Copyright 2010 American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, DC.
Reprint permission granted.
Further reprint requests should be directed to
American Health Lawyers Association
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-1100
For more information on Health Lawyers content, visit: http://www.healthlawyers.org.

Hector A. Chichoni, Esquire

Robert S. Groban, Jr., Esquire

Frederick Warren Strasser, Esquire

Epstein Becker & Green PC

New York, NY, and Miami, FL

Introduction

As the current debate over healthcare reform has dominated the headlines, the business of running America’s healthcare institutions has never been more challenging. Healthcare executives are being forced to navigate their institutions through the most difficult economic and regulatory environment in recent history. In this article, we hope to ease that management burden by identifying an area of regulatory exposure—immigration compliance and worksite enforcement—that many healthcare executives may overlook as they struggle to address all of their other operational needs. The additional regulatory exposure from inadequate immigration compliance becomes even more critical when you consider the healthcare workforce’s sheer size. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) identifies the healthcare industry as the country’s largest employer, accounting for more than fourteen million jobs annually.1 The DOL also estimates that the healthcare industry will add another three million new jobs from 2006-2016, more than any other industry. Managing a diverse healthcare workforce has never been simple given the unique way in which most hospitals and other healthcare institutions function. Unions, medical practices within hospitals, independent contractors, and third-party contractors can be found in nearly every large healthcare organization, along with a complex matrix of professional, quasi-professional, and non-professional employees that must be recruited, trained, and managed in a manner that comports not only with labor and employment laws, but also with regulatory requirements, licensing, and union agreements. Amid this vortex of legal obligations, it is easy to overlook the increasingly important legal responsibility of Form I-9 compliance. 2 As recent actions by the administrations former President George Bush and President Barack Obama demonstrate, however, the failure to address immigration compliance can have serious civil and criminal consequences to the organization, as well as its employees and senior management.

IRCA and Worksite Enforcement

When Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA),3 it made it unlawful for employers to hire or retain undocumented workers and established a process, the Form I-9 process, that required employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all workers hired on or after November 6, 1986.4 In the twenty years following IRCA’s enactment, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and, later, its successor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), targeted egregious violators and deported illegal workers— but levied few significant civil or criminal penalties against employers. When larger organizations were involved, the fines tended to be so minimal that they were not really considered a “serious” compliance issue. The regulatory calculus surrounding worksite enforcement changed radically following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This precipitated creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and led to substantially increased funding for worksite enforcement and border security. 5 Later, the Bush Administration’s support for comprehensive immigration reform created such a hostile public environment against undocumented workers that worksite enforcement, coupled with enhanced border security, were seen as essential prerequisites to any meaningful dialogue on how to fix the country’s broken immigration system. The result was an unprecedented number of public enforcement actions by the Bush Administration that focused primarily on rounding up illegal workers, not penalizing their employers. 6 The Obama Administration has pursued a different approach toward worksite enforcement and expanded its efforts beyond Form I-9 compliance to include H-1B fraud, 7 wage and hour complaints, compliance with the Public Access File requirements of the H-1B program,8 overall immigration fraud, and other areas where legal immigration and employment issues may intersect. As DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano noted, “DHS is focused on smart, tough and effective enforcement of the laws we currently have.” 9

The Vulnerability of Healthcare Employers to Worksite Enforcement Actions

The healthcare industry is not immune from regulatory scrutiny. Given the size and diversity of its workforce and increased union activity, the likelihood that healthcare employers will become targets for worksite enforcement actions seems apparent. This means that healthcare organizations need to identify the critical components of immigration compliance and then develop and incorporate more vigorous policies and procedures into their overall risk management program. Form I-9 completion and retention is the primary legal responsibility for most employers. Healthcare employers should have a uniform written policy for Form I-9 completion using only the form’s latest edition. 10 Such a policy is important to ensure that the organization not only confirms that all new employees are authorized to work, but also avoids discrimination claims that can arise when different Form I-9 completion procedures are used. 11 Under IRCA, an organization must retain its Form I-9 documentation for at least three years or one year following the employee’s termination—whichever is longer—and must make these forms available for inspection if requested by the DOL, DHS, or U.S. Office of the Special Counsel. An employer’s failure to properly complete and retain a Form I-9 provides the same basis for serious civil or criminal liability as if the form was never completed at all.

Under IRCA, an employer cannot use the Form I-9 process to screen candidates for employment. If a healthcare employer does not want to hire foreign nationals who require immigration sponsorship or have limited employment authorization, should it develop an employment application and interview process that will identify these candidates from the outset. 12 It should also implement an immigration employment policy which, among other things, defines the circumstances in which it will sponsor foreign nationals, if any. This policy should also make clear that the organization’s immigration sponsorship does not waive its employment at-will policies, guarantee success, or prohibit the organization from withdrawing its sponsorship for any reason or no reason at all. Such explicit language is particularly important in light of a decision like the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., 13 which held that an employer may have a fiduciary obligation to sponsor a foreign national in the absence of a specific policy. Proper completion of the Form I-9 process does not end an employer’s legal responsibility. Under IRCA, an employer who acquires “actual or constructive knowledge” that an employee does not have employment authorization can be subject to civil or criminal penalties. Such actual or constructive knowledge can arise in a variety of circumstances. For example, an employer would have reason to question the status of an employee who claims to be a permanent resident on his Form I-9—but then asks his manager for immigration sponsorship. Similarly, an organization that has information from a background check that contradicts the status claimed in the Form I-9 would also have constructive knowledge that the employee might be undocumented. Another common situation that might support a finding of constructive knowledge is the employer’s receipt of a “no-match” letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Prior to 2007, the SSA sent these letters to notify employers that the names and Social Security numbers (SSN) of certain employees did not match what the SSA had in its system. To ICE, an employer who fails to resolve this discrepancy has constructive knowledge that the subject employee(s) might be undocumented. 14 To the SSA, by contrast, these letters are simply correction requests issued to reduce the suspense fund and properly credit tax payments to the right employee. In this regard, the SSA neither has the authority to penalize employers that supply incorrect SSN information nor those that fail to respond to a no-match letter. While the SSA cannot share its no-match information with DHS under current law, the SSA can provide no-match information to the Internal Revenue Service, which does have the authority to investigate, audit, and ultimately fine the employer. 15 In 2007, the Bush Administration published a “safe harbor” rule that purported to establish a government-sanctioned procedure that employers could follow if they received a no-match letter. Those that followed this rule would receive safe harbor from criminal prosecution and protections against having constructive knowledge that an employee was not authorized to work. The rule was quickly challenged in federal court, which enjoined its implementation. 16 As part of this challenge, the SSA also voluntarily halted the issuance of new no-match letters until the litigation had concluded. On October 7, 2009, DHS rescinded its controversial no-match rule.17 ICE, however, still considers an employer’s receipt of and failure to address a no-match letter to be evidence of the knowing employment of an undocumented worker. With the rescission of the safe harbor rule, healthcare employers should be ready to receive new no-match letters from the SSA. Thus, they should have a policy in place for handling them as part of their overall immigration risk management practices. Of course, any employer who concludes that an employee does not have employment authorization must terminate that employee.

State Immigration Laws: The New Frontier

The failure of comprehensive immigration reform in August 2007 left the impression that the federal government was politically unable to deal with America’s immigration issues. Moreover, this legislative paralysis occurred as the 2008 presidential campaign was heating up and aspiring contenders lined up to demonstrate political toughness by proposing more rigorous measures addressing unlawful immigration. Colorado, the home of 2008 presidential candidate Representative Tom Tancredo (R), passed the first state legislation, which became effective on January 1, 2007. This law required all employers to sign a state affidavit verifying that their employees had work authorization and mandated that all state contractors use E-Verify, the federal government’s employment verification system. 18 Arizona, the home of Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican candidate for president, and former Arizona Governor and now DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (D), promptly followed Colorado’s lead when it enacted even more stringent legislation in July 2007.19 Effective January 1, 2008, this law not only made it illegal to knowingly hire an undocumented worker, it also required all Arizona employers to utilize E-Verify or risk loss of their business license. 20 Colorado and Arizona initiated a growing trend of state legislation directed at the employment of undocumented workers. The June 2009 report of the National Council of State Legislatures found that forty-four states had passed 144 laws and 115 resolutions affecting foreign nationals and immigration. 21 While some see this as a positive step in controlling unauthorized employment, it has become a nightmare for employers who now must deal with a dizzying patchwork of federal and state laws and often conflicting compliance requirements. For larger healthcare organizations operating in multi-state arenas and varying jurisdictions, it simply ups the ante on ensuring compliance not only with federal immigration laws—but also with whatever laws now are imposed by individual states.

Immigration Risk Management: Best Practices

While the Obama Administration has shifted away from controversial worksite raids, it has made it clear that it intends to hold employers accountable for immigration law compliance. To emphasize this point, ICE issued more than 650 Notices of Inspection in July 2009 to employers in a wide range of industries suspected of Form I-9 and other serious worksite violations. 22 As the pressure for comprehensive immigration reform builds, the key to a more unified approach, especially in this difficult economy, remains strong worksite enforcement that penalizes employers who violate the law and employ undocumented workers. As a result, it is critically important for all employers in the healthcare industry to re-double their efforts and adopt policies that promote legal compliance and facilitate risk management. Healthcare employers looking for “best practices” may find assistance in the DHS’ ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program. 23 Originally proposed in 2007, the IMAGE program has not attracted a large number of registrants, in large part because of its burdensome requirements. However, IMAGE does offer a set of “best hiring practices” that can serve as a model for developing policies and procedures that will better prevent potential worksite violations. 24 Not all best practices may be realistic for every employer. Nevertheless, the list provides a useful reference for organizations seeking to enhance their compliance efforts. It thus makes sense to review them in some detail.

E-Verify

ICE recommends that employers use the E-Verify program for all new hires. E-Verify allows registered users to better confirm the identity and employment authorization of new employees by running selected Form I-9 information through the DHS and SSA databases. Under federal law, it is a voluntary program, except for certain vendors who receive solicitations or contract awards under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 25 Several states, however, require either employers or state contractors to use E-Verify.26 Based on recent pronouncements, it is clear that the Obama Administration is considering support for legislation that mandates that employers use E-Verify as a means of facilitating comprehensive immigration reform. Thus, employers in the healthcare industry should take a careful look at E-Verify so that they will be prepared to implement it in 2010 if necessary.

Form I-9 Training

ICE recommends that employers train all employees involved in the Form I-9 process and ensure that only trained employees participate in this process. The training should include the Form I-9 completion process, detection of fraudulent documents, and any other topics that relate to an employer’s particular circumstances.

ICE also recommends that employers provide annual updates on this training.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following post, authored by my partner Betsy Johnson, should be of interest to all Florida employers.

President Obama just celebrated his first year in office and his Administration has been busy! Employers of all sizes are starting to see the effects of the Obama Administration’s workplace agenda; especially at the Department of Labor (DOL). The watchword for all employers in the wage/hour arena for 2010 is “compliance.”  The DOL is slated to receive a substantial budget increase this year and it is going on a hiring spree to increase the number of investigators and enforcement personnel. 

The DOL’s agenda includes increased audit and enforcement proceedings related to “off the clock” work and the misclassification of employees as “exempt” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition, the DOL (in cooperation with the IRS) will focus its audit and enforcement proceeding on employers who misclassify individuals as independent contractors.  Now, more than ever, employers must have programs in place to ensure compliance with the myriad of wage/hour laws and regulations, and implement a clear strategy for handling government audits and enforcement actions. While the thought of conducting a comprehensive payroll practices compliance audit can be daunting, employers can efficiently conduct “spot” audits of particular areas where they may be vulnerable. 

As an initial matter, employers should determine who will conduct the audits. Utilizing internal resources such as the Human Resources and/or Payroll Departments and/or the company’s General Counsel will help keep the costs down. However, using internal resources may not guarantee that the results will be protected by the attorney-client privilege should the company become involved in litigation regarding the subject matter of the audit. As such, employers may wish to seek assistance of outside counsel to conduct the audit and analyze the results.

The purpose of these “spot” audits is to: 1) identify areas of non-compliance; 2) identify policies, procedures and/or practices that can be improved; 3) develop a plan for improvement; and 4) implement the plan. The areas where most employers are vulnerable to government actions and employee claims in the wage/hour area are:

•         Overtime calculation and payment

•         Off the clock work

•         “Donning and doffing” issues

•         Classification of employees (exempt v. non-exempt)

•         Time keeping

•         Recordkeeping

•         Proper classification of independent contractors

In planning a “spot” audit, employers should determine: 1) the scope and depth of the audit; 2) what data needs to be collected; 3) what documents need to be reviewed; 4) which managers should be interviewed to obtain relevant information; and 5) whether the employees should be surveyed for relevant information. On a cautionary note, if the employer believes there may be too many “skeletons in the closet” that may be exposed in an audit, consideration should be given to retaining outside counsel to assist in the audit so that the process and the results can be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Finally, employers must decide what to do with the results of the audit. Some things to consider are: 1) who will be apprised of the results and how (written or verbal); 2) will the person who conducted the audit make recommendations regarding problem areas; 3) what, if anything, is going to be done about any problems; 4) how should any changes be implemented (a “spin doctor” may be needed); and 5) how is the employer going to address employee questions and challenges.

In the short-term, the exercise of conducting internal audits may be viewed as a distraction from an employer’s business purpose. In the long run, however, getting the company’s “house in order” before a government agency knocks on the door will save time, attorneys’ fees and the intangible costs of being embroiled in administrative or civil litigation. Remember the old adage: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 30, 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), issued a second fact sheet with a brief overview of Secretary Napolitano’s approach to worksite enforcement. The fact sheet emphasizes that:

1.  ICE will continue “to arrest and process for removal any illegal workers found in the course of worksite enforcement actions in a manner consistent with immigration law and DHS priorities.”

2. ICE will “use all available civil and administrative tools, including civil fines and debarment, to penalize and deter illegal employment.”

3. Like “other white collar crimes, ICE worksite enforcement cases can be complex and lengthy, sometimes requiring months or even years of follow-up investigation.”

4. In “many instances, these cases not only involve violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), but frequently reveal a host of other crimes, such as alien smuggling, document fraud, identity theft, money laundering, and wage and labor violations.”

5. The “leads that spark a worksite investigation come from an array of sources - tips from the public, reports from a company’s current or former employees, even referrals from other law enforcement agencies.” And that,

6. Once “a lead is received, ICE agents will employ a variety of techniques to investigate the allegations, including the use of undercover agents, confidential informants, cooperating defendants, and surveillance.”

The new fact sheet makes a few additional revealing points. As I predicted, first and foremost the government’s approach to worksite enforcement, as applicable to employers, will be from a “white collar” perspective.  But only "administrative" when applicable to undocumented workers.  Moreover, ICE will focus only on issues from which it can haul up criminal charges against the employer to justify its criminal investigative techniques. ICE will not only share information but also conduct joint investigations with other governmental agencies. Very importantly, “leads” will also come from electronic employment verification programs such as E-verify and the like. 

We will continue reporting and keeping you updated on worksite enforcement developments. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 30, 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issue a Fact Sheet in connection with its new worksite enforcement strategy.  The new worksite enforcement strategy shifts its enforcement focus from undocumented workers to employers. We predicted this shift in strategy back in March of 2009 (See Obama Administration's Immigration Approach with Napolitano will Point to Employers). 

The DHS’s new worksite enforcement strategy seeks to:

Pursue a strategy that addresses both employers who knowingly hire illegal workers as well as the workers themselves.

Reflect a renewed department-wide focus targeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country’s laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.

Focus its resources in the worksite enforcement program on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers in order to target the root cause of illegal immigration.

Continue to arrest and process for removal any illegal workers who are found in the course of these worksite enforcement actions in a manner consistent with immigration law and DHS priorities. Moreover, to use all available civil and administrative tools, including civil fines and debarment, to penalize and deter illegal employment.

To hold ICE to a high investigative standard which will include:

Looking for evidence of the mistreatment of workers, along with evidence of trafficking, smuggling, harboring, visa fraud, identification document fraud, money laundering, and other such criminal conduct.

Obtaining indictments, criminal arrest or search warrants, or a commitment from a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) to prosecute the targeted employer before arresting employees for civil immigration violations at a worksite.

DHS’ Fact Sheet also states that "existing humanitarian guidelines will remain in effect, impacting worksite enforcements involving 25 or more illegal workers, which reflects a change from the previous threshold of 150; it is committed to providing employers with the most up-to-date and effective resources to comply with our nation’s laws; it will continue to work with partners in the public and private sectors to maintain a legal workforce through training and employee verification tools like E-verify, which improve the accuracy of determinations of employment eligibility and combat illegal employment."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of my articles,  Immigration Enforcement Under Napolitano: A 180 Degree Shift To Employers, was recently published by ILW.  I am reproducing it here in its entirety for your perusal: 

"President Obama made it clear that his immigration plan, among other things, was to "remove incentives to enter illegally." However, the Obama administration has not provided any details as to how is going to accomplish this portion of its plan. This has not only created a good amount of speculation, but also a good deal of frustration among U.S. employers. Yet, in spite of lacking details, the Obama administration has sent out "immigration signals" and U.S. employers should be prepared.

The most important of these immigration signals, perhaps, was Secretary Napolitano's appointment as head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The appointment reveals some of the most basic immigration strategies of the administration's plan. This is not only part of a well calculated move, but, as it would appear, the foundational step necessary to set President Obama's immigration plan in motion.

Secretary Napolitano is considered a smart and demanding attorney with an intense work habit and a quick grasp for bureaucratic detail. A twice elected Governor of Arizona and a former Attorney General and U.S. attorney, she is not only a pragmatist who signed the toughest state immigration law in the nation, but also a politician with clear enforcement views. She is one of the most experienced state executives in the nation in the immigration arena and one of the very few high ranking democrats qualified, should one be enacted, to handle a comprehensive immigration reform loaded with compliance and enforcement requirements.

She has repeatedly called for a "technology-driven border control" and the penalizing of employers hiring undocumented workers.

Secretary Napolitano has indicated that her approach, in terms of immigration raids, will be to closely watch the design of the operations and that the focus will be on "unscrupulous employers" rather than on undocumented workers. She has also stated that raids will continue where undocumented workers are present and that she expects to increase the focus on ensuring that employers "of unlawful workers are prosecuted for their violations."

Moreover, Napolitano has pledged to increase the focus on criminal punishment for employer violators and to encourage them to work with federal immigration agents to "establish sound compliance programs that prevent unlawful hiring." She also aims to continue boosting manpower on the borders and the use of technology. At the same time, she has stated that her full intention is to enforce these methods in a fair manner across borders, ensuring that the law is applied. This, of course, represents a 180 degree shift from the Bush administration's approach to immigration enforcement, which sought to penalize undocumented workers, rather than prosecute employers.

In short, comprehensive immigration reform, whether in piece-meal or in one whole act, will be enacted. Employers will continue to be raided, but enforcement actions are likely to conform to those prescribed under immigration law rather than the "DEA-type" actions with all their inefficiencies and social negative effects seen under the Bush administration. Under Secretary Napolitano, possibly in association with other governmental agencies (i.e. IRS, USDOL, SSA, etc.), the number of government audits and the so called ICE "inspections" will continue and, possibly, increase. Investigations conducted by the FDNS (Office of Fraud Detection and National Security) to detect, deter, and combat immigration benefit fraud to strengthen USCIS' goals and efforts will also increase. Technology based programs such as E-verify will rule and many could become mandatory for all U.S. employers. Immigration attorneys will be well served by advising their corporate clients to put their immigration compliance (i.e. I-9, public access and audit files, etc.) houses in order."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHEP, a pallet and container pooling services company in Orlando, recently announced its “formal partnership” with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I"CE") to follow hiring practices, train its staff, and use ICE’s Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (“IMAGE”) to verify that its employees are lawfully authorized to work. The company signed for IMAGE last month at ICE's headquarters in Washington DC, committing the company to meeting the workforce compliance standards set by the program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AmericasNewsToday reported that 16 foreign nationals and corporations have been indicted in Miami on charges of illegally exporting potential military and explosives components to Iran. I reproduce here below the entire article: “A federal grand jury in Miami, Fla., has returned a Superseding Indictment charging eight individuals and eight corporations in connection with their participation in conspiracies to export U.S.-manufactured commodities to prohibited entities and to Iran. The defendants are named in a thirteen (13) count Indictment – returned on Sept. 11, 2008 and unsealed today -- that includes charges of conspiracy, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo, and making false statements to federal agencies in connection with the export of thousands of U.S. goods to Iran. The charges were announced today by R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, U.S. Department of Justice; Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; Adam Szubin, Director, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC); Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); and Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants purchased, and then illegally exported to ultimate buyers in Iran, numerous "dual use" commodities. "Dual-use" commodities are goods and technologies that have commercial application, but could also be used to further the military or nuclear potential of other nations and could be detrimental to the foreign policy or national security of the United States. In this regard, the Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants caused the export of 120 field-programmable gate arrays, more than 5000 integrated circuits of varying types, approximately 345 Global Positioning Systems ("GPS"), 12,000 Microchip brand micro-controllers, and a Field Communicator. All of these items have potential military applications, including as components in the construction of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The charges announced today are the result of an extensive inter-agency investigation into the use of U.S.-made goods in the construction of IEDs and other explosive devices used against Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charged in the Superseding Indictment are: Ali Akbar Yahya, an Iranian national and naturalized British citizen; F.N. Yaghmaei, a/k/a " Farrokh Nia Yaghmaei," an Iranian national; Mayrow General Trading, Atlinx Electronics, Micatic General Trading, Madjico Micro Electronics, a/k/a "MME," and Al-Faris, all Dubai-based businesses; Neda Industrial Group, an Iran-based business; Bahman Ghandi, a/k/a "Brian Ghandi," an Iranian national; Farshid Gillardian, a/k/a "Isaac Gillardian," a/k/a "Isaac Gill," an Iranian national and a naturalized British citizen; Kaam Chee Mun, a/k/a "Brian Kaam," a resident of Malaysia; Djamshid Nezhad, a/k/a "Reza," a resident of Germany; Ahmad Rahzad, a/k/a "Saeb Karim," an Iranian national; Majid Seif, a/k/a "Mark Ong,"a/k/a "Matti Chong," an Iranian national residing in Malaysia; and Eco Biochem Sdn BHD and Vast Solution Sdn BHD, Malaysian businesses. The defendants are charged with purchasing and causing the export of U.S. goods to Iran through middle countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, England, Germany, and Singapore. More specifically, the charges in the Indictment are as follows:

• Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment charges defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Mayrow General Trading, Atlinx Electronics, Micatic General Trading, Majidco Micro Electronics, Al-Faris, and Neda Industrial Group with conspiracy to export goods to Iran and to defraud the United States, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1702 and 1705(a), the United States Iran Embargo, and the Export Administration Regulations, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

• Counts 2 through 5 charge defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Micatic, and Mayrow with exporting U.S. goods from the United States to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo.

• Counts 6 through 8 charge defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Majidco, Micatic, and Mayrow with making false statements in federally mandated shipping documents regarding the ultimate destination and use of the goods, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

• Count 9 charges defendants Yahya, Mayrow, Al-Faris, Ghandi, Gillardian, Mun, Nezhad, Rahzad, Seif, Eco Biochem, and Vast Solution with conspiracy to export goods to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Title 50 United States Code, Sections 1702 and 1705(a), the United States Iran Embargo, and the Export Administration Regulations, and to defraud the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

• Counts 10 and 11 charge defendants Al-Faris, Seif, and Vast Solution with exporting U.S. goods from the United States to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo.

• Counts 12 and 13 charge defendant Seif with making false statements by misrepresenting the ultimate destination and use of the goods on Federal Form BS-711 Statement By Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stated, "The dual use items that the defendants illegally exported to Iran have military applications, including the making of improvised explosive devices. I urge any domestic supplier who may have unwittingly helped the defendants, or others like them, to come forth and report the matter to federal law enforcement. We cannot profit at the expense of our soldiers’ safety abroad. The United States Attorney’s Office will continue to investigate this matter as additional information is uncovered." "Today's indictment details the global reach of Iranian procurement networks and underscores, in dramatic terms, the importance of keeping sensitive U.S. technology out of their grasp," said Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice. "This extensive, effective government effort has broken up a lethal international ring seeking to harm American and allied forces as well as innocent civilians by acquiring sensitive U.S. technology capable of producing improvised explosive devices (IED) similar to those being used in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. "The Commerce Department remains firmly committed to protect our forces by prosecuting those who try to do them harm, and today’s action illustrates the broad scope of that endeavor." Adam Szubin, Director of the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, added, "The U.S. Government is wielding a powerful array of authorities against Iran's proliferation supply chain. In concert with today's unsealed indictment against Iran's suppliers and middlemen, Treasury is levying sanctions against Iranian military end-users that procured goods from those named in today's indictment. Together, the actions of the Justice, Commerce, and Treasury Departments will expose Iran's proxies to the world and undermine its procurement activities." Sharon Woods, Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, stated, "The illegal diversion of U.S. military technologies through deception, by domestic and foreign companies, poses a significant danger to America's soldiers on the battlefield. These illegally exported goods provided our enemies with necessary components to manufacture improvised explosive devices, designed to kill and maim U.S. troops and allies. The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its investigative partners will continue to pursue and expose these hidden enemies to help protect our soldiers as we fight against global terrorism." "The national security implications of this case cannot be underestimated," said Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE. "The export of dual use technology is controlled for good reason. In the wrong hands, these items could be used to harm our soldiers, our homeland, and our allies. Enforcing U.S. export laws is one of our top priorities, and we will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure that those who put our country at risk are brought to justice. "If convicted on the conspiracy charges, the defendants each face a statutory maximum sentence of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment. If convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iran Embargo, the defendants face a statutory maximum sentence of up to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment. If convicted of making false statements, the defendants face a statutory maximum sentence of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment. In addition, the defendants face possible fines of up to $1 million. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which led this investigation, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of Department of the Treasury, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations, for their work on this case. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Damian. Anyone with information regarding the activities of these defendants or others like them should contact the Commerce Department by calling 1-800-424-2980. On the Web: http://www.bis.doc.gov/.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am reproducing in its entirety the following article, I think you should read it:

"ICE Enlists Companies to Stem Illegal Hirings - Firms Sign On for Self-policing; Critics Wonder If It Could Be a Trap By SUSAN CARROLL Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle, Sept. 9, 2008, 10:52PM

With high-profile workplace immigration raids making news across the country, many employers might not seem eager to sit face-to-face with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and open up their books for scrutiny. But Betsy Kippenhan, an executive with a Houston-based staffing firm, seemed downright excited about it, speaking fondly of the "ICE advocate" who will be helping the company, Talent Tree, verify its worker eligibility through an ICE program called "IMAGE."

"We wanted to make sure they were going to look at us and give us the stamp of approval, which is what they've done," said Kippenhan on Tuesday after formally signing up for ICE's self-policing program for employers. But some immigration attorneys and labor advocates warned that IMAGE could be a legal trap for employers who haven't been vigilant examining workers I-9 forms, which establish eligibility to work in the U.S. In exchange for free education and training, companies participating in IMAGE (Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers) agree to meet certain requirements, including using the federal government's Internet-based employment verification system and checking workers' Social Security numbers. Employers also must agree to an ICE audit of workers' employment paperwork and promise to self-report any violations of hiring law.

Membership growing
ICE spokeswoman Pat Reilly said the program started small in January 2007 with only nine members. On Tuesday it added 26 members and 11 associate members, a category created in June to give employers two years to get their paperwork in order before submitting to an ICE audit or producing an annual report. The membership rolls range from small businesses like the Bellaire-based construction company All American Brothers, to big names in government contracting, like General Dynamics. Smithfield Foods Inc., which employs more than 57,000 people worldwide, also is an associate member. Reilly said some employers expressed an interest in the program after "someone else in their industry was the subject of a worksite enforcement" raid. ICE has stepped up its worksite enforcement in recent months, reporting 3,900 arrests for immigration violations and more than 1,000 criminal arrests from worksite enforcement investigations in the past 10 months. According to ICE, 116 owners, managers, supervisors or human resources employees, were facing criminal charges in connection with on-the-job raids, including harboring or knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

'A poor image'
For some companies, Reilly said, the program is "brand protection, and an insurance against 'headline risk'. You don't want your brand bandied about as somebody who doesn't comply with the law because then you lose clients' confidence." Kathleen Walker, an El Paso attorney and executive committee member with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said IMAGE "has a poor image" and has attracted few participants. "I think it's a mirage," Walker said. "Employers can put themselves into a trap signing up for IMAGE." Charles Foster, a Houston immigration attorney with Tindall & Foster, urged employers to use caution before signing up for the program, particularly if "their house is not in order." "On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it," he said. "But there are concerns that employers should be aware of. You're effectively inviting the government to review all of your employment verification forms. That could produce significant civil and criminal liability."

