or for “knowingly employing” illegal aliens. Additionally, “knowingly employing” illegal aliens’ charges carry possible criminal indictments. An employer has 30 days to agree to pay the fines, reach a resolution on the amount of the fines or challenge the determination before the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO).

Before ICE comes knocking at your door, your business should develop an immigration compliance program, which includes a self-audit of your I-9s, training for applicable management, draft and implement immigration compliance policies, including whether to use E-Verify.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network: