Talk about U.S. Immigration

I-9 Verification and Document Abuse

Employer education is necessary for I-9 or employment eligibility verification process. Compliance in ignorance of what practices are allowed and what are not can result in employer adopting immigration related unfair documentary practices. The government mandated process is to be undertaken in case of new hires or rehires of employees which may cause employers to overstep their bounds who may end up following practices that could expose them to discrimination claims based on national origin.

Employers are required to ask for an identification verification documents. But frequently, employer representatives would determine that one is a foreign national and require documentation showing proof of legal immigration status. Such practices are prohibited as inherently discriminatory in nature. Requiring that a job aspirant provide document of U.S. citizenship and in the absence provide proof of lawful status are unfair and discriminatory employment practice under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Because immigration is a hot discussion topic in the Congress, some state legislatures and also in public, many employers or their representatives, misguided of course, are resorting to unfair practices just to ensure that their workers are lawfully present in the United States rendering themselves vulnerable to discrimination claims.

The discriminated employee is entitled to compensation for the resulting loss including reinstatement and back wages while the employer would face civil penalty for adopting the prohibitory practice.

The Office of Special Council from the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reported a few settlements during the first quarter of 2011. Reportedly, the employer required the foreign national provide a permanent resident card aka green card as proof of lawful status or required an unexpired green card upon expiry of the previous card and discharged the employee or refused to hire someone for failure to do so. The DOJ report demonstrates that the dollar amount of civil penalty is not so high if the employer shows its willingness to make amends i.e. pay up the penalty and the compensation and educate its representative, generally the human resource personnel about the anti discriminatory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

More information on this may be found at www.usdoj.gov/crt/about/osc.
Worker hotline: 1-800-255-7688; Employer hotline: 1-800-255-8155

School faces threat of losing SEVP certification

On January 19, 2011, U.S. government issued notice of intent to withdraw Student Exchange Verification Program (SEVP) certification of Tri Valley University in California alleging violation of Federal Regulations relating to Student visa, curricular practical training (CPT) and reporting requirement under SEVIS. Federal regulation requires SEVP certification if a U.S. school is to be attended by foreign students with nonimmigrant visa.

Over 2500 students are affected by this threatened loss of certification of the California institution. Majority of the students are from India. Reportedly, their employment authorization is terminated forthwith. Students are finding themselves in a situation in which they may lose lawful status and end up in deportation proceedings instead of pursuing their academic goals.

An undated notification from U.S. Immigraion and Customs Enforcement (ICE) suggests that all student records at this educational institution are terminated on 1/18/2011 and that the former students from the institution should provide their contact information to SEVP which would then offer the student some options including the option to leave the country and return in future without a bar on re-admission. Unlawful presence in the U.S., for a specific period of time and departure thereafter, prohibits the foreign national from returning for a period of time except with a grant of waiver.

It is puzzling how the government would stop the bar on re-admission from taking effect without amending the regulations. While many are shocked at these development, some students were given ankle monitors and others received NTAs after reporting to ICE i.e. placed in deportation proceedings. It goes without saying that yet others are hopeful that SEVP would let them transfer to other educational institution upon reporting to SEVP. At present, it is unknown how many were able to successfully transfer to other schools or were able to apply for reistatement of their F1 status.

We anxiously await to hear a good outcome for the students caught in the trap when they thought they were pursuing their academic dream. As the government tries to discover information of wrongdoing by the institution, investigation should not result in students being victimized. It is important that a genuine offer is extended for reinstatement of student status.