Deferred Status for Dreamers

In the last few months, there has been many reports on Obama’s new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Memorandum, a form of prosecutorial discretion. The memorandum states that children who entered before June 15 2012, and before they turn 15 years old, could be granted authority to work and lawful status for a period of two years. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the benefits offered, and not enough understanding about the dangers and caveats of filing this application.

Radio Stations Report Incorrect Facts about Deferred Status
Even reputable radio stations get the facts wrong. KMOX and NPR both erroneously reported the incorrect age of eligibility. The eligibility starts at age 15 and ends at age 31, not 30 as these stations reported.

No Path to Citizenship
Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, such as the status enjoyed while waiting for an adjustment of status. Deferred action also does not change the current immigration status, such as a grant of a visa, or lead to US citizenship.

What deferred status provides is a period of authorized stay. In other words, the person in deferred status is allowed to stay in the US with the permission of the government. Any unlawful status before deferred action is granted, or after deferred action status ends, will still be unlawful (source). Immigration can review and/or withdraw the deferred action status at any time.

Presence in the US
In order to apply, individuals must be between the ages of 15 to 31 as of June 15, 2012. They must also have lived in the US continuously from June 15th 2007 to the present, and should have been physically present in the US on June 15th, 2012. Presence in the US is also required when filing an application.

Inspection at the border is not required; individuals could have ‘snuck’ over the border or have overstayed their visa.

Proving Presence in the US
It is fine to have left for a few days to Mexico or the Caribbean; this will not interrupt continuous physical presence. Documentation of stay could include medical and school records, or utility bills and tax filings. The evidence is weighed by USCIS using a ‘totality of circumstances’ standard to prove circumstantially that there is the required presence in the US. In addition, presence could be proved by evidence of stay in the US before and after June 15th, 2012.

Stay in school! Be “all that you can be.”
Applicants must be enrolled in elementary, secondary, high school or college to be eligible. A GED from a reputable school is fine, and a college education is great. An honorable discharge from the Coast Guards or Armed Forces is fine too. Anecdotally, there are only a few who will benefit from service in the armed forces. Only US citizens and permanent residents can enroll with a few exceptions from ‘those vital to the national interest’, and even then most would be eligible for naturalization and would not need deferred status.

Beware of Crimes
Applicants with significant criminal history need not apply. Those who are subject to removal orders from an immigration judge should apply for prosecutorial discretion. ICE may administratively close cases for individuals who are eligible for deferred action.
But if an individual has remained in the US after a grant of voluntary departure from a judge, then that person is subject to other immigration penalties, such as fines and bars to filing an immigration application for 10 years.

Being a Member of a Gang
Many law enforcement agencies maintain a ‘gang book’ of tattoos and the meaning of gang symbols. If an applicant has a gang tattoo or has been profiled in a ‘gang book,’ then that may be a problem, especially if the applicant is interviewed and the tattoos are revealed.

Traffic Offenses
Generally, traffic offenses are not considered fatal to an application. However, those with outstanding traffic tickets; unpaid parking tickets; accidents and arrest warrants for traffic violations; and accumulation points on a drivers’ license close to suspension of the license, need to exercise caution.

DWIs and Domestic Violence
Increasingly domestic violence and driving under the influence are being targeted as bars to immigration benefits. DWI convictions are already a bar to returning on a non-immigrant visa to the US. DWIs are a bar to applying, regardless of the sentence imposed.

Using a False Social Security Number
Using a false social security number is a federal crime with applicable jail time and fines. The applicant risks USCIS reporting the false document use to ICE, which could end in removal and federal prosecution. Chances are that false claims of US citizenship status have been made on I-9 forms, and taxes have been filed using the same social security number. In addition to all the federal crimes, there could also be immigration law violations due to the possible allegations of identity theft. Filing an application under these circumstances is very risky.

Entering Using False Documents
While a minor may not have a say on if the parents entered using false documents, USCIS can still share that information with ICE, and those facts could pose a problem for the parents and others who entered using false documents. All applicants are fingerprinted and photographed. There will be a background check on all applicants, and USCIS can share information about false documents and criminal history with ICE.

Arizona Decided Not to Issue Drivers’ Licenses
Gov. Brewer recently signed an executive order not to issue drivers licenses to conferees of deferred status on the basis that they were in unlawful status. Perhaps she did not read the relevant statutes. This statute is also called the Real ID Act.

Improved Security for Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards

Pub.L. 109-13, Div. B, Title II, §§ 201 to 207, May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 311, provided that:
“(2) Special requirements.–
“(A) In general.–To meet the requirements of this section [this note], a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.
“(B) Evidence of lawful status.–A State shall require, before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person–
“(i) is a citizen or national of the United States;
“(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
“(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
“(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
“(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
“(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
“(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
“(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.

The Final Word
Deferred status could be used to keep a person in status while they are waiting for a priority date, in the family context. This status could stall unlawful status for a person shy of their 18th birthday. There is also a lot of discussion about filing for advanced parole after obtaining deferred status to exit and re-enter the US, and then, without filing a waiver, to file for immigrant status based on a relative.

The deferred status application is seemingly simple, but could be extremely complicated and lethal for the applicant and family members (see Arrabally, Yerrabelly). Those matters should be discussed with an immigration attorney before applying. Contact Nalini Mahadevan or Diane Metzger at Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

DHS Enforcement Actions — July 2012

On July 19, Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke before the House Judiciary Committee, offering important information on how US immigration law enforcement would affect employers.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Since January 2009, ICE has audited 8,079 employers who are suspected of “knowingly hiring” workers who do not have authorization to work in the US. The federal government has also debarred 726 companies and individuals from federal contracts; imposing and collecting more than $87.9 million in fines and sanctions against companies and their officers.

Sec. Napolitano said ICE will eliminate high-profile raids on worksites because such raids do little to improve public safety. The government now feels that deportation of criminal aliens and unauthorized workers is having little affect on employers’ willingness to hire these individuals. Instead, the government will renew and focus its efforts on Form I-9 inspections; civil fines; debarment; and employer education and compliance with current law.

USCIS, ICE and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) have greatly increased their engagement with employers and the public through national and local stake holder meetings, webinars and newsletters. Self-check through E-Verify is also encouraged for individual employees. There are now 385,000 companies participating in E-Verify with more than 1.1 million hiring sites. E-Verify is also developing a robust customer service hotline; and increasing outreach staff to promote the E-Verify’s benefits, and educate employers and employees about rights and responsibilities.

Federal agencies receive information to prosecute employers through local police enforcement; traffic stops; criminal prosecutions and informers; and through employee complaints to ICE hotlines and OSC online complaint forms.

The Obama Administration is refocusing efforts on worksite compliance and arrests of unauthorized and criminal aliens, and deporting these aliens at great cost to their countries of origin.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Missouri Lawyers Weekly: Immigration decision may have impact on Missouri laws

My coworker, Diane Metzger, and I were recently interviewed for an immigration article in Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The article focuses on the Supreme Court’s ruling of Arizona immigration law, and how the ruling may affect Missouri immigration law.

Reprinted with permission from Missouri Lawyers Media.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona’s aggressive immigration law was recently challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it may be unconstitutional. However, while multiple provisions were struck down, one still remains: “papers, please”.

Papers Please

“Papers, please”– Section 2(B) in SB 1070 — allows police to inquire about immigration status if there is any “reasonable suspicion” that the person in question is an illegal immigrant. Many believe that this provision will invite the police to employ racial profiling.

Questionable Constitutionality

Arizona’s immigration law was largely brought to trial because of its questionable unconstitutionality — the Supreme Court unsure if state laws were hindering the federal government’s right to maintain immigration laws. However, SB 1070 was upheld because the Justices were unable to decide whether the law was replacing or reinforcing federal immigration laws. Along with “papers, please”, police are also allowed to check an arrestee’s immigration status before release.

Constitutional Rights Attacked

There is much room for debate with the “papers, please” provision. Equal protection, free speech and due process are all issues that could strike the provision. While Arizona won Section 2B, the Supreme Court was successful in striking down three provisions that were unconstitutional. Two provisions deemed it a crime for illegal immigrants to reside and look for employment while in Arizona. The third provision allowed the police to arrest anyone whom they believe carried out a deportable offense.

There are several states, including Missouri, that have similar bills in the state Senate and House that are waiting passage. These laws strengthen the law enforcement’s ability to “racially profile” drivers on the road. However unless it is in the course of an offense, law enforcement cannot stop a person to check for the immigration papers.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Part XII: Retaining and Storing I-9

This is Part XII of our I-9 blog series, which explains how employers can best avoid audit by ICE. In our last segment, we will be detailing the most affective methods of retaining and storing Forms I-9.

Retaining Form I-9

Employers must have a completed Form I-9 and Employment Eligibility Verification on file for each person on their payroll. The employer must also determine how much longer to keep the employee’s Form I-9 after the employee leaves.

To calculate how long to keep an employee’s Form I-9, enter the following:

Employers must retain Form I-9 until the date on Line C.

Employers are required to retain the page of the form on which the employer and the employee enter data. Copies of the employee’s documents should also be kept with the I-9. Employers may store the instructions and Lists of Acceptable Documents page as well. The I-9 may be stored on paper, microfilm, microfiche or electronically.

Storing Form I-9

Form I-9 requires the collection of personal information about individual employees. Employers should keep this in mind when determining how to retain and store completed Forms I-9. Employers should store completed Forms I-9 and accompanying documents in a manner that fits their business needs, and fits the requirement to make Forms I-9 available for inspection. Typically, employers store completed Forms I-9 and accompanying documents:

• on-site or at an off-site storage facility
• with personnel records or separate from personnel records
• in a single format or a combination of formats
• paper
• microfilm or microfiche
• electronically

No matter how you choose to store Forms I-9, you must be able to present them to government officials for inspection within three days of the date on which the forms were requested. Officers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), employees from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and employees from the Department of Labor (DOL) may ask to inspect these forms.

Storing the Original Paper Forms I-9
Form I-9 contains personal information about employees. When storing these forms, USCIS recommends that employers provide adequate safeguards to protect employee information. If an employer chooses to keep paper copies of an employee’s documents, the employer may store them with the employee’s Form I-9 or with the employees’ records.  However, USCIS recommends that employers keep Forms I-9 separate from personnel records to facilitate an inspection request.

Storing Forms I-9 on Microfilm or Microfiche
Employers may keep copies of original, signed Forms I-9 on microfilm or microfiche. Select film stock that will preserve the image and allow for access and use for the entire retention period.

Microfilm or microfiche must:
• exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability when displayed on a reader, or reproduced on paper.
• include a detailed index of all data so that any particular record can be accessed immediately.

If an officer notifies an employer of an inspection, the employer must provide the microfilm or microfiche and a reader-printer that provides safety features; is in a clean condition, properly maintained and in good working order; and is able to display and print a complete page of information. Once employers have preserved Forms I-9 on microfilm or microfiche, they may destroy the paper originals.

Storing Forms I-9 Electronically
Employers may use a paper system, an electronic system or a combination of paper and electronic systems to store Forms I-9. An electronic storage system must include:
• controls to ensure the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the electronic storage system.
• controls to detect and prevent the unauthorized or accidental creation of, addition to, alteration of, deletion of or deterioration of an electronically stored Form I-9, including the electronic signature, if used.
• controls to ensure an audit trail so that any alteration or change to the form since its creation is electronically stored and can be accessed by an appropriate government agency inspecting the forms.
• an inspection and quality assurance program that regularly evaluates the electronic generation or storage system, and includes periodic checks of electronically stored Forms I-9, including the electronic signature, if used.
• a detailed index of all data so that any particular record can be accessed immediately.
• production of a high degree of legibility and readability when displayed on a video display terminal or reproduced on paper.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Part XI: Correcting I-9

This is Part XI of our I-9 blog series, which explains how employers can best avoid audit by ICE.

Correcting Mistakes

When correcting errors on Form I-9, only the employee can correct Section 1; the employer can correct Sections 2 and 3. If the employer discovers an error in Section 1, then the employer should ask the employee to make the corrections. The best way to correct the form is to cross-out any inaccurate information. After entering the correct information, initial and date the correction.

Multiple Errors

If the employer needs to correct multiple errors, then the employer may redo the section on a new Form I-9 and attach it to the old form. A new Form I-9 can be completed if major errors, such as entire sections being left blank, need to be corrected. A note should be included in the file detailing the reason the employer made changes to an existing Form I-9, or completed a new Form I-9. It is not in the employer’s best interest to conceal any changes made on the form–doing so may lead to increased liability under federal immigration law.

Make the method of correction uniform for all Form I-9 corrections. If the employer uses abbreviations, keep an index of abbreviations for use by the auditor.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

H1Bs may be over by mid-June, 2012!

If you are an employer with plans to employ a student on an H1B visa or employ someone from abroad or transfer an H1B employee from a US non-profit to your company, ACT FAST.

FY 2013 H-1B Cap Count
65000 Cap subject visas are issued every year. About 6800 visas are set aside for fashion models and citizens from Chile and Singapore under treaties with those countries. For the sake of simplicity, these visas have not been excluded from the H1B visa count below.

H1B visas receipted by USCIS so far:
Regular Cap Count             H-1bs Receipted             Difference from week to week
April 4                                     16,742                                0
April 9                                     17,400                                658
April 13                                    20,600                               3200
April 20                                    25,000                               4400
April 27                                    29,200                               4200
May 4                                      32,500                                3300
May 11                                    36,700                                4200
May 25                                    48,400                                11700

Forecast: All dates are approximate, and meant for planning purposes only.
If the Regular Cap Count is 65000, and the Balance of H-1bs remaining as of 5/4/2012 is 32500:

If 3500 visas are received per week, H-1b cap will be reached in 9 weeks, or July 13th.
If 5000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 6.5 weeks, or June 27th.
If 6000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 5.4 weeks, or June 15th.
If 7000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 4.64 weeks, or June 10th.
If 8000 visas per week, the cap will be reached in 4 weeks, or June 6th.

There was an uptick in filings for the last 2 weeks in May, from the 4th to the 15th. Filings increased to pre-May levels. With this progression, the regular cap visas may be finished by mid-June, 2012.

See you in my next blog.

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

Tara Mahadevan

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

EB2 visas for China and India is Unavailable

Demand for EB2 visas from China and India
Despite the retrogression of the China and India Employment Second preference cut-off date to August 15, 2007, demand for numbers by applicants with priority dates earlier than that date remained excessive. Such demand is primarily based on cases which had originally been filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for adjustment of status in the Employment Third preference category, and are now eligible to be upgraded to Employment Second preference status.

Upgrades from EB3 to EB2 visa, causes unavailability
The potential amount of such “upgrade” demand is not currently being reported, but it was evident that the continued availability of Employment Second preference numbers for countries other than China and India was being jeopardized. Therefore, it was necessary to make the China and India Employment Second preference category “Unavailable” in early April, and it will remain so for the remainder of FY-2012.

EB2 will be available in the Spring of 2013
Numbers will once again be available for China and India Employment Second preference cases beginning October 1, 2012 under the FY-2013 annual numerical limitations. Every effort will be made to return the China and India Employment Second preference cut-off date to the May 1, 2010 date which had been reached in April 2012. Readers should be advised that it is impossible to accurately estimate how long that may take, but current indications are that it would definitely not occur before spring 2013.

File your I-485 before end of May, 2012
USCIS has indicated that it will continue accepting China and India Employment Second preference I-485 filings during May, based on the originally announced May cut-off date.

See you in my next blog.

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

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

What would you do? Examples for I-9 Employers

I recently attended a seminar presented by Ronald Lee, attorney from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in St. Louis, Missouri. I thought the examples provided were a useful tool to illustrate why an employer who employs only US citizens should be wary of civil rights violations under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

Henry’s lettuce harvest is not as large as usual–he needs fewer workers this season. He needs to make a choice between Juan and Pedro. Juan is authorized to work and is a permanent resident, or a green card holder; Pedro is also work authorized, but is a refugee with a temporary work permit. Henry ultimately decides to keep Juan because he is a green card holder.

IRCA was the first Federal law that made it illegal to knowingly employ workers who were not authorized to work in the US. After the enactment of IRCA, employers were required to confirm the identity and work eligibility of all employees hired after November 1986, not just workers who appear foreign or those who speak with an accent.

You might think that since your company only hires US workers, your company does not violate I-9. Think again! You are the President of the company with a hiring policy of employing US citizens and not employing anyone who looks foreign. As the President, you and the company are probably engaging in national origin and citizenship status discrimination by requiring all hires to be US citizens.

An aggrieved party can file a complaint with OSC. The complaint form is available at OSC complaints in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese languages.

Employers can call anonymously to ask for guidance in their hiring practices 1-800-255-8155.

Going back to our example–has Henry committed citizenship status discrimination? Pedro is a protected person under the law. A protected person is a US citizen, a green card holder, permanent resident, refugee or asylee. Henry’s firing decision cannot be based on just ‘status’, nor can Henry only hire US citizens.

Why should employers care? OSC imposes huge fines on the employer, including training and reporting mandates imposed on the employer that last between 18 months and 3 years. These are costs an employer does not need in this, or any, economy.

See you in my next blog.

Nalini S Mahadevan, JD, MBA

Immigration Attorney

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.

This blog is not intended as legal advice, only as illustrations.

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

Social Share Toolbar
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutubeby feather

Civil rights under immigration–is there such a thing?

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) introduced employer sanctions for ‘knowingly’ hiring undocumented workers. IRCA also initiated the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process, and established the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to administer anti-discrimination provisions. Since the advent of OSC, immigrants and “authorized” workers have had to regularly prove their work status.

Given this legal backdrop, the question for employers is whether it is still possible to discriminate against job seekers. In other words, is preferential hiring based on citizenship status legal? It is only legal if the individual is not work-authorized; if it is required by law, regulation, executive order or government contract; or if the individual requires sponsorship.

On a rainy day, a farmer’s lettuce harvest was less abundant than usual. The farmer, Harry, needed fewer farm workers than last season. He had to make a decision between keeping Hector or Jose. He decided to keep Hector because he was a legal permanent resident, and decided against Jose because he was an asylee with a temporary work permit. Did Harry commit citizenship status discrimination?

Yes, Harry committed citizenship status discrimination because the asylee is a “protected person” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A protected individual is a US citizen, US national, permanent resident, temporary resident, refugee or asylee. Harry could not fire Jose based on the fact that he was an asylee with a temporary work permit.

OSC defines national origin discrimination as treating employees differently based on country of origin and/or ancestry, accent, or appearing to be from a certain country. So if Harry (employer) had at least 6 employees under Missouri law, or 4-14 employees under federal law, he could not discriminate against an applicant based on the fact that he looked foreign.

What are some examples of national origin discrimination? Preferring people from a certain country; only hiring “native English speakers”; and not hiring someone with an accent.

CEO Jane had heard of the penalties for hiring unauthorized workers. Wanting to keep her company intact, she issued an order telling HR not to hire anyone who looked like they had crossed the border illegally. Did she commit national origin discrimination? Yes, she did. All hirees are required to be verified the same way regardless of whether they are immigrants or members of a foreign community.

Section 1 of Form I-9 needs to be completed after the employee takes the job, and by the first paid work day. Aliens who are authorized to work are refugees and asylees, who work with no expiry date. These employees can write N/A if he/she has no expiry date. Employees are not obligated to present documents confirming status.

Section 2 of Form I-9 needs to be completed within 3 business days of the first paid day. Employees must submit documents from List A or List B + C.

Some common problems often arise when filling out Section 2. Employers frequently ask non-US citizen workers to provide List A documents but do not ask the same of US citizen workers, while allowing US citizen workers to submit any document they choose. Employers also request non-US citizen workers to present documents from Lists A, B and C, which is against I-9 regulations. The Handbook for Employers and USCIS‘s I-9 website commonly go unreviewed by employers. Because of this, employers often don’t accept certain documents, such as receipts, from non-US citizen workers.

Employers do not need to update or reverify US citizens, permanent resident cards holders (I-551), and List B documents.

Work-authorized individuals are protected from discrimination, while undocumented individuals are not. A few possible outcomes exist if an employer faces discrimination charges by OSC. Charges can be dismissed if OSC cannot find substantial cause; proof that the employer engaged in discrimination; or if OSC has no jurisdiction. If OSC decides that the employer is at fault, then OSC attempts to arrange a settlement; otherwise it will prosecute. If the settlement is rejected, then OSC reserves the right to file a complaint against the employer. The employee may also file his or her own complaint against the employer.

Part of the settlement that OSC may enter into with the employer could include requiring the employer to rehire the individual(s); reimbursement of back pay; providing injunctive relief to the complainant; requiring the employee to provide training to HR personnel; requiring monitoring of these activities; and reporting back to OSC about compliance with the steps required by settlement. The settlement could also mandate civil penalties.

Civil Penalties for citizenship status discrimination, national origin discrimination and retaliation can be high. Penalties for first-time offenders range from $375-$3,200; second-time offenders: $3,200-$6,500, and third-time offenders: $4,300-$16,000. Penalties for document abuse range from $110-$1,100.

A TNC, or a tentative non-confirmation is when there is a tentative non-match between the applicant’s name and Social Security Number (SSN). If a TNC is issued, the employee should be allowed to contact the federal agency and remedy the situation. An employer has eight federal days to contact Social Security, and Social Security can continue the matter for 120 days. In the meantime, the employer cannot terminate; suspend; delay the employee’s job; persuade the employee to quit; decrease the employee’s hours; deny pay; asking for further documentation; or delay employing the applicant. But if the TNC becomes a “final non-confirmation”, then the employer is within rights to fire the employee.

E-Verify cannot be used as an applicant self-check or prescreening by the employer.

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