I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

The US Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) approved the Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification final rule July 21, 2010 and published the rule in the federal register July 22, 2010. The final rule is effective August 23, 2010 and may be found in the Federal Register at www.regulations.gov.

I have reviewed the final rule and found nothing to concern users of the TALX I-9/E-Verify service. The final rule makes minor changes to the interim rule of June 6, 2006. However, some of the changes do provide helpful clarifications. For example:

1. The final rule confirms that the Form I-9 must be completed within 3 business days not calendar days after the employee’s first day of work for pay. USCIS posted guidance on their web site regarding this Form I-9 requirement. Make sure the employee completes Section 1 on or before their first day of work for pay.
2. Employers may use electronic systems or a combination of paper and electronic systems to complete and store Forms I-9. This was how we interpreted the interim rule, but based on comments they received ICE decided to clarify the rule.
3. The audit trail retained for an electronic Form I-9 does not need to include each time a Form I-9 is electronically viewed. The audit trail need only contain a record of when the Form I-9 was created, completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected. Our audit trail currently tracks views of an electronic Form I-9 and it will continue to do so.
4. Employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of a Form I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy. Due to the sensitive personal information that may be on a receipt, we do not transmit employee receipts.
5. Only the page of the Form I-9 containing employer and employee-entered data needs to be retained. The pages of the Form I-9 containing instructions and the list of acceptable documents do not need to be retained. We only retain only the Form I-9 page containing employer and employee-entered data.
6. The search criteria are changed. In the interim rule there was a conflict on this point. In one statement the interim rule stated that the electronic storage system must be able to be searched by every data field on the Form I-9. In another statement the interim rule stated that the storage system was compliant if it was consistent with a paper-based filing system. The final rule deletes the search language from the interim rule and replaces it with language stating that the storage system must permit the identification and retrieval for viewing or reproducing of relevant documents and records maintained in the electronic storage system.
7. The employer must be able to provide the requesting agency of the United States the resources (e.g., appropriate hardware and software, personnel, and documentation) necessary to locate, retrieve, read, and reproduce (including paper copies) any electronically stored Forms I-9, any supporting documents, and their associated audit trails, reports, and other data used to maintain the authenticity, integrity, and reliability of the records. This means that an auditor will want the employer to provide any and all of these records or provide the auditor with direct access to the records.
8. If the employer makes a copy or electronic image of employee documentation it must either be retained with the Form I-9 or stored with the employee’s records, and be retrievable and printable. This allows the employer to retain paper and/or electronic copies of employee documents.
9. Employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

There is new information that all users of the E-Verify Web Services interface MUST pay attention to!

1. E-Verify Designated Agent name changed to E-Verify Employer Agent
2. Deadlines to upgrade to the most current version of the E-Verify Web Services interface
3. Photo Matching
4. E-Verify Notices and Letters in Other Languages
5. The Department of Homeland Security certifying E-Verify Employer Agents

E-Verify Designated Agent name changed to E-Verify Employer Agent

The name has changed for E-Verify Designated Agents. They are now referred to as E-Verify Employer Agents. This was done to clarify that the EA is providing the E-Verify service to the employer, which was not communicated by the term 'designated agent.'

Deadlines to upgrade to the most current E-Verify Version

• December 6, 2010 - version 20 of Web Services must be used by this date
• December 17, 2010 - version 21 of Web Services must be used by this date

IMPORTANT! Users should contact their E-Verify EA to discuss the rollout of the new version of E-Verify.

Unless there are typos in the dates, the timing of the upgrades doesn't really make much sense since there are only 11 days between the required upgrade dates. Therefore, you might expect EAs to skip version 20 and move directly to version 21.

Photo Matching

IMPORTANT! E-Verify has provided the following information regarding the methods available to send a copy of an employee's document for a DHS Tentative
Nonconfirmation (TNC) due to a photo mismatch.

"You can either attach and submit a digital copy of the photo document in E-Verify or send a paper copy to DHS via an express shipping carrier of your choice. Do NOT send through regular United States Postal Service (USPS) mail."

It is unclear why E-Verify does not allow employers to use the USPS. From a business perspective you would think the government would try to help increase revenue for the USPS since it needs to increase revenue and would probably like to take advantage of the $0.02 postage reate increase they have requested.

BTW - ever notice how postage rates increase in January (tax season) and not in December. This way employers are charged more to mail 1099s and W-2s, but voters are not subject to the increase during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

E-Verify Notices and Letters in Other Languages

With version 21, employers are now required to provide E-Verify notices and letters to employees in other languages if the employee does not read or understand English. The notices and letters in othere languages are ONLY for informational purposes. The employer and the employee MUST sign the English version with a copy being given to the employer and a copy retained by the employer. This is a change from the current practice that provides notices and letters in English and Spanish. The reason the English version must be provided to the employee and retained by the employer is because there is no guarantee that multi-lingual representatives will be available at DHS or SSA to assist the employee or by ICE during an audit.

• DHS JobLock Photo Referral Letter - If the employee cannot read, you must read this Referral Letter to the employee. If the employee does not fully understand English, and speaks Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tagalog or Vietnamese, you must provide the employee with this Referral Letter in one of these languages.
• DHS Photo Referral Letter - If the employee cannot read, you must read this Referral Letter to the employee. If the employee does not fully understand English, and speaks Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tagalog or Vietnamese, you must provide the employee with this Referral Letter in one of these languages.
• DHS Photo TNC Notice - If the employee cannot read, you must read this TNC Notice to the employee. If the employee does not fully understand English, and speaks Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tagalog or Vietnamese, you must provide the employee with this TNC Notice in one of these languages.
• SSA Referral Letter - If the employee cannot read, you must read this Referral Letter to the employee. If the employee does not fully understand English, and speaks Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tagalog or Vietnamese, you must provide the employee with this Referral Letter in one of these languages.
• SSA TNC Notice - If the employee cannot read, you must read this TNC Notice to the employee. If the employee does not fully understand English, and speaks Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tagalog or Vietnamese, you must provide the employee with this TNC Notice in one of these languages.

DHS Does NOT Certify E-Verify Employer Agents

Be careful of E-Verify Employer Agents who claim to be certified by DHS or E-Verify. There is no certification provided by DHS or E-Verify for any E-Verify Employer Agent. The following statement is included in the release information for version 21.

"The Department of Homeland Security does not offer certification of companies who offer services related to the use of E-Verify or employment verification."

There is a testing process that an E-Verify Employer Agent's software must successfully complete before they are allowed to connect to the production E-Verify system. However, neither DHS nor E-Verify certifies:

• An E-Verify Employer Agent is a valid company
• The EA's software application
• The EA's business processes
• The EA's security practices
• The EA's understanding of Form I-9 or E-Verify regulations
  

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Due in part to the negative security experiences of the State of Minnesota has had with an E-Verify Designated Agent (DA), USCIS is taking steps to enhance the security of E-Verify. As part of the privacy initiative being taking by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), you may find that which most of these steps are good, one of them can cause difficulties for employers who are federal contractors/subcontractors and E-Verify Designated Agents serving federal contractors/subcontractors.

Good News

As of June 2, 2010 E-Verify is using commercial data from Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) to:

1. Prevent duplicate registrations - identify an existing duplicate or similar registration for the employer in E-Verify.
2. Validate employer - if the employer data matches the D&B records allow the employer to register in E-Verify. If the employer data does not match, E-Verify personnel review and assess employer validity for registration.

This is good news because this updated registration process, as described in the DHS Privacy Impact Assessment (click USCIS) "will help ensure that only valid employers enroll in E-Verify thereby establishing a level of identity assurance of the employer and thus minimizing the changes of fradulent employers using E-Verify to confirm personal information for illegal purposes."

Bad News

The E-Verify User Audit Report, which can be exported as an Excel file, used to contain the full SSN of the employee that was submitted to E-Verify. This report was very helpful to a federal contractor using E-Verify (via the E-Verify web site or a DA) with a federal contract that includes the FAR E-Verify clause. This report could be used to determine which existing employees had been submitted to E-Verify and how each E-Verify case was closed. This information is very helpful because

1. The employer must submit some or all existing employees to E-Verify, and
2. Existing employees already verified by E-Verify should not be submitted to E-Verify more than once.

So, using the User Audit Report with the full SSN made it very easy to uniquely identify existing employees who were determined to be Employment Authorized by E-Verify as well as any existing employees with E-Verify cases that did not confirm authorization to work in the U.S. This way, employers could not submit authorized employees to E-Verify again and any existing employees not authorized by E-Verify could be submitted again and verified as employment authorized.

Since the report now only includes the last 4 of SSN, anyone using the report must now do more work to uniquely identify the employee related to each E-Verify case. This can be difficult because there is no long a single unique identifier for the employee. Users of the report must use a combination of variables to try and determine the unique identity of the employee which can be difficult due to things such as name changes (e.g., marriage and divorce), lack of complete data (e.g., date of birth), and employees with the same last 4 of SSN.

Therefore, your algorighm to link an employee to an E-Verify case should match the following fields to identify the employee:

1. Last 4 of SSN
2. Date of Birth
3. Last Name
4. First Name
5. Hire Date

There is additional information in the User Audit Report, but it is not typically readily available in the employer's HR/Payroll system to match to the employees. Based on the experience in Minnesota and E-Verify's desire to increase the security and privacy features of E-Verify, the SSN in the User Audit Report will continue to be masked to the last 4 digits. So, update your matching algorithms and be prepared to manually identify at least a few employees.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Finding Form I-9 and E-Verify manuals on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) used to be a little hit-and-miss. The best way to find the current version of such manuals was to us the search feature of the USCIS web site at www.uscis.gov. At the APA's GATF Immigration Subcommittee meeting held in D.C. in May, a suggestion was made to the Verification Division responsible for E-Verify that all manuals be posted on one page. It appears this suggestion has already been implemented and we should all than E-Verify for this. You can now find Form I-9 and E-Verify manuals on a single web page. That's the good news!

The not so good news is that USCIS has fallen short in providing specific requirements for determining the hire date, employment date, rehire date, or whatever term you use to refer to the date the employee began work on the Form I-9. Part of this has to do with there not being specific requirements in the Form I-9 law for determining what this date should. As you know, E-Verify will not accept a future date as the hire date. The issue here is that there is a law governing the Form I-9, but E-Verify is still a pilot program. It just doesn't look good for a pilot program to be defining requrirements for a law, does it? Therefore, USCIS has issued guidance on their web site re: What's the Hire Date. Unfortunately, the guidance misses the mark and makes no sense for either the Form I-9 or E-Verify.

You can create an E-Verify case for a new employee as soon as they have accepted an offer of employment and completed Form I-9. The Form I-9 law does not prohibit the hire date in Section 2 or the rehire date in Section 3 from being a future date. How a signer can attest to a future event is beyond me since there is no guarantee the employee will even show up much less actually start on the date entered on Form I-9. Anyway, even if you put a future hire date on the Form I-9 you can still create an E-Verify case for the employee as soon as Form I-9 is completed. This sets up an interesting situation since you must enter the hire date into E-Verify and E-Verify does not accept a hire date that is in the future. So, what do you do? Why you are instructed to lie to E-Verify, of couse. If the Form I-9 contains a hire date that is in the future, you should enter today's date as the hire date in E-Verify. If the employee's hire date is today or a date prior to today, enter the hire date on the Form I-9 in E-Verify.

Gee, what's the purpose of entering a date in E-Verify that is not on the Form I-9? USCIS claims it has to do with the three-day rule for E-Verify purposes. What do you think employers are really going to do if they realize that the Monitoring & Compliance group within the USCIS Verification Division is looking for E-Verify cases created by non-FAR (non-federal contractors) beyond the three-day period? Right, the employer is simply going to enter today's date as the hire date to avoid submitting the new hire to E-Verify after the three-day period. E-Verify won't know that the case was created late because E-Verify can't verify the hire date.

So, rather than clarifying what is an acceptable hire date and rehire date on Form I-9, USCIS has opted to create more confusion, ask employers to enter a date into E-Verify that is not on the Form I-9, and make it even more difficult for the Monitoring & Compliance group to identify employers who intentionally create E-Verify cases late or use E-Verify for pre-screening, which is prohibited.

Wouldn't it make more sense for USCIS to simply define the hire and rehire dates as the earlier of the employee's first day of work for pay or the date Section 2 (or Section 3) of the Form I-9 is signed?

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

One of the key lessons to be learned from the State of Minnesota's experience with a Bellaire, Texas-based electronic I-9/E-Verify service provider is that the primary factor is selecting a supplier is data security and not price. Price is a consideration, but data security is the first priority when selecting a supplier to house sensitive data for you and your employees. When it comes to price, the sky is not the limit. The price must be fair for both parties and the vendor needs to be willing to accept responsiblity for their actions, should those actions result in a breach. A low price doesn't mean much if your data is not secure.

The other key lesson is that corporate security should be involved in the selection of any supplier that will house sensitive data. Make sure your supplier has a proven track record as well as technology, processes, and procedures in place to secure your data. Your corporate security department should discuss this with your supplier and sign off on the supplier before you sign a contract.

Sensitive personal data is required to complete a Form I-9 and an E-Verify case. The value of the security your supplier provides should not be compromised for a low price.

To support this position here are some excerpts from the April 21, 2010 article by Sasha Aslanian of Minnesota Public Radio "Audit critical of state's handling of private data". (In the excerpts below the supplier's name is removed and clarifications in () are added.)

• On Wednesday, Nobles (Minnesota's legislative auditor Jim Nobles) published a chronology showing how the state picked a vendor one staffer described as "too good to be true" when it came to price, and signed a contract absolving the vendor of all security risk:

  "The selection of the vendor, the management with the vendor, the agreement with the vendor just never was on solid ground and I think the principle reason is the people doing it just didn't take into consideration data security issues that were involved," he said.

• In the rush to implement the federal Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify program, state internet technology staff consistently were not adequately involved at the outset or as problems popped up along the way, Nobles found.

• Chris Buse, the state's chief information security officer, told Nobles he didn't learn about the problems with (the supplier) until well after the fact.

  "The thing that surprised me was that I didn't learn about it from within the organization," Buse said. "I learned about it from the legislative auditor's office. And that was the thing that bothered me about this particular situation is that we need to have better ways to engage the central security office and that's what our 'enterprise incident management standard' really does."

• From Nobles' reading of the contract, the state didn't protect itself very well.

  "Somebody that's out there running a business, offering the kind of services that (the supplier) was offering, should have provided better security but frankly, they told state up front in their service agreement, in black and white they would not be responsible for state data," Nobles explained. "Even the data that was encrypted. The data that was not public data. They told state in their service agreement that they would not take any responsibility for it, and the state signed the agreement anyway."

We all have an obligation to protect our data and the data of our employees. Your supplier must provide the level of data security your corporate security department requires. A rush to judgement based on price can increase your security risks and may result in a very bad day for you, your company, your employees, and your customers. Look at data security as proactive insurance. Insurance protects you if something bad happens. Data security bad things from happening. Like I tell my kids, don't take unnecessary risks because sooner or later something bad will happen. The same is true when it comes to data security. Don't give up security for a few bucks! In the end, it's just not worth it!

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

In December 2009 the E-Verify Photo Tool was released to E-Verify Designated Agents (DAs) using the E-Verify web site. Many DAs, including TALX, provide an electronic I-9 service that communicates with E-Verify using a sedure computer-to-computer connection referred to as the E-Verify Web Services Interface. E-Verify supports several versions of this interface. The current release is version 20 (v20) and it supports the Photo Tool. DAs recently received instructions to upgrade to v19 by July 23. While v19 supports some of the Photo Tool data fields, it does not provide all the necessary functionality needed for DAs to support the Photo Tool in their electronic I-9 services. DAs have not received notification from DHS regarding when v20 must be implemented.

The lack of v20 notification is a good thing at this time since many DAs and employers are working through supporing and complying with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR rule) that requires Federal contractors with covered contracts to verify new and existing employees with E-Verify. The other reason this is good news is that later in 2010 (perhaps in the fall) another Photo Tool update (v21?) will probably be released to add U.S. passport photos. Currently, the Photo Tool only provides photos when an employee presents a EAD card or a LPR card to complete the Form I-9. By delaying the requirement for DAs to upgrade to v20, employers will only have to train hiring managers one time on the use of the Photo Tool. If DAs were required to upgrade to v20 and then 6 months later to v21 (if that is the version that supports passport photos), employers would be required to train hiring managers twice on the Photo Tool. This would most likley increase confusion, result in noncompliant practices that increase risk, and additional employer costs. It would be better for those employers hiring seasonal workers this fall to not be burdened with implementing a new E-Verify feature such as the Photo Tool.

After the release of v21 there will likely be another release (v22?) that will be the first installment of updates as part of the plain language initiative. This project is to make the language of E-Verify more understandable to users of the service. The first release will change such technical terms as Tentative Nonconfirmation so they are clearer and describe the actions the hiring manager and employee must take to resolve the issue.

Again, it is good for employers for the release of v22 to be delayed until after the seasonal hiring season is over so hiring managers and employees don't have to be taking training and learning new terms during a peak hiring season.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

The APA Capital Summit was held last week in Washington D.C. During my time in D.C. I had a chance to meet with various individuals responsible for E-Verify and enforcement of immigration laws including the Form I-9. Here is an update on what we all might expect in the coming months regarding E-Verify and information on why improvements can take longer that most of us would like or expect.

1. An E-Verify ICD (Interface Control Document) is a specification that covers the E-Verify web service computer-to-computer interface that E-Verify makes available primarily to Designated Agents (DAs) and to a lesser extent individual employers. The current ICD is version 20, but there will likely be others released within the next 12 months or so. When a new ICD is released DAs are typically given 6 months to implement the new interface. Here are some examples of what we may see.

• Support for ICDs older than version 19 will be discontinued.
• An ICD providing an expansion of the Photo Matching Tool that will include additional documents such as U.S. passport photos.
• An ICD that includes updates supporting the DHS plain language initiative to replace terms such as Tentative Nonconfirmation with something more meaningful to the user.

