E-Verify & I-9 News

On March 23rd, 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it reached an agreement with Ross Stores Inc ., who will pay more than $17,000 to settle a claim that the company had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on citizenship status while verifying employment eligibility at its store in San Ysidro, Calif.

The claim alleged that Ross Stores discriminated against an employee by refusing to hire her, improperly requiring her to provide the company with a green card, even though she presented a genuine employment authorization document (EAD) for Section 2 of the Form I-9.  More broadly, the department accused Ross of subjecting 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 the same of United States citizens.

In the settlement, Ross Stores, Inc. agreed to reinstate the employee and pay $6,384 in back pay plus interest. The retailer also agreed to pay the government $10,825 in civil penalties. Ross Stores also agrees to comply with the law, to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process and to be subject to reporting and compliance monitory requirements for 18 months.

The anti-discrimination provision (§ 274B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b requires employers to treat all authorized workers equally during the employment eligibility verification process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status. This federal law specifically prohibits document abuse (unfair documentary practices during the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process.

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 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 is brought to you by guest blogger Katie Minervino, Associate Attorney in the Immigration Group at Pierce Atwood LLP. Katie assists employers and employees in employment authorization needs and provides clients with support and guidance on employment verification requirements, best practices, and audit response.]

Georgia’s comprehensive immigration law requires that private employers enroll in E-Verify as a condition to obtaining or renewing a broad range of business licenses and other documentation required to operate a business or engage in a professional service.

While some provisions of the Georgia law took effect on July 1st, the E-Verify requirements are being phased in, with staggered E-Verify compliance dates based on the size of an employer. The initial phase-in for private employers started in the new year, with businesses employing more than 500 employees required to use E-Verify for new hires as of January 1, 2012. Businesses with less than 500 but more than 100 employees must start using E-Verify by July 1, 2012, and businesses with less than 99 but more than 11 workers must use the program by July 1, 2013. Businesses with 10 or less employees are exempt.

All employers must look closely at whether they have any employees performing services in Georgia that trigger a license requirement because if so, they may be caught in the cross-hairs of Georgia’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Counting your employees for purposes of compliance deadlines

To determine the number of its employees for E-Verify purposes under this law, a business must count its total number of employees working at least 35 hours a week as of January 1st of the year the E-Verify mandates for that employer kick in. The definition of “employee” in the Georgia law cross-references the Georgia tax code, and as it is currently written, does not specify that an employer need only count employees on a Georgia payroll. The law further contains no language limiting the employer’s required use of E-Verify to new hires within the state of Georgia, leaving the door open for an interpretation of the law with a far-reaching scope outside of the boundaries of Georgia for multi-state employers.

If an employer exclusively employs workers on a Georgia payroll, the analysis is simple and the employer should look to its number of full-time employees paid under its federal employer identification number to determine when the E-Verify requirement applies.

But my employee only works in Georgia – I’m not a Georgia-based business

If an employer has payroll employees in multiple states, including Georgia, the situation is a bit stickier. Such employers should determine, first, whether all these employers are connected to the same federal employer identification number (FEIN). If the employees are distributed among multiple FEINs (for example, in the case of a parent and subsidiary) and the total number on each FEIN is less than 500, the employer’s E-Verify requirements will be deferred in Georgia until at least July 2012.

If the employees are all paid under the same FEIN and number 500 or more, the recommended approach is for an employer to enroll in E-Verify for its Georgia hiring sites on or as soon after January 1st as possible, thus placing the employer in the strongest position to obtain the wide range of business and professional licensure in Georgia for which proof of E-Verify is required.

I’m not prepared to potentially “jump the gun” on an otherwise voluntary program.

A company applying to obtain or renew its Georgia business license or an employee obtaining a professional license in Georgia must present an affidavit attesting employer compliance with the E-Verify requirements of the Georgia immigration law. While Georgia has yet to release rules or provide any clarification on how employees should be counted under this law, the Georgia Department of Law released affidavits for employers to present when applying for licensure: one for claiming less than 11 employees, and thus exemption from the E-Verify requirements, and another for employers with 500 or more employees. The affidavit for employers with more than 500 employers (valid from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012), like the immigration law itself, does not specify that the total number of employees is restricted to Georgia. The affidavit also asks for an employer’s E-Verify identification number and the date that number was issued.

Employers not already in E-Verify with 500+ employees and a limited Georgia presence may be justifiably on the fence about whether they want to enroll in E-Verify under the earliest possible deadline. These employers should consider the cost to working out the wrinkles in a license renewal process for a professional who needs a Georgia license and is unable to provide the required compliance affidavit.

For private employers without federal contracts, E-Verify use is limited to new hires. If an employer hires no (or a minimal number of) employees in Georgia in 2012, actual use of the program will be minimal and the burden relatively low compared to the cost if Georgia takes a hard line issuing licenses and later releases rules specifying that employers must consider all US employees for E-Verify compliance and deadlines.

Further, employers have a range of options in using and administering E-Verify within their company and can obtain the E-Verify Identification Number required as a condition to obtaining licensure without triggering E-Verify obligations for any hiring sites outside of Georgia.

Employers can also choose to administer E-Verify use for Georgia hires at a location outside of Georgia, for example, an out-of-state corporate headquarters.

The Georgia E-Verify law exemplifies the challenges that state-specific E-Verify requirements impose on employers, requiring additional compliance obligations for private employers while lacking clarity on practical aspects of the law.

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.]

Several states began requiring various employers to use the E-Verify system as of January 1, 2012.

Here is a list of these states and their E-Verify laws that go into effect in varying stages:

1. Louisiana: Act 376 will apply to private employers who bid on public entity projects or enter into contracts with a public entity on or after Jan. 1, 2012. The law requires that private employers who bid on a public entity project or enter into a contract agreement with a public entity for the physical performance of services, confirm in a sworn affidavit that the company uses the E-Verify® system to validate the legal citizenship or legal alien status for all employees within the United States. If the employer is awarded a contract, he is required to E-Verify all new employees in Louisiana hired through the duration of the contract. The requirement applies to both general contractors and their subcontractors. SOURCE

2. Alabama: Effective January 1, 2012, state contractors must use E-Verify. Effective April 1, 2012, every business entity or employer in this state shall enroll in E-Verify and thereafter, according to the federal statutes and regulations governing E-Verify, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through E-Verify. A business entity or employer that uses E-Verify to verify the work authorization of an employee shall not be deemed to have violated this section with respect to the employment of that employee.   SOURCE

3. Tennessee: under the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act of 2011,the employment verification provisions will be phased in as follows [SOURCE]:

• All state and local government agencies must enroll and participate in E-Verify or request and maintain an identity/employment authorization document from a newly hired employee no later than January 1, 2012

• All private employers with 500 or more employees must enroll and participate in E-Verify or request and maintain an identity / employment authorization document from a newly hired employee no later than January 1, 2012

• All private employers with 200 to 499 employees must enroll and participate in E-Verify or request and maintain an identity / employment authorization document from a newly hired employee no later than July 1, 2012

• All private employers with 6 to 199 employees must register and utilize E-Verify or request and maintain an identity / employment authorization document from a newly hired employee no later than July 1, 2013

4. South Carolina: the South Carolina Illegal Immigration and Reform Act requires all employers to enroll in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system beginning January 1, 2012 and to verify the legal status of all new employees through E-Verify within three business days. Employers may no longer confirm a new employee’s employment authorization with a driver’s license or state identification card. SOURCE

5. Georgia: The E-Verify Provision in Georgia’s H.B. 87 will require Georgia businesses with 500 employees or more to check their employees using E-Verify. Workers must be U.S. citizens or otherwise authorized to work in the country in order to be hired. The requirement takes place in phases. Starting July 1, businesses of 100 or more must use E-Verify. By January 2013, all businesses with more than 10 employees will be required to use the system. Those with 10 or fewer employees are exempt. SOURCE

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:

The USCIS announced the newly redesigned Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card and paper Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560).

Coming just months after a previous EAD redesign, these new versions further facilitate authentication, enhance security and discourage fraud by incorporating technology and tactile features in the EAD card and using a printing process that renders the certificates more tamper proof.

