IER Interventions:  Other I-9 and Document Issues

Fiscal year covers the period of October 1 thru September 30

Fiscal Year 2023

Bronx, NY

On October 3, 2022, a worker called because her employer would not accept her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER contacted the employer and provided information on these EAD extensions and the employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and reinstate the caller.

Morton, MS

On October 6, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported she was fired from a new job because she did not have sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 on the first day of work. IER called the employer and explained that under Form I-9 rules, the deadline for completing section 2 of the Form I-9 is the third day of work for pay after an employee begins their job. Based on this information, the employer decided to provide new employees until the third day of work for pay to provide sufficient documentation for Form I-9 and to reinstate the worker who called IER’s hotline.

California

On October 6, 2022, a worker called IER’s hotline to request assistance with a Form I-9 issue. Though the worker presented her employer with sufficient evidence of work authorization for the Form I-9, the employer rejected the documentation and requested additional documents. IER spoke with the employer and explained the Form I-9 rules surrounding the documents the worker had presented. IER also explained that employers may not reject valid documentation for Form I-9, nor ask for more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to onboard the hotline caller.

Hazelton, PA

On October 7, 2022, IER helped a caller whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) has been extended for 540 days remain at their job.  The caller reported having issues with their employer accepting their extended EAD.  IER contacted the employer and shared information regarding the 540-day EAD extension.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s EAD and the caller continued working.

North Port, FL

On October 11, 2022, IER saved the job of a newly-hired U.S. citizen.  The worker had attempted to provide his driver’s license (a valid List B document) and his naturalization certificate (a valid List C document) for the Form I-9; however, his employer was unaware that the naturalization certificate is an acceptable List C document under C.7, “Employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security” and told the worker that he could not proceed with onboarding until he provided an alternative document.  IER contacted the employer and explained that the naturalization certificate is a valid document for Form I-9 purposes, and the employer decided to accept the certificate and allow the worker to continue onboarding.

Taylorsville, UT

On October 11, 2022, a worker called because her employer did not accept the caller’s automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER contacted the employer to provide information on 540-day extension for qualifying EADs. The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and reinstated the caller.

South Carolina

On October 13, 2022, IER assisted a caller whose husband was denied a driver’s license due to the expiration date listed on his Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the state DMV on October 7, 2022 and October 13, 2022, and provided information about the 540 Day Employment Authorization Document Automatic Extension. The DMV decided the EAD met its requirements and issued the driver’s license.

Reno, NV

On October 13, 2022, a worker called IER’s hotline because her employer rejected her certificate of naturalization and demanded that she bring in another document to establish her employment authorization. IER reached out to the employer and provided guidance from USCIS’s I-9 Central. The employer immediately contacted the worker and invited her to report to work the same day.

Orlando, FL

On October 15, 2022, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an asylum applicant to open a bank account. The asylum applicant called IER’s hotline to report that a bank would not accept the documents he presented demonstrating his asylum applicant status. IER contacted the bank and provided information on the types of documentation the asylum applicant had presented. The bank decided that this documentation met its requirements and the caller was able to open a bank account.

North Field, IL

On October 20, 2022, IER helped a caller start his job after his employer did not initially accept his automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER sent the employer information about 540-day EAD extensions and the employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and continue onboarding him.

North Carolina

On October 20, 2022, IER learned that it was able to help an asylum applicant renew her driver’s license. The asylum applicant contacted IER after her local DMV believed her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was expired. Despite the expiration date on the card, the worker was eligible for a recently-announced 540-day extension because she timely filed for a new EAD and met the other requirements. After IER contacted the DMV and explained the EAD extension, the DMV decided the EAD met its requirements and issued the caller a new license.

Detroit, MI

On October 24, 2022, IER assisted a permanent resident whose start date was delayed after his employer, a staffing company, refused to accept his List A machine-readable immigrant visa with an I-551 stamp and foreign passport. The caller’s father was similarly unable to begin his employment after showing his own I-551 visa. IER contacted the employer and explained that I-551 visas are an acceptable List A document for the purpose of the I-9 and provided USCIS guidance on the matter. Following IER’s call, the employer agreed to accept the document and allow both the caller and his father to begin work.

