March 8th, 2013 — 3:50pm
On March 8, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released the official, newly revised Form I-9.
Employers are required to use the Form I-9 to verify the identity and the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees hired after November 1986.
What is Different in the new I-9?
USCIS has finalized the new form with the following major changes:
- New data fields, including employee’s foreign passport information, telephone and email address;
- Clarifying the form’s instructions; and
- Revising the layout of the form and expanding it from one to two pages.
Form I-9 Revision Date
The new, revised Form I-9 will contain a revision date of “(Rev. 03/08/13)N.” Employers should begin using this new form immediately.
Employers will have a 60-day grace period, until May 7, 2013, to comply by using the new form. After May 7, 2013, employers who fail to use this new form may be subject to penalties imposed under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. These provisions, as usual, would be enforced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The M-274 Handbook for Employers is in the process of being updated as well by USCIS in order to correspond to the new Form I-9. Employers are advised by USCIS to follow instructions on the new Form I-9 until the revised M-274 Handbook for Employers has been updated.
Click here to access the USCIS I-9 website for the I-9 announcement.
Click here to access a downloadable copy of the new I-9
Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify, I-9, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Worksite enforcement policies
February 23rd, 2013 — 2:37pm
In a January 2013 report, the nonpartisan think-tank Migration Policy Institute (MPI) found that the U.S. government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, with nearly $18 billion spent in fiscal year 2012. This is approximately 24 percent higher than the collective spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. MPI also found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refer more cases for federal prosecution than all Justice Department law enforcement agencies.
MPI’s comprehensive report offers a detailed analysis of the current immigration enforcement system and traces the evolution of the system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology. The result is the creation of a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system – in some ways by deliberate design; in others, by happenstance.
Six distinct pillars identify how this modern-day system is organized: border enforcement, visa controls and travel screening, information and interoperability of data systems, workplace enforcement, the intersection of the criminal justice system and immigration enforcement, and detention and removal of noncitizens. “This modern-day system,” says its authors, “extends well beyond U.S. borders to screen visitors against multiple intelligence and law enforcement databases before they arrive and also reaches into local communities across the country via partnerships with state and local law enforcement, information sharing and other initiatives.”
The following are among the report’s key findings:
- deportations have reached record highs, with more than 4 million noncitizens deported since 1990, with removals rising from over 30,000 in FY 1990 to almost 400,000 in FY 2011.
- fewer than half of the noncitizens deported are removed pursuant to a formal hearing before an immigration judge; instead the majority are by DHS via its administrative authority.
- apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border fell to 40-year lows in 2011.
- immigration enforcement has evolved to be a key tool in the nation’s counterterrorism strategies.
For the last many years, “enforcement first” was sought by successive congresses and administrations as a precondition for reforming the nation’s immigration laws. The report makes clear that changes to the system accomplished this goal, having focused almost entirely on building enforcement programs and improving their performance. The findings pave the way for comprehensive immigration reform, given that the country’s enforcement priorities have been met.
Comment » | Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
October 19th, 2012 — 5:43pm
When a lawful permanent resident plans to depart the U.S. temporarily and does not expect to return to the United States for a year, often he or she is advised to obtain (before departing the U.S.) a Reentry Permit. A Reentry Permit is a travel document that helps to protect an individual from inadvertently abandoning permanent resident status. To obtain the Reentry Permit travel document, the individual must apply while in the U.S. and obtain biometrics (fingerprints and a digital photograph) prior to departing the U.S. Once the biometrics have been taken, the individual can leave the U.S. and the travel document can be mailed to him or her abroad. The rules regarding fingerprints and photographs have been confusing for those under age 14 or over 79 because these individuals are not required to pay a biometrics fee or have their fingerprints taken. They are, however, being notified by USCIS that they are to appear at application support centers for biometrics. Just recently, however, USCIS has advised that such individuals are not required to attend a biometrics appointment. Instead, applicants under the age of 14 or over 79 can submit two passport-style photographs when applying for the Reentry Permit (in addition to all other required documentation), and USCIS will issue the travel document without requiring the applicant to attend an appointment.
Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, Lawful permanent resident
July 16th, 2012 — 11:08am
On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that certain undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. as young children and who meet several eligibility criteria may receive “deferred action” and work authorization for a period of two years. Deferred action means that the government will not seek to remove these individuals.
In order to be considered for deferred action, the individual:
- Must have been under the age of 31 and present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012;
- Must have been under the age of 16 when brought to this country;
- Must have continuously resided in the U.S, for at least five years before June 15, 2012;
- Must be currently in school or have graduated from high school (or have received a GED), or have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces;
- Must have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant misdemeanor,” or multiple misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
- Must be at least 15 years of age at the time of application;
- Must complete a background check.
Applications are not yet being accepted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but guidance on the process is expected no later than August 15, 2012.
Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, Immigration reform
June 22nd, 2012 — 10:20am
Although DHS finally ended the NSEERS registration program last year, it recently issued guidance on the limited circumstances under which negative immigration consequences, such as a denial of a benefit, finding of inadmissibility, or commencement of removal proceedings, will result from a foreign national’s prior failure to comply with NSEERS requirements. NSEERS, or the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, was a special registration process for male foreign nationals from certain countries who were over the age of 16 and who entered the U.S. as nonimmigrants prior to September 10, 2001. Implemented in 2002 in the wake of the September 11 attacks, it sought to record the arrival and departure of individuals mostly from Middle Eastern countries. The program failed as a counterterrorism policy and was discriminatory and relied on racial profiling. While in its latest memo DHS clarifies that only noncompliance, in and of itself, is not a sufficient basis for such consequences to adhere, DHS has not completely eliminated the lingering consequences of NSEERS: a determination of a willful NSEERS violations may still apply and have negative immigration consequences. We think this is wrong. DHS should, once and for all, remove the residual penalties associated with NSEERS.
Comment » | Department of Homeland Security