Most famous as the last time Congress enacted sweeping amnesty legislation, IRCA makes it illegal to knowingly employ “an unauthorized alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a). To enforce that prohibition, IRCA requires all prospective employees to verify their authorization to work by submitting federal Form I-9 and supporting documents.

[8] Fines for knowingly hiring and continuing to employ unauthorized workers and/or substantive violations like failing to produce a Form I-9, range from the hundreds to the thousands of dollars per violation.[1]See Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)(8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(6)(B))[2]INA §274A (8 U.S.C. § 1324a)[3] See U.S. Customs Enforcement, Form I-9 Inspection Overview, available at: https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/i9-inspection. Last updated, January 8, 2018 and retrieved on April 9, 2018.[4]Id.

So I have a working knowledge about what is expected of an Iowa employer when it first hires an individual. All employers in this country, Iowa or otherwise, are currently subject to the prohibition of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a, entitled “Unlawful employment of aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1) states that it is unlawful for any entity “to hire . . . for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.”

ge, the date of assessment is the date that ICE served a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) on Respondent.The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s (CAHO) Notification of Administrative Review observed the conflict between the Chief ALJ’s analysis and the OCAHO decisions. Thus, CAHO James McHenry held that the final order by OCAHO is the date upon which the final assessment of the penalties is determined, not the date of the NIF, as was previously held by the Chief ALJ. In reaching this conclusion, the CAHO thoroughly reviewed relevant statutory language, regulatory provisions, prior OCHO interpretations [note that until 2020, the assessment was made on the date of the final order], dictionary definitions, usage by federal courts, usage by parties before OCAHO, and policy considerations. After this review, the CAHO found:[I]n accordance with the ordinary and plain meaning of the term “assessment,” an assessment is the determination or imposition of a civil money penalty for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, and that penalty—i.e., an assessment—only takes effect upon the issuance of an administratively final order. According to this interpretation, the agency which issues the final order is the one that makes the assessment. If DHS issues the final order, then DHS makes the assessment; if OCAHO issues the final order, then OCAHO makes the assessment. Further, under this interpretation, the penalty contained in DHS’s NIF—and, subsequently, in a complaint if the case is filed with OCAHO—is simply a proposed penalty. Because a proposed penalty is neither imposed nor determined with finality, it is not an assessment. In fact, a NIF (Form I-763) itself never imposes or finally determines a penalty, for even if a respondent fails to request a hearing, DHS must issue a separate final order (Form I-764) which is the instrument that actually imposes a civil money penalty for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a.17 OCAHO no. 1470e at 4-5.In his decision, the CAHO overruled the Chief ALJ, as well as Unit

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinion:Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) makes it unlawful to hire an alien knowing that he or she is unauthorized to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (h)(3). IRCA includes many other related requirements and prohibitions, as well as an express preemption provision that is similarly focused on employers, by “preempt[ing] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.”

[14] OCAHO is a subdivision of the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the U.S. Department of Justice and has jurisdiction over administrative complaints arising under IRCA. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(6); 8 U.S.C. §1324a(e)(6). [15] United States.

Lastly, the new law prohibits an employer from taking particular actions, including retaliation, that are designed to prevent an employee from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation or hearing.Unfair Immigration-Related Practices and Protections against Retaliation (AB 263 Hernandez) Unfair Immigration-Related Practices: Existing law prohibits an inquiry into a person's immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill: •Prohibits an employer from engaging in an unfair immigration-related practice for the purpose of retaliating against any person that exercises any rights under the Labor Code or local ordinance, •Defines "unfair immigration-related practice" as: (1) requesting more or different documents required under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b) or a refusal to honor documents tendered pursuant to that section that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine; (2) using the federal E-Verify system to check the employment authorization status of a person at a time or in a manner not required under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), or not authorized under any memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system; (3) threatening to file or the filing of a false police report; or (4) threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities, and •Creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer has engaged in an unfair immigration-related practice when such actions occur within ninety days of the employee's exercise of a right protected by the Labor Code or a local ordinance applicable to employees. Retaliation: Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in protected conduct.

Questions Presented in Petition for Writ of Certiorari:Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.“ 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note.Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the "comprehensive scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

n of the Form I–9 from August 1, 2023 until the end of October 31, 2023. As described elsewhere in this rule and accompanying notice, if during this grace period an employer uses the 10/21/2019 edition of the Form I–9 for the alternative procedure, the employer must indicate its use of the alternative procedure by writing ‘‘alternative procedure’’ in the Additional Information field in Section 2. No later than November 1, 2023, employers must begin using the August 1, 2023 edition of the Form I–9. When using the August 1, 2023, edition of the Form I–9, an employer must indicate their use of the alternative procedure by completing the corresponding box in Section 2 or in the section corresponding to reverification (which is Supplement B in the August 1, 2023 edition of Form I–9), as appropriate.See 8 CFR §§274a.2 (b)(3), (e), (f), and (g). Employers must retain and store the Form I–9 for three years after the date of hire, or for one year after employment ends, whichever is later. See 8 U.S.C. §1324a(b)(3); 8 CFR §274a.2(b)(2). Additional information for employers and employees about the Form I–9 is available at https://www.uscis.gov/i-9. See Additional information related to flexibility in Form I–9 requirements due to COVID–19 at https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/formi-9-related-news/questions-and-answers-related-tocovid-19 and https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-examples-related-to-temporary-covid-19-policies. The preamble to the Final Rule regarding the framework for Optional Alternatives for Physical Inspection of Form I-9 documents at 88 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47999 provides the following: “Participant in good standing in E-Verify refers to an employer that has enrolled in E-Verify with respect to all hiring sites in the United States that use the alternative procedure; is in compliance with all requirements of the E-Verify program, including but not limited to verifying the employment eligibility of newly hired employees in the United States; and continues to be a participant i

Generally, unless an employer uses E-Verify, photocopying the documents presented for Form I-9 Section 2 purposes is not required. Employers may, but are not required to, photocopy the document(s) presented by the new hire when completing the Form I-9. (See, 8 U.S.C.A. section 1324a(b)(4); 8 C.F.R. section 274a.2(b)(3)). Click here to read the text of the bill.