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.]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached a settlement agreement with Best Packing Services Employment Agency Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania resolving allegations that the company discriminated under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), when it impermissibly delayed the start date of two refugees after requiring them to provide specific I-9 documentation.

The refugees alleged they were not allowed to begin employment until they produced unexpired, Department of Homeland Security-issued employment authorization documents, despite the fact that the refugees presented unexpired state identification cards and unrestricted Social Security cards at the time of hire, which were sufficient documentation for employment eligibility verification purposes.

The INA anti-discrimination provision prohibits treating employees differently in the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes based on citizenship status or national origin. Since the department’s investigation revealed that Best Packing allowed U.S. citizens to provide state identification cards and unrestricted Social Security cards and did not demand other specific Form I-9 documentation for U.S. citizens, it was determined that the refugees had been unlawfully discriminated against.

As part of the settlement, Best Packing will provide full back pay to both victims due to each missing several weeks of work. Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to conform all of its actions to ensure compliance with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision and to train its human resources personnel about the company’s responsibility to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process.

This settlement is another in a long line of cases where employers are going too far, sometimes unknowingly, in an attempt to verify employment authorization by requiring specific or additional documentation during the Form I-9 process. Remember that in an effort to comply with the INA,  the actions of an overreaching employer may result in a finding of discrimination by the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel.

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.

[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.]

Constructive knowledge is a tricky concept. A basic definition goes something like this: By application of reasonable care or diligence if a person should have known a fact, he or she is deemed to have constructive knowledge of that fact. The legal definition of constructive knowledge has been an ongoing topic for immigration compliance for a number of years. The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has jurisdiction over three types of cases, including those involving allegations of: (1) knowingly hiring or the continued employment of unauthorized workers (2) immigration-related unfair employment practices; and (3) immigration-related document fraud.Recently, OCAHO, in United States v. Associated Painters, Inc., 10 OCAHO No. 1151 (May 30, 2012), provided some guidance as to what does not meet the definition of constructive knowledge.

Associated Painters, Inc. (API) faced two separate inspections by ICE and its predecessor INS in 2009 and 2000, respectively. In the 2000 inspection, INS found 34 employees could not be verified with proper work authorization. As a result, all of the 34 employees left employment with API by November 24, 2000. The company’s president, Rodney Friese, completed an “Attestation of Compliance – Re-verification of Employees” stating the employees no longer worked for API and affirmed “should any of the individuals listed in this Notice seek future employment, I am required to properly complete a Form I-9 with documents other than those indicated on the Notice.”

However, API did rehire three of the 34 employees in October 2004, March 2008, and September 2008. These three employees used the same Social Security numbers from their previous employment. This was contrary to the November 24, 2000 attestation.

On July 1, 2009, ICE conducted an inspection of API and discovered the rehiring of three employees with the previously used Social Security numbers. ICE served a Notice of Intent to Fine and API requested a hearing on the matter.

In response, ICE stated the only issue in need of resolution is whether API hired the three individuals “knowing them to be unauthorized to work.” ICE asserted API had actual and constructive knowledge of the unauthorized status of the three individuals based on Rodney Friese’s actual notice in 2000 and his acknowledgment – “should any of the individuals listed in this Notice seek future employment, I am required to properly complete a Form I-9 with documents other than those indicated on the Notice.”

API provided a statement from Friese asserting that, “because of the company’s decentralized recordkeeping, the lapse of time, and the number of employment applications considered, these hiring errors took place without the oversight and knowledge of the owners and officers of API. . . and the hires actually took place from four to eight years after the Attestation of Compliance was signed in 2000, that the three individuals were hired in two different locations by three different managers, and that the individuals simply slipped through the cracks unknowingly.”

As immigration compliance attorneys are well-aware, the doctrine of constructive knowledge is as clear as mud in OCAHO case law. ICE cited Collins Food International, Inc. v. INS, 948 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1991), Mester Manufacturing Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1989) and New El Rey Sausage Co. v. INS, 925 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991), to support its position that API had constructive knowledge.

The Court in Collins gave clear warning that the constructive knowledge doctrine must be “sparingly applied” in order to preserve congressional intent. Collins emphasized IRCA was “delicately balanced” to prevent the employment of unauthorized aliens while still avoiding discrimination. 948 F.2d at 554-55. Furthermore, too expansive a view of constructive knowledge would risk encouraging employers to avoid liability through discriminatory practices. Id. See also Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees’ International Union, 530 F.3d 817, 825 (9th Cir. 2008) (constructive knowledge must be narrowly construed and sparingly applied in order to preserve the original congressional intent).

OCAHO disagreed with ICE’s assertion that the decisions in Mester and New El Rey supported a finding of constructive knowledge in the case at bar. According to OCAHO:

Those cases involved employers who continued to employ suspect employees without interruption and without taking any corrective action at all after the employers had received specific notice from INS about the questionable status of the employees. Unlike the employers in those cases, (API) did not continue to employ the individuals on the list without interruption or corrective action after it received notice of the discrepancies in their documents in 2000; either it took prompt action to terminate them or they left after being requested to submit additional documents, but none continued to be employed by API after November 2000. The four to eight year period intervening between 2000 and the rehire of those three individuals readily distinguishes the facts in this case from those in Mester and New El Rey.

OCAHO stated:

What happened during the four to eight years intervening between 2000 and the hiring of the suspect employees is nowhere elaborated. For all that the record reflects, Friese promptly forgot about the Attestation of Compliance and did nothing at all to implement it. On the other hand, for all that the record discloses he took prompt steps to implement the Attestation by issuing directives to all the supervisors and hiring managers and by providing specific training for I-9 preparers every six months. We simply do not know. . . .

Context matters. The totality of the circumstances matters. Inferences are drawn from facts, not from legal syllogisms and not from the air. . . . This record is otherwise devoid of evidence as to any surrounding facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred that Araiza, Ponce, and Ramirez were hired because Friese or others at API failed to exercise reasonable care, abandoned their I-9 responsibilities, elected to look the other way, acted recklessly, or otherwise engaged in culpable conduct. Not only do we not know what Friese did in 2000 to notify the hiring managers, we do not know what the qualifications of those managers were, what training was provided to them, or what their turnover rate was. We know virtually nothing about the circumstances under which the hires took place in 2004 and 2008.

Based upon the record, OCAHO decided there was insufficient evidence to find API acted with “reckless and wanton disregard for the legal consequences of permitting another individual to introduce an unauthorized alien into its workforce.”

This is a significant decision because it provides a threshold for what does not meet the doctrine of constructive knowledge. Furthermore, it certainly shows continuing support that OCAHO will not merely rubber stamp ICE’s Notices of Intent to Fine. Thus, it may be well worth it for companies facing ICE fines to litigate the cases.

[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.]

“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:

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.

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

Today, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued its latest round of I-9 Notices of Inspection (NOIs) to 180 businesses in the Southeast, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee. As previously reported, these audits stem from a new government strategy implemented in 2009 to reduce the demand for unauthorized employment and protect employment opportunities in the US. Under this strategy, ICE has been focusing its resources on administrative actions (such as I-9 auditing) rather than using the high profile (and more expensive) ICE raid as done in years past.

I-9 Auditing Links

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.

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

In a press release issued yesterday, ICE reported that Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC paid a $536,046 fine as a result of a worksite enforcement investigation conducted by ICE in 2007. The investigation led to a raid of Koch’s Fairfield, Ohio, processing facility and the arrest of 161 undocumented workers in August 2007. ICE also executed a search warrant at Koch’s corporate offices in Chicago seizing relevant documents.

It’s important to note that the half a million dollar fine relates specifically to Form I-9 violations, which is consistent with ICE’s new approach to worksite enforcement. ICE issued the Notice of Intent to Fine on February 8, and the fine was paid on February 9 in Cleveland. Since the investigation, Koch Foods has apparently implemented new hiring procedures and an immigration compliance program to prevent future violations. The company is now also using E-Verify.

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.