Conducting internal I-9 audits

June 12th, 2018 by David A. Selden and Julie A. Pace at The Cavanagh Law Firm


This blog is an excerpt from our book Employment Verification – An Employer’s Guide to Immigration, Form I-9 and E-Verify by David Selden and Julie Pace at The Cavanagh Law Firm. For more information, go to the Products tab above and click on "Federal" to subscribe.
 
For many years, an employer that wanted to conduct internal audits did its best based on legal advice and common sense without knowing what the government would think of its efforts and if, in attempting to correct errors, it might inadvertently have created other issues. 
 
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) (now renamed the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER))  had previously issued intermittent opinions on various practices.  In December of 2015, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USCIS) and the OSC issued a joint document entitled “Guidance for Employers Conducting Internal Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 Audits.”  USCIS also updated its I-9 Central webpage with “Frequently Asked Questions: Self-Audits.”  An employer is still advised to consult with legal counsel if questions or issues arise while conducting an internal audit of its I-9 forms, but at least now employers have a better idea what position the government would take on certain issues relating to self-audits of the Form I-9.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance notes that following the Guidance does not necessarily insulate employers from liability for violations of the I-9 employment verification or anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and National Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), and that even conducting a self-audit will not ensure that the government will not impose fines if it finds violations.  Employers, however, are advised to conduct regular self-audits and correct the I-9 forms, when possible, to minimize fines and penalties and demonstrate commitment to compliance with the applicable laws.
 
Self-audits
It is advisable for employers to conduct a routine self-audit to help ensure ongoing compliance with the employment verification, I-9, and E-Verify rules.  The USCIS/OSC Guidance does not provide any instruction on how or why an employer should perform a self-audit, but emphasizes that employers should ensure that they are not discriminating in the conduct of the audit.  For instance, if the employer is reviewing only a representative sample of its I-9 forms rather than every form, the employer must ensure that the criteria used to select which forms to audit is not discriminatory.  The USCIS/OSC Guidance also warns against performing I-9 self-audits that are retaliatory, or that could appear discriminatory or retaliatory based on the time, scope, or selection of I-9s for the audit.
 
Example
Choosing to audit the I-9 forms for every non-citizen and not auditing the I-9 forms of citizens would be discriminatory and lead to liability under the anti-discrimination provisions of IRCA. 
 
If an employer chooses to audit all the I-9 forms from one specific location, this would likely be considered acceptable neutral criteria, unless the employer chose one location that it knew was predominantly non-citizens while the locations that were not audited were primarily staffed by U.S. citizens.  Similarly, auditing all forms completed within a certain time period would likely be considered acceptable neutral criteria.
 
If an employer were to audit the I-9 forms of employees who were discussing a union or who had raised concerns about wage and hour issues shortly after such complaints were raised, it could appear that the employer was retaliating against the employees for their protected activity, which could create liability for the employer.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests that employers document the standards that it decides to use for the Form I-9 self-audit and how it will ensure consistent standards in addressing any corrections that are needed to the Forms I-9.
 
Addressing self-audits with employees
The USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests informing employees about the scope and purposes of the self-audit.  It is not necessary, and most of time is not advisable, for the employer to make a general announcement about an internal I-9 audit.  Employers should, however, be prepared with a consistent process for communicating with the employees who may have to assist the employer in correcting an I-9 form or if questions arise about the audit.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests that when there is an error or deficiency in the employee’s Form I-9 that he/she needs to correct, the employee should be informed confidentially of the specific issue that needs to be corrected.  If the employee does not speak English, the information should be given to the employee in their primary language whenever possible.  The USCIS/OSC Guidance also suggests informing the employee of how to seek additional information if he/she has questions or concerns about the self-audit or correction process.
 
To avoid potential discrimination claims, the employer should ensure that its communications with employees who are correcting their I-9 forms are consistent.
 
Correcting Section 1 errors
The USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests that only the employee, not the employer, may correct errors or omissions in section 1.  The editors of this book generally advise that if it is a former employee, the employer can correct information that is in the employer’s files, such as address or date of birth, but cannot correct issues such as the attestation of citizenship status being incomplete or a missing signature or signature date.
 
If there is information missing or erroneous in section 1, the employer is supposed to ask the employee to correct the information by:
  • drawing a single line through the incorrect information (do not scribble or white out – the original information should still be legible under the single strikethrough)
  • entering the corrected or omitted information;
  • adding initials and the current date next to the corrected or added information.
If the employee needs the assistance of a preparer/translator, the preparer/translator can correct the information using the steps described previously.  If the employee is able, the employee should initial and date next to the corrected information, then the preparer/translator should initial and date next to the employee. 
 
If the preparer/translator previously completed the preparer/translator part of section 1, then nothing further is required.  If they did not, then the person helping the employee make the corrections in section 1 should complete the preparer/translator box.  If the preparer/translator certification was previously completed, the USCIS/OSC Guidance instructs that the preparer/translator should make a single line through the previous preparer/translator’s information and enter the current information, indicating “for corrections.”
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance provides that if there are errors in section 1 that cannot be corrected because the individual is a former employee then the employer should attach a note to the I-9 (not write on the original I-9) stating the error and that it cannot be corrected because the individual no longer works for the employer.  The authors of these materials suggest that if the employer makes such internal notes about the internal I-9 audit that it treats such records as confidential and does not necessarily attach them to the Form I-9 when produced for the ICE during an audit.
 
Correcting Section 2 and 3 errors
The USCIS/OSC Guidance instructs employers to correct errors or omissions on Section 2 or 3 of the Form I-9 using the same method that employees use in section 1:
  • drawing a single line through the incorrect information (do not scribble or white out – the original information should still be legible under the single strikethrough)
  • entering the corrected or omitted information
  • adding initials and current date next to the corrected or added information.
The USCIS/OSC Guidance again emphasizes that the employer should not use whiteout or erase or scribble out information on the Form I-9 or try to conceal corrections made.
 
Lost, incomplete or outdated I-9s
The USCIS/OSC Guidance states that if the employer used an outdated Form I-9 that had been replaced at the time it was completed, as long as the information on the form is correct the employer can keep the outdated, completed form and either:
  • sign a current version of the Form I-9 and attach it to the blank version with a note explaining that the wrong edition was used at the time of hire
  • attach a note (again do not write on the original I-9) explaining that the outdated Form I-9 was filled out correctly and in good faith at the time of hire.
If during an internal audit the employer identifies that it is missing an I-9 for a current employee, it should complete an I-9 as soon as possible using the most current version of the Form I-9, following all the standard procedures for completing a Form I-9. 
 
If section 2 of the Form I-9 had been left blank, the USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests that the employer can complete section 2, including obtaining documents from the employee to verify identity and work authorization, but should ensure that it uses the current date when corrections were made and does not back date the Form I-9. 
 
If section 2 of the Form I-9 does not contain sufficient information to establish identity and work authorization, such as a driver’s license is listed under column B but column C is blank or the individual’s work authorization document in section 3 was insufficient to establish work authorization, the USCIS/OSC Guidance instructs that the employer should ask the employee to provide documentation sufficient to meet the document requirements of the current Form I-9.  The employer should complete section 2 or 3 (as applicable) on a new Form I-9 (including the employer certification) and staple it to the original Form I-9 along with a separate note explaining the corrections made.  The employee can select which documents to present from the List of Acceptable Documents, and the employer cannot require specific documents.  Again, USCIS/OSC Guidance reminds employers not to back date the Form I-9.
 
Addressing fraudulent or suspect documents
The USCIS/OSC Guidance cautions employers who have kept photocopies of documents used to complete the Form I-9 that they cannot request an employee to provide additional or different documents just because the copies of the documents that were retained are not clear.  If documents do not reasonably appear to be valid or relate to the individual whose I-9 it is, the employer can ask the employee to provide other documents from the List of Acceptable Documents.  The employer should keep in mind that it may be difficult to determine the authenticity of a document based on a photocopy.  An employer must have a reasonable foundation for believing that the photocopied document was not genuine or did not relate to the individual who completed the Form I-9.
 
If the employer has grounds for believing that the documents presented at the time of hire were not genuine or did not relate to the individual, it cannot specify what documents the employee should provide.  The employee must be provided with the opportunity to provide any acceptable documents from the List of Acceptable Documents to complete either column A or both columns B and C.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance also reminds employers that it cannot use internal I-9 audits to discriminate against, retaliate against, or intimidate employees.
E-Verify
If an employer discovers during an internal audit that it did not create an E-Verify case during a time period in which it was actively using E-Verify, the USCIS/OSC Guidance provides that the employer may bring itself into compliance by immediately creating an E-Verify case for the individual.  If the employee was hired at a time where the employer was not enrolled in E-Verify or was enrolled in E-Verify but was not actively using E-Verify, then the employer should not create an E-Verify case for the individual.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance states that if during an internal audit an employer discovers that it terminated an employee based on an E-Verify Tentative Non-confirmation (TNC) without providing the employee the opportunity to contest the TNC, the employer should take corrective action, such as extending an offer of re-employment to the individual if they wish to contest their TNC.  If corrective action is not possible, the USCIS/OSC Guidance suggests that the employer should document the reasons that the corrective action was not possible.
 
Complete new forms only as needed
The USCIS/OSC Guidance cautions employers against having employees complete a new Form I-9 unless there are errors or omissions on the original Form I-9.  The OSC believes that requiring employees to complete a new I-9 when the original I-9 did not contain errors could lead to discrimination concerns.  The Guidance continues, however, by reminding employers that if a new I-9 is completed for any employee, it should be stapled to the original Form I-9 and should be dated the date that is completed and not backdated.
 
Establishing a "reasonable" timeframe for reasonable recertification
The USCIS/OSC Guidance states that employers should provide a “reasonable timeframe” for the employee to bring in new documents.  What is “reasonable” is determined on a case-by-case basis.  There is no presumptive reasonable time period.  Factors to consider when determining a reasonable time period including the “specific nature of the deficiency and the time required for the alternative I-9 documentation to be obtained."  The Guidance also reminds employers that employees should be given the choice of acceptable documents from the List of Acceptable Documents and may not be required to present the same document presented on the original Form I-9.  Further, employees should not be treated differently based on perceived or actual citizenship status or national original. 
 
If the employer has knowledge that an individual is not authorized to work in the United States, it must take immediate action and may not give the employee “reasonable time” to acquire status if they are not currently work authorized.
 
If after a reasonable period of time the employee cannot provide documentation sufficient to correct or update the Form I-9 where required, the employer should consider the employee’s explanation for not being able to provide appropriate I-9 documentation and whether to provide additional time.  The decision whether or not to allow the employee additional time to provide documentation must be based on an objective, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory basis.  The USCIS/OSC Guidance provides that the employer should document its reasons for extending the time period and document the employee’s continued efforts to obtain the required documentation.
 
Actions to take upon the disclosure of fraud
The USCIS/OSC Guidance advises that if the employer acquires knowledge, either actual or constructive, that the employee is not work authorized, it is unlawful for the employer to continue to employ the individual. 
 
If the employee discloses that at the time of hire they were not authorized to work in the United States, but they are currently work authorized, having obtained legal status, the USCIS/OSC Guidance provides that the employment eligibility verification laws do not require the termination of the individual’s employment.  The employer may continue to employ the individual after completing a new Form I-9 with the valid work authorization documents.
 
The USCIS/OSC Guidance cautions employers against auditing a particular employee’s Form I-9 in response to a tip about the employee’s work authorization status.  Although an employer violates IRCA if it continues to employ an individual with constructive knowledge that the individual is not authorized to work in the United States, an employer should use caution when responding to tips that do not have indicia of reliability.  For instance, unsubstantiated, anonymous, or retaliatory tips should be viewed with caution.  Asking an employee to provide additional documentation or complete a new I-9 based on unreliable tips may be unlawful and be an unfair immigration related employment practice.
 
Do not access SSNVS resources for a self-audit
The USCIS/OSC Guidance states that employers should not use the Social Security number verification service (SSNVS) during an internal audit. Additional Social Security Number Verification Services, the SSNV is to be used solely to ensure that the employer's records are correct for purposes of completing the Form W-2.   A mismatch in the SSNVS system does not make any statement about the individual’s immigration status, but rather indicates an error in the employer’s or Social Security Administration’s (SSA's) records.  The Guidance reminds employers that they are not to take adverse action against an employee based on a mismatch in the SSA’s records.



Related posts

Background checks of the future are continuous

This blog was written by Spencer Waldron at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. You can find the original post and the Employment Privacy Blog (which is excellent) on their website.   How Much Do You Really Want to Know About Your Employees? The Growing Popularity of Co... ..read more

Treating service animal requests (always treat the animal)

Service animal pop quiz (yes/no): The ADA permits assistance dogs to be with their person where members of the public can go (yes) The ADA requires service dogs to be professionally trained (no) Minature horses are covered under the ADA and Great Danes can be the size of miniature horse... ..read more

Prepare for saying "No" – you need to decide how to refuse service

This blog was written by Seth Ford and Matt Anderson at Troutman Sanders, author of the Georgia Human Resources Manual. You can find the original article and their HR Law Matters blog on their website.   A Plan for Saying No: How to Refuse Service Refusing to serve a patron is a hot topic... ..read more

List 10 up: What's the deal with employee handbook rules?

PODCAST Spend 20 minutes with Ruthie Goodboe from our author Ogletree Deakins as she discusses employer work rules and employee handbook policies and practices in the podcast What's the deal with employee handbook rules? List 10 up: covers union AND non-union workers employees raisi... ..read more

No, you can't sleep on the job

This blog was written by Shelby Skeabeck, formerly of Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   No, You Can’t Sleep on the Job, Especially when it’s... ..read more

Should you give your employees a little Slack – or do they have enough already?

This blog was written by Caroline Pham and Collin Cook at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. You can find the original here and their On the Front Lines Workplace Law Newsletter (which is excellent) here.   Are Your Employees “Slackers”? How Employers Should Handle Sla... ..read more

Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies

This blog was written by Robin Shea at Constangy, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Georgia Employers. You can find the original here and their Employment & Labor Insider blog (which is one of our favorites and is excellent) here.   Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" polic... ..read more

PTO on the house!

This blog was written by Kat Cunnignham, president of Moresource Inc., a member of the Missouri Chamber. You can find the original blog post on the mobile edition of Missouri Chamber's Missouri Business   Traditionally, most companies have offered a paid leave package to employees that diff... ..read more

New rules for work rules

This blog was written by Fiona Ong at Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   NLRB Issues New (And More Balanced) Guidance on Handbook Rules ... ..read more

Guidelines for a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy

Guidelines for a Valid No-Solicitation/No-Distribution Policy This blog was written by Fiona Ong at Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   Man... ..read more

Personal hygiene in the workplace

When you took your job in HR, you knew that you would have to face some uncomfortable situations: terminations, poor performance reviews, disciplinary actions, but perhaps the worst of all is the “we need to talk about your personal hygiene” conversation. Your staff’s poor personal hygiene can ne... ..read more

Attendance policies

Needless to say, a company can’t operate (let alone succeed) if the employees aren’t showing up to work. But how do you ensure that your workforce will consistently report for duty? One good step is having a clear attendance policy. Communicating clearly about what are acceptable reasons to miss ... ..read more

Nepotism: favoring relatives and friends in the workplace

It is not unusual for multiple members of a family to work for the same employer.  However, such situations can be troublesome if the family members are in a superior-subordinate relationship because: the relationship may give rise to favoritism or to suspicions of it the subordinate fami... ..read more

The Form I-9 has changed… Again!

Immigration enforcement is a major priority for the Trump Administration. Work site enforcement and I-9 audits and inquiries by ICE have been increasing and they will continue to increase. In addition to this, yet another new I-9 form was issued in 2017. All employers must use the new Form I-9 du... ..read more

Arizona sick day policy

Arizona sick day policy Julie A. Pace, The Cavanagh Law Firm This blog comes directly from the Arizona Human Resources Manual. If you are an hrsimple.com member, just log in and go to Chapter 21, Personnel manuals and policies. Beginning on July 1, 2017, under Arizona law, all employees ... ..read more

Vacation policies and time off

Not all employers provide employees with vacation time, but for those who do it is wise to have a clear, well-enforced policy in place to prevent confusion and help employees understand what steps need to be followed in order to use their time off. If employers decide to provide time off they nee... ..read more

Employee handbooks – getting a handle on your policies

While there may be no state or federal law requiring an employer to have a handbook, there are a number or reasons why they are in an employer’s best interest.  Usefulness. It is beneficial for there to be one definitive source on the terms of employment. If an employee ever has a question ... ..read more


HR Webinars
Answers to contractor's frequently asked questions on filing VETS-4212 reports
August 23rd, 2018 at 1:00pm CDT by Ogletree Deakins


