Hit With I-9 Violations? Put Them on ICE

24 March 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Employers who seek administrative review of enforcement fines sought by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) related to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 violations may petition relief from such ICE allegations before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), a division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In previous years, the amount of published decisions issued by OCAHO has been relatively small, recently, it has ticked upward. The increase in published decisions, as well as the topics covered in those decision, provide insight into increasing Government scrutiny on I-9 compliance issues and the potential risks associated with such heightened scrutiny. Furthermore, as we noted last year, I-9 scrutiny is on the rise, and the increase in published decisions may only be the latest step in that campaign.

By comparison to 2012, where OCAHO only issued 11 published decisions, in 2013, OCAHO published 38 such decisions, 8 of which concerned discrimination and document abuse where employers demanded more proof of employment eligibility than that mandated by law and/or singled out particular ethnicities for greater scrutiny. The 30 remaining cases concerned Form I-9 violations including technical errors, constructive and/or actual knowledge of unauthorized employment and substantive inconsistency in data recorded on Form I-9 and actual identification documents presented by employees. In each of these 30 cases, employers not only contested the ICE allegations, but also sought reduction in the ICE-assessed fines. In 28 such cases, OCAHO reduced the penalties actually sought by ICE for a myriad of reasons including the precarious financial condition of the employing companies in question, the relative size of the employer with smaller employers gaining greater relief from ICE-imposed fines [normally a 5% mitigating factor on the ICE-imposed fine] and OCAHO findings that ICE’s financial penalties were unduly punitive.

Reduction in such fines, however, is not a given. In February 2014, OCAHO published a decision validating an ICE-assessed penalty of $77,000 against an Indian Cuisine restaurant where seventy one (71) I-9 Form violations were assessed at the statutory maximum of $1,100 per violation. The OCAHO reasoned no penalty mitigation was in order when the employer evidenced bad faith by systematically paying unauthorized employees in cash, off the books, and failing to report such wages to the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities. Nowhere to be found in the 38 published decisions was OCAHO amenable to employer defenses that asserted unawareness of even the existence of an I-9 Form requirement nor to any defense that the errors on the I-9 Forms were technical, not substantive. Such technical errors are afforded by IRCA, a ten day curative provision. In 2013, however, OCAHO repeatedly found such defenses lacked validity given nearly three decades of education and enforcement
concerning IRCA’ s employment eligibility mandates.

The 2013 OCAHO published decisions also highlight ICE’s touted enforcement targets as of 2009. The greatest number of 2013 OCAHO published cases concerned the food service industry – including restaurants, food processors, and those involved in agriculture. Second highest were retail and distribution companies with manufacturing and construction companies following. Additionally, the majority of such cases evidenced multi-lateral cooperation and investigation by multiple federal enforcement agencies including ICE, state Departments of Labor, and the Alien Smuggling Unit of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a previously uncommon level of inter-agency cooperation.

Given the clearly heightened focus on Form I-9 compliance issues, it might be wise to have knowledgeable counsel review your company’s I-9 documentation to assess liability for possible compliance violations, or for training on I-9 compliance issues.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services