[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.

Discover how Tracker’s electronic I-9 software service lets you produce flawless I-9s every time. Feel free to contact us we’d love to hear from you.

[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.