Guest Blog by Scott Blaney

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt a blow to Arizona’s controversial Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070) on April 11, affirming a lower court’s decision to block key portions of the immigration law from taking effect. The Act requires law enforcement officials to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person that they believe to be an alien unlawfully present in the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice challenged S.B. 1070 in federal district court in Phoenix, arguing that the authority of the federal government to regulate immigration preempted Arizona’s attempt at curbing illegal immigration.

Of the Act’s mandates aimed at deterring the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona, a federal district court in Phoenix blocked four of the most controversial as unconstitutional: (1) the portion of the law that requires an officer to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested upon reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence; (2) the portion that makes failure to apply for or carry alien registration documents a criminal act; (3) the portion that allows a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the individual committed an offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and (4) the portion that makes application for or performance of work by illegal immigrants a criminal act. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court.

Other portions of the law, however, have been permitted to stand, including: (1) a mandate that local law enforcement officers enforce federal immigration laws; (2) the portion that makes the transport or harboring of an illegal immigrant a criminal act; and (3) the portion that makes the picking up of a day laborer in a roadway a criminal act if it impedes traffic.

Proponents of the law, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne, have vowed to appeal the ruling.
 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has resumed notifying employers of social security number mismatches of employees. The No-Match or “Request for Employer Information” letter states that the information reported on an individual’s W-2 or W-2c form do not match the Agency’s records. On receiving a No-Match letter, the SSA requests the employer do the following:

• Compare the SSA information with the individual’s employment records.

• If the records match, ask the employee to check the name and Social Security number on their Social Security card.

• If the card does not show the employee’s correct name or Social Security number, or if a name change or a correction is necessary, instruct the employee to contact a Social Security Administration office to resolve the discrepancy.

• Provide written responses to several questions about the individual in question and return the completed form to the Agency (separately from any Form W-2c correction filing).

The SSA cautions the employer that the No-Match letter alone should not the basis for taking adverse action against an employee. A mismatch can be for many reasons, including typographical errors, incomplete or blank names reported, name changes, or incomplete or blank social security numbers reported. In the past, about 10 percent of all W-2s initially received by the Agency have some sort of a name-number mismatch.

Employers who receive a No-Match letter should contact legal counsel to determine whether any action is necessary. Each case is different and must be examined and analyzed individually.
 

On April 3, 2009 USCIS published an interim rule intended to improve the integrity of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) process. This interim rule made several key changes to the Form I-9 process, including requiring employers to accept only unexpired documents, deleting outdated documents from the list of acceptable documents, and adding documentation applicable to certain citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Marshall Islands. The final rule adopted the interim rule without change.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2011 and will be effective on May 16, 2011. Employers may continue to use the two most recent versions of the Form I-9 (Rev. 08/07/2009 and 02/02/2009). It is critical that employers ensure that their current I-9 processes are in compliance with the final rule.
 

The House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement has conducted a number of hearings in 2011 questioning the value of all forms of immigration. On April 5th, it held a hearing on diversity visas, a program which provides 55,000 green cards annually by lottery to persons from countries that do not currently send many immigrants to the United States. The diversity visa is a relatively small program designed to increase the diversity of immigrants entering the country. One prime example of a diversity visa winner is famed American Major League of Soccer star Freddy Adu.

Last week, the Subcommittee heard arguments regarding placing additional restrictions on the H-1B visa program. The H-1B visa program is an essential immigration category used by U.S. employers to bring foreign, professional-level talent to the U.S. for key positions. While it is used a great deal by the IT industry, it is also used for many other specialty positions that require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific field. H-1B petitions are sought for scientists, financial analysts, pharmacists, researchers, automotive designers, and engineers, among others.

Jackson Lewis continues to keep a sharp watch on congressional efforts to limit legal immigration paths that are essential to our economy.
 

 

To avoid potential conflict, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning their respective civil worksite enforcement activities. Under the March 31, 2011, MOU, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed that, unless determined necessary by the Director of ICE, Secretary of Homeland Security or an Officer of the DOL, it would refrain from engaging in civil worksite enforcement at a worksite if there is an existing DOL investigation of a labor dispute. The MOU specifically states that ICE and DOL agree to create a means by which they will exchange information from their respective investigations. 

The DOL’s enforcement activities are to ensure proper wages and working conditions for all workers regardless of their immigration status. DHS enforces immigration laws to ensure that all workers are authorized to work. 

It is unclear how the MOU will be implemented by a prospective joint Worksite Enforcement Coordination Committee. What is clear is that there will be information sharing between the DOL and DHS/ICE. While they generally will not conduct joint or coordinated civil worksite enforcement, ICE is not restricted from investigating after a DOL investigation is completed.

The U.S. government has become increasingly active in enforcing immigration compliance against corporate employers in recent years. Thus, it is critical for employers to ensure their policies and practices are in compliance with laws and regulations enforced by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and ICE.
 

It is H-1B season again. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officially announced today that they are accepting H-1B applications for FY2012. U.S. businesses use the H-1B program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.

Cases will be considered accepted on the date USCIS receives a properly filed petition for which the correct fee has been submitted; not the date that the petition is postmarked. Similar to last year, we do not expect the H-1B quota to be fully utilized until late 2011. However, employers should start looking to initiate cases for employees who might be subject to the quota in order to assure themselves a visa before the cap hits.
 

At least 12,000 additional numbers will be available for EB-2 (employment-based, second preference) immigrant visa because of a dramatic reduction in the use of EB-1 (employment-based, first preference) immigrant visa, the Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State, Charlie Oppenheim, has announced. He said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “ha[s] seen a decline in filings, and does not expect a change in the number use pattern. Therefore, this decline in EB-1 number use will allow me to begin having those ‘otherwise unused’ numbers drop down and be available for use in the EB-2 category. Based on current indications, that would mean that at least 12,000 additional numbers will be available to the EB-2 category. This situation will allow me to advance the India EB-2 cut-off date for May. The reason being that all ‘otherwise unused’ numbers are provided strictly in priority date order, and the India demand has the largest concentration of early dates.”
According to Mr. Oppenheim, the fall-off in demand for EB-1 numbers began in October 2010. To find out current processing dates, check the visa bulletin website.
 

Becoming the latest state to mandate E-Verify usage, Governor Bob McDonnell announced that Virginia state government agencies will be required to utilize the online system for new hires effective July 1, 2011, in order to determine the employment eligibility of new hires.

Virginia had already passed a law in 2010 (H.B. 737) requiring state executive branch agencies to use E-Verify starting in December 1, 2012, and amending a state code provision to make it a misdemeanor for any Virginia employer to knowingly hire or employ persons not eligible to work in the United States. Federal laws already prohibit the knowing hire or employment of such individuals. Governor McDonnell’s latest move will replace state agencies’ current procedures on employment verification and accelerate the E-Verify requirement from the initial date of December 1, 2012, to July 1, 2011.

A spokesperson for the Governor’s office stated that the acceleration of the E-Verify requirement was due in part to recent upgrades in the E-Verify system, including the launch of the E-Verify Self-Check tool, which went live March 21. Provided by the Department of Homeland Security, this new web tool is available to workers for the purposes of checking the accuracy of their information in the relevant databases (Social Security Administration and DHS). The initial release is available only to individuals with addresses in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Self-Check tool asks certain questions aimed to verify the identity of the individual. Once verified, the individual can then confirm whether or not the relevant databases accurately reflect his or her appropriate work authorization status. If the self-check results in a possible mismatch with either the SSA or DHS database, the individual would have an opportunity to correct this information prior to going through the same verification procedure while in the process of joining a new company. As the program is quite new, it is too early to judge whether it is effective. Stay tuned for more updates on this and other E-Verify developments.
 