2. There are many stakeholders involved with E-Verify. Therefore, changes to the program, which, by the way, will remain a pilot program until Congress changes its status, must be reviewed and approved by a variety of groups within the government. For example, a partial list of these groups might include E-Verify, DHS management, DOJ OSC, SSA just to mention a few. Each of these groups have their own legal staffs and E-Verify is just one item on their worklist. So, you can see how it might be somewhat of a challenge getting all these groups and individuals on the same page.

3. Why are there so many different E-Verify manuals? I'll speculate that there are two main reasons for this.

• First, to avoid burdening a user with information that does not apply to them E-Verify has published manuals for each specific user audience.
• Second, government agencies need to comply with the paperwork reduction act to limit the amount of paper documents that are printed. While most E-Verify manuals are published online as PDFs and downloaded by the user, there are a number of users that request hardcopy manuals. So, E-Verify is required to cost justify the publication and printing of any new manuals. Since the publication of manuals doesn't generate revenue or reduce costs, it is much easier for E-Verify to get approval to publish smaller manuals. This might help explain why there is a Supplemental Guide for Federal contractors rather than a larger single manual for Federal contractors.

4. Guidance to simplify and clearly define what is acceptable as the Employment Date in E-Verify as well as what to enter as the Employment Date in Section 2 of the Form I-9. The same guidance must also apply to the Rehire Date entered in Section 3 of the Form I-9. There appears to be disagreement among the various stakeholders involved with the Form I-9 and E-Verify as to how to what the specific definition of these two fields can be and what it needs to be. Therefore, we should not anticipate that any guidance provided in the short-term will provide a simple, clear, and consistent definition of these dates. In my opinion, the guidance should be as simple as:

• The date (Employment and Rehire dates on the Form I-9 as well as what is provided to E-Verify) must be the date applicable section of the Form I-9 is signed or a previous date. The date must not be a date in the future. There is no requirement that the date match any date in the employer's systems.

Unfortunately, the guidance is more likely to be different for E-Verify and the Form I-9. In other words, E-Verify will not accept a future date, but a future date will be acceptable on the Form I-9. This will mean that if the date on the Form I-9 is a future date, the user will be instructed to enter the current date in E-Verify to verify the employee's work authorization. This approach will be confusing to users, limit or eliminate the E-Verify Monitoring and Compliance group from obtaining realistic statistics, it may serve to promote pre-screening, which is not allowed by E-Verify, and it is bad for the E-Verify brand to instuct users to enter information into E-Verify that is not on the Form I-9.

To sign off on a positive not, I will tell you that while there are challenges and enhancements that will make it easier to use and reduce the burden on employers, E-Verify is continuing to improve. So, hats off to the E-Verify team for that! However, we all need to keep the pressure on to push for needed enhancements.

That's it from the Capital.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: February 4, 2010

The Illinios Department of Labor has now posted the attestation form on their website at http://www.state.il.us/Agency/idol/forms/pdfs/attest.pdf. This new attestation form clarifies the requirements for employers utilizing an E-Verify Designated Agent.

IMPORTANT! The information in the new attestation form makes at least some of the information in the original blog post irrelevant.

Regarding the E-Verify Computer Based Training (CBT) requirement, the attestation form says the following:

Under penalty of perjury, I attest that:

1. (a) Employer has received the Basic Pilot or E-Verify training materials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and all employees administering the program have completed the Computer Based Tutorial (CBT);

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the information for this entry was taken from a blog entry posted January 11, 2010 by Ogletree Deakins, one of America's leading labor and employment law firms, at the Lexology website. The blog entry titled "New E-Verify law goes into effect" and covers the IL law.

Did you ever wonder if our elected officials and their staffs ever bothered to take the time to understand how something works or doesn't work or how things could be made better before they pass a law? In the case of the new Illinois law that imposes requirements on employers who use E-Verify and penalties on employers who violate the requirements, the answer is a resounding YES!

Keep in mind as you read this that when IL passed a law prohibiting its employers from using E-Verify, they were sued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the law went away.

The recently passed law amending the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act places statutory obligations on employers that use E-Verify.

As of January 1, 2010, Illinois employers now are required to complete an attestation at the time of E-Verify enrollment. Employers are required to attest to the following:

1. The employer and all its employees using E-Verify have received the E-Verify training materials and completed the online computer-based tutorial (CBT) training provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
2. The employer has posted the required notice from DHS indicating that the company is enrolled in E-Verify in a place that is clearly visible.
3. The employer maintains the original signed attestation form, as well as all CBT certificates of completion and makes them available for copying and inspection at the request of the Illinois Department of Labor.
4. The employer has posted the required anti-discrimination notice issued by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigrant-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) in a place that is clearly visible. Employers already enrolled in E-Verify must sign the attestation before January 30, 2010.

This sounds easy enough, right? Posting the notices are already required by the E-Verify MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that the employer signs to enroll in E-Verify. However, compliance with the other two requirements is more difficult and burdensome for the employer.

1. The CBT training is only available to employers who use the E-Verify website. DHS does NOT make the training available to employers who use an E-Verify Service Provider (i.e., Designated Agent or DA) to submit E-Verify queries for them. Therefore, employers who use a DA will have trouble completing the CBT. DHS is working on a ppt deck for employers using a DA, but there are no plans to make the CBT available. So, the only way an employer using a DA can comply with the CBT requirement is to enroll to use the E-Verify website, take the training, and then not use the E-Verify website for submitting E-Verify queries. This is not a good solution for anyone.
2. The employer can maintain the signed attestation form, but DHS does not really providee a 'Certificate of Completion' for the CBT. The only thing provided is a web page at the end of the training that says you passed and gives your score. So, this is just more paper an employer needs to retain for an audit that may never come unless IL is really going to spend the money to audit employers operating in the state.

So, how is an IL employer who uses a DA's electronic I-9/E-Verify service supposed to comply with the IL law since DHS does not make and has no plans to make the CBT available to these employers?

1. Signup to use the E-Verify site and have your IL employees signing I-9s complete the CBT and print the completion page. Then only use the DA's I-9/E-Verify system to complete I-9s and E-Verify cases.
2. Use a tool like Live Meeting and show your IL users the CBT, have them write down the answers, score the answers, and print out completion pages for those that pass and write their name on it.
3. Screen capture the CBT, create a ppt, and require the test to be given and scored locally. Keep a printout of the completion page for those that pass.
4. Finallly, you can opt to take the position that the requirement only applies to users who are actually using the E-Verify system (i.e., website) and that the law does not apply to users accessing E-Verify through a DA's third-party system.

