New Look to Green Cards & EAD Cards  

USCIS will start issuing redesigned cards with enhanced graphics to applicants.  The new cards will start being issued on May 1, 2017.

These redesigns use enhanced graphics and fraud-resistant security features to create cards that are highly secure and more tamper-resistant to prevent document tampering, counterfeiting and fraud; than the ones currently in use.

The Redesigned Cards

The new Green Cards and EADs will:

  • Display the individual’s photos on both sides;
  • Show a unique graphic image and color palette:
  • Green Cards will have an image of the Statue of Liberty and a predominately green palette;
  • EAD cards will have an image of a bald eagle and a predominately red palette;
  • Have embedded holographic images; and
  • No longer display the individual’s signature.

Also, Green Cards will no longer have an optical stripe on the back.

How To Tell If Your Card Is Valid

Some Green Cards and EADs issued after May 1, 2017, may still display the existing design format as USCIS will continue using existing card stock until current supplies are depleted. Both the existing and the new Green Cards and EADs will remain valid until the expiration date shown on the card.

Certain EADs held by individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other designated categories have been automatically extended beyond the validity date on the card.

Employers, please note that both the older version and the new cards are acceptable for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Some older Green Cards do not have an expiration date.  These older Green Cards without an expiration date remain valid.

Individuals who have Green Cards without an expiration date may want to consider applying for a replacement card bearing an expiration date. Obtaining the replacement card will reduce the likelihood of fraud or tampering if the card is ever lost or stolen.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA ▪ nsm@mlolaw.us ▪ Office: 314.932.7111 & 314.402.2024

Disclaimer:  Not meant as legal advice! For information purposes only.

 

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Students at at UNNJ lose their visa!

ICE cancels F-1 Student visas

On April 4 and 5, 2016, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) terminated the visa of nonimmigrant students who had enrolled at the University of Northern New Jersey (UNNJ), and the visas of nonimmigrant students who had transferred from UNNJ.

Why?

The students were found to have knowingly participated in visa fraud because they enrolled at UNNJ to obtain an illegal to maintain their F-1 nonimmigrant status.

UNNJ is a school operated by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Newark. It was created as a part of an enforcement action that targeted SEVP-certified schools and officials who sought to fraudulently utilize SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to commit various violations of federal law.

There are approximately 60 students who are affected and who will receive notification of cancellation of their visa.

Students who are terminated because they were currently  or  enrolled before at UNNJ and choose not to file for reinstatement or have applied to USCIS for reinstatement and whose application is denied, must depart the country immediately.

Not Eligible for Transfer

These students are not eligible for to transfer to another SEVP-certified school unless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves the student for reinstatement following the student’s termination. Students who transferred to another school from UNNJ will also be terminated and their new school will be notified of the cancellation of their visa.

What to do now?

Call SEVP Response Center at 703-603-3400. This number is staffed from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except holidays. The SEVP Response Center is closed every Wednesday from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. ET for system maintenance and testing.

Provide the following information when calling:

  • First and last name
  • SEVIS ID number
  • Address
  • Telephone number where you can be reached
  • E-mail address
  • Current SEVP-certified school

Nalini Mahadevan JD, MBA

Attorney at Law

314-932-7111 office

nsm@mlolaw.us

website: Mlolaw.us

Disclaimer:  Not meant as legal advice. NOT meant to create an attorney client relationship.  Please call an attorney to obtain advice pertaining to your legal situation.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employer Defense In a Complaint of Documentary Abuse

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) has direct purview over three types of cases stemming from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In this case—Salim Hajiani vs. ESHA USA, Inc. and Sameer Ramjee—Hajiani, the complainant, alleged that the respondent engaged in two of the three areas of jurisdiction over which OCAHO resides: immigration-related unfair employment practices and immigration-related fraud, which are both in violation of the INA.

Hajiani registered a complaint against ESHA USA and Ramjee, accusing the respondents of document abuse, firing Hajiani due to his citizenship status, and taking revenge on him because of a religious discrimination complaint he filed against a former employer. Salim Hajiani is a lawful permanent resident of the US.

Hajiani was hired on October 10, 2011 at Sameer Ramjee’s gas station and convenience store, ESHA, which is in Philadelphia, Tennessee. Hajiani worked at the store until January 10, 2012, when he was fired. On June 26, 2012, he filed a complaint with OSC, to which OSC responded that the complaint didn’t fall under their jurisdiction. Hajiani then filed a charge with OCAHO in February 8, 2013.

Hajiani’s complaint against his employer was a detailed litany of purported incidents of document abuse and job complaints, such as long hours, no overtime pay, and double shifts. He also specified that one of the reasons he was fired was because Ramjee preferred to employ undocumented workers so that he wouldn’t have to pay them overtime or give them benefits.

Hajiani made various allegations against other employees that were not under the scope of OCAHO’s jurisdiction—complaints of undocumented workers also do not fall under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Such instances include cash register shortages, sexual harassment, allegations of tax fraud, selling tobacco to minors, and that he wasn’t hired for store’s first shift because only US citizens were allowed to work that shift. Hajiani also noted in his complaint that his claim was filed timely.

However, his claim of document abuse was not filed in a timely manner. Hajiani alleged that the document abuse occurred in October 2011, but didn’t file the charge with OSC until June 26, 2012. The IRCA strictly says, “no complaint may be filed respecting any unfair immigration-related practice occurring more than 180 days prior ot the filing of a charge with OSC.” Hajiani’s complaint would only have been valid for events after December 29, 2011.

None of Hajiani’s claims—his filed complaint of religious discrimination with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC), nor his complaints about the terms and conditions of his job—come under the purview of OCAHO, or are protected by IRCA. OCAHO only covers hiring, recruitment, and discharge.

Moreover, Hajiani never submitted evidence that any discrimination occurred. If Sameer Ramjee had been prejudiced against Hajiani, then Ramjee would never have employed Hajiani. Hajiani provided too many explanations of why he was fired, allowing OCAHO to conclude that Hajiani did not divulge his own behaviors that caused Ramjee to fire him.

OCAHO dismissed Hajiani’s complaint against his employer.

See you in my next blog.
Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney St. Louis, Missouri
nsm@mlolaw.us

logo
The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employment Practices that Could Lead to Immigration Discrimination, Pt. 2

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC)‘s job is to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which disallows employment-related anti-discrimination based on immigration and citizenship status, and nationality. I previously wrote about OSC’s responses to some employers’ questions on unfair employment practices, such as an employee presenting either invalid or fraudulent documents. OSC also answers immigration-related questions posed by law firms’, pertaining to law firm clients.

If, for example, a general contractor, is hiring out to a subcontractor, and then requires the subcontractor’s employees to again produce original documents — such as a passport or driver’s license — that were already presented during the hiring process and upon completion of a Form I-9 by the subcontractor, then a host of problems can present themselves:

  1. The original documents have expired and the employee has obtained a new version of those documents;
  2. The employee’s immigration status has changed, and thus has different documents to prove work authorization; and
  3. The original documents have been stolen or lost.

This could all amount to a claim by the employees that the general contractor was discriminating against them due to their citizenship or immigration status. Employees could also maintain that they are discriminated against in this case: An employer, who is an E-Verify user, hires a private vendor to disseminate paychecks, also giving the vendor access to Forms I-9. The vendor is authorized to examine the Forms I-9 in order to confirm the identities of employees, who the employer wants to pay.

What could easily happen is that, because the vendor didn’t see the employees’ original documents, he/she inquires about the adequacy of the documents that were initially presented to the employer for I-9 purposes. If the employer feels persuaded to ask his/her employees for further documentation, such a request might be perceived as document abuse, which violates the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. OSC found that the INA was not applicable in either circumstance.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

OSC Document Abuse Settlements

The Errors that Employers Commit

Some hiring mistakes end up costing employers a lot of money and time, and loss of reputation. This past October, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) arrived at an agreement with the New Jersey-based home healthcare provider, Advantage Home Care, LLC, which was charged for violating the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Advantage Home Care was asking new hires, who were lawful permanent residents, to present additional and different documents during the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process.

The claim was brought to OSC by an individual who applied for a job. When the individual applied to Advantage Home Care, the company ran a criminal background check and wrongly determined that the individual was using an invalid Social Security number (SSN). The individual went to the Social Security Administration, which concluded that the SSN was valid; however, Advantage Home Care would not employ the applicant. Upon further investigation, OSC found that Advantage Home Care required lawful permanent residents to provide more documents to validate work authorization than US citizens. The INA prohibits such discrimination.

In early October, similar charges were brought upon Las Vegas-based Tuscany Hotel and Casino, LLC. The company was also found to be using discriminatory practices during the employment eligibility verification and re-verification processes.

A complaint was filed with OSC in May 2012, asserting that Tuscany was asking non-citizen job applicants to provide additional or different documents during the work authorization process; US Citizen applicants were not asked to present more documents. Once hired, and in order to remain employed, the company then asked non-citizen employees to provide further document requests during the re-verification process. Moreover, non-citizen employees were subject to severe reviews, which US citizen employees didn’t have to endure.

Expensive Mistakes for Employers

Per OSC’s agreement with Advantage Home Care, the company will pay $1,633 to the individual and $46,575 in civil penalties to the US. Advantage Home Care must also pay back pay to previous job applicants who suffered financially from the company’s policy. Additionally, the company’s human resources staff will be trained in employers’ responsibilities and best practices to prevent discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process. In order to ensure compliance, Advantage Home Care’s staff will also be monitored by OSC for three years.

Under the agreement, Tuscany will pay $49,000 in civil penalties to the US and make payments to the complainant. Tuscany will administer new employment eligibility verification policies and practices that will eradicate any employment-based discrimination. Additionally, the company will train its staff on how best to avoid discrimination in the verification process, and will be monitored for compliance.

Lessons Learnt

Employers must train HR personnel on the proper documentation methods for ‘onboarding’ employees. In addition to training, written guidance or manuals for proper intake are necessary to avoid financial penalties, and work stoppage due to worksite audit. Losses may occur because workers are redirected to answering the government, providing requested documents and undergoing mandatory training as part of the worksite enforcement action. An employer’s reputation can suffer because the audit and fines are reported on government and public websites, and news media. Employers can use an immigration attorney to prevent these costly mistakes.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employment Practices that Could Lead to Immigration Discrimination

In order to help employers, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) sometimes answers immigration-related questions about unfair employment practices, such as an employee presenting either invalid or fraudulent documents.

When an employee provides fraudulent documents, an employer is allowed to request the employee to present a different document. However, the employer’s concern may be that the employee could be committing a felony; and that if the employer asks for more documentation, the employee might commit an additional felony.

The employer needs to remember that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) disallows four types of unlawful conduct. The employer is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of:

1. citizenship or immigration status discrimination;
2. national origin discrimination
3. unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification (Form 1-9) process (“document abuse”); and
4 retaliation for filing a charge or asserting rights under the anti-discrimination provision.

(source)

An employer might be in violation of USCIS policy 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, which makes employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful if the employer is aware that a document is fraudulent but accepts it. If an employer rejects a document that seems to be invalid, then the employer is allowed to ask the employee to present a different document from the Lists of Acceptable Documents from Form I-9. In order to steer clear of violating anti-discrimination laws, employers should examine documents equally for all employees.

Company Policy

Another issue pertains to whether a company policy can fire anyone that presents fraudulent documents, and regard such individuals as unqualified for rehire. It is illegal for an employer to ‘knowingly’ hire an individual who is not authorized to work in the US. The statue 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1) states, “Employers determined to have knowingly hired or continued to employ unauthorized workers…will be required to cease the unlawful activity, may be fined, and in certain situations may be criminally prosecuted.” If an employee’s document is genuine but the employer deems it to be fraudulent, then the employee can bring charges under the anti-discrimination provision, or INA. During such a case, OSC’s investigation would concentrate on the employer’s objective.

Sometimes an employer can have a company policy of regarding individuals who provide invalid documents as unqualified for rehire. An employee can file charges under the anti-discrimination policy if the employer disallows a work-authorized employee from employment, based on the individual’s previously undocumented status. This sort of “dishonest policy” would be investigated by OSC, wherein OSC would focus on whether the policy is consistently applied, without observance of citizenship status or supposed national origin. OSC will also determine if the employee was terminated based on citizenship status discrimination. However, a consistent treatment of a “dishonesty policy” would not be a violation of the anti-discrimination provision.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA
Immigration Attorney
Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
St. Louis, Missouri

The information is not meant to create a client-attorney relationship. This blog is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Situations may differ based on the facts.

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

ICE Priorities for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens

On March 2, 2011, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum to ICE employees, detailing ICE priorities for apprehension, detention and removal of aliens.

ICE’s first priority is apprehending those aliens who are a threat to national security, such as terrorists, spies, convicts and gang members. ICE has organized the types of offenders into three levels:

Level 1: aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, or two or more felonies punishable by more than one year each
Level 2: aliens convicted of misdemeanors, or three or more crimes each punishable by less than one year
Level 3: aliens convicted of crimes punishable by less than one year

ICE’s second priority is to deport any illegal entrants–those who have breached immigration checks at the border.

ICE’s third priority is to deport any aliens who have received a final order of removal but disregard it. This includes fugitive aliens, aliens who illegally return to the US after removal, and aliens who enter the US by fraud.

Undocumented immigrants who have no criminal histories and who have committed no crimes are the lowest priority for ICE, unless local law enforcement has an Arizona-style state immigration enforcement in place.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA

Immigration Attorney

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Employers must not insist on ‘green cards’!

Documentary abuse and discrimination against work-authorized workers continues.

The Justice Department (USDOJ) announced today that it reached an agreement with Ross Stores Inc., resolving allegations that the company had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on citizenship status while verifying employment eligibility at its store in San Ysidro, CA. The allegation was that Ross Stores discriminated against a work-authorized individual when it refused to honor a genuine work authorization document and requested that she produce a green card, despite the fact that the company did not require US citizens to show specific work authorization documents.

The department’s investigation began in response to a charge of discrimination filed by a work-authorized, non-US citizen, who was not permitted to work at the San Ysidro store after showing a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for the Form I-9. The worker complained that Ross Stores refused to allow her to work after presenting her EAD, and that Ross requested more or different documents for the Form I-9 and eventually withdrew her job offer. The worker had already produced sufficient documentation establishing her work authorization.

USDOJ alleged that Ross Stores subjected newly hired non-US citizens to excessive demands for documents, in order to verify their employment eligibility, but did not require the same of US citizens.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires employers to treat all authorized workers equally during the employment eligibility verification process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status.

Employers must not treat authorized workers differently during the employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin.

Under the settlement agreement, Ross Stores agrees to reinstate the charging party and pay $6,384 in back pay plus interest to the charging party and $10,825 in civil penalties to the United States. Ross Stores also agrees to comply with the law, to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, and to be subject to reporting and compliance monitory requirements for 18 months.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA

Immigration Attorney

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather