Return to Main Employer Issues page
Compliance with the H1b regulations is a new area
of emphasis for the government. In the past, the DOL has brought fines
and back pay actions in response to complaints filed by disgruntled
employees. Today, both the DOL and ICE are proactively investigating
companies based on profile information provided in H1b filings.
For example, In January, 2009 Vision Systems Group,
an IT consulting company in Iowa, was the target of a ten count criminal
indictment. This included one count of conspiracy, eight counts of mail
fraud, and a notice of forfeiture amounting to $7,400,000. The
government’s charging document alleged that company personnel submitted
false statements and documents via wire and mail to federal agencies.
Specific allegations included false representations as to work
locations, submission of applications which omitted notice that the
employee would be working for a third party at a different job site,
showing the job site as Iowa for purposes of obtaining a lower
prevailing wage, and falsely representing the numbers of workers
employed by the company. Eleven management employees were arrested.
H1b compliance is particularly important because of
the potential for massive monetary sanctions. Beyond monetary sanctions
and possible criminal complaints for fraud, there is also the very real
possibility of temporary or even permanent debarment from the H1b
program for violations.
Employers of H1b personnel must be particularly
mindful of violations of the regulations concerning H1b workers.
Presently, the government is following a “zero tolerance” policy,
meaning that all violations will result in civil fines, at the very
least.
In late 2008, the USCIS received a report on the subject of alleged H1b and L visa fraud and abuse. The most common problem cited was failure to regularly pay the promised wage to H1b employees. The report alleged a 20% non-compliance rate for this issue. Other problems cited including failure to obtain LCAs for actual work sites, failure to obtain accurate prevailing wage figures, and misclassification of jobs.
In the wake of that report, the USCIS developed a fraud profile for suspect petitioners. This profile includes the following criteria:· Gross annual income less than $10 million;
· Company claims fewer than 25 employees;
· Company established less than 10 years;
· Not paying the claimed wage;
· Location of the LCA is different from the actual place of employment;
· LCA codes do not match the claimed duties in the petition;
· Company identified in the Fraud Information Database;
· Records show significant discrepancies between the number of petitions filed in the last three years and the current number of employees;
1. How widespread was the activity?
2. To what degree was corporate management in the wrongdoing?
3. How high up and how extensive was the complicity of management?
4. Was there timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and cooperation in the investigation?
5. To what extent was there the existence of a preexisting compliance program?
6. What, if any, remedial actions – including an effective compliance program, replacing responsible management, and termination of wrongdoers – did management undertake?
In the event criminal charges are brought, and a conviction is obtained, federal judges use sentencing guidelines that employ a “culpability score.” To the extent that companies are able to show investigators that they meet most or all of the criteria found in the mitigation guidelines, they will likely avoid a criminal inquiry. The guidelines include the following factors:· Establishment of standards and procedures to detect/prevent criminal conduct
· Board (or committee) and senior management oversight
· Screening of management personnel for past illegal conduct
· Training/dissemination of information regarding compliance and ethics for directors and employees
· Monitoring compliance with and auditing effectiveness of program
· Promotion and enforcement of program
· Appropriate response to violations of program
What are the key elements to include in a corporate immigration compliance policy?· The policy language should be clear and understandable, and should plainly state that all employees are to comply with relevant federal, state, and local immigration laws, and behave at all times in an ethical manner.
· The policy should require that a compliance officer be selected. This should be an employee who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the company and its employees and agents understand the laws and comply with the policy.
· The policy should require regular training programs for all levels of employees—from senior management down to the receptionists.
· A monitoring system should be established to measure compliance with the policy and its effectiveness.
· Ramifications for violation of the policy should be spelled out clearly and applied uniformly.
· In consultation with litigation counsel, a procedure should be established for dealing with government visits, audits, investigations, and raids. This procedure should be communicated to “front-line” employees, including security guards, receptionists, etc.
· Ensure that the company provides post-audit and post-raid training for all involved individuals to further protect the company from follow-up actions by the government.
While ICE has recently stepped up enforcement of H1b compliance, the DOL has been active in this area for many years. The new Labor Secretary announced that her department intends to increase the number of field investigators by 50% in the immediate future. The DOL also intends to develop fraud profiles and use them to develop audit programs. Employers should understand that when a government agency develops and uses a fraud profile, it is important for them to include companies that are obviously not engaging in fraudulent practices. This is done to validate the fraud profile. Thus, many companies with spotless records can expect to be audited as part of the government’s anti-fraud efforts.
·
Pay the nonimmigrant
workers at least the local prevailing wage or the employer's actual
wage,
whichever is higher;
pay for non-productive time in certain circumstances; and offer
benefits on the same basis as for U.S. workers;
·
Provide working conditions
for H1b workers that will not adversely affect the working
conditions of workers similarly employed;
·
Not
employ an H1b worker at a location where a strike or lockout in the
occupational classification is occurring, and notify the Employment
and Training Administration (ETA) of any future strike or lockout;
and
· On or within 30 days before the date the LCA is filed with the ETA, provide notice of the employer's intent to hire H1b. The employer must provide this notice to the bargaining representative of workers in the occupation in which the H1b will be employed. If there is no bargaining representative, the employer must post such notices in conspicuous locations at the intended place(s) of employment, or provide them electronically.
The job described in the LCA must be the same job that is described in the H1b petition and must be the actual job the employee will perform. If there is any significant difference between the LCA, the petition, or the actual job, then the LCA becomes invalid. If the nature of the job changes after the LCA is certified, then the employer must file an amended LCA immediately. Failure to describe the job accurately, if discovered in the course of an audit, will result in a fine or worse.· Transfer from one entity to another entity within the same organization;
· Change in job location that invalidates the supporting LCA;
· Change in duties from one specialty occupation to another.
· INS memoranda state the following are not material changes:
·
Change of the company’s
name;
·
Change in ownership
structure of the petitioning entity, provided the new entity assumes
the previous owner’s immigration duties and liabilities;
·
Promotion or change in job
title that does not result in a significant change in job duties;
· Change in job location for which a new LCA is not required.
Penalties/Sanctions· Makes a good faith attempt to comply;
· Voluntarily corrects violations within 10 business days of being advised by an enforcement authority; and
· Has not engaged in a pattern or practice of willful violations; and
· For prevailing wage violations, can establish that the wage was calculated consistent with recognized industry standards and practices.
Public access files· A copy of the certified labor condition application;
·
Documentation which
provides the wage rate to be paid the H-1B nonimmigrant;
·
A full, clear
explanation of the system that the employer used to set the "actual
wage" the employer has paid or will pay workers in the occupation
for which the H-1B nonimmigrant is sought, including any periodic
increases which the system may provide--e.g.,
memorandum summarizing the system or a copy of the employer's pay
system or scale;
·
A copy of the
documentation the employer used to establish the "prevailing wage"
for the occupation for which the H-1B nonimmigrant is sought (a
general description of the source and methodology is all that is
required to be made available for public examination; the underlying
individual wage data relied upon to determine the prevailing wage is
not a public record, although it shall be made available to the
Department in an enforcement action);
·
A copy of the
document(s) with which the employer has satisfied the union/employee
notification requirements of 20 CFR §655.734;
·
A summary of the
benefits offered to U.S. workers in the same occupational
classifications as H-1B nonimmigrants, a statement as to how any
differentiation in benefits is made where not all employees are
offered or receive the same benefits (such summary need not include
proprietary information such as the costs of the benefits to the
employer, or the details of stock options or incentive
distributions), and/or, where applicable, a statement that some/all
H-1B nonimmigrants are receiving "home country" benefits;
·
A summary of the
benefits offered to U.S. workers in the same occupational
classifications as H-1B nonimmigrants, a statement as to how any
differentiation in benefits is made where not all employees are
offered or receive the same benefits (such summary need not include
proprietary information such as the costs of the benefits to the
employer, or the details of stock options or incentive
distributions), and/or, where applicable, a statement that some/all
H-1B nonimmigrants are receiving "home country" benefits;
·
Where the employer
utilizes the definition of "single employer" in the IRC, a list of
any entities included as part of the single employer in making the
determination as to its H-1B-dependency status;
·
Where the employer
is H-1B-dependent and/or a willful violator, and indicates on the
LCA(s) that only "exempt" H-1B nonimmigrants will be employed, a
list of such "exempt" H-1B nonimmigrants;
·
Where the employer
is H-1B-dependent or a willful violator, a summary of the
recruitment methods used and the time frames of recruitment of U.S.
workers (or copies of pertinent documents showing this information).