HR Articles
Employment agreements – what to do before you do
Background checks of the future are continuous
Treating service animal requests (always treat the animal)
Prepare for saying "No" – you need to decide how to refuse service
List 10 up: What's the deal with employee handbook rules?
I cannot tell a lie . . . you're fired for cutting down the cherry tree
Milk Stork delivers for working mom's and their baby
Job tasks and essential functions under the ADA
Who are you? Why are you here? Personality testing?
No, you can't sleep on the job
Technology driving the hiring process
Should you give your employees a little Slack – or do they have enough already?
"We need to talk" isn't any easier to say than to hear
Bet employers must make: call and raise your minimum wage
Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies
Ralph Waldo Emerson as a productivity consultant
PS: PTSD IRL*
Is the employee "disabled" under the ADA?
The six step DOL audit polka
PTO on the house!
New rules for work rules
Dr. Strangelabor or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Millennial
Did Bartleby the scrivener write his own job description?
"Treating" disgruntled or bad behaving employees
Hiring under the age of 18
DO NOT LICK THE BRAIN! and other obvious stuff
Helping your employees save for emergencies
Right to bare arms in the workplace
#MeToo quiz
Under standing desks
How to approach an employee showing signs of cognitive decline
Dress codes should not be encoded
Foul language *
Rorschach, Horshack and Abednego
Don't ask a woman the gender of her child, especially. . .
Guidelines for a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy
All aboard the Love Train for long-term onboarding!
Gender and workplace bathrooms
No FMLA for pet's death
Personal hygiene in the workplace
Yes Virginia, there is a St. Patrick's Day in Ireland
Master the modern method for managing March Madness
Drug testing in The Office
Background checks
"Thank you" and "I'm sorry" – meaningful, simple and impactful
Michael Corleone HR tip for the day
S'not flu or it is, doesn't matter
Be prepared for ICE raids
Looking for employees: an untapped source of talent
Calling Dr. Love(less)
Non-exempt employees – what counts as wages?
HR is not a happy accident
Do new hires have to be a culture club fit?
Remote workers and telecommuting
When former employees ask for references
Model written lock out/tag out program
Wrong table cat
They might be giants . . . transforming healthcare?
Conducting internal I-9 audits
The Nebraska Chamber has issued a W-2 challenge to state taxpayers
The impact of super bowl(ing)
12 steps to handling violence in the workplace
Workplace retaliation: don't give in to the Dark Side
Would you really want to work with a bunch of yous?
What is the ADA?
Monty Python should not write your job descriptions
FMLA definitions
Unemployed or wear a bra – are those the only choices?
What "government shutdown" means for employers
An intern by any other name
FMLA - "leave" as in "leave the employee alone"
 “M,” “F,” Or “X”? Nonbinary Gender Designations in the Workplace
Sexual harassment – can't find it – what now?
Probationary periods
Employee contracts
Introverts
How to treat fringe benefits for employees
Attendance policies
Different repeal
Temporary and leased employees
Birthdays in the workplace
Needy employees
Holiday parties - acknowledge, avoid, assume (nothing)
Dress codes: who, what, wear
Punch clock
Nepotism: favoring relatives and friends in the workplace
Year-end performance reviews
Hiring interviews
The Form I-9 has changed… Again!
Service dogs at work
Bring your own gun
Social media
Year-end or holiday incentives
Arizona sick day policy
Paternity leave
HRsimple spotlight - Fiona Ong
Permissible post-accident drug testing
Paid family leave: a growing trend
Politics in the workplace: how to remain legally compliant during election season
Termination Series: Communicating the reason for discharge
It’s only a matter of overtime
Interview with attorneys at Kastner Westman & Wilkins
Valentine's Day heartaches around the office
Safety and health tips
Wearable technology
Favorite HR sites
Back to school time is here!
Vacation policies and time off
Interview with author J. Hagood Tighe
Non-compete agreements
Workplace romance
Holidays
Bullying in the workplace
Employment references
Telecommuting or remote (control) workers
Social media and employment
Performance evaluations
Breaktimes
Interview with attorneys at Wilson Worley PC
Interview with attorneys at Knudsen Law Firm
Interview with Kathy Speaker MacNett
Firing, a job to do right the first time
Job advertisement do’s and don’ts
Employee handbooks – getting a handle on your policies
Technology in the workplace
Interview questions: do's and don'ts
Employee personnel files