Resources for 12-08-11 Seminar - AILA webCLE

Brief Overview of Relevant Worksite Enforcement Legal AuthoritiesStatutes8 U.S.C. § 1324; INA § 274 – Criminal harboring8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a); INA § 274A(a) – Employment of unauthorized aliens8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b); INA § 274A(b) – Employment verification system (Form I-9)8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f); INA § 274A(f) – Criminal penalties and injunctions for pattern orpractice violations47 U.S.C. § 1001 – General fraud provisions47 U.S.C. § 1028 – Fraud related to identity documentsRegulations8 C.F.R. § 274a.1 – Definition of terms8 C.F.R. § 274a.2 – Form I-9 regulations8 C.F.R. § 274a.9 – Enforcement proceedings (ICE, OCAHO)8 C.F.R. § 274a.10 – Violation penalties8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b)(2) – Mitigating or enhancing factorsAgency Rules and Memoranda 1996 – INS Virtue Memorandum, with guidance on Form I-9 technical/procedural vs.substantive violations 1998 – INS Proposed Rule, Limiting Liability for Certain Technical and ProceduralViolations of Paperwork Requirements, 63 Fed. Reg. 16909, with proposed guidance ontechnical/procedural vs. substantive violations 2009 – ICE Form I-9 Inspection Overview, with fine schedules for knowing hire /continuing to employ violations and substantive/uncorrected technical I-9 violationsCH1 6292998v.1

Case LawThe Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Office (OCAHO), part of the Executive Officefor Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice (DOJ), has jurisdiction for casesarising under the INA, including those involving allegations of knowing hire or continuedemployment of unauthorized workers and failure to comply with I-9 employment verificationrequirements. Practitioners are advised to review the topical history of OCAHO case lawvolumes 1-9 1 as well as recently released cases from OCAHO volume 10 2 . The followingselected cases contain some of the important holdings in the OCAHO jurisprudence on worksiteenforcement:Precedential cases: U.S. v. Mester Mfg. Co., 1 OCAHO 18 (1988) U.S. v. Collins Food Int'l, 1 OCAHO 67 (1989); 1 OCAHO 123 (1990)Review of penalty assessment: U.S. v. Rupson of Hyde Park, 7 OCAHO 958 (1997) U.S. v. Hernandez, 8 OCAHO 1043 (2000)Statute of limitations: U.S. v. Curran Engineering, 7 OCAHO 975 (1997) U.S. v. Ojeil & Ishk, 7 OCAHO 976 (1997); 7 OCAHO 984 (1998)Classification and correction of I-9 violations: U.S. v. WSC Plumbing, 9 OCAHO 1062 (September 7, 2000 and November 29, 2000)Good faith defenses: U.S. v. Fortune East Fashion., 7 OCAHO 977 (1997); 992 7 OCAHO (1998) U.S. v. WSC Plumbing, 9 OCAHO 1062 (2000); 9 OCAHO 1071 (2001)Recent noteworthy cases on the application of the statutory mitigating factors, including abilityof the sanctioned employer to pay the civil penalty: U.S. v. New China Buffet Rest., 10 OCAHO 1132 (2010); 10 OCAHO 1133 (2010) U.S. v. DJ Drywall, 10 OCAHO 1136 (2010) U.S. v. Snack Attack Deli, 10 OCAHO 1137 (2010) U.S. v. Teelah Corporation, OCAHO Case No. 09A00026 (2010)1 http://www.justice.gov/eoir/OcahoMain/CumulativeTopicalIndex9.pdf2 http://www.justice.gov/eoir/OcahoMain/publisheddecisions/Looseleaf/Volume10/vol10listforInternet.htmCH1 6292998v.1

Shhhh—I Think I Hear a Silent Raid Coming.But I Am Not Worried, My I-9s Are AirtightDecember 8, 2011Additional Resource MaterialsICE Form I-9 Inspection Overview and Civil Fine Guidance [AILA Doc No. 09111920]http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=30609OCAHO Assesses Penalties against Subway Franchise for I-9 Violations[AILA Doc No. 11083065] http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=36805INS Memo on Employer Sanctions Under IIRAIRA & Selective Appendices[AILA Doc No. 97030691] http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=2214412011 AILA Teleconference/Web Conference© 2011 American Immigration Lawyers Association