Buena Park, CA

On October 25, 2022, IER intervened to assist a lawful permanent resident (LPR) keep her job. When she started the job in September 2022, the LPR had shown her Permanent Resident Card (PRC), which had an expiration date of October 25, 2021, along with an I-90 Receipt Notice from USCIS extending the card’s validity for 12 months based on a timely filed renewal application. However, the employer believed that reverification was needed 12 months after the expiration date on the PRC, and requested that the worker show a new PRC or proof of an additional extension on or before that date. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that a PRC extended due to a renewal application should not be reverified. The employer decided not to ask for additional documents.

Kent, WA

On October 25, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a worker who had received a job offer but was barred from starting work because the company would not accept his proof of eligibility for a 540-day extension of his Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Because the receipt notice was issued before USCIS announced the 540-day extension, the text on the notice stated that the worker was eligible for a 180-day extension. The employer insisted that the worker must present a new receipt notice that stated he was eligible for a 540-day extension, or some other proof of his work authorization. IER contacted the employer and provided information from the USCIS website which explained that workers who received earlier receipt notices discussing 180-day extensions would not be receiving another receipt notice and were eligible for the 540-day extension using their existing receipt notice. After reviewing this information, the employer decided to accept the worker's documentation and allowed him to begin working the next day.

New York

On October 27, 2022, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by IER, an asylum applicant was able to obtain a commercial driver’s license necessary for his job.  The local DMV initially did not process his application because his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) listed a past expiration date, even though it had been extended for 540 days.  IER contacted the DMV and provided information from DHS on the 540-day EAD extensions.  Consequently, the caller was able to obtain his commercial driver’s license and return to work.

Illinois

On October 28, 2022, IER assisted an F-1 student with an OPT STEM extension who was having a difficult time getting a license because the person at his state DMV was confused about the 180-day extension that F-1 students with expired OPT EADs receive when seeking an OPT extension.  The staff at the DMV location thought that the worker was not entitled to an extension because his EAD did not have a category code that qualifies for the 540-day extension available to certain EAD categories.  IER contacted the state and provided information on OPT STEM extensions.  As a result of this call, the worker was able to return to the DMV and obtain a license.

Baltimore, MD

On November 1, 2022, IER helped a lawful permanent resident whose employer would not accept their List B document and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9.  The employer asked for a Permanent Resident Card, even though the caller had sufficient documentation.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on acceptable Form I-9 documents and that workers can decide to provide their choice of acceptable documentation.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and the caller was able to work.

Raleigh, NC

On November 7, 2022, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer misunderstood that a Permanent Resident Card does not require reverification.  The employer had attempted to reverify the worker’s work authorization, and demanded the worker to provide a new Permanent Resident Card or be suspended.  IER contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards do not require reverification.  The worker was allowed to continue working for the company without further issue, and IER provided the employer additional resources from USCIS regarding reverification. 

Orlando, FL

On November 9, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant.  The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was automatically extended for 540 days but the employer believed the extension ended after 180 days, based on the receipt notice the caller was issued discussing the 180-day extension in place at the time.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained the 540-day extension.  The staffer also provided the employer with DHS’s regulation implementing the 540-day extension, and its guidance materials on these EAD extensions.  As a result, the employer retained the worker.

Orlando, FL

On November 14, 2022, IER assisted an individual with an extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) whose employer did not accept his EAD based on the past listed expiration date. IER contacted the employer’s corporate counsel and provided information about the individual’s EAD extension. The company decided it would accept the documentation and offer the caller to return to work, and provided the caller back pay for the time they missed due to the delay in accepting their documentation.

Raleigh, NC

On November 15, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an upcoming expiration date, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

San Antonio, TX

On November 17, 2022, as the result of a successful intervention by IER, a Colombian asylum applicant was able to obtain employment.  The work authorized asylum applicant possessed an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) bearing an expiration date of January 20, 2022, together with an I-797 notice extending its validity for 540 days.  The employer refused to process her application.  The IER attorney contacted the employer and explained USCIS’s 540-day extensions for qualifying EADs.  Consequently, the caller was able to obtain employment.

