Immigration Law Compliance

Recent ICE I-9 Changes: Expansion of What ICE Considers Non-Correctable Substantive Violations and Potential Elimination of 10-Business-Day Correction Period During an Audit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) quietly updated its Form I-9 inspection guidance on March 16, 2026, introducing changes that significantly increase compliance risk for U.S. employers. Most notably, ICE appears to have expanded the scope of what it considers “substantive” violations, reclassifying a number of issues that were historically treated as technical or procedural. In practical terms, this means errors that were once correctable may now trigger immediate fines, even where there was no intent to violate the law. Equally important, ICE’s updated materials create uncertainty around the longstanding 10-business-day correction period referenced in Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A. While the statute still provides a correction window for technical violations, the agency’s revised framework suggests a narrower path to cure—and more aggressive enforcement posture overall. Examples of issues now carrying heightened risk of fines include: *Missing or incomplete dates in Sections 1 or 2 *Incomplete preparer/translator certifications *Use of the Spanish-language Form I-9 outside Puerto Rico *Missing employer information or document details in Section 2 *Electronic I-9 systems that do not fully comply with federal standards These are not obscure errors—they are among the most common issues identified in internal audits. WHY THIS MATTERS Recent audit data consistently shows that the vast majority of I-9s contain at least one error. With ICE signaling a shift toward stricter classification and enforcement, employers should expect higher penalty exposure and less flexibility to correct mistakes during an inspection. TAKEAWAYS FOR U.S. EMPLOYERS *Conduct proactive I-9 audits (before receiving a Notice of Inspection) *Re-train HR and onboarding personnel on current requirements *Validate that any electronic I-9 platform complies with 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2 standards *Implement consistent internal review and correction protocols ICE did not issue a formal Federal Register announcement alongside these updates, so many employers remain unaware of the shift. Myers Immigration Law continues to monitor how ICE applies this guidance in practice, specifically whether enforcement aligns with the statutory framework, and will continue to share updates here and with our corporate clients.

The DOJ just increased fines for immigration-related violations effective July 3rd, and they're applying these penalties retroactively to violations since November 2015. This means employers who hired unauthorized workers, failed to act on E-Verify nonconfirmations, or committed document fraud could face significantly higher penalties than before. Here's what you need to do right now: Audit your Form I-9 processes immediately. Look for missing signatures, incorrect dates, or incomplete sections. These small oversights can now cost you much more. Set up a systematic E-Verify workflow. Don't just run the check - make sure you're responding to nonconfirmations within the required timeframe. Many companies miss this step. Train your HR team on document red flags. Unknowingly accepting improper documents during the I-9 process is one of the most common — and costly — mistakes. Create a compliance calendar. Immigration deadlines aren't suggestions, and with higher penalties, missing them is expensive. The retroactive nature of these fines is particularly concerning. Companies that thought they resolved old violations might find themselves facing much steeper penalties. If you haven't reviewed your immigration compliance processes recently, now would be a good time. The cost of prevention is always lower than the cost of penalties.

Let's talk I-9 forms and immigration compliance. "We’ve never had an issue” is not the same as “we’re compliant.” Most companies don’t get in trouble for intentionally hiring undocumented workers…they get in trouble because of inconsistent processes, missing documentation, and simple clerical errors. Common issues I see: ➡️ Incomplete or missing I-9s ➡️ Managers not knowing the rules surrounding remote worker verification ➡️ Missing reverifications for expiring work authorization ➡️ I-9s stored in random folders instead of a consistent system Instead, take a proactive approach: ✔️ Standardize your I-9 process as part of onboarding (no exceptions) ✔️ Train managers (and the HR department) on how to complete and review I-9s ✔️ Centralize storage and access, and separate I-9s from general personnel files ✔️ Run regular internal audits to catch and correct errors early It's important to have a compliant I-9 routine for your onboarding program. Trust me, it’s far less painful to find and fix your own gaps than to have USCIS or ICE find them for you.

Earlier this month, nearly 475 workers were detained at Hyundai’s EV battery plant in Georgia — the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history. Most entered on B-1 business visas or ESTA visa waivers. But here’s the nuance: not all of them were misusing their visas. Some were performing legitimate B-1 activities like short-term training or equipment installation — exactly what the visa allows. Others, however, crossed into unauthorized work, filling roles that required employment authorization. 📌 The problem? For years, it’s been an “open secret” (as the Financial Times reported) that companies rely on B-1/ESTA because it’s faster and cheaper than pursuing H-1Bs, L-1As, O-1s, or E-2s. Reuters quoted workers saying bluntly: “It’s extremely difficult to get an H-1B… that’s why some people got B-1 or ESTA.” 💡 The Hyundai raid signals a turning point: immigration authorities are done looking the other way. Expect far more scrutiny of B-1 and ESTA use going forward. Takeaways for Employers: ✅ Audit your visa practices now. ❌ Don’t rely on gray areas — they are red flags for enforcement. 🔑 Use the right work visas (L-1A, O-1, E-2, etc.), even if it takes more effort. As an immigration attorney, I’ve had clients admit: “We use B-1 or ESTA because it’s easier and cheaper.” That shortcut is now one of the riskiest moves you can make. 👉 My advice: Build compliance into your business strategy. The cost of doing it right is far less than the cost of getting raided. #immigration #immigrationlaw #startups #compliance #iceraids #b1 #esta #o1A #EB1A #visa

The Heritage Foundation’s latest border enforcement report should be a wake‑up call for employers relying on foreign labor. The paper argues that the Trump Administration is far off pace to meet its goal of “the largest deportation operation in American history” and calls for a dramatic expansion of large‑scale worksite enforcement as the only way to move the numbers. It also describes recent pauses and rapid reversals on farm, hotel, restaurant, and manufacturing worksite operations after political and economic pushback—framing these not as reasons to retreat, but as problems to overcome on the way to more aggressive worksite activity. For employers, that combination of political pressure for “results” and a policy push toward worksite enforcement points to a higher likelihood of #immigration enforcement across many sectors. For employers, that combination—political pressure for “results,” historical reliance on worksite raids, and a large noncitizen workforce across multiple sectors—points to a very practical takeaway: this is an environment where worksite investigations, I‑9 inspections, and coordinated multi‑agency actions are more likely, not less. Now is the time for employers to: - Conduct proactive I‑9 and E‑Verify compliance reviews (under direction of legal counsel). - Review onboarding, document retention, and reverification processes. - Assess exposure in high‑risk locations and roles (including use of contractors and staffing agencies). - Plan ahead for how to respond if served with a Notice of Inspection or if a worksite operation occurs. The message between the lines of this report is simple: worksite enforcement is back on the policy menu, and employers who wait for a knock on the door to take compliance seriously will be the most exposed. https://lnkd.in/gssZP-HT

For employers managing immigration programs in today's environment, every federal enforcement action warrants a close read. The recently announced DOL/DOJ action involving Cloudera's PERM program is no exception, and it raises some practical compliance questions worth considering. Yesterday, the Department of Labor announced a 180-day suspension of all PERM labor certification applications filed by or on behalf of Cloudera, Inc., following a DOJ complaint filed last month alleging citizenship status discrimination in the company's PERM recruitment process. The suspension could be extended pending the outcome of the DOJ's investigation. These are allegations only, and Cloudera has not yet had the opportunity to respond. However, the facts, as alleged, are stark: From at least March 2024 through January 2025, Cloudera directed applicants for PERM-related positions (jobs paying $180,000 to $294,000 annually) to submit resumes to a dedicated email address. That address did not accept external messages. Applicants received bounce-back errors. Cloudera received no resumes. And Cloudera allegedly did not investigate why, for nine months, not a single outside application came in. All the while, Cloudera certified to the Department of Labor, under penalty of perjury, that it had conducted good-faith recruitment and found no qualified U.S. workers available. The core compliance principle at stake is straightforward: PERM recruitment must genuinely resemble the employer's normal hiring process. DOL has long made clear that the labor market test exists to protect U.S. workers, and that employers must conduct recruitment in good faith. That means accessible application channels, active monitoring of your recruitment process, and honest reporting of results. For employers with active PERM programs, this case is a good prompt to review your recruitment procedures with counsel. A few questions worth asking: ◆ Are PERM-related positions advertised through the same channels you use for regular hires? ◆ Is your application process for PERM positions as accessible as your standard process? ◆ Are you actively reviewing your recruitment results before certifying to DOL? ◆ Are your recruitment reports accurate and complete? This is exactly the kind of issue that is worth discussing with experienced business immigration counsel before it becomes a problem rather than after. And if this raises questions about your own PERM program or broader immigration strategy, including H-1B, L-1, O-1, EB-1, or EB-2 NIW pathways, Goel & Anderson, LLC is glad to take a look. We will give you a straight assessment of where things stand and what your options are. #PERM #BusinessImmigration

Yesterday, DHS published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register — effective May 29. If you employ TPS workers or have employees with pending asylum cases, here's what changed. What changed: → Asylum applicants must pay $100 at filing + $100 per calendar year the case remains pending → Miss the annual fee: application rejected + potential Notice to Appear (removal proceedings) → TPS work permits capped at 1 year or the remaining TPS designation period, whichever is shorter → I-94 replacement fee: $24 (minor, administrative) This does not affect H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, or other employment-based visa holders. Why it matters to you as an employer: The asylum fee consequences fall on the employee — but the downstream risk lands on you. An employee with a pending asylum case who misses a $100 annual fee could end up in removal proceedings, with work authorization at risk. You may get little to no warning before an I-9 gap appears. The TPS change is more immediate. Shorter EAD validity means more frequent renewal cycles. If you're not tracking expiration dates proactively, lapses will catch you off guard. Worth noting: this was published as an Interim Final Rule — effective before the public comment period closes. The pace of regulatory change right now demands real-time monitoring, not periodic check-ins. Alma is tracking this rule and its implementation as guidance develops. Link to interim final rule in comments. If your team wants help thinking through how this affects your workforce compliance program, reach out.

It’s been a busy few weeks in immigration compliance — and a clear pattern is emerging. The Home Office is now actively cross-checking HMRC data to see whether sponsored workers are actually being paid the salaries stated on their Certificates of Sponsorship. And when the figures don’t match? Even small discrepancies are triggering deep-dive audits and lengthy requests for information. In high-risk sectors - like social care - that can quickly turn into a full-scale Home Office audit — taking up huge amounts of time, creating stress for teams, and in some cases, putting a sponsor licence at risk. What’s tough is that some of these investigations could have been avoided — for example, by reporting salary changes properly (like during maternity leave or periods of sick pay) and explaining them up front. I’m working with several clients at the moment to manage these investigations — and to build proactive systems that reduce the risk of being caught off-guard. Investing in some advice now to check data and reporting processes can make all the difference later. 👉 If your organisation sponsors Skilled Workers, it’s worth reviewing how you track and explain salary changes before the Home Office comes knocking. #ImmigrationCompliance #SkilledWorkerSponsor #HomeOffice #HRCompliance #SocialCare #EmployerSupport #LegalUpdates

On September 4 (local), Homeland Security Investigations executed a warrant-based worksite operation at the Hyundai–LG Energy Solution battery JV construction site in Ellabell, Georgia, detaining 475 people, many of them South Korean nationals. This was the culmination of months of investigation, not an incidental sweep. Early statements drew a line between direct employees and the wider contractor ecosystem: Hyundai said none of the detainees were its direct employees, while LGES confirmed that 47 of its employees were among those held, alongside large numbers from subcontractors and staffing vendors. Reactions diverged across the Pacific. In the United States, attention centered on whether a heavily subsidized, strategically important project employed unauthorized workers. In Korea, the focus was on whether arrest tactics for immigration issues were heavy-handed. The optics were always going to be controversial, but the legal core is straightforward: under the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA) or the B-1 business category, visitors may conduct non-productive business—meetings, trainings, audits. Those categories do not authorize productive labor such as line work, commissioning, or construction, and ESTA is not a visa and confers no work authorization. In large enforcement actions like this, violation types are usually mixed. Why does this keep happening? Usual reason is megaprojects run on unforgiving timelines. Visa quotas and processing lead times collide with urgent swaps and short-term dispatches, and in the pressure of commissioning and ramp-up, “temporary workarounds” can turn into risky habits. That is a governance failure, not a necessity. The fix is policy design and disciplined execution. At the government level, a project-mobility channel would help align schedules with the law: project-level L-1 blanket/fast-track models that include key suppliers; targeted H-2B allocations for peak phases; and clear, re-issued guidance on what B-1/VWP legitimately covers. At the company level, treat compliance as part of engineering: explicitly classify tasks as productive vs. non-productive and map them to the right status; extend I-9/E-Verify and document audits through subcontractors and staffing vendors; and log on-site immigration compliance with the same rigor as any HSSE control. None of this is a cost center if it prevents schedule slips, fines, and reputational damage. Bottom line: this case exposed the gap between fast-moving supply chains and slow-moving immigration pathways. Close that gap with facts, rules, and design—not with improvisation. #Hyundai #LGEnergySolution #ICE #HSI #VisaCompliance #EVSupplyChain #Georgia #USKorea https://lnkd.in/g5CstiF9

You're using AI every day. So is the government. Is your public digital profile aligned with your immigration paperwork? If you're an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT, this is not a hypothetical. USCIS and enforcement agencies are increasingly using AI to cross-reference your online presence — LinkedIn, Indeed, GitHub, personal websites — with your immigration filings. A mismatch can put your status at risk. Here's what to audit today: 1. Your job titles and dates. What's publicly visible about your work history must match your immigration petition exactly. A title added for a class project — like "Founder" — without proper work authorization can create serious compliance problems. 2. Your I-983 Training Plan. The worksite listed must reflect where you actually work. If you work remotely, your I-983 should document how supervision happens — weekly check-ins, work product reviews, etc. Silence on this is a red flag. 3. Your compensation. You must be paid, and what you're paid must match what's reported on your I-983. This area hasn't been heavily scrutinized yet — but that is changing. The rule is simple: everything public, everything on paper, everything filed — must tell the same story. Repost to help a fellow student stay informed. If you need a compliance review, reach out — we're here to help. ... As a first-generation immigrant attorney, I build empathetic, solution-focused immigration strategies for individuals, professionals, startups, and growing businesses. I've advised clients ranging from early-stage founders to FAANG+, global banks, pharma, PE, and Fortune 50 companies. #summitlegal #summitlegalinfo #OPT #F1Visa #Immigration #Compliance