E-Verify & I-9 News

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

In a continuing trend of higher fines and forfeitures, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) announced ABC Professional Tree Services Inc. (ABC) had agreed to pay $2 million as forfeited funds to the Department of Homeland Security and adhere to revised immigration compliance procedures in return for the government agreeing not to criminally prosecute the company.

ABC is a Houston-based company that provides right of way vegetation management for electric utilities in more than a dozen states. ICE-HSI agents, in Birmingham, Alabama, began investigating ABC in early 2008 following complaints that a significant portion of the company’s employees were undocumented aliens. In March 2008, agents conducted traffic stops on ABC crews and detained employees, who were determined to be unlawfully present in the United States.

In June 2008, ICE-HSI agents reviewed the I-9 forms and supporting documentation for about 2,500 employees at ABC. The inspection revealed a significant number of employees had presented invalid personal identification documents, such as permanent resident cards, work authorization cards, and driver licenses, at the time of hire. As of the second quarter of 2009, about 30 % of the workforce was determined by ICE to be undocumented workers.

On March 4, 2010, ICE-HSI agents executed a search warrant at ABC’s Houston headquarters seizing employment and personnel records. Additionally, agents detained undocumented workers, who were on site at the headquarters. More undocumented ABC employees were detained during a traffic stop in Birmingham on that same day.

The government’s investigation revealed ABC had ignored federal law for years, by falsely attesting on I-9s that work authorization documents presented by new hires appeared genuine. In addition, for several years, ABC had received “no-match letters” from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and similar information from the company’s payroll processor, both of which indicated employee names and Social Security numbers did not match SSA records. However, the company failed to take corrective measures, resulting in the continued employment of the undocumented aliens.

ABC derived at least $2 million in revenue from the provision of services to electrical utilities with its undocumented workforce from 2006 through 2011. This figure represents the amount of money that ABC agreed to forfeit to the government.

Since September 2008, ABC has used E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Beginning in the fall of 2008, the company also revised its immigration compliance procedures to include new policies concerning the proper completion, retention and auditing of I-9s and for responding to SSA no-match letters. Furthermore, ABC has terminated hundreds of undocumented workers.

Just in 2012, ICE-HSI has fined or agreed to forfeitures at the following companies or business executives in these amounts (only listing those of $100,000 or more): Atrium Companies – $2 million; Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI) – $2 million; HerbCo – $1 million; Sun Drywall and Stucco, Inc. – $225,000; two executives of LTCI Ltd. – $223,000; and J & J Industrial Supply – $150,000.

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, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

Atrium Companies, the owner of Champion Windows and Advanced Containment Systems, agreed to settle a case with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) for $2 million as a result of a pattern and practice of hiring illegal aliens.

An I-9 audit, conducted by ICE – Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in February 2011, revealed 269 of Champion’s 451-person workforce consisted of undocumented aliens. Many employees’ I-9 documentation had numerous “egregiously suspect” errors, such as misspellings of agency names and/or containing the words “novelty item.” In November 2009, Thereafter, at the request of the government, all of the undocumented aliens were terminated from Champion by the end of April 2011.

The ICE HSI investigation also revealed that, since acquiring Champion, management at Atrium had become aware of the possibility of large numbers of undocumented aliens being employed at Champion’s Houston factory. A follow-up audit conducted by ICE HSI of Atrium Companies’ remaining 12 subsidiaries in May 2011 revealed that about 8.3 percent of the parent company’s 3,382 employees (excluding Champion employees) were undocumented aliens. All of these workers were terminated within a matter of weeks.

Atrium received multiple notices from the Social Security Administration (SSA) known as “no-match letters,” which indicated employee names and Social Security numbers did not match SSA records. The companies failed to take any corrective measures, resulting in the continued employment of the undocumented aliens.

The ICE announcement reported that since December 2010, Atrium Companies has revised its immigration compliance procedures to include new policies concerning the proper completion, retention and auditing of I-9 forms and for responding to SSA no match letters. Under the terms of the agreement, Atrium Companies must also hire a full-time chief compliance officer and continue to consult with immigration counsel in order to ensure the legality of its workforce.

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, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

“ICE fine, right ahead!”

Recent decisions of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) continue to demonstrate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and OCAHO strongly disagree on the appropriate level of penalties for small employers committing I-9 violations. Three recent OCAHO decisions demonstrate that ICE continues to seek large penalties against small employers committing numerous I-9 violations while OCAHO continues to use its discretion to reduce the penalties by 50% or more.

In the most recent OCAHO decision, United States v. Pegasus Restaurant, 10 OCAHO No. 1143 (2012), OCAHO reduced ICE’s proposed penalty of $131,554.50 to $49,427, a reduction of about 62%. In this matter, the restaurant failed to fill out any I-9′s for 134 hired employees over a three year period. Of the 134 employees, four were not authorized to work. ICE sought a penalty of $981.75 per violation. ICE did not seek to aggravate or mitigate the proposed penalty based upon the five designated factors – size of business, good faith, history of violations, seriousness of the violations, and presence of unauthorized employees.

OCAHO accepted the restaurant’s argument that the proposed penalties were disproportionate in light of the size and resources of the business. OCAHO cited precedent which states a penalty should be sufficiently meaningful to accomplish the purpose of deterring future violations without being “unduly punitive” in light of the respondent’s resources; thus, proportionality is the key. See United States v. Jonel, 8 OCAHO No. 1008 (1998), and United States v. Minaco Fashions, Inc., 3 OCAHO No. 587 (1993).

Therefore, OCAHO reduced 130 violations from $981.75 per violation to $350 each while refusing to reduce the penalty involving the four unauthorized employees. OCAHO found a penalty of $47,427 to be “sufficiently substantial” to have a significant deterrent effect going forward.

Similarly, in United States v. Ice Castles Daycare Too, Inc., 10 OCAHO No. 1142 (2011), OCAHO substantially reduced the employer’s penalty from $55,352 to $18,500. In Ice Castles Daycare, the evidence established over a three-year period of time the daycare center failed to prepare I-9s for 74 employees although it did examine appropriate documents to verify employment eligibility.

ICE sought a penalty of $748 for each of the 74 violations. This amount was a reduction of the baseline penalty of $935 per violation based on 5% mitigation for each of these factors – small size of business (it averaged 30 employees), good faith of employer, no unauthorized employees and no history of violations.

The daycare asserted a fine of $55,000 could put them out of business since its ordinary business income from 2006 to 2009 was $21,000, ($4,000), $5,500, and $38,000, respectively. Based upon Ice Castles Daycare’s ability to pay, its small size, and its efforts to verify employment authorization, OCAHO reduced the 74 violations to $250 for a total of $18,500. Thus, the penalties were reduced by about 66%.

Previously, in United States v. Snack Attack Deli, Inc., 10 OCAHO No. 1137 (2010) (Subway case), OCAHO reduced the restaurant’s penalty from $111,000 to $27,150, a reduction of about 75%. In doing so, OCAHO cited the company’s inability to pay and relatively small size.

Two recent decisions where the penalties were not reduced by over 50% are United States v. Alyn Industries, 10 OCAHO No. 1141 (2011), and United States v. Ketchihan Drywall Services, 10 OCAHO No. 1139 (2011). However, in both of these cases, the employers were not small employers and had the ability to pay substantial fines.

My advice to small employers, who are facing substantial ICE penalties and cannot afford to pay them, is to hire an immigration attorney with experience in ICE audits and litigation (hopefully you have already done so) and litigate your case before OCHAHO. If successful, the reduction in the penalty should be greater than the cost of legal fees for the litigation, especially since the litigation involves a motion for summary judgment based upon the record evidence, not a hearing with witnesses.

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:

As a result of ICE’s worksite enforcement strategy,14 employers in New England have been fined this fiscal year for various violations, including failure to comply with Form I-9 rules, that enabled the companies to hire illegal aliens.

According to the ICE press release, Fines in the New England region include:

• A $118,000 settlement from Jasper Wyman & Son in Milbridge, Maine
• A a $100,000 fine of Commercial Cleaning Service of Allston, Massachusetts
• A $22,792 fine paid by D’Agostino Associates, Inc., in Newton, Massachusetts

“Nationally, from fiscal year 2009 to date, ICE has initiated Form I-9 inspections against nearly 4,000 businesses resulting in fines of nearly $7 million,” the ICE report says.

“These settlements serve as a reminder to employers that ICE will continue to hold them accountable for hiring and maintaining a legal and compliant workforce,” said Bruce M. Foucart, special agent in charge of ICE HSI in Boston. “We encourage companies to take the employment verification process seriously.”

In announcing this fine, ICE reminded employers that they have implemented a new, comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for unauthorized employment by focusing their resources on auditing and investigating employers who are suspected of cultivating and hiring undocumented workers. In addition, ICE has also been increasing the number of random Form I-9 audits on all employers, regardless of size or industry. For more information on these initiatives, please browse our blog posts on ICE enforcement.

Foucart also added that ICE continues to promote its IMAGE program as a way for employers to work towards a legal, compliant workforce. As a brief overview for those of you who are not familiar with program, IMAGE is a voluntary initiative that aims to reduce unauthorized employment and minimize I-9 compliance vulnerabilities for participating businesses.  In exchange for receiving training on hiring practices, fraudulent document detection, use of the E-Verify employment eligibility verification program, and anti-discrimination procedures, participants must agree to an I-9 audit conducted by ICE and enroll in E-Verify, amongst other conditions.  Upon enrollment in and commitment to IMAGE Best Employment Practices, program members will be deemed “IMAGE certified.” For more detailed information about IMAGE, please visit ICE’s website.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has issued yet another round of I-9 inspection notices to as many as 1,000 businesses located throughout the United States. Initially reported by the Associated Press, this announcement is another clear example of what has widely come to be known as the current administration’s “quiet immigration raid” policy. Instead of the high-profile immigration raids of years past, ICE has been focusing more on more on targeting employers (to the tune of 1000s) through the use of Form I-9 audits and investigations of their hiring practices.

Although ICE declined to name specific companies to be included in this round of audits, the AP is reporting that according to an ICE statement, “The inspections will touch on employers of all sizes and in every state in the nation, with an emphasis on businesses related to critical infrastructure and key resources.” You can read this Wall Street Journal article for additional insight here.

Recent I-9 Audits Numbers: The Trend is Clear

According to various reports, this latest batch of  inspections will bring the total number of ICE I-9 audits to 2,338 so far for this fiscal year, which already exceeds ICE’s record-breaking I-9 audit total of 2,196 from fiscal 2010 where average audit fines exceeded $110,000.

Recently, we attended a workforce symposium in the San Francisco Bay Area where representatives from ICE, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice all spoke about their agency’s efforts to determine whether businesses are violating U.S. employment laws by hiring unauthorized workers and what step their respective departments are taking to discourage such hiring practices. The ICE agent stated that I-9 audits are the key ICE initiative on this front. The agent also warned that one of the agency’s enforcement goals was to have the resources in place to handle 10,000 annual I-9 audits by the beginning of next year. Given ICE’s current pace, this goal seems achievable.

So how can you best prepare for a potential ICE audit?

First, companies should consider conducting a preemptive internal audit to get your I-9 house in order. Then analyze your results, initiate targeted training, and standardize your I-9 practices and procedures.

As you will probably find out, the paper Form I-9 process is error-prone and hard to centralize. Therefore, after conducting the internal audit you will want to implement a trustworthy I-9 software system to keep track of all the I-9 documents, deadlines, and work visa reverification requirements.

These steps are especially important for companies that have a large number of employees, high turnover rates, and/or multiple worksites. Of course, employers should always consider the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

I-9 Auditing Overview

Over the past year, we published several articles on the I-9 audit process, including potential fines. For your convenience, here are links to these various resources.

• DHS announces 1,000 new I-9 audits nationwide (February 2011)
• DHS memo sets out new I-9 enforcement strategy
• Anatomy of an I-9 Subpoena
• DHS releases I-9 penalty schedule and overview of inspection process
• The New I-9 Audit: A “Quiet” Immigration Raid

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.

The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security, aptly named the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), recently publicized that they will issue a new batch of I-9 inspection notices to as many as 1,000 businesses located throughout the United States.

So, why is this important?

As initially reported by the Wall Street Journal, this announcement is yet another example of what people are calling the Obama administration’s “quiet immigration raid” policy. Instead of the high-profile immigration raids of years past, ICE has been focusing less on rounding up illegal workers and more on targeting unscrupulous employers through the use of Form I-9 audits and investigations of their hiring practices. Last month ICE announced the establishment of a new employment compliance inspection center and it appears they plan on putting these new resources to work. You can read the full WSJ article here.

As we previously reported, ICE released a worksite enforcement memo which details the most common reasons why a company might receive an audit, as well as who can be targeted.  Frequently, ICE investigates companies based upon an employee or public whistleblower complaint.

Although ICE declined to name specific companies to be included in this rounds of audits,  according to their statement, “The inspections will touch on employers of all sizes and in every state in the nation – no one industry is being targeted nor is any one industry immune from scrutiny.”

So how can you best prepare for a potential ICE audit?

First, companies should consider conducting a preemptive internal audit to get your I-9 house in order. Then analyze your results, initiate targeted training, and standardize your I-9 practices and procedures.

As you will probably find out, the paper Form I-9 process is error-prone and hard to centralize. Therefore, after conducting the internal audit you will want to implement a trustworthy electronic management system to keep track of all the I-9 documents, deadlines, and work visa reverification requirements.

These steps are especially important for companies that have a large number of employees, high turnover rates, and/or multiple worksites. Of course, employers should always consider the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

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 not act upon it without consulting legal counsel as individual situations and facts may vary.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton revealed that in fiscal year 2010, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement numbers climbed to historic high numbers. This surge included a 500% increase in penalties from worksite enforcement actions, a nearly two-fold increase in I-9 audits (2,200), a record-breaking 180 criminal prosecutions of employers and the debarring of more than 97 businesses (compared to 30 last FY). Average fines exceeded $110,000.

John Morton

ICE Director John Morton said that enforcing worksite laws not only promotes fairness in the workplace, but it also substantially reduces the incentive for aliens to enter the United States illegally.

“We will continue to enforce the law in a firm, sensible manner,” said Morton.  “And we will do it based on a rational set of priorities–priorities that focus on criminals, unscrupulous employers and those who game the system–priorities that promote public safety, border security and the integrity of our immigration system.”

So, why is this important?
Well, with the current economic climate and views on immigration, these statistics are the clearest example of what people are calling the Obama administration’s “quiet immigration raid” policy. Instead of the high-profile immigration raids of years past, ICE has been focusing less on rounding up illegal workers and more on targeting unscrupulous employers through the use of Form I-9 audits and investigations of their hiring practices.

As we previously reported, ICE released a worksite enforcement memo which details the most common reasons why a company might receive an audit, as well as who can be targeted.  Frequently, ICE investigates companies based upon an employee or public whistleblower complaint.

Employers located in nuclear power facilities, airports and surrounding companies, and companies located in landmark buildings are also going to be targeted. ICE will also pursue high turnover industries, such as retail and food service. Lastly, it’s now possible that the audit happened completely by chance – perhaps simply because of where your company is located.

So how can you best prepare for a potential ICE audit?
First, companies should consider conducting a preemptive internal audit to get your I-9 house in order.Then analyze your results, initiate targeted training, and standardize your I-9 practices and procedures.

As you will probably find out, the paper Form I-9 process is error-prone and hard to centralize. Therefore, after conducting the internal audit you will want to implement a trustworthy electronic management system to keep track of all the I-9 documents, deadlines, and work visa reverification requirements.

These steps are especially important for companies that have a large number of employees, high turnover rates, and/or multiple worksites. Of course, employers should always consider the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

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 not act upon it without consulting legal counsel as individual situations and facts may vary.

Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made public its 5-year strategic plan for FY 2010-14, which lays out the agency’s priorities on three homeland security missions: (1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security; (2) securing and managing our borders; and (3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws.

Looking more closely at the document, it becomes clear that one of ICE’s top objectives is to continue its worksite enforcement program and hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. The following excerpt from page five of the document details ICE’s stated efforts to address illegal employment and “Create a Culture of Employer Compliance:”

The opportunity to work in the United States motivates many to seek illegal entry. Therefore, enforcing the immigration-related employment laws is a critical component of border security. To create a culture of compliance among employers, ICE will use the following two-pronged strategy: (1) aggressive criminal and civil enforcement against those employers who knowingly violate the law; and (2) continued implementation of programs, such as E-Verify and ICE’s IMAGE program, to help employers comply. Criminal investigations will increasingly focus on employers who abuse and exploit workers or otherwise engage in egregious conduct. To support a meaningful civil audit program, ICE will hire additional auditors and centralize some auditing functions. Through the “I E-Verify” campaign, ICE will work with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to increase public support for companies that use compliance tools. Finally, ICE will seek better statutory tools to address illegal employment.

In an atmosphere of increased worksite enforcement in the coming years, it will be more important than ever for employers to review their own internal hiring practices and procedures, including the completion and retention of the Form I-9. Tracker Corp has many freely available I-9 resources to get you started, while also introducing you to a more efficient and effective compliance tool.

The entire seven page strategic plan is available below.

ICE Strategic Plan 2010

Recently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced its first agreement to enroll a South Carolina company into the Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program.

As a brief overview for those of you who are not familiar with program, IMAGE is a voluntary initiative that aims to reduce unauthorized employment and minimize I-9 compliance vulnerabilities for participating businesses.  In exchange for receiving training on hiring practices, fraudulent document detection, use of the E-Verify employment eligibility verification program, and anti-discrimination procedures, participants must agree to an I-9 audit conducted by ICE and enroll in E-Verify, amongst other conditions.  Upon enrollment in and commitment to IMAGE Best Employment Practices, program members will be deemed “IMAGE certified.”

For more detailed information about IMAGE, please visit ICE’s website.