Federal authorities have begun using forfeiture
laws and seizing the assets of businesses employing illegal aliens. In a
departure from the Bush-administration emphasis on worksite raids, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced on July 7, 2009, it had
recently issued Notices of Inspection (NOIs) to 652 businesses
nationwide.
Federal authorities have begun using forfeiture
laws and seizing the assets of businesses employing illegal aliens. In a
departure from the Bush-administration emphasis on worksite raids, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced on July 7, 2009, it had
recently issued Notices of Inspection (NOIs) to 652 businesses
nationwide.
On Nov. 19, 2009, ICE announced the issuance of an additional 1,000 NOIs to
employers across the United States “associated with critical infrastructure.”
ICE stated that the 1,000 entities that received NOIs were selected based on
“investigative leads and intelligence” and because of the business’ “connection
to public safety and national security.” While this might sound like an effort
aimed at preventing terrorism, at least some of the notices were directed to
agricultural and other companies employing low-skill labor.
Under its new strategy, ICE began focusing its resources on the auditing and
investigation of employers suspected of cultivating illegal workplaces by
knowingly employing illegal workers. These notices are intended to alert
business owners that ICE will be inspecting their hiring records to determine
whether or not they are complying with employment eligibility verification laws
and regulations. ICE has stated it believes these inspections are one of the
most powerful tools the federal government has to enforce employment and
immigration laws, and has indicated its increased focus on holding employers
accountable for their hiring practices and efforts to ensure a legal workforce.
Immigration officials stated the notices are the “first step in ICE’s long-term
strategy to address and deter illegal employment.”
Additional Risks for Business Owners
Not only has the U.S.
government changed its approach to investigating employment eligibility
compliance laws, it has stepped up the penalties it seeks when it finds
violations. Federal authorities have begun taking the unusual step of seeking
the forfeiture of an actual business (and/or its assets) that is suspected of
employing illegal aliens. At the French Gourmet, a San Diego-area bakery, both its
president and a manager were charged in April, 2010, with conspiring to engage
in a pattern or practice of hiring and continuing to employ unauthorized
workers (a misdemeanor) in addition to 14 felony counts, including making false
statements and shielding undocumented alien employees from detection.
According to the indictment, the owner and managers certified on the firm’s
Employment Verification Forms (I-9) that the documents they examined appeared
to be genuine, and to the best of the their knowledge, the employees listed on
the I-9 were eligible to work in the United States. They then placed the
workers on the company’s payroll and paid them by paycheck until they received
“No Match” letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA) advising that
the Social Security numbers being used by the employees did not match the names
of the rightful owners of those numbers. The indictment goes on to allege that
after receiving the “No Match” letters, the company conspired to pay the
undocumented employees in cash until the workers produced a new set of
employment documents with different Social Security
numbers.
In May 2008, ICE agents executed a federal search warrant at The French Gourmet
and arrested 18 undocumented workers. During the searches, ICE agents seized
employee and payroll records as evidence in the criminal
case.
“Employers have a responsibility for maintaining the integrity of their
workforce,” said Mike Carney, acting special agent in charge for ICE Office of
Investigations in San Diego.
“This indictment shows ICE’s commitment to holding businesses accountable when
they repeatedly ignore immigration laws as it relates to their workforce. The
goal of our enforcement effort is two-fold, first to reduce the demand for
illegal employment and, second, to protect job opportunities for the nation’s
lawful workforce.”
ICE has reported that in fiscal year 2009, worksite investigations resulted in
a total of 410 criminal arrests, including 114 management
personnel.
Other Recent ICE Actions
• Missouri Roofing Company: On February 3, 2010, the owner of a Bolivar,
Missouri, roofing company was sentenced in federal court to forfeit more than
$180,000 and pay a $36,000 fine for knowingly hiring illegal aliens following a
worksite enforcement investigation conducted by ICE. Russell D. Taylor pleaded
guilty Sept. 14, 2009, to knowingly hiring, contracting and subcontracting to
hire illegal aliens from August 2006 through April 2008.
The court ordered Taylor to forfeit to the government $185,363, which
represented the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offense, and to
pay a fine of $36,000, representing a $3,000 fine for each of the 12 illegal
aliens who worked under company supervision. A company supervisor also pleaded
guilty in a separate but related case to harboring illegal aliens. Taylor was
also sentenced to serve five years of probation, implement an
employment-compliance plan and pay the $185,363 forfeiture amount in monthly
installments during the first 30 months of probation.
• Maryland Restaurant: On Feb. 16, 2010, the owner of a Hanover, Md., Chinese
restaurant was arrested and charged with transporting, employing and harboring
illegal aliens. The criminal complaint alleges that, between January 2009 and
Feb. 4, 2010, Yen Wan Cheng knowingly hired aliens who were not authorized to
work in the United States,
transported the aliens to their jobs, and harbored them in residences she
provided. According to the criminal complaint, five aliens were specifically identified
during the investigation as working at the restaurant and residing in a home
Cheng owns in Columbia, Md.
She faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison for employing illegal
aliens and five years in prison each for transporting illegal aliens, harboring
aliens and harboring aliens for financial gain.
• Nevada Electronics Firm: On March 4, 2010, the owner of a Reno, Nev.,
electronics manufacturing company was indicted by a federal grand jury on six
counts of encouraging illegal aliens to reside in the United States and aiding
and abetting.
According to the indictment, between March 2005 and May 2009, Hamid Ali Zaidi,
owner of Vital Systems Corp., allegedly encouraged six illegal aliens to work
at his company and therefore to reside in the United States, knowing that such
residence was in violation of federal law. If convicted, Zaidi faces up to five
years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count.
Employment Verification
Under Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) regulations, employers are
required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for
employment in the United
States. Form I-9 requires employers to
review and record the individual’s identity and employment eligibility
document(s), and to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be
genuine as well as related to the individual.
An additional method for employers to verify employment eligibility is through
the use of the E-Verify program. This is an online system that accesses
Homeland Security and Social Security databases and can provide almost instant
confirmation of a worker’s ability to work in the United States. However, the USCIS
has announced it intends to begin data mining the information it obtains
through E-Verify to identify patterns of misuse and fraudulent
documentation.
When an Employer Receives an NOI
Although the following is not intended to be legal advice, the first step any
employer should take when receiving an NOI is to contact its immigration
counsel and carefully review the Notice. Some NOIs are accompanied by subpoenas
requesting specific personnel and payroll documents, and it is very important
to determine whether the inspecting agency is ICE or the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL). Only ICE can initiate enforcement proceedings. The employer should
also assess whether the government is amenable to limiting its initial request
for documentation. While there are other critical steps an employer may need to
take they will depend on the specific circumstances of each
situation.
James G. Aldrich is an attorney with Dickinson Wright PLLC in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
He is a frequent writer/publisher and presenter on immigration topics and the
editor of the Immigration Law Book published in 2006 by the Illinois Institute
of Continuing Legal Education. His practice focuses on the corporate aspects of
U.S. immigration law
including the transfer of foreign workers to the United States and counseling
employers on immigration-related issues.
He can be reached at
jaldrich@dickinson-wright.com.
ICE Steps Up Aggressive Employer Audit Campaign
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!