Jacksonville, FL

On November 18, 2022, IER saved the job of an asylum applicant.  The caller previously had a 180-day extension on her Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The expiration date of the 180-day extension was approaching, and the employer informed the worker that she would need to present additional documentation.  IER called the employer and explained that EADs with 180-day automatic extensions now have 540-day extensions, and no additional documentation is needed for a worker who showed their EAD and original receipt notice during this extension period.  The employer decided to continue employing the worker.

Miami, FL

On November 18, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who called IER after a customer service outsourcing firm refused to accept her I-797C receipt for an application to replace her Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9. The caller said that the employer would not accept the receipt because it was over a year old. IER called the employer and explained that any worker can present a receipt showing that they have for an applied to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged List A, B, or C document for the Form I-9. Such receipts are valid from 90 days from the first day of work. The employer decided to accept the receipt and allow the caller to continue onboarding.

West Chester Township, OH

On November 18, 2022, IER received a call from an advocate for a lawful permanent resident hired by a retail company. The advocate reported that the worker presented an unexpired machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) with an I-551 stamp in a foreign passport, which is a valid List A document. However, the employer asked the worker to present additional documentation, which employers are not permitted to do once a worker presents sufficient Form I-9 documentation. IER contacted the company's representative to provide this information. The company identified an issue with the worker’s information in Section 1 and worked with the caller to correct it, and decided to accept the caller’s documentation.

New Jersey

On November 21, 2022, IER assisted a caller who showed the receipt for her lost Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to the badging office at the airport where she worked.  The badging office did not initially accept this receipt and as a result the caller couldn’t access her job, even though a receipt for a lost EAD is an acceptable receipt in the Form I-9 process.  After IER provided the badging office information about acceptable receipts, the caller confirmed that the issue was resolved and she was able to return to work.

Hialeah, FL

On November 21, 2022, IER assisted a caller with an automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to return to work.  The caller’s employer was unfamiliar with the 540-day EAD extension and did not accept the caller’s extended EAD.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information on these EAD extensions, and the employer decided to accept the caller’s EAD.

Midlothian, VA

On November 21, 2022, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had worked for a retailer for less than one year and showed his foreign passport with a machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) when he started the job.  Before the MRIV expired, the LPR presented a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) as evidence of continuing work authorization. However, the employer did not accept the PRC and told the LPR that he needed to present a new visa by the expiration date on his MRIV, or he would be fired. The LPR contacted IER, and IER contacted employer’s counsel. After consulting with counsel, the employer decided to accept the PRC, and the LPR was allowed to continue working.

Enid, OK

On November 21, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of two asylum applicants. The workers’ Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) listed an expiration date that already passed, but the EADs were automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal applications. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD from each worker immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the workers’ receipt notices that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the workers to start their new jobs.

Irvine, CA

On November 23, 2022, IER saved the job of a caller whose employer initially rejected their automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The employer rejected the EAD plus receipt notice because the receipt notice referred to a 180-day extension, which would have passed already.  The company was not aware that USCIS announced 540-day extensions in May, including for individuals whose EAD had received 180-day extensions.  When informed of this extension by IER, the employer indicated that it was happy to be able to move forward with the on-boarding process.

Fort Worth, TX

On November 23, 2022, IER helped a U visa holder return to her job, after her employer initially did not accept the caller’s documentation showing her continued work authorization.  The caller has a pending, timely-filed adjustment application.  USCIS allows such U visa holders to use their most recent U visa I-94 and the receipt notice for the pending adjustment application as a List C document.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on this type of documentation and the employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation.

Mississippi

On November 25, 2022, IER helped an asylum applicant renew her driver’s license.  The DMV initially did not accept the caller’s automatically-extended EAD.  IER contacted the DMV and they arranged for the caller to return with her extended EAD, and the DMV issued the caller a REAL ID.

Massachusetts

On November 28, 2022, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention to help a lawful permanent resident renew his commercial driver’s license and resume working.  The DMV initially rejected the caller’s foreign passport with an I-551 stamp as proof of his permanent residence, because it was not the actual card.  The DMV’s website lists the I-551 stamp in the foreign passport as an acceptable document to present to renew a DL.  IER contacted the DMV and the DMV resolved the issue and issued the caller a new REAL ID compliant commercial driver’s license.

Gaithersburg, MD

On November 30, 2022, IER learned that it successