Zulkie Partners

In late September, a federal district court blocked certain portions of Alabama’s controversial immigration law, HB 56, from taking effect, ruling that there is a substantial likelihood that the U.S. government can establish that the provisions are preempted by federal law. The provisions upheld, however, include those that authorize local police to inquire about a driver’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or arrests if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the United States illegally; and requires public schools to verify students’ immigration status. The law also provides that undocumented foreign nationals can be charged criminally for willful failure to carry federal immigration papers, and any contracts entered into by an individual who is undocumented as well as transactions between any division of the state and an undocumented immigrant are legally nullifiable. The Department of Justice  (DOJ) sought an emergency stay of the decision at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 7^th.

While the status of the law remains uncertain, its effects are already being felt.  Many undocumented immigrants are fleeing the state, workers are no longer reporting to their jobs, and undocumented children (and children of undocumented parents) are no longer attending classes. In requesting the emergency stay, the DOJ claimed that the new law was highly likely to expose persons lawfully here, including schoolchildren, to new difficulties in their daily affairs, and that the legislation could impact diplomatic relations with foreign countries. DOJ set up a hot line to report potential civil rights concerns related to the impact of Alabama’s immigration law.  Call 1‐855‐353‐1010 or email hb56@usdoj.gov.

While clearly one of the most draconian new state laws, the National Conference of State Legislature reports that from January 1 to June 30, 2011, 40 state legislatures have passed 151 immigration-related laws and 95 resolutions.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has launched I-9 Central, a new online resource center dedicated to the most frequently accessed form on USCIS.gov: Form I-9, Employee Eligibility Verification. The website provides employers and employees access to resources, tips, and guidance on completing the I-9 and understanding the I-9 process.

I-9 Central includes sections on employer and employee rights and responsibilities, step-by-step instructions for completing the form, and information on acceptable documents for establishing identity and employment authorization. The site also includes a discussion of common mistakes to avoid when completing the form, guidance on how to correct errors, and answers to employers’ recent questions about the I-9 process.

In April 2011, the Social Security Administration (SSA) resumed issuing thousands of so-called “no-match letters” to employers around the country. These letters inform employers that certain Social Security Numbers (SSN) provided by employees do not match the names of the individuals that SSA has on file for such numbers.  A “no-match” may be caused the use of a false or otherwise assigned SSN by an unauthorized worker. However, it may also be the result of an alteration to an individual’s status such as a name change or a simple typographical error.  

This issue is of considerable concern to employers with the recent increase in immigration enforcement aimed at companies employing unauthorized workers.

The new version of the “no-match” letter contains the name of one employee (rather than several employees as in the prior version) and does not include language warning the employer that failure to take action could be construed as constructive knowledge.   It does particularly advise that receipt of the letter in and of itself should not be the basis of adverse action against the employee.  Despite the change in language, it can still be considered by ICE in a potential investigation as indicia that an employer was aware of an individual’s ineligibility for US employment.

Our firm has counseled employers on employer sanctions issues and has represented employers in such enforcement proceedings since these laws were enacted more than 20 years ago.  We recommend that employers pay careful attention to no-match letters.

On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against key and controversial provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, the law enacted nearly a year ago that requires police to demand proof of immigration status from anyone who they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally. The court thus denied Arizona’s appeal of a U.S. district court’s July ruling that prevented segments of the law from going into effect because it was likely that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, and significantly, the decision signals that the appeals court believes that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is likely to succeed in its challenge to the law’s constitutionality.

SB 1070 is the draconian state immigration law that was signed into law on April 23, 2010, after Arizona state legislators argued that they needed their own immigration enforcement tools to stem the tide of undocumented immigration into the state. Federal efforts, the state argued, were not enough. The law immediately sparked nationwide boycotts and protests as an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the federal government’s right to enact and control immigration law and as a way to set the stage for abusive and illegal police activity, including profiling. DOJ sued and won an injunction on June 29, 2010, the day before the law was originally set to go into effect.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit rightly rejected Arizona’s claim that state police have “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration laws; in fact, the court held that Arizona’s attempt to drive immigrants from the state interferes with the federal government’s exclusive authority to enforce immigration law. Congress, the court held, intended state officers to “aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General,” which was not the case here. The court also recognized that the SB 1070 has negatively impacted U.S. foreign relations and reflects the dangers of allowing states to enact a patchwork quilt of conflicting laws and regulations. In the immediate aftermath of SB1070’s enactment, a number of states considered or introduced copycat bills, but most states have now backed away from these measures.

While the fate of SB 1070 is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, for now the court’s decision is a victory not only for the Obama Administration in its ongoing effort to halt the Arizona law, but also for equal justice and the rule of law.

A federal district court in Connecticut ruled that the government may not arrest an H-1B employee for whom a timely filed extension application remains pending. U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in El Badrawi v. United States found that a federal immigration regulation allows H-1B employees to continue working for 240 days pending the adjudication of their extension applications and that that authorization is part of their authorization to be in the country, not a separate matter. “The government’s proposed interpretation of the work authorization regulation . . . that it extends authorization to work in the country, but not authorization to be in the country,” held Judge Hall, “cannot be squared with the text or purpose of that provision. . . .” Judge Hall also found that the government’s proposed interpretation of the regulation at issue raises grave due process concerns. “The government has argued that. . .an alien who has filed a timely application for extension may remain in the country, but if he does, the government has discretion to arrest, detain, and remove him. There is a serious question as to whether this interpretation is consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”  Had the government provided clear, advance notice of the risk of detention, the court may have ruled otherwise.

The plaintiff, a medical researcher from Lebanon, was in valid H-1B status when his employer timely filed an H-1B extension. USCIS never adjudicated the petition and refused to respond to requests for information. Nearly seven months later, with the case still pending, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested the plaintiff for allegedly “overstaying” his initial period of admission. He was placed in removal proceedings and detained for nearly two months. He sued the government for false arrest and abuse of process.

The court concluded that permitting the initiation of removal proceedings during this period would thus be unfair.