THE ABOVE DO NOT REPRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TALX OR EVEN OPTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR EMPLOYERS SINCE THEY MAY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE. EMPLOYERS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO REGARDING THE IL LAW.

The new law also prohibits employers that are enrolled in E-Verify from:

1. Failing to display the notices supplied by DHS and OSC in a place clearly visible to both prospective and current employees.
2. Allowing an employee to use the E-Verify system prior to having completed the CBT training.
3. Allowing employees that have not taken the CBT training to use the E-Verify program under an employee's user identification or password that has taken the training.
4. Using the E-Verify program as a pre-screening mechanism for prospective employees.
5. Terminating an employee prior to that employee receiving a final non-confirmation notice from the Social Security Administration or DHS.
6. Failing to notify the employee, in writing, of the employer’s receipt of a tentative nonconfirmation notice and of the employee’s right to contest that tentative non-confirmation letter.
7. Failing to safeguard the information contained in the E-Verify program database.

These are all prohibitions that are already prohibited by the federal E-Verify laws and regulations so what's the point?

The law also prohibits an individual from falsely posing as an employer to enroll in E-Verify, and prohibits an employer from using E-Verify to access information regarding someone who is not an employee of the employer. This is a good thing. As I've pointed out before, DHS needs to have a credentialing process for employers and DAs to make sure employers are legitimate and DAs are qualified to serve as an agent for DHS and E-Verify.

Employees and applicants now have a private right of action based on an employer's violation of the Act. Here is an example of a state promoting unnecessary lawsuits. DHS already provides for an employee to contact the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Council if they feel their rights have been violated by the employer. Under the IL law if an employee or applicant believes the Act has been violated they must:

1. File a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor.
2. Under certain conditions, file a lawsuit in state court.
3. The court may award $500 plus costs, attorney's fees, and actual damages.
4. If the employer doesn't pay the employer can be held in contempt and=, found guilty of a petty offense, which carries a maximum penalty of $1,000.

The IL Department of Human Rights has been granted the power to investigate such claims under the IL Human Rights Act when an employee or applicant believes that the employer refused to hire the applicant or to promote, renew employment, or discharged, or disciplined the employee without following E-Verify procedures.

Visit the IL Department of Labor website for more information on the law.

A more cynical writer or reader might twist this new IL law into some kind of attempt by IL to 'get even' for being sued by the USDOJ for trying to prohibit the use of E-Verify? But, as everyone knows our elected officials would never do that. That would be a waste of the people's time, money, and resources. Our elected officials are there to protect us from those that would do us harm. They would never engage in playground politics like this. Would they?

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Updates: July 6, 2010 - from comments submitted to the blog post.

1. USCIS has issued guidelines for the hire date to be entered on the Form I-9 as well as in E-Verify and these dates can be different.
2. Question:

1. Does the employee signature date in Section 1 have to match the hire date in Section 2?
2. Answer: The employee signature date in Section one should be the same or prior to the hire date in Section 2 unless you are completing a new Form I-9 for an existing employee because the original Form I-9 was lost or damaged, or if a Form I-9 was not completed for the employee at the time of hire.

1. Can the certification date be a later date than the employee's signature date in Section 1?
2. Answer: Yes. This happens frequently because the Form I-9 can be completed prior to the employee's first day of work for pay. If the employee is being hired today and completing the Form I-9, but won't start working until next week, the employee signs Section 1 today and, as many employers do, the hire date will be the date the employee starts work next week.

I have it on good authority that after much discussion at USCIS around the employment and rehire dates on the Form I-9, USCIS has formulated new guidance that will be published in updated documentation due out in a few months. The guidance is consistent with the postion that has been taken by TALX, other E-Verify Designated Agents, professional associations such as the American Payroll Association, and other government agencies. This is good news since this guidance will put the issue to rest and provide employers, E-Verify Designated Agents, and auditors with definitive rules around correctly entering hire dates on Form I-9.

The guidance will essentially include the following.

• The employment date in Section 2 must be the date the employer signs Section 2 or a prior date.
• The employment date in Section 2 must not be a future date. A future date is not acceptable by E-Verify.
• The rehire date in Section 3 must be the date the employer signs Section 3 or a prior date. The rehire date in Section 3 must not be a future date.
• There is no requirement that the employment date in Section 2 or the rehire date in Section 3 match any date in the employer's systems. Since the Form I-9 can be completed prior to the employee's first day of work for pay, the employment date in Section 2 (or rehire date in Section 3) of the Form I-9 may be a date prior to the employee's first day of work for pay and it may be a date prior to the date the employee qualifies for benefits from the employer.

This is a very good thing. Thank you USCIS for stepping up and providing this guidance. Having this documented will clarify the employment date rule or all stakeholders. Hopefully, USCIS will continue to provide updated guidance to clarify other rules regarding Form I-9. Anyway, for now kudos to USCIS. We all appreciate your efforts and can't wait for the updated documentation to be published.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

A recent Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) news story regarding a security breach at an E-Verify Designated Agent's (DA) website highlights the need for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to credential all E-Verify DAs. Such credentialing must confirm, among other things, that the DA is a real company, has security practices and technology in place to prevent unauthorized access to personal data, and delivers software and services that comply with the requirements of E-Verify. The story points out that there are more than 13,000 E-Verify DAs registered with DHS.

In addition to the MPR story, there are a number of other employers that could share their stories of security and compliance issues encountered with E-Verify DAs, their software, and services. Since these stories reflect poorly on E-Verify and those DAs providing secure and compliant services, it is up to the DAs to pressure DHS for a comprehensive DA credentialing program.

DHS is working on a credentialing program to verify that companies enrolling in E-Verify are legitimate. However, there needs to be a more rigorous process for DAs since they provide access to E-Verify for multiple employers. Now is the time for DHS to establish a DA credentialing program before E-Verify becomes required for the roughly 50 million employees hired annually in the United States by over 6 million employers.

