The New I-9:

Why Now When We Need Immigration Amnesty for Employers?

---

By Nicole Kersey and Angelo A. Paparelli

---

 

Irony was plentiful last week in Washington and around the country. 

One particularly hawkish Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who never met a war-on-terror strategy he disliked), glommed onto Senator Rand Paul's filibustery droning against drones in protest of John Brennan's nomination as new CIA director. 

Also last week President Obama met with religious leaders to promote "Commonsense [sic] Immigration Reform" as the "leaders expressed their concerns over the impact the broken immigration system is having on families throughout their congregations" -- especially the ongoing deportation of persons eligible for legalization under comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).  

At about the same time, Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, out touting his new book Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, "aimed at conservatives who might have a hard time embracing the increasingly important path-to-citizenship," is accused of flip-flopping on immigration.

Last week also witnessed the release of two noteworthy publications on immigration.  

One, a long read in the National Journal exploring immigration-law dysfunction and irony in the restaurant industry, asked the rhetorically ironic question: “When did business owners become the bad guys of the Republican Party?” The article does a good job of describing our ironic process for verifying employment eligibility: 

Restaurant owners will say, when asked, that they don’t hire illegal immigrants. They also say they don’t know of anyone on their staff who is illegal. They are very likely telling the truth. Employers aren’t allowed to ask about a prospective employee’s country of origin—that would be discriminatory. They are simply required to keep copies of a new hire’s identification on file with an I-9 form, a dizzyingly bureaucratic document that generally does nothing but collect dust. A new employee can offer up many types of documents for the I-9, some of them archaic. Simple mistakes are made. The lunch rush may be starting. And document forgery is big business. (Emphasis added.)

The other piece is a Forbes op-ed with the ironic assertion that giving amnesty to the undocumented is insufficient and that our government also owes them an apology.

All this ironic behavior foreshadowed a bombshell of irony, a veritable immigration drone dropped on all American employers and newly hired employees, the release on March 8 of a new Form I-9 (Employment-Verification-Eligibility) by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  The agency projects that the new I-9 -- consisting of seven pages of instructions to complete two pages of the form itself (up from the current one-page form) -- will impose an annual compliance burden of $1.2 billion on businesses and workers, not to mention a yearly cost to the federal government of $11.5 million. 

Why now?

With the government straitened by sequester and the prospect for CIR never better, why did USCIS choose last week to drop the I-9 bombshell on business and labor?

CIR could well involve the mandatory nationwide rollout of E-Verify and the elimination of the redundant I-9 verification process. Just as faith leaders, with CIR imminent, are calling for a nationwide moratorium on deportations, the business community and immigration advocates for the undocumented should protest the introduction of a costly new procedure that will only cause the "silent raids" and game of gotcha to continue and may well prove unnecessary.   Notwithstanding the government's unpersuasive reasons for changing Form I-9, noted below, the timing, charitably speaking, is ironic.

Why did the form change?

The government has indicated (see #55 of the Appendix to Form I-9, Supporting Statement, available here) that the form was changed because:

-          The old form “expired.”

-          The expiration gave USCIS an opportunity to implement improvements to the form.

-          Improvements (according to USCIS) include:

-          Adding “helpful” fields such as the employee e-mail address and telephone number

-          Revising Section 1 to make it “easier to read and understand”

-          Adding an area for a 3D barcode to “promote the modernization of USCIS forms”

-          Giving employers more space

-          Making the instructions clearer and easier to understand

Whether this was truly the most opportune time to make changes to the form is highly questionable.  Given that any CIR bill passing this year is likely to include changes to the rules employers must follow when verifying employment eligibility, it is inexplicable for USCIS to have revised the I-9 now.  Changes to employment verification in all versions of CIR would inevitably result in the need for a new form or no form at all (just E-Verify with a fraud-proof employee ID card that all workers, including citizens, must present): so why not simply re-publish the same form with a new expiration date?  USCIS doesn't say.

Did USCIS adequately respond to public comments?

Digging around at www.regulations.gov (type in Docket ID USCIS-2006-0068 to find all of the documents and comments related to the new form) leads to a 30+ page document in which the government responds to public comments.  While this suggests that USCIS actually read the comments, the agency's response confirms that little serious consideration was given to the many comments proposing meaningful improvements to the form.  The majority of suggestions that USCIS implemented are minor and mostly stylistic, but still important and burdensome to implement. (See, e.g., the comments of ABIL, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, which like those of so many others the agency largely ignored.) 

What changed?

The new I-9 form is so much more complex that the government anticipates a 21-minute increase in the amount of time it will take to complete. See pages 8-9 of this document. As noted, the form is now two pages long, with seven pages of instructions.  The List of Acceptable Documents still occupies a single page.   Aside from formatting and stylistic changes, there are also substantive changes:

• The instructions are significantly more detailed, including a number of “clarifying” items to help employers avoid mistakes.  
  • Instructions indicating that border commuters from Canada and Mexico may use foreign addresses in Section 1 (but that all other employees must use U.S. addresses).
  • Confirmation that P.O. Boxes are not acceptable.
  • A statement that the SSN (for employers who do not use E-Verify), e-mail, and telephone number fields, are optional.
  • Instructions regarding which foreign nationals must provide passport information in Section 1 (see below).
  • The addition of instructions for minors and disabled employees.
  • In-depth instructions relating to the use of receipts for lost, stolen, and damaged documents.
  • More detailed instructions relating to deadlines for form completion, review and recordation of document information, reverification, and photocopying documents.
  • The form has been updated to look more “official” and to include the DHS seal; this, in combination with certain formatting changes, may help employees take the form more seriously, giving them a better understanding that this is an official government form that is being signed under penalty of perjury.
  • New fields have been added for employees to record telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.  These fields are optional.  The government has indicated that many commenters praised the addition of these fields and that they may make it easier to contact employees in the event of E-Verify tentative nonconfirmations.
  • Terminology has changed in an attempt to make the form more user-friendly, reflect a better understanding of cultural norms (“Family Name”), and to make fields more gender-neutral (“Other Names Used” instead of Maiden Name). 
  • Fields have been added for certain foreign nationals to provide passport information in Section 1 of the form.  This relates to CBP’s plans for automation of the I-94 card.  Only those foreign nationals who obtained their I-94 documents upon entry to the U.S. (as opposed to having received a tear-off I-94 card as a part of a USCIS approval notice) should provide this data.  Others are instructed to write “N/A” in these fields.
  • The signature box for the employee has been improved to prevent employees from signing outside of the box.
  • In most cases, the instructions indicate that fields that do not apply to an employee (or where employees choose not to provide optional information) should be marked “N/A.”  While the government may find such instructions helpful, they actually create more opportunities for employers to find themselves making “mistakes” and worrying about possible fines for noncompliance with seemingly arbitrary rules.
  • “Alien #” has been changed to “Alien Registration Number/USCIS Number.”  For many, this causes confusion.  Let us make it clear:  the numbers are the same, but some government-issued documents use different terms to refer to the same number.
  • A 3D barcode box has been added to the form.  This is a mysterious box, as it is unclear what the government plans to do with it.  All indications suggest that the government may create a “smart” I-9 that employers can complete electronically, and that the barcode may allow for electronic reading of the form data.
  • A stop sign (yes, like the traffic sign) has been added between Section 1 and Section 2 to help prevent employees from completing Section 2 of the form.
  • Additional dedicated fields for recording “extra” List A documents have been added.  These fields may prove helpful to employers who previously struggled with the correct ways to document work authorization for foreign students, certain aliens authorized to work, and lawful permanent residents who have not yet received their green cards.  They may cause confusion, however, for others.  It is still not clear which document should be recorded first, second, or third.
  • The employer’s attestation statement has been changed somewhat.  It makes clearer to employers that they are not necessarily attesting to the employee’s start date (which is helpful when an employee is scheduled to start work in the future, preventing employers from concerns about attesting to something that has not yet occurred).
  • Section 3 has been changed to “Section 3, Reverification and Rehires” to make clear that there is no requirement that employers update the form for employee name changes.  Recording name changes may continue to be a best practice, but only if handled in such a way as to prevent document abuse claims (requesting documentation for I-9 purposes in connection with a name change may be risky).
  • The Lists of Acceptable Documents have been updated to make the rules regarding “restricted” Social Security cards clearer, specifically stating that employers must not accept cards that say “not  valid for employment,” “valid for work only with INS authorization,” or “valid for work only with DHS authorization.”

What should employers do?

USCIS has indicated that employers should begin using the new form immediately but has allowed a period of 60 days for employers to make the business-related adjustments necessary to begin use of the new form, effectively providing a grace period.

With that somewhat clunky guidance, we suggest that employers do the following:

Consider waiting to use the new form until you take time to:

• Read and digest the revised M-274 Handbook for Employers, available here. 
• Update your company policies and protocols to reflect changes to the form.
• Provide training (preferably from a competent immigration attorney) to the individuals responsible for completing the form to ensure that they are aware of the changes and are equipped to properly implement them. 
• Anticipate questions and issues that may arise.
• Be ready to fix the foreseeable mistakes that are likely to arise.
• Check with your electronic I-9 software provider (assuming you no longer use paper I-9s) to see that the new form is available, and ask your immigration attorney to review the new form in a test environment to ensure that it complies with all of the relevant rules and regulations.

* * *

Sen. John McCain, whose somersaults on immigration are just as nimble and ironic as those of Jeb Bush, chastised Sen. Paul's filibuster, calling it a "political stunt" meant to "fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms." No one, however, can really say what USCIS, in its bureaucratic wisdom, meant to accomplish in dropping the new I-9, an even more dizzying and ditzy document than the current form.  

Perhaps, Sen. McCain will persuade his "Gang of Eight" compadres to rescue U.S. employers with an immigration amnesty on I-9 paperwork violations. Meantime, unimpressionable, all too jaundiced employers and their immigration lawyers, stoked by the new I-9, will muddle through the IRCA squeeze until Congress drops the irony and acts responsibly on CIR.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's ... 

Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 22:21

I send greetings to all those observing Public Service Recognition Week 2012. Each day, our country benefits from the efforts of dedicated Federal, state, and local government employees who do their jobs with pride and passion. So many of these men and women work tirelessly on behalf of their fellow citizens to confront the challenges impacting our communities and our Nation. During Public Service Recognition Week, we recognize these committed civil servants and honor their efforts to ensure a brighter future for the next generation.

President Obama, May 4, 2012

As a debate on the right and left rages throughout the nation over the proper role of government, it is fitting that NationOfImmigrators take note of Public Service Recognition Week and salute the devoted public servants in the immigration ecosphere who honor their oaths of office and strive to accomplish justice, leavened with compassion.  

I do not speak of the dull, ill-trained, uninformed or indifferent, or those in the immigration corps who would dishonor themselves and their branch of government by rendering decisions based on personal motives such as an aversion to hard work, career advancement or the promotion of a political agenda not based on the rule of law but rather on the passions of the mob, the media, the Twittersphere or bullies in Congress. I've ranted about them enough before (here's a potpourri: "Immigration Indifference - The Adjudicator's Curse," "Ignorance of Immigration Reality," "Power-Mad Career Immigration Bureaucrats Cry Wolf, Spook DHS Leaders," "Immigration Governance Unmasked, "I Am Furious (Yellow) -- at USCIS and its AAO," "Has Immigration Fraud Really Gone Viral in the DOL PERM program?," "A Silent Bronx Cheer: Hillary to 'Streamline the Visa Process,'" "Immigration Heart on ICE: Why Does ICE Decide All, and Deny Most, Humanitarian Parole Requests?," and "A Cancer within the Immigration Agency").

Rendering unto these immigration Caesars suggests another meaning of the term, the turning of awful offal into "value-added" products (in this case by shaming them into good behavior or providing them with pink slips or incarceration, depending on the severity of their transgressions).

Instead, I render salutes to those who fulfill year-round the "New Year Resolutions for Immigration Officials": 

1. I will decide all cases based on the evidence of record after having read the file carefully and applied the immigration laws, regulations and agency policy memorandums in a spirit of fidelity to Congressional intent and just compassion for the people and businesses who will be affected by my decision.
2. I will not issue requests for evidence merely as a means of pushing a case off my desk.
3. I will decide cases promptly and remember that justice delayed is justice denied.
4. I will not judge the case by the size of the company or the nationality of the applicant.
5. I will not issue decisions that contradict settled agency policy guidance unless a new law or a novel set of facts justify such action.
6. When I am duty bound to deny a case, I will provide a well-reasoned and detailed explanation of the grounds for my decision.

Every day, government officials face perplexing immigration decisions. Many more times than they are given credit, they apply the law justly and within its letter and spirit, using their hearts as well as their heads. Sometimes, they face improper external pressure.  Take for example, Alejandro "Ali" Mayorkas, the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). He has justly won plaudits for enhancing public engagement and transparency.  

One day not too far off, I predict, he'll be lauded for finally rolling out -- after years of labored birth by a midwife known as Transformation --   the first release on May 22, 2012 of USCIS ELIS (electronic immigration system) which the agency promises will provide "improved customer service, shorter processing times, and enhanced adjudication tools to combat fraud and safeguard national security." As with version 1.0 of most software, "[r]eleasing the system in multiple phases will give USCIS the ability to continually enhance the user experience for both customers and [its] employees . . . [and] smooth the transition to electronic filing over time and retain a paper filing option for customers."

Meantime, he faces another pressing challenge. It comes in the form of a March 7, 2012 letter from two senior Senators who should know better, Chuck Grassley on the right (a perennial foe of enlightened immigration reform) and Dick Durbin on the left (ironically, a perennial champion of the Dream Act). 

Sens. Durbin and Grassley display a rare, though wrong-headed, bipartisanship in that they both view the H-1B (Specialty Occupation Worker) and L-1 (Intracompany Transferee) work-visa categories as vehicles for fraud and discrimination (although a majority in Congress has never agreed in sufficient numbers to enact the duo's oft-reintroduced proposals). More recently, their animosity toward the L-1 has caused them (without regard to actual law) to quote liberally from a wayward 2008 non-precedent Administrative Appeals Office decision that trounced on legislative and rulemaking history to restrict drastically eligibility for "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification.

 

Based on Mr. Mayorkas' repeated public pronouncements confirming that the L-1B worker need not be a "key employee" and that her knowledge need not be "closely held" among employees of the affiliate abroad, the stakeholder community anticipates that new L-1B guidance from USCIS which he has promised to issue will reaffirm the expansive interpretation of specialized knowledge that existed from 1990 until the 2008.  That is the year when the AAO issued its L-1B atrocity, only to be plagiarized in 2011 by a copycat killer -- a State Department cable that turned the L-1B into a dead horse.  Although I never bet on the trotters, I wager that a revitalized team of stallions leading the L-1B chariot will soon race into the immigration coliseum a la Ben Hur with Ali Mayorkas at the reins in the role immortalized by Charlton Heston.  But, Ali, watch out for the opposition's spiked wheels!