Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Update on 'No-Match' Letters

By John D. Shyer
November 24, 2009

On Oct. 7, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published a final rule rescinding its safe-harbor procedures for employers that receive “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) or similar letters from the DHS. Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive No-Match Letter: Rescission, 74 Fed. Reg. 51,447 (Oct. 7, 2009). (Readers may wish to review the articles about the “no-match” rules that have previously appeared in the Employment Law Strategist, which can be found in the February and March 2008 issues.

Background

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “INA”), it is unlawful for an employer to hire or continue to employ an alien if the employer knows that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States. As a result, employers are required to verify each employee's eligibility to work through use of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9″). If the information provided on the Form I-9 does not correspond with the information of the SSA, employers may receive a “no-match” letter.

The “no-match” letter is meant to prevent the use of false employment verification information and, in furtherance of that objective, the DHS issued regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures for employers who receive “no-match” letters. However, the DHS regulations were challenged immediately after they were issued, and their implementation was blocked when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 10, 2007. AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, 552 F. Supp. 2d. 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

On Aug. 19, 2009, DHS proposed to rescind the regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures and on October 7, 2009, published final regulations effectuating the rescission. Nonetheless, the INA still requires that employers refrain from hiring or employing an alien with knowledge that such alien is not legally authorized to work in the United States. Therefore, employers should continue to review carefully, and maintain accurate records relating to, each employee's eligibility to work. Employers should also continue their existing procedures for the review of “no-match” letters to avoid potential civil and criminal penalties under the INA.


John D. Shyer, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a labor and employment law partner in the New York office of Latham & Watkins LLP. Austin Ozawa, an associate in the same office, assisted with the preparation of this article.

On Oct. 7, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published a final rule rescinding its safe-harbor procedures for employers that receive “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) or similar letters from the DHS. Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive No-Match Letter: Rescission, 74 Fed. Reg. 51,447 (Oct. 7, 2009). (Readers may wish to review the articles about the “no-match” rules that have previously appeared in the Employment Law Strategist, which can be found in the February and March 2008 issues.

Background

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “INA”), it is unlawful for an employer to hire or continue to employ an alien if the employer knows that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States. As a result, employers are required to verify each employee's eligibility to work through use of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9″). If the information provided on the Form I-9 does not correspond with the information of the SSA, employers may receive a “no-match” letter.

The “no-match” letter is meant to prevent the use of false employment verification information and, in furtherance of that objective, the DHS issued regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures for employers who receive “no-match” letters. However, the DHS regulations were challenged immediately after they were issued, and their implementation was blocked when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 10, 2007. AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, 552 F. Supp. 2d. 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

On Aug. 19, 2009, DHS proposed to rescind the regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures and on October 7, 2009, published final regulations effectuating the rescission. Nonetheless, the INA still requires that employers refrain from hiring or employing an alien with knowledge that such alien is not legally authorized to work in the United States. Therefore, employers should continue to review carefully, and maintain accurate records relating to, each employee's eligibility to work. Employers should also continue their existing procedures for the review of “no-match” letters to avoid potential civil and criminal penalties under the INA.


John D. Shyer, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a labor and employment law partner in the New York office of Latham & Watkins LLP. Austin Ozawa, an associate in the same office, assisted with the preparation of this article.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?