Employers currently using or considering an electronic I-9/E-Verify service as well as performing E-Verify queries with a DA should carefully evaluate the security practices, procedures, and safeguards of the DA. At a minimum, DAs should be required to complete a security audit for the employer, provide privacy and security statements on their websites, and maintain a SAS 70 Type II certification. Employers should think long and hard about security before deciding to use or continue to use a DA that does not at least meet these minimum requirements or does not comply with the employer's corporate security standards.

NEW INFORMATION POST - December 14, 2009

The subject of the MPR report referred to above has responded by posting information on their website. There is also a follow-up story published on The Minnesota Independent website.

NEW INFORMATION POST - December 15, 2009

The subject of the MPR report filed suit against The State of Minnesota on December 10, 2009, but did not inform The State of Minnesota at the time the lawsuit was filed.

Word has spread and more stories and opinions are being posted such as:

http://maryturck.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/texas-firm-screwed-up-so-it-sues-minnesota/

http://www.zecurion.com/server-software-blog/2009/12/minnesota-employee-data-exposed-by-lookout-services/

http://www.secretsofthecity.com/mnspeak/how-dare-a-journalist-use-website-data

http://www.databreaches.net/?p=8844

http://www.databreaches.net/?p=8855

NEW INFORMATION POST - December 17, 2009

The saga continues. It is interesting that there are 13,649 E-Verify Designated Agents (DAs) and not one of them has been credentialed by DHS. As the number of DAs grows without any DHS credentialing process so does the potential that employee data will be compromised.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6774164.html

NEW INFORMATION POST - December 18, 2009

Others in Minnesota continue to weigh in on the importance of making sure an E-Verify Designated Agent has sufficient security safeguards in place to protect employee data. Minnesota State Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles raised 'significant concerns' in a June report about an E-Verify Designated Agent's ability to protect employee data. The company won the contract and now Nobles wants to determine if Minnesota officials were satisfied that the company had addressed those issues before the state signed a deal with the company in July. He also wants to know if state officials adequately responded in October to complaints that employee information -- including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers -- was still at risk. The full text of the article that was the source of the information above can be found at:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/12/17/lookout-folo/

It seems employers would benefit greatly if DHS would credential every E-Verify Designated Agent (DA) to make sure security and privacy are properly addressed before certifying a company as an E-Verify Designated Agent. DHS should also publish the list of certified DAs on the DHS website.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of DHS, has replaced raids with worksite enforcement actions. Instead of barging in on a work location, disrupting operations, validating work authorizations, and arresting illegal workers, ICE is now becoming more methodical by stepping up worksite enforcement audits. These audits are for the most part 'under the radar' as far as illegal workers are concerned. Auditors contact the employer and provide 72 hours notice before coming onsite and inspecting the employers Forms I-9s. Based on the results of the audit, any illegal workers are processed and the employer faces potential fines and other actions. In addition, ICE is likely to return and audit the employer again to make sure any corrective action has been taken.

In addition to the information below, ICE issued additional Notices of Inspection (NOIs) during Q4 2009 to 1,000 employers across the country associated with critical infrastructure or key resources. These NOIs let business owners know that ICE will audit their hiring records to determine compliance with employment eligibility verification laws. Results of these NOIs should be made available on the ICE website sometime in 2010.

The following information is from the ICE website at: http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0911/091119washingtondc2.htm

Protecting employment opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce and targeting employers who knowingly employ an illegal workforce are major ICE priorities, for which ICE employs all available civil and administrative tools, including audits. Audits may result in civil penalties and lay the groundwork for criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly violate the law.

In April, DHS issued updated worksite enforcement guidance emphasizing ICE's major enforcement priorities-specifically focusing on dangerous criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country's laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers. In this strategy, ICE identified form I-9 audits as the most important administrative tool in building criminal cases and bringing employers into compliance with the law.

Statistics since implementation of new ICE worksite enforcement strategy on April 30:

• 45 businesses and 47 individuals debarred;
  • 0 businesses and 1 individual were debarred during same period in FY 2008.
• 142 Notices of Intent to Fine (NIF) totaling $15,865,181;
  • ICE issued 32 NIFs totaling $2,355,330 in all of FY 2008.
• 45 Final Orders totaling $798,179;
  • ICE issued eight Final Orders totaling $196,523 during the same period in FY 2008.
• 1,897 cases initiated;
  • ICE initiated 605 cases during the same period in FY 2008.
• 1,069 Form I-9 Inspections;
  • ICE initiated 503 Form I-9 Inspections in all of FY 2008.

In July, ICE issued 654 NOIs to businesses nationwide in the largest operation of its kind before today - part of ICE's effort to audit businesses suspected of using illegal labor.

Statistics resulting from the 654 audits announced in July:

• ICE agents reviewed more than 85,000 Form I-9s and identified more than 14,000 suspect documents - approximately 16 percent of the total number reviewed.
• To date, 61 NIFs have been issued, resulting in $2,310,255 in fines. In addition, 267 cases are currently being considered for Notices of Intent to Fine (NIFs).
• ICE closed 326 cases after businesses were found to be in compliance with employment laws or after businesses were served with a Warning Notice in expectation of future compliance.

For more information, visit http://www.ice.gov/.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

On November 19, 2009 I attended a DHS symposium in D.C. with about 120 other attendees. The purpose of the symposium was for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, along with John Morton, Assistant Secretary of ICE, and Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of USCIS, to announce the new 'I E-Verify' program and to provide updates on immigration-related topics including enforcement efforts and the Form I-9 and E-Verify. Below is the new 'I E-Verify' logo to be used by emloyers to let consumers know that the company uses E-Verify to ensure a legal workforce. DHS considers the 'I E-Verify' program to be good business.

A public service announcement promoting the 'I E-Verify' campaign was also shown.

USCIS provided the following statistics regarding E-Verify and the FAR rule:

• There are currently 170,000 companies enrolled in E-Verify.
• Nearly 2,000 companies per week are enrolling in E-Verify. (Most of this increase is attributed to the FAR rule that requires federal contractors to use E-Verify.)
• To date 9,000 federal contracts have been issued with the FAR E-Verify clause, which represents 1,800 federal contractors.
• E-Verify has processed 8.5 million queries in FY2009.
• 96.9% of E-Verify queries are confirmed as employment authorized.
• 2.8% of E-Verify queries are not confirmed as employment authorized.
• .3% of Tentative Nonconfirmation queries are untimately confirmed as employment authorized.

In 2010, E-Verify will begin verifying companies enrolling in E-Verify and near the end of 2010 E-Verify should be adding passport photographs to the Photo Tool. The Photo Tool will become available to E-Verify service providers (i.e., Designated Agents) by the end of 2009. DAs will have 6 months to implement the Photo Tool.

The USCIS Compliance, Tracking, and Monitoring group, CTMS, will monitor such E-Verify behavior such as:

• The same SSN being submitted multiple times in E-Verify (this may indicate identity fraud/theft)
• No referrals being processed for Tentative Nonconfirmations (this may indicate pre-screening)
• E-Verify queries being initiated more than 3 days after the employment date

USCIS will send letters to employers when such behavior is detected. Through Q4 of FY2009 USCIS has sent 1,000 such letters.

In Spring 2010 USCIS anticipates providing duplicate SSN detection on the E-Verify website.

In Summer 2010 USCIS anticipates rolling out a new user interface for the E-Verify website and will add features such as reverification notices to employers.

There was spirited discussion throughout the afternoon between the presenters and attendees. Some of the other points of interest that came out during the discussions included:

• 16% of E-Verify users did not complete the tutorial (password sharing)
• 16% of E-Verify users pre-screen applicants (illegal activity)
• 20% of employers took adverse action on a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC)
• 9% of employers don't give the TNC notice to the employee
• 7% of employers encourage employee not to contest a TNC
• SSA can put an E-Verify case in continuance for up to 120 days (new information)
• ICE has 26 Special Agent offices in the U.S.
• 85 employers are currently in the IMAGE program
• ICE sent 654 Notices of Inspection (NOI) in July 2009
  • 326 employers are in compliance
  • 61 employers received a Notice of intent to Fine (NOF) totalling more than $2 million
  • 200 employer cases are pending
• ICE is sending 1,000 more NOIs on businesses in the following categories (categories are further defined in the Homeland Security Act):
  • Critical infrastructure
  • Key resources
• There are very few cases of ICE penalizing an employer over document fraud
• ICE will re-inspect employers after an audit to confirm behavior correction

The PowerPoints from the symposium will be posted on www.dhs.gov/e-verify.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Well, it's been a while since the last posting and many things have happened and continue to happen. Based on conversations with DHS and others in the industry, here are a few things to take into consideration regarding the FAR rule.

• Due to the number of comments and suggestions USCIS has received since issuing th E-Verify Supplemental Guide For Federal Contractors on September 8, 2009, USCIS will be issuing an updated version in the near future.
• USCIS also issued an updated E-Verify User Manual For Federal Contractors on September 8, 2009. It is anticipated that an updated version of this document will also be issued to correct errors such as missing sections and poor wording.
• USCIS announced this week on the E-Verify website that the Photo Matching Tool, designed to help prevent document fraud, will be made available to E-Verify Designated Agents (soon to be referred to as E-Verify Service Providers) by the end of the year. The tool is already available to employers using the E-Verify website. Designated Agents will likely have between 6 and 9 months to update their electronic I-9 services to use the new E-Verify web service interface including the Photo Matching Tool.
• There are two groups of existing employees that can be considered exempt from E-Verify for purposes of complying with the FAR rule. However, if you must treat all employees in a group the same to avoid potential discrimination. If you submit one employee with an HSPD-12 background check, then you must submit all employees in the group. These groups include:
  • Employees with an active confidential, secret, or top secret security clearance
  • Employees with credentials issued as a result of an HSPD-12 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12) background check.
• Any existing employee who has already been submitted to E-Verify may not be submitted again unless they have been rehired since last being submitted to E-Verify. If you have used E-Verify for any existing employees you should generate the User Audit Report from the E-Verify website. This gives you an Excel file of the employees already verified by E-Verify so you can avoid submitting them more than once.
• Be careful when deciding to verify all existing employees or only those assigned to a FAR contract. Once you make this decision you can't change it.
• Employers have the ability to consider the legal entity that signed the contract as the contractor and bound by the FAR rule. NOTE: Consult your legal counsel to determine if certain subidiaries and affiliates are part of the legal contracting entity.
• Finally, based on feedback from many employers, industry organizations, and off-the-record discussions with DHS the best practice for verifying existing employees is to submit ALL existing employees to E-Verify by creating a new I-9 for each existing employee. For many employers verifying all existing employees is the lesser of two evils. NOTE: You must retain the employee's original I-9. Here are some reasons why verifying all existing employees is being considered the best practice.
  • This is a one-time event. If you decide to only verify employees working on a FAR contract, then you have an ongoing, never ending obligation to continue to verify existing employees transferred to an existing FAR contract or assigned to a new FAR contract.
  • Once you are finished you will only need to verify all new hires.
  • You have one process used uniformly across the entire organization.
  • You will have to complete new I-9s for at least some of your employees. This is because an I-9 must comply with E-Verify. Since a new I-9 was issued April 3, 2009 that now includes 4 citizenship options in Section 1 and no longer allows expired documents to be used to complete Section 2, all of your existing I-9s will not comply with E-Verify. By completing new I-9s for all existing employees you avoid having to manually audit your I-9s to determine which ones comply with E-Verify and which ones don't. For those that don't comply, you will have to complete a new I-9 anyway. Since most of your existing employees were probably hired prior to April 3, 2009, you will have to complete new I-9s for most of your employee anyway.

In closing, compliance with the FAR rule is causing employers to really consider moving to an electronic I-9 with E-Verify. This will reduce the hassle, eliminate errors with real-time error checking, promote your GREEN initiatives, automatically receive notifications for employees with expiring work authorizations (reverifications), reduce liability by automatically purging old I-9s for terminated employees once the I-9s have satisfied Federal retention requirements, and provide enhanced compliance reporting.

NOTE: For TALX clients already using The Work Number employment verification service from TALX, we already have the data we need for I-9 compliance reporting.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Well, my speculation was way off! This one surprised me and, I'm sure, many others.

The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated July 8, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review, the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September 8, 2009." Click here for the full press release. I interpret the term full implementation to indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the press release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

The direction provided in the instructions for the Form I-9, the Handbook for Employers (M-274), and the E-Verify User Manual for the employment date in Section 2 could provide more specific. Consequently, there are different interpretations used by entities such as employers, E-Verify Designated Agents, electronic I-9 service providers, ICE, USCIS, and OFCCP. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone used the same definition!

I propose that the rule for the employment date in Section 2 should be the following:

The employment date in Section 2 may be the current date (the date Section 2 is signed) or a prior date, but it cannot be a future date.

Here is the rational for this definition.

1. The language in the cerfication statement in Section 2 says 'that the employee began employment on (month/day/year)                  '  Words have meaning and this language says began rather than will begin. Therefore, the language indicates that the date should be the current date or a prior date and not a future date.
2. Since the signatory is attesting that the information in Section 2 is accurate, using a future date requires the signatory to attest to an event that has not yet occurred. Since there is no way to guarantee the employee will actually start work on a future date, it does not make sense to attest to a future event by entering a future date in Section 2.
3. E-Verify will not accept an employment date that is in the future. Since E-Verify, the government's free system that employers can use to verify a new hire is authorized to work in the U.S., does not accept a future date, it makes sense to not enter a future date in Section 2 of the Form I-9.
4. There are basically two reasons for entering a prior date in Section 2 of the Form I-9.
   1. The employer has three work days do complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 for a new hire. Therefore, the employment date could be prior to the Section 2 signature date.
   2. If the employer identifies that an employee is missing a Form I-9, the employer should complete a Form I-9 as soon as possible. In this situation, the employment date in Section 2 will be more than three days prior to the Section 2 signature date.

One other point, there is really no relationship between the Section 1 and the Section 2 signature dates. However, the Section 1 signature date must be the same or prior to the Section 2 signature date. The employee should complete Section 1 before or at the same time the employer completes Section 2.

By the way, the employment date in Section 2 MUST be completed when the employer signs Section 2. The Form I-9 instructions state that employers must record in Section 2 the date employment begins. Some employers, especially in the staffing industry, leave the employment date blank and when the employee is placed in a position the employment date is entered. This is not compliant and is a very dangerous practice that would likely be considered to be a substantial violation in the event of an ICE audit. Substantial violations have a high likelyhood of resulting in penalties against the employer. This practice also results in the employment date in Section 2 being a future date since the date would be after the Section 2 signature date.

If you use the rule proposed above you should have compliant employment dates in Section 2 of your Forms I-9.

Good luck!

Dave Fowler

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

July 9, 2009 - Well, my speculation was way off! This one surprised me and, I'm sure, many others.

The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated July 8, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review, the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September 8, 2009." Click here for the full press release. I interpret the term full implementation to indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes the a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the press release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

Based on what is happening in the administration and with other interested parties such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, here is a hypothetical timeline that has a chance of happening.

June 1, 2009 - U.S. Chamber of Commerce releases a statement that the FAR rule for federal contractors is going to be delayed again (this is the 5th time) until September 8, 2009.

June 1, 2009 - Center for Immigration Studies releases a statement that President Obama will begin meeting with Congress on June 8, 2009 regarding immigration reform. Update from Aaron Blake of The Hill (see article below): The White House had planned the meeting for June 8 originally and rescheduled it for June 17. It is being rescheduled for next week, according to a White House official. "The meeting will happen soon and a new date is being set," the official said. The meeting is set to include a small number of senators and members of Congress and is acting as a kickoff for the administration’s efforts on immigration.

June 2009 - DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that there will be changes to the FAR rule that will resolve the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

July 8, 2009 - On or before this date a new FAR rule removing the requirement to submit existing employees to E-Verify and possibly other technical changes will be published in the Federal Register with a 60 day comment period.

September 8, 2009 - the FAR rule will take effect and federal contractors with covered federal contracts will be required to submit all new hires to E-Verify.

This is just speculation, but, who knows, it could happen. Stay tuned.

Updated 6/26/09: Rahm Emanuel says votes not there for immigration reform (BACKGROUND ON MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION REFORM) - http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/rahm_emanuel_says_votes_not_th.html. (6/25/09)

Updated 6/25/09: United States: Immigration Alert: USCIS Announces Further Delays In E-Verify Implementation, Article by Mintz Levin Immigration Practice Group - http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=81810. (6/24/09) 

Updated 6/16/09: NumbersUSA says - Obama Administration and DHS to Gut E-Verify Executive Order. (6/12/09)

Updated 6/16/09: Frank Davies of the Mercury News Washington Bureau writes - Obama, Congress flirt with tackling immigration reform. (6/14/09)

Updated 6/16/09: Aaron Blake of The Hill writes - White House puts off immigration meeting again.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Welcome to the TALX blog focused on the Form I-9 and E-Verify. As you may know there are many changes occurring with the I-9 and E-Verify in 2009. On April 3, 2009 the new I-9 form went into effect. With this new form there are some big changes such as:

• The U.S. citizen and national citizenship statuses have been separated so there are now four citizenship statuses instead of three.
• Expired documents may not longer be used to complete the I-9.
• E-Verify is updated to not accept expired documents.

It is important to note that to update or reverify an I-9 completed on a previous Form I-9, you must complete a new I-9 using the new form.

The second major change scheduled to go into effect May 21, 2009 is the FAR rule that requires Federal contractors with a covered Federal contract to use E-Verify for all new hires and existing employees assigned to the contract. There is an option for the Federal contractor to submit all existing employees hired after November 6, 1986 to E-Verify. This option is very useful for employers who a) cannot easily track which employees work on covered Federal contracts and/or b) want to avoid employee tracking altogether and simply verify all existing employees and be done.

Here are some links for more information and to be kept up to date on changes to the Form I-9 and E-Verify. It is very handy to subscribe to the email notifications from these sites.

• http://www.dhs.gov/e-verify - This will take you to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services site. Here you can sign up for email updates, access documentation about E-Verify, and read the FAQs.
• http://www.cis.org – This will take you to the Center for Immigration Studies site which covers immigration issues. You can sign up for email updates and read blogs.
• http://www.google.com – Sign up for email updates at Google News. You can use E-Verify as your key word to be kept up on E-Verify news and blogs.