E-Verify: the Good, the Bad, and the Unresolved

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently released an independent report of the E-Verify system, highlighting the successes, failures, and remaining challenges that face employers face today.

The Good

USCIS reduced the Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs or mismatches) from 8% between June 2004 and March 2007 to almost 2.6% in fiscal year 2009. TNCs result when the information from an employee’s Form I-9 does not match government records and E-Verify indicates the case may require additional action.

Additionally, USCIS data indicates that about 97.4% of almost 8.2 million newly hired employees were immediately confirmed as work authorized by E-Verify during fiscal year 2009, compared to 92% during June 2004 through March 2007.

Conversely, about 2.6% of newly hired employees, or over 211,000, received either a Social Security Administration or USCIS TNC, including about 0.3% who were determined to be work eligible after they contested a TNC, and about 2.3% who received a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) because their employment eligibility status remained unresolved.

The Bad

Despite the reduction of TNCs overall, it appears that erroneous information is still a way of life. Employee information, like the E-Verify system itself, is constantly being updated and changed. Also, it is not uncommon to have misspellings or other name variations for first or last names. In these instances, TNCs may result because the employer is uncertain how exactly to enter the name into the system. According to USCIS, of the TNCs resulting from name mismatches in fiscal year 2009, approximately 76% were for citizens and 24% were for noncitizens. USCIS has included information on its website to help employers enter various name combinations to reduce some of these TNCs.

The Unresolved

Over the past two years, USCIS has more than doubled the number of monitoring and compliance staff overseeing employers’ use of E-Verify. Apparently, however, the staff still lacks the appropriate technology to discern instances of suspected employer misuse easily. According to senior E-Verify program officials, such capabilities will be addressed by fiscal year 2012, through an estimated $6 million advanced data system. USCIS expects this system, known as the Data Analysis System, to automate about 80% of the Monitoring and Compliance Branch’s workload.

It looks like E-Verify will be with us for the foreseeable future. The fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations Act reauthorized the E-Verify program through September 30, 2012, and provided USCIS with $137 million for program operations. Employers must prepare themselves by implementing appropriate policies, procedures, and technology to address the potential pitfalls of an erroneous TNC or FNC, as well as other challenges, such as identity theft and discrimination.
 

Guest Blog by Scott Blaney

The tide of state immigration laws in Arizona appears to have ebbed. On March 17, 2011, the Arizona State Senate voted down five controversial bills aimed at controlling illegal immigration in the state. The Senate’s rejection of the bills came just two days after 50 Chief Executive Officers in Arizona sent a joint letter to Senate President Russell Pearce urging the Arizona Legislature to back off from efforts to regulate immigration at the state level.

The latest bills follow the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”) and the 2010 Senate Bill 1070, both of which put Arizona at the forefront of states seeking to regulate immigration within their borders. The LAWA was one of the first state-level bills to mandate that businesses use the federal E-Verify system to verify work eligibility of all new hires on or after January 1, 2008. Challenges to the law have been unsuccessful to date and the law is currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A federal court blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s other high-profile immigration law, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” or SB 1070, such as its mandate that police officers check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. See “Arizona Governor Signs Controversial Immigration Bill Into Law.” Passions run high on both sides of the SB 1070 debate and SB 1070 may find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well.

The five bills defeated in March sought to regulate immigration in a number of ways. For example, SB 1405 would have required hospitals to inquire into an individual’s immigration status and notify law enforcement if an immigration violation was suspected. SB 1407 would have required school districts to collect data on the number of illegal immigrant students attending classes. SB 1611 covered a number of different areas, such as access to universities and colleges, and would have made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to drive a vehicle in Arizona.

The effects the rejected bills might have had on the workplace are not as direct as under the LAWA, but the underlying message is clear. Arizona and similar states will continue to seek ways to curtail illegal immigration. Employers must remain both informed of their obligations and vigilant in their compliance efforts.