USCIS Proposes E-Verify Change To Monitor Employer Use

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has proposed a change to the way it monitors how employers use E-Verify, the government’s employment verification system.

The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009, exempts portions of the Department of Homeland Security’s Compliance Tracking and Management System from the Privacy Act of 1974 and would allow investigators to track E-Verify transactions better and be able to identify behavior which may run against E-Verify policies and procedures. For example, the proposed rule would allow tracking of attempts to use a single Social Security number for different employees, thereby giving the ability to flag fraudulent employment verification attempts.

The proposed rule could require investigators to contact or even visit employers to look into the issue and to determine if there are systemic problems, which the Verification Division of the USCIS needs to correct.  In addition, the research by the USCIS officials could be used to determine if additional training or outreach for employer compliance is needed or if fraudulent or illegal activities exist.

By | Last Updated: June 2nd, 2009| Categories: News|

About the Author: Dimo Michailov

Dimo Michailov
Dimo has over 15 years of experience in US immigration including employment-based immigration benefits, corporate compliance and family based immigration. He represents corporate and individual clients in a wide range of cross-border immigration matters including mobility of key foreign executives and managers, specialized knowledge workers, and foreign nationals with extraordinary ability.

The Capitol Immigration Law Group has been serving the business community for over 15 years and is one of the most widely respected immigration law firms focused solely on U.S. employment-based immigration.   Disclaimer:  we make all efforts to provide timely and accurate information; however, the information in this article may become outdated or may not be applicable to a specific set of facts.  It is not to be construed as legal advice.