'Not a trap'
Foster and Walker pointed to a raid of the Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in December 2006 in Texas as an example of what can go wrong with private partnerships with ICE. Swift had voluntarily participated in the government's electronic employment verification system for more than a decade before the raids, which resulted in more than 1,200 arrests at six meatpacking plants. Reilly said E-Verify is a "free, easy-to-use tool," but is not a stand-alone solution to detecting undocumented workers. She said hiring practices at Swift plants showed a pattern of blatant illegal behavior. Reilly said IMAGE is "not a trap," pledging that ICE will work with businesses that participate in the program. "When we look at their records ... and patterns that might indicate an illegal workforce, we're not going to say, 'You have to come into compliance by tomorrow.' " Reilly said. "But what we are going to look for is if there is any illegal activity going on in their workplace, we're going to ask them to take care of that first, like stolen identities and flagrant fraudulent documents." Hector Diaz, the president of All American Brothers Company based in Bellaire, called the program "the wave of the future." He signed up as an associate member on Tuesday, and completed his first day of IMAGE training in Arlington, Va., saying the program has become an necessity for his roughly 20-employee construction company, which works exclusively on government contracts. "I think it's going to be a requirement for federal contract work," said Diaz, whose recent projects included work at Ellington Field and NASA. "You can't be working on a government contract and have an illegal alien."

Reassuring clients
Ruth McCurdy, vice president for corporate connections for Talent Tree, which employs 35,000 temporary associates and about 250 staff members nationwide, said one of the main goals is to reassure clients that workers placed with their companies by the staffing firm are eligible to work in the U.S. "There are companies out there that employ illegal aliens and put them in companies, and that puts a lot of people at risk," McCurdy said. "When you are working with a third party for your workforce, you need to know you have a partner that has people who have passed the eligibility requirements."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 28, 2008, The Des Moines Register published  a story by Tony Leys entitled "Critics tie scant new charges to wariness after Postville raid."  Florida employers would be well served if they read it.  I reproduce the story in full here below:
 

"Critics of the way suspected illegal immigrant workers were handled after last May's raid in Iowa noticed a change in government tactics after this week's raid in Mississippi. Federal officials detained 595 workers at a Mississippi electric-transformer factory Monday but filed criminal charges against just eight of them. That's in marked contrast to what happened after the raid at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, where prosecutors filed criminal identity-theft charges within days against 305 of the 389 workers who were arrested. Most of those people quickly pleaded guilty during mass hearings held at the National Cattle Congress grounds in Waterloo and now are serving five-month prison sentences. Most of the workers arrested in Mississippi are being held on civil immigration charges, which generally lead to deportation. A spokeswoman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency would not specify why so few of the Mississippi workers had been charged with crimes. She said more charges could still be added. But one of the most prominent critics of the legal process used in Iowa said Wednesday that the government appears to be backing away from those tactics. "I think Postville was a huge embarrassment because of the criminalization of workers," said Erik Camayd-Freixas, a veteran federal courts interpreter who participated in the Cattle Congress hearings. Camayd-Freixas, who is a Spanish language professor at Florida International University, made national waves this summer by publicly complaining that the legal process used in Iowa was unfair to the defendants. He said uneducated Guatemalans and Mexicans were pressured into pleading guilty to identity-theft charges, even though they didn't realize the Social Security cards they'd bought contained someone else's numbers. The vast majority had never been charged with other crimes, he said, and they had no intent to commit identity theft. Camayd-Freixas said Wednesday that in his 20 years of working with the federal courts, he'd never seen mass, rushed hearings such as those held in Iowa. He noted that news reports from Mississippi indicated that the eight people who were charged with crimes after the raid there had been taken to a regular federal courthouse for standard hearings. ICE spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said more criminal charges could be filed against people seized in the Mississippi raid. She said that too often, Americans believe raids indicate the end of investigations. "They don't," Gonzalez said. "In fact, the investigation continues." Federal prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment. The Mississippi raid surpassed the size of the one in Postville, which had been described as the biggest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history. A national group calling for tougher immigration enforcement declined to speculate Wednesday on why the Mississippi raid hadn't brought more criminal charges. The facts of individual cases could be much different, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Among the Agriprocessors workers, he said, "there were a lot of things besides just working in the country illegally." Drake University law Professor Bob Rigg said the process being used in Mississippi looks familiar. "That used to be the norm until Postville," said Rigg, who has criticized the prosecution methods used in Iowa. He said it's hard to tell why the government hasn't filed mass charges in the latest case. But lawyers around the country are aware of the Iowa controversy, Rigg said. Among other things, it led to a critical New York Times editorial titled "The Shame of Postville." "It could be the U.S. attorney in Mississippi decided, 'I'm not going to go through that,' " Rigg said."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link