Immigration Insider

Signs of Old Age...

Okay, so this is how you realize you've been doing something for a loooooooooong time: You are trying to find the answer to a cryptic question you think you once had figured out. You search on Google. You promptly find a long-winded article you wrote on the subject 3 years ago as the 4th link on your Google search, only to realize that the question was as cryptic then as it is now... Oy. All that being said, here is the question and answer for those of you who have better things to do than read a big article: THE QUESTION: How large and established must an employer be to file an H-1B petition? Can a company petition for its owner as an H-1B? THE ANSWER: It depends...(-: FOLKS: please bear in mind that a lot of what was relevant in 2006 is not so today and new worksite issues have arisen.  Don't take the following as gospel but more as an overview of the issue, okay?  J -------------------------2006 Article begins------------------------ How large and established must an employer be to file an H-1B petition?

Written by Jose E. Latour

Sunday, 31 December 2006

How large and established must an employer be to file an H-1B petition? Can a company petition for its owner as an H-1B? Okay, this is one I "sort of" tackled in a prior FAQ discussion, but it's time to take the bull by the horns and resolve this once and for all. Once again, I am running off at the keyboard more than most, but I am doing so because this issue is critical, particularly to the flood of clients we are getting which are foreign-national-owned IT startups in burgeoning software consulting fields. For those folks, reading this carefully is worthwhile. For the rest of you who want a quick answer, skip all my blabber and go down to the bulleted points below, skimming the rest...that should get you the quick answers you need. Okay, here goes the treatise... First, a little background: when I left the Foreign Service and started my private practice, I knew A LOT less than I thought I did about employment based visas. As a Visa Officer in Mexico and Africa, I had adjudicated thousands of visa cases, and felt pretty comfortable saying that I knew the law well. WRONG. As a busy Visa line officer, you are facing an astonishing workload and a million other pressures associated with living in a new culture. While I was conscientious about reading the updates, I didn't have the time to dig and analyze. I found out the hard way when I started private practice that answers to questions like this FAQ just were not anywhere to be found. So, in my innocence/ignorance, I did what I could... Among the first H-1B's I filed in those first months of 1990-91 were small companies, because that was all I could find as clients. I mean TINY, in some cases BRAND NEW companies. Rebuttals came from the INS but, lo and behold, they got approved. I have clients that think I was filing these and getting these approved because I was a really good attorney; the truth: I was a really INNOCENT attorney! Soon, a small group of AILA members and me were becoming known as able to get small company H visas approved where other, more established firms would not TOUCH these cases. Finally, around 1994, I was speaking at an AILA national convention and I was challenged point blank by a VERY established, reputable immigration attorney. His position: you MAY be getting these approved via INS ignorance, but these cases are NOT within the scope of standards defined by the law. So, with the white glove ceremoniously whacked across my cheek, I set off to prove my position. I wrote a letter to Jacquelyn Bednarz, Chief of Non-Immigrant Visa Operations (You may recognize her name: in prior articles on usvisanews.com I have unabashedly raved about Ms. Bednarz as a beacon of light in an often impenetrable Washington INS bureaucracy). I got a call from her office saying that, coincidentally, another attorney had asked the same questions about small company H-1Bs and "Self-employed" H-1Bs, and that the answer was forthcoming and would be shared with Interpreter Releases, the weekly bible of immigration attorneys. Sure enough, I was right: when the response was published, Ms. Bednarz responded (paraphrasing her): There is nothing in the regulations to preclude a corporation or other legal entity as the "employer" from petitioning for an individual who is a shareholder in the corporation. However, a self-employed individual could not petition for his or her own H. Vindicated, and resisting the urge to call up my colleague with a bucketful of I-told-you-so's, I realized that given this guidance -- the position the INS had taken consistently with the small company H-1Bs I and other attorneys were getting approved -- begged another question: "Just exactly how big and established did a company need to be since the law and regulations did not set minimums?" The answer has never been, to date, provided by INS, but the responses on adjudications over the years have centered around a central issue: the company's ability to pay the wage. The cases which were approved most quickly were those with either the most employees (establishing a history of paying wages) or megastartups, with skyrocketing growth from day one. It was like the INS had informally adopted an adjudication standard consistent with what the DOL is supposed to do with labor certifications: confirm that before the case is filed, the employer has the ability to pay the offered wage from day one. So, with that published, the number of small company Hs filed went through the ceiling, and the rest of the immigration community which had been skeptical joined in the filings. Along with those of real, up-and-coming small companies were a barrage of really weak, this-will-never-fly type cases by attorneys more interested in collecting a fee than in helping their clients...stuff no one legitimate would touch. So INS did what it had to do: began denying these cases. One would think that, ultimately, an appeal would clarify these issues, even if the appeal upheld the denial, but it never happened. Small wonder: the cases denied were for tiny companies who could not afford the money nor the two plus years of appeal time...life went on and the standards continued to be vague. Up until about just recently, our firm was still routinely accepting cases from small companies with brief histories and small earnings, and getting them approved. Currently, we have one such case pending, and it was returned with an INS request for further evidence involving the ability to pay wage. I should have seen it coming: since around September, I've probably gotten a dozen plus e-mails from H-1B employers horrified to learn that their attorney had the case denied. When I inquired, the fact pattern was the same... The INS taking the position that the job wasn't "real" but, rather, a manipulation of the H category for self-employment purposes. But WHERE was the legal reasoning behind this? I just don't see it. I suppose the part that bugs me the most is that in the mountain of employment visa legislation we have seen this decade, there has not been a single item changing what Ms. Bednarz confirmed and what a few of us knew all along. Why the increased scrutiny? Was it because America was more anti-immigrant? Is it because the India priority dates are backlogged and more and more IT professionals are looking for alternatives and trying to put their futures in their own hands -- via their own companies -- instead of sticking with the large national firms? Is Bill Gates behind all of this? And why the "trampoline room," while we're on the subject of Mr. Gates? HUH?! Sorry. I digress. Conspiracy theorists, knock yourselves out, but please spare me the e-mails! Anyway, as a result of all this, our firm has set these minimum standards for H-1B case acceptance: The employer must have a six month history of profitable activity. The employer must have at least three full time U.S. workers. The employer must have provable contracts indicating future activity. Of course, these criteria are not static. If I get a month-old, two man company with a $2,000,000 contract on Microsoft letterhead for the development of a new protocol, you can bet your H we would not turn that away... These are sort of general critiria. (ATTORNEY READERS- if your firm has "minimum size" H employer policy, we would love to hear from you.... Tell us what the policy is, and your rationale, since you may think I am way off base....) So, there's your semi-answer...sorry it isn't more clear but, hey, this is immigration practice, not something precise and clear like quantum physics. I will leave you with... JOSE'S UNSCIENTIFIC MAXIMS FOR SMALL COMPANY H-1B VISAS The smaller the number of employees, the longer the history you need; the shorter the history, the more U.S. employees you had better show. While contracts for future services are fine, they will NEVER substitute for a history of verifiable income. If the company is filing for its shareholder, the standard of company strength is higher than if the same size company is filing for someone not "related" to the company. The INS will not approve petitions for small companies engaged in the speculative hiring of professionals ("body-shopping"), particularly in the IT and health fields unless their financial strength and history can be proven. Once the regulations defining the new "no bench" provisions are finalized, you can count on this being an even tougher standard for such companies.

  ------------------end of 2006 article-------------------

In Praise of Biometrics

It was back in 1988 when I first sat down to teach Border Patrol officers stationed at the very porous El Paso/Ciudad Juarez border the difference between legitimate "Micas " - border crossing cards (BCCs) - and those which were fraudulent.  Incredible as it seems, the profitable art of subtle photo replacement and modified signatures was thriving along the U.S./Mexico border long before the advent of the color copier would make places like Manila epicenters of sophisticated document fraud.

Back in Juarez, we saw it ALL.  I could write a book about the fraud perpetuated at the border, and I remember lively discussions with my wonderful visa section boss, Mike Hogan, and our incredibly astute Consul General, Louis Goelz, over the problem.  I served as Fraud Officer for a period of time in Juarez, responsible for what were known as "Stateside Criteria" cases...immigrant visa processing of individuals who had married U.S. citizens and who wanted to get their permanent residency approved at a convenient border boast in Mexico or Canada instead of flying home to wherever.  Juarez, as it happened, was responsible for NYC area cases, and about 80% of the marriages we interviewed were bogus.

In the midst of the scams, I advanced an idea to my bosses, and they thought it was a fine one:  why not simply 1) include thumbprints on BCCs and 2) integrate federal criminal fingerprint and photo data at a national level, allowing border entry posts to have access to FBI ID verification information? It was a fine idea, promptly filed in the circular file by the State Department.

Well, here we are 21 years later, and the "new" concept of biometric ID enhancement is all the rage.  The TWIC card is foolproof and will keep our ports safer, we are told.  Yet there remains a certain vocal resistance to the implementation of basic biometric technologies because "in America we don't want a national ID card."  The logic behind that is valid, but rooted in emotion: the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews and others was in large part organized via the issuance of identification cards, and the post war reaction was that this kind of documentation did not belong in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Yet the concept of a national ID has continued to be the common denominator in systems utilized by some of the most civilized and democratic countries in the world.  In Latin America, the "cedula" - the ubiquitous nationa ID document - is part of everyone's daily life, sort of a combination SSA card and internal passport.  In America today, with the dual problems of illegal immigration and threat of border-crossing terrorism, common sense dictates that we need a fresh look at this option.

Several days ago the Wall Street Journal brought this issue up, and several U.S. congress members - one Democrat and one Republican - wrote what I felt was a pretty good comment to the editor.  Here you have it in its entirety:

"The Journal’s editorial “Blame the Employers” (July 16) is right to point out the shortcomings of the federal government’s E-Verify employment verification system.

Database inaccuracies and a vulnerability to identity theft and document fraud render E-Verify far from foolproof, and can subject employers to harsh sanctions when the system fails them. The government should not lag behind by continuing to cling to an employment verification system that has proved to be inadequate.

Where we disagree, however, is in equating biometrics with a national ID card. Use of state-of-the-art biometric technologies is already happening in the private sector and does not require using a card.

Consumers are increasingly given the choice to use biometrics to either prove or protect their identities, whether at the airport or at the ATM. A thumbprint or a retina scan is not the same as an ID card, as it cannot be forged, stolen or misused.

 That’s why utilizing biometrics this way in the employment verification process to confirm identity is included in our bipartisan House bill, H.R. 2028, the “New Employee Verification Act.”

Yes, there will still be unscrupulous employers and “off the books” employment, but that’s where the government should be focusing its enforcement resources—not on plant raids on law-abiding businesses with properly verified employees."

Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) Washington

McDonald's Franchisee Agrees to Whopper of a Fine...

I know, I know, I apologize for the headline but it was impossible NOT to do it.

The most telling part about this news is its source: released on PR Newswire by the USG, which used the opportunity to boast of the $31 million in criminal fines, restitutions and civil judgments as a result of worksite related enforcement actions collected in FY 2007.

Ouch.  I've edited out a little fluff but left in most of it so you can see just how serious the USG is working to instill fear in the hearts of employers who are NOT maintaining workplace compliance rules.  Save yourself a million bucks and contact Terry at i9 Advantage and let us get your compliance in order

McDonalds Franchisee Admits to Two Felony Counts - Agrees to Pay $1 Million Fine

Two executives from a company which owns 11 McDonalds restaurants in the Reno, Nevada area pleaded pleaded guilty in federal court in Las Vegas today to federal felony immigration offenses for "encouraging illegal aliens to reside in the United States".

U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada Gregory A. Brower and Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE Julie L. Myers announced the plea agreements, which are the latest developments in an ICE probe that began in March 2007 after the agency received a tip about a possible incidence of identity theft from the sheriffs office in Lyon County, Nev.

Attorneys for Mack Associates Inc., which owns the Reno-area McDonalds restaurants, pleaded guilty on behalf of the franchisee to one count of conspiracy to encourage and induce an aliens unlawful residence in the United States and one count of aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the United States, both felony offenses. Joe Gillespie, 53, of Sparks, Nev., the Director of Operations for Mack Associates Inc., also pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the United States. Both defendants waived indictment by a federal grand jury and agreed to plead guilty to criminal informations.

The government and Mack Associates agreed that the corporation will pay a $1 million fine -- $500,000 for each count, the maximum allowed -- and be placed on probation during the period that the fine is outstanding. The court accepted this agreement and sentenced Mack Associates today to one year of probation and ordered the corporation to pay the agreed upon fine, with $300,000 payable immediately and the balance to be paid within nine months.

The plea agreement details how Mack Associates management employed individuals they knew were in the country illegally, including two restaurant managers, by furnishing them with names and Social Security numbers belonging to other individuals.

In addition, Jimmy Moore, 47, the franchisees former vice- president, pleaded guilty to one felony count of inducing an illegal alien to remain in the United States. At sentencing, Moore faces a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

A third defendant in the case, Anntoinette Richmond, 44, the corporations controller, has been charged with one misdemeanor count of continuing employment of an unauthorized alien.

This case should serve as a reminder to employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens violates federal law, said U.S. Attorney Brower. Companies and their managers who engage in such conduct are on notice that violations will be prosecuted and that the criminal penalties can be significant.

This investigation clearly shows our resolve to pursue those who willfully violate our nations hiring laws, regardless of their place on the corporate ladder, said Assistant Secretary Myers. On television, criminal cases are wrapped up in an hour; but in real life, these investigations are complex and can take months, or even years, to build. We will invest whatever time it takes to ensure that those who flout the law are brought to justice.

In September 2007, ICE agents executed federal search warrants at the 11 McDonalds restaurants owned by Mack Associates in the Reno area and at the franchisees corporate office. During the operation, agents encountered 58 illegal aliens who were working illegally at the McDonalds restaurants. The illegal alien workers were arrested on administrative immigration violations and processed for removal. Approximately 30 of those workers have been returned to their native countries. The remaining illegal workers were provided with documentation allowing them to remain in the United States pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

Since its establishment in 2003, ICE has dramatically enhanced its efforts to combat the unlawful employment of illegal aliens in this country. ICE's comprehensive strategy for worksite enforcement is aimed at promoting national security and public safety, protecting critical infrastructure, and ensuring fair labor standards.

Thus far in fiscal year 2008 (October 2007 through July 11, 2008), ICE has made 937 criminal arrests in connection with worksite enforcement investigations. Of those, 99 involve owners, managers, supervisors or human resources employees who face charges ranging from harboring to knowingly hiring illegal aliens. In addition to the criminal arrests, ICE has made more than 3,500 administrative arrests for immigration violations during worksite investigations in that same time frame. Last year, ICE made more than 4,900 arrests in worksite enforcement cases, including 863 involving criminal violations. Last years figure represents a 45-fold increase in criminal worksite arrests compared to fiscal year 2001. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2007, ICE obtained more than $31 million in criminal fines, restitutions and civil judgments as a result of worksite related enforcement actions."

If Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery...

...well, then www.i9advantage.com has every right to be blushing: our competition is starting to look, well, a LOT more like us!  As we scour the Web daily to keep our clients and readers up to date with the latest developments in workforce compliance, part of our searches includes our competitors.  Funny how the release of that priceless, excruciatingly-difficult-to-design-and-execute State Legislative Map has triggered a whole bunch of lookalike maps on other sites (albeit linked to the same erroneous information as before in most cases.)   The fact is that a substantial amount of information we gather comes from attorneys, agency officials, and others those of us at i9A have befriended in our two-plus decades of trying to keep employers safe and sound.  As an attorney with a considerable investment in time in the development of our protected intellectual property, you know what I think about all this "borrowing" from our information?

I think it's GREAT. 

Honestly.  I believe that the situation in I-9 compliance is SOOOOO disastrous and the stakes so high that each time ANYONE sounds the trumpets of new information  -- even if that information is something they cut and pasted out of our own website -- it is good for U.S. employers.  It's not just that there is more than enough business to go around for those of us involved in compliance; it's that the mainstream media and business publications seem more intent on pumping out the tabloid-like tales of raids (okay, well, alright...just like the one I wrote about a minute ago right here...(-:) than on matters of substantive compliance of use to employers.  In other words, the more people there are talking about this, the more employers will wake up and realize that a comprehensive I-9 management solution is no longer a luxury but an indispensable necessity.

Remember this: i9 Advantage is the ONLY I-9 compliance solution designed by in-house, full time programmer/partners AND legally monitored by a grizzled old compliance attorney who does this full time as well (yours truly).  If you want compliance straight from the horse's mouse, write me.  And for those of you "borrowing" so enthusiastically from us, an invitation:

Try i9advantage as your technology and not only will your service quality and sales...

...but you'll sleep better at night knowing you did the right thing. (-:

ICE Raids: Close to Home

[NOTE: first of all, a quick apology to those of you who expressed concern over the absence of blogs for the past couple of weeks; I am quite fine and in fact, better than when I last wrote you.  I took two weeks off to take the U.S. Coast Guard 100 Ton Captain's License course I've been wanting to take since I was a wee lad...and I passed!  I should have told you what I was up to so the greatly exaggerated rumors of my death could have been prevented...but thanks for the love!- JEL]

The Associated Press reported Friday that 69 people were picked up in what I believe to be among the first-ever raids targeting a temporary employment agency.  More on the raids in a minute, but I will begin by telling you that I see this as a continued step toward increased enforcement in places previously "respected" by the USG as easy targets.  Consider your local Home Depot, where no doubt dozens of unauthorized workers gather every morning, along with U.S. workers looking for day labor.  In this season of economic chaos, one would think the administration would take the circumstances for which it is ultimately responsible under consideration, but not this administration.

Unfortunately for Jones Industrial Network, the Baltimore based employment agency, finding undocumented workers trying to make a living proved to tempting for D.C. ICE.  And it wasn't just the workers who were seized: the agency's account containing $600,000 was also grabbed by the feds.  Even more interesting:

ICE not only searched the agency, but three other businesses for whom the agency provided staffing.

Employment verification is no longer a luxury, folks, and as this latest enforcement effort shows, as far as ICE is concerned, the buck simply does NOT stop anywhere.

Buncha Stuff....some good, some scary...

...GOOD GRIEF what have I gotten myself into?  Here I am thinking this blog will be a nice little writing outlet but a hyper-caffeinated Chertoff and minions have me playing Headline News...here's the latest from that wacky cast of characters in your national capitol...

-USCIS announced today that on June 16, 2008, it will begin accepting Premium Processing Service requests for Forms I-140 (Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) filed on behalf of certain alien workers who are nearing the end of their sixth year in H-1B nonimmigrant status.  I know a lot of good folks who will smile at that one. (-:

-The Washington Times yesterday FINALLY relayed the news of the federal contractor mandate with E-Verify days after your faithful immigration bloodhound reported it.  Am I cool or what?  I outscooped a Washington newspaper on something that happened in Washington...while sitting in Gainesville. Gotta love the Internet.

-This is actually from March guys but I don't think I read it before and if I did I didn't report it:  Chertoff -- who has in my book evolved into one of those people known by a single name (e.g., Nosferatu, Godzilla, Prince, Nostradamus, etc.) -- let it be known that fines for violating federal immigration laws would increase by "nearly 25%".  That means that the maximum civil penalty is going from $11,000 to $16,000 for multiple violations.

Suggestion:  CALL ME.  We can get your small-midsize company audit ready for less than the five grand increase in the penalty!

State Law Interactive Map is UP!!

I know what you're thinking.

"Jose is a slacker and hasn't been keeping up with his blog."

Actually, half of that is correct:  I have NOT been doing a good job on updating Immigration Insider as I SHOULD be, but not because I've been slacking.  The truth is that the I-9 Advantage team has been crackin' the whip and we've finally posted it.  It looks awesome (you go Eric B) and is already the most up-to-date and accurate analysis of state legislation that has been enacted and which affects employers.  The map, however, is very much a work in progress and extremely time consuming.  The reason:  the more Washington fails to deliver solutions, the more misguided legislation pours forth from the states. 

Check out our new baby at: http://www.i9advantage.com/extras/e-verify/

And tune in often to see the latest news on workforce enforcement, fer cryin' out loud.

Peace, Jose

Workplace Enforcement's Silent Victims

Lynn Woolsey Chairwoman of the "Workforce Protection Subcommittee Committee on House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections" [I am not making that up...if it's a typo, that's what was there and I cut and pasted the title] testified before Congress on May 20, 2008.   The subject: what enforcement is doing to the children of illegal migrants.  I will just leave you some of the most important excerpts from her presentation (the BOLD HIGHLIGHTS are my addition, btw):

"Today, we will explore the effects of the ICE raids on the children of immigrant parents. Before 2006, the
Bush Administration`s record on enforcement was not very good...But by 2006, ICE had increased its enforcement activities and made about 4,400 worksite arrests, more than triple than the year before...In December, 2006, ICE launched ``Operation Wagon Train`` the largest worksite operation in history.  More than 1,000 ICE agents arrested about 1,300 people at 6 Swift & Co.meat processing plants located around the country. Also in 2006, ICE launched a nationwide operation called ``Operation Return to Sender,`` which resulted in the 23,000 arrests at worksites and other locations, including people`s homes..."

"In 2007 and now in 2008, worksite raids and raids at other locations have continued at a steady pace. Between October 2006 and January 2007 ICE raids in California resulted in the arrest of over 800 undocumented immigrants. In March of 2007, ICE conducted raids in San Rafael and Novato, cities in my district. And just last week, ICE conducted its biggest workplace raid this year at a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa. Of the 800-900 workers at the plant, over 300 were arrested. Twelve of those arrested
were children between the ages of 15 and 17. They were working at the plant in violation of child labor laws. As of last Thursday, they were still being detained. And we now know that ICE conducted this raid even as the Department of Labor and Iowa state officials were investigating the owner of the plant for child labor violations...

"We are very concerned that the raid will have the effect of derailing the investigation. But today, we are looking at the impact of the raids on the children. There are about 4.7 million children with who have at least at least one parent who is undocumented. Of that number 3.1 million, or ---2/3 of these children----are U.S. citizens. While we do not know the exact number of children who have
had a parent arrested or deported, we know that thousands of children have been affected and that most of them are U.S. citizens themselves. There will also be testimony today about the ICE guidelines, which were put into place in November 2007 and which outline humanitarian concerns officials should follow when conducting raids, are not being followed in a consistent fashion. These guidelines are discretionary, and so ICE officials most likely have no real incentive to follow them. As a result, we are still hearing heartbreaking stories of the impact on children. They have witnessed their parents being arrested. And they have had flashlights shown in their faces late at night. With their families, they have hidden in their houses, basements, closets and some even under their beds, afraid that their parents and other family members will be taken. They have been separated from their families in the cruelest of ways for long periods of time and many of their parents have been deported. Some have been absent from school for day sat a time, and children, especially young children are experiencing depression, separation anxiety, and in some serious cases, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)...

Unless ICE follows humanitarian procedures in conducting these raids, we are still left with traumatized children and communities..."

SHRM Back in D.C. pushing NEVA

SHRM reported yesterday that their President and CEO, Susan R. Meisinger, was in Washington last week urging Congress to replace E-Verify with NEVA.  Their words:

"The employee authorization plan supported by SHRM would be implemented under the proposed New Employee Verification Act (NEVA) (H.R. 5515)—introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas—Meisinger said at a May 6, 2008, House Subcommittee on Social Security hearing on the impact employment verification will have on the Social Security Administration.  NEVA is designed to transform the current paper-based verification process into a state-of-the-art electronic system that is accurate, reliable, cost-efficient, easy-to-use and that shares responsibility among government, employers and employees, she said."

As I understand it, if NEVA happens it will be mandatory for ALL employers, and SHRM's logic is that the system parallels what states are already doing to track down child support violators. According to their release, "[t]he [proposed] new hire reporting program is an electronic portal already used by 90 percent of U.S. employers, which is an improvement over the 60,000 employers currently using the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) E-Verify program on a voluntary basis".

On the same day, Congress heard about H.R. 19, which sets a 7 year implementation of E-Verify for all U.S. employers (seven YEARS to implement an existing system...now THAT'S forward thinking legislation (-:) and, of course, SAVE, which would put a 4 year deadline on compliance.  I remain concerned about NEVA, and the truth is that employers DO have a way of working within the existing E-Verify system which is both painless AND affordable for companies large and small. 

We at i9 Advantage are acutely aware of the various possible legislative solutions and the many more which are being devised on big paper Post It stickers on the Hill...and our clients will be ready for whatever the USG throws their way.  Our existing I-9 Compliance and Audit Solution works both independently of and in harmony with the existing E-Verify program, which is likely to remain the underlying methodology used, given the investment in time and money already made by the USG and participating employers.

In the interim, the audits and scare tactics continue, and our phone continues to ring.  Please do not allow your company to be caught off guard. Give Terry Madden a call at 866-532-4056, tell him Jose sent you, and he'll set up a Netmeeting where we can demo our solution, explain our unbeatable Existing Workforce Audit (EWA) process, and I can answer any legal questions you might have regarding I-9 compliance. 

Find out why America's leading employers have turned to i9 Advantage for a comprehensive I-9 management solution!

Imprisonment of Employer VP Leaves Fishing Industry Reeling*

(*I humbly apologize to my readers for this appalling headline but it proved irresistible and I may never have an opportunity for it again.)

[Readers, take note:  I’ve been telling you for about five years that the threat of jail time against I-9 violating company officials would become a primary weapon of enforcement any day.  That has been increasingly the case, but the enforcement we’ve seen has been driven by Homeland Security and other Federal agencies.  Now, armed with discretion and reflective of the public demand for prosecution of violating employers, Federal Courts are getting into the game, and it’s getting very ugly very fast.]

The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk reported May 1^st that a federal judge socked it to Newport-News based fishing enterprise Peabody Corp despite calls for leniency from both the defense attorneys and prosecution.  The sentence for company Vice President (and daughter of founder) Michelle Peabody: 90 days in prison for employing undocumented workers over a four-year period.

According to the article, Peabody Corp. operates trawlers and fishes mostly for scallops.  Ms. Peabody pleaded guilty to employing illegal immigrants.

Her father, William “Frankie” Peabody was sentenced Wednesday to five months of home confinement with electronic monitoring. U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson also ordered Michelle Peabody to serve four months of home detention after she gets out of custody!

The severe sanctions were on TOP of the $6.9 million in fines and forfeitures the Peabody’s had already agreed to pay; the amount represents represents the profits they made using the undocumented workers.  (One can only wonder at the judge’s design of the algorithm distinguishing between fish caught by legal workers versus those caught by unauthorized workers.)

Calling the Peabodys’ conduct ”egregious" ,Jackson told Michelle Peabody that the government could have easily charged her with felony crimes.  As company Vice President, Michelle Peabody handles day-to-day operations and was held largely responsible for employing 126 illegal immigrants over a four-year period, through 2006. Her attorney, Kenneth D. Bell, in arguing for leniency, said he'd never seen in 25 years of practice someone with no criminal record getting jail time for a first misdemeanor offense.

Both sides also agreed that the workers were treated and paid fairly: the workers earned more than $10,000 per fishing trip, the prevailing wage for scallopers.

Good GRIEF!  2 questions: how long are the trips and do you need legal workers, Ms. Peabody??