Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Employment Authorization Verification: A Fine Line Between Compliance and Discrimination



Contributed by Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorney, Colorado Springs Office

The I-9 Form is an enigma among so many complex immigration forms. Employers and employees often may overlook the significance of the form and reasons why the form exists. Created in 1986, the form was intended to reduce the allure of unauthorized employment in the United States. However, a zealous employer must not only focus on the employment authorization verification section of the law, but should also be wary of the anti-discrimination requirements of the law. A recently published settlement agreement between the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and Commercial Cleaning Systems, Inc. (CCS) reminds employers that the anti-discrimination section of the law is just as important as the employment authorization verification requirements of the I-9 Form.

Anyone who has been hired by an employer since November 6, 1986, has at one time or probably multiple times completed an I-9 Form. It is a two page form (previously only one page) in a myriad of one and two page forms that you complete as part of your hiring process. You may even have called the employer in advance asking her what you should bring with you on your first day of employment. If he or she told you to specifically bring a driver’s license and social security to verify employment without providing you with the full list of acceptable documents, the employer may actually have been in violation of the discrimination portion of the I-9 Form. While other factors may be necessary to actually pursue a claim, it can be that easy for an employer to cross the line, especially if it becomes a practice.

In the OSC settlement with CCS, CCS crossed the line when it “engaged in unfair documentary practices,” specifically “practices of over-documentation” requirements for non-U.S. citizen applicants for employment. The law governing the employment authorization verification process lays out the type of documents that an employer may accept and/or require that a new hire present for employment authorization verification and identification. INA §§ 274A(b)(1); 274B(a)(6). On your first day of work or even prior, your employer may have presented you with a list divided into three columns marked A, B, or C. Each column requests acceptable documents that establish employment authorization and/or identification. The employer should leave it up to the employee as to which of the documents he chooses to present to establish eligibility for employment. If the employee satisfies the document requirement, the employer may not request any additional documents. An employer may also not restrict the documents that an employee may provide, per the example above, or reject a valid employment authorization document with an expiration date. These practices are especially a problem if a pattern emerges of limiting requests for excessive or restrictive documentation to immigrants or persons perceived to be immigrants or foreign nationals. An employer may not discriminate in hiring and firing practices on the “basis of citizenship status or national origin.” INA § 274B(a)(1).

While an employer may think these practices are minor infractions in a good faith effort of compliance, a necessary evil, the consequences of such a practice may lead to civil fines and/or back-pay obligations. In the case of CCS, the employer was fined a total of $53,550, and required to set aside at least $25,000 “to compensate work-authorized individuals” who were not considered for a position, “denied or delayed job placement, suspension, termination, or other periods of lost work” as a result of CCS’s unauthorized hiring practices. Civil fines for unfair documentary practices or document abuse may range from $110 to $1,100 “for each individual discriminated against,” according to the Form M-274 Handbook for Employers available on the USCIS website. Discrimination in hiring on the basis of citizenship status or national origin may lead to fines as much as $3,200 per individual for first time offenders and as much as $16,000 for each individual if the practice continues.

Employers are strongly advised to regularly audit their I-9 Forms and continually train staff on proper and updated workforce compliance procedures and policies. To help in this process, we would encourage employers to seek out counsel from licensed immigration attorneys who can not only assist with the audit process but also provide direction and training to authorized representatives of the employer assigned to collect and retain employment authorization verification forms. In certain states, such as Colorado, this may include state required documentation retention procedures. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services website also provides guidance, including the M-274 Handbook and I-9 Central at http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s Eleven Theses on Immigration Reform

Contributed by Amber L. Blasingame, Associate Attorney, Colorado Springs Office

In the wake of congressional “do-nothingism,” per Rep. Luis Gutierrez, President Obama announced plans on June 30, 2014, to implement additional immigration relief within the power of the executive branch before the end of this summer. The President did not provide more specifics on his intentions. However, in April, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC or Caucus) presented a draft of a confidential memorandum to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson outlining possible options within the power of the executive branch “to end the needless separation of American families” affected by immigration enforcement. The memo, which was subsequently leaked to the media, includes suggestions both on affirmative administrative relief and immigration enforcement.

The CHC offers five possible affirmative administrative relief actions that the President could execute with the “confines of the law.” The options for relief presented in the memo include the following: (1) Expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to family members of DACA recipients who would qualify for relief per the Senate Immigration Reform Bill (S. 744); (2) Expansion of “Parole in Place” benefits to undocumented immigrants other than family members of military personnel; (3) Eligibility to adjust to permanent residence for DACA or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients who travel and reenter on “advance parole” despite prior unlawful presence; (4) Expansion of Humanitarian Parole to immediate family members of DACA recipients and immediate relatives of US Citizens and Permanent Residents; and (5) Extending eligibility for enlistment in the military to recipients of DACA, TPS, Asylum, or Refugee Status under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program.

In addition, the CHC memorandum advises the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to modify the agency’s “policies and practices to reflect a more humane approach to immigration enforcement.” The Caucus advocates a clarification of the “extreme hardship” standard for waivers and provisional waivers of grounds of inadmissibility, such as for unlawful presence, that incorporates prior DHS decisions and memorandums. Furthermore, the Caucus proposed an expansion of the provisional waiver to spouses and children of permanent residents. On the subject of deportation proceedings, the memorandum requested a review of enforcement priorities and a refinement of prosecutorial discretion practices to provide “case-by-case use of deferred action” and adjusting the weight of positive factors over negative factors, a limitation on “deportations without hearings” which includes expedited removals at the border, and restricting detainment of immigrants to the “highest priority cases.” The CHC likewise counseled a termination of Secure Communities to improve safety, reduce racial profiling, rebuild community trust, and relieve local law enforcement of any obligation to participate in immigration enforcement programs. As a final point, the Caucus called for improvements in “short term custody” to improve the conditions and treatment of immigrants in immigration detention facilities.

No Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2014, Executive Actions Imminent


Contributed by Aaron Hall, Partner

After months of languishing in the House of Representatives with only the occasional flicker of hope, it appears that the prospect of immigration reform is officially dead for 2014. 

The Obama Administration has announced that by the end of the summer, it would be implementing a new serious of executive actions.  In the summer of 2012, the administration implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an executive action.  It is unclear if this summer’s policy changes will include an expansion of the DACA program or whether they will be different in scope and purpose. 

According to a Politico article, the White House acknowledges the risks of turning to executive authority and knows that many will complain that it has gone too far while many others will feel like it has not done enough.  The administration has not released any specific plans but has stated that it plans to “go as far as we think is good policy and is permitted under the law.”