According to the USCIS press release, “The new features of the EAD will better equip workers, employers and law enforcement officials to recognize the card as definitive proof of authorization to work in the United States.”

Despite the new look and feel of these documents, there is no change to the way in which applicants apply for and receive them. USCIS will replace EADs already in circulation as individuals apply for their renewal or replacement. All previously issued EADs remain valid until the expiration date printed on the card. Previously issued Certificates of Citizenship remain valid indefinitely.

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:

The following article was written by Tracker Guest Blogger, Angelo A. Paparelli. J.D.:

The U.S. Supreme Court freed a herd of immigration “elephants [hiding] in a mousehole” on May 26. That’s when five Justices ruled that a four-word exception to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) — an act which, among its extensive provisions, banned the employment of foreign citizens whom the employer knows lack work permission — was not the final or sole word on the extent of punishment for unauthorized employment.

Based on an IRCA exception for “licensing and similar laws,” a 5-3 majority decided that Arizona may use the threat to revoke a business license as a means to punish AZ employers for the unauthorized hiring of foreigners and to require all the state’s public and private employers to enroll in the Feds’ E-Verify online work-clearance database.

Among the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the use of this squib of an IRCA exception as a means for the majority to undermine the “carefully constructed [and] uniform federal scheme for determining [unauthorized employment].” She cited an earlier case which observed that Congress “does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.” (Ironically and perhaps poetically just, all of the Justices in the majority had been appointed by presidents of the Republican party, whose avatar is the pachyderm.)

What does the decision, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, mean for large and small employers? Here are my predictions (I welcome any comments or critiques below or on my Twitter page):

1. Expect that mandatory E-Verify will spread to more states. As shown in this link, states are all over the map on their divergent requirements concerning E-Verify. Some — like AZ, SC and MS — require it of all employers. Others limit it to public entities and state contractors. The Supreme Court’s decision essentially green lights the states to regulate facets of immigration compliance that fall within traditional state police powers. The only requirement is that the state law find a connection to the broad police power over licensing. In essence, what was largely an exclusively federal domain, will now expand — with the Court’s blessing — into the inner workings of most businesses. Expect state and city micro-management of immigration to the Nth degree.

2. Expect some states to require E-Verify use as to current workers. As many states rush to enact laws mandating E-Verify, it would not be surprising if one or more extend its scope. Except for certain federal contractors and subs, E-Verify may not now be used to verify the work eligibility of current employees. While the extension of E-Verify at the state level to current workers would technically violate the terms of the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding that employers must sign, such a stretch would not be a surprise. Consider Utah’s recent legislation which adopted a guest worker program notwithstanding that — at least until the Whiting decision — the authorization to grant work permission had been seen as exclusively a federal power.

3. Expect higher rates of discrimination claims. The dissenters in Whiting predict that employers will follow the path of seemingly least resistance by becoming hyper-vigilant in inspecting job applicants’ documents of identity and work eligibility while finding subtle or overt ways to resist hiring persons who look or sound foreign or demanding to see specific documents or more documents than legally required. Although the majority noted that such discriminatory acts are already prohibited at the federal level, the likelihood is that the immigration agency charged with antidiscrimination prosecution and enforcement will be understaffed and short on resources to deal with the anticipated flood of complaints of unfair or illegal practices.

4. Expect more court battles over the extraterritorial reach of state immigration laws. What happens when poorly phrased state immigration laws come into contact with multi-state employers? Must a multi-state employer use E-Verify only as to its AZ new hires, or does AZ’s E-Verify law require that company to use the online system as to new employees nationwide? What will courts decide if a company chartered in AZ loses its license to do business in that state, and as a result, is disqualified to maintain its licenses to engage in business in other states? These are but a few of the foreseeable claims likely to congest the state and federal courts as state immigration laws proliferate after Whiting.

5. Expect a public backlash over state enforcement of the immigration laws. The devastating tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama likely caused the loss or destruction of many U.S. citizens’ documents of identity and work permission. When such citizens try to pick up their lives by moving to other states (where mandatory E-verify is in force), how will they prove their right to work? Such citizens are not likely to go quietly into the good night. They will scream to high heaven, and the media will listen and publicize their complaints. Other citizens, though not facing the effects of natural calamities, will likewise be erroneously rejected by E-Verify, as the National Immigration Law Center predicted last April in testimony before Congress. They too will rise in protest if denied employment to which they are entitled with jobs already hard enough to find in the current economy.

6. Expect some states to back away from immigration enforcement and instead seek federal waivers for immigration benefits. Just yesterday, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, perhaps signalling a trend in the opposite direction, expressed his opposition to an AZ-style immigration enforcement bill, noting that it would be “divisive” and bad for business. As noted above and at length in this blog before, Utah has passed legislation creating a guest worker visa program (that will require a Federal waiver).

7. Expect that states will seek more snitch visas or favorable discretion for stool pigeons from the federal government. The “S” visa category (what we in the trade call the Snitch Visa) allows any state or local law enforcement official to seek special immigration benefits, including a work permit, to allow a foreign citizen to participate as a witness in a criminal prosecution. Federal immigration authorities can also exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant work permission at the request of a state or local police agency or prosecutor. In states where immigration policing is a high priority, just as with the justly maligned Secure Communities program, criminal prosecutions under state immigration laws will likely generate requests for special privileges and leniency to foreign workers who agree to rat out alleged immigration violations of their employers.

8. Expect a battle royal in Congress over mandatory federal E-Verify. The business and pro-immigrant communities will not take lying down the likely GOP push to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers nationally. While this will push, if enacted, would take the wind out of the states’ sails, opposition to the move would point to the persistently high rates of false positives and negatives in E-Verify and the budget busting consequences of a national mandate.

9. Expect busier days ahead for immigration lawyers. Notwithstanding that the demand for H-1B visas this year has been underwhelming, lawyers practicing immigration law have reason to be hopeful that business will pick up. The already mind-boggling complexity of federal immigration law will become more complicated, perhaps by a factor of 50, as the states get into the act. This quantum leap doesn’t take into account the cities and regional governments that may have politicians, even now, planning a Barletta-like push for fame and higher office by espousing “mouse-that-roared” immigration ordinances.

10. Expect that Congress or the President will act. Before we reach the point of proliferating and conflicting 50-state and countless-municipal “solutions” to America’s dysfunctional immigration laws, this blogger — always a glass-half-full type — envisions that statesman-like behavior or public outcries will cause action at the federal level to end the nonsense. Businesses cannot function, and lawfully-authorized American citizens and residents cannot find jobs, if we balkanize our immigration polcies. I say, fingers crossed, that cooler heads will prevail.

Today, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at the Center for American Progress about the need for immigration reform while reinforcing the Obama Administration’s commitment to worksite enforcement and the expansion of E-Verify. Below is an excerpt from her prepared remarks concerning I-9 and E-Verify issues. Note the recent surge in E-Verify registration: approaching 2,000 employers per week.

Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration. We are auditing the books of thousands of employers suspected of relying on illegal labor to achieve an unfair advantage in the marketplace. As part of this effort, Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited more employers suspected of hiring illegal labor in a single day in July than had been audited in all of 2008. We’re also encouraging workplace compliance by expanding and improving the E-Verify system—an Internet-based system that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires. More than 167,000 employers at 639,000 worksites use E-Verify. In the past month, the program has grown at the rate of nearly 2,000 employers per week.

Improved interior and worksite enforcement is a critical part of comprehensive immigration reform. We’ve demonstrated that when it comes to that issue, this Administration is committed to action.

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on E-Verify and the future of employment eligibility verification. Sen. Schumer, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, set the stage with his opening remarks by declaring that improving employment verification is a necessary component of broad immigration reform. Most in attendance agreed that the current system (using the paper I-9 and optional E-Verify) has flaws in that it cannot detect identity fraud, requires overly subjective evaluation by employers, and is ultimately error-prone. As can be imagined, there were differing views on the best way to resolve this dilemma.

Sen Schumer outlined 10 characteristics of his proposed system, which would include the use of non-forgeable biometric identifiers (such as fingerprints, iris scans, etc). Congressman Gutierrez also supported an entirely biometric system, arguing that it would reduce fraud, prevent pre-screening, and empower individuals to correct errors more easily.

James Ziglar, former commissioner for INS, also advocated the use of biometrics (while simultaneously disclosing his equity position in a biometrics company). Mr. Ziglar was not as harsh in his critique of E-Verify, going so far as to suggest that a biometric component could be added-on so that we don’t have to scrap the whole E-Verify system. He recognized though that the cost of a biometric system (either brand new or in E-Verify) would be significant.

Lynden Melmed, former Chief Counsel for USCIS, emphasized the need for a prompt, accurate and reliable system which eliminates subjective decision-making by employers, simplifies the rules, and fairly distributes the costs of such a system so that employers are not overly burdened. Mr. Melmed testified that this could be possible either through an improved E-Verify system (with biometrics) or a similar program that achieves the same end.

Michael Aytes, Acting Deputy Director of the USCIS, was the lone voice with full support for the current E-Verify system. As in past testimony, Mr. Aytes highlighted the growing enrollment in E-Verify, enhancements in accuracy and reliability, and the USCIS commitment to further strengthen the system through outreach programs, increased monitoring and compliance, and mechanisms to safeguard employee privacy. Here are the latest E-Verify Usage stats and figures from Mr. Aytes as of July 18, 2009:

• Over 137,000 employers are enrolled, representing over 517,000 locations
• Employers have run over 6.4 million queries thus far in FY 2009
• 96.9 percent of all cases queried through E-Verify were automatically verified as work authorized (based on data from October through December 2008)
• 3.1 percent of queries resulted in a mismatch, or a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC)
• Of the 3.1 % TNCs, 0.3 percent are related to new hires who were issued a TNC and successfully contested the case. The remaining 2.8 % were found not work-authorized either because the employee was in fact not work-authorized, chose not to contest, did not follow the necessary procedures to successfully contest, or was unaware of the TNC or the opportunity to contest because the employer did not follow proper procedures.

U.S. employers are required by law to verify employment authorization of all workers they hire on or after November 6, 1986, for employment in the United States, regardless of the workers’ immigration status.

A newly-redesigned Form I-9 Customer Guide from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offers a number of useful tips to employers seeking answers to employment eligibility verification questions and can be downloaded from the USCIS website.

Employers can also request a free E-Verify and Form I-9 HR Toolkit from the Tracker I-9™ website.

  U.S. employers are required by law to verify the employment authorization of all workers they hire on or after November 6, 1986, for employment in the United States, regardless of the workers’ immigration status.

Employers who hire or continue to employ individuals knowing that they are not authorized to be employed in the United States, or who fail to comply with employment authorization verification requirements, may face civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties.

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, must be completed for each newly hired employee, including U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary foreign workers, to demonstrate the employer’s compliance with the law and the employee’s work authorization.

The employee must complete Section 1, Employee Information and Verification, of Form I-9. The employee must attest that he or she is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident, or is otherwise authorized to work for the employer in the United States. Each newly hired employee (an employee who has accepted the position) should complete and sign Section 1 no later than the first day of employment, regardless of his or her immigration status.

The employer is obligated, after physically examining the documents presented by the employee, to complete Section 2, Employer Review and Verification, and Section 3, Updating and Reverification (if applicable), of the I-9 form. Employers must complete and sign Section 2 of Form I-9 within 3 business days of the employee’s first day of employment. If the employment relationship will last less than 3 days, then the employer must verify work authorization and complete Section 2 no later than the first day of employment.

The employee may provide the documents they choose from those listed on the most recent Lists of Acceptable Documents, which can be found on the I-9 form.

An employer cannot tell an employee which documents to present for Form I-9 purposes.

An employee who has been issued temporary work authorization must produce proof of continued work authorization no later than the expiration date.

Employers should complete Section 3 of Form I-9 when updating and reverifying the employment authorization of an employee whose previous valid authorization has expired.

Rejecting a document that later proves to be genuine could result in a violation of the anti-discrimination provisions of immigration law, so employers should guard against being overzealous in their inspection of documents the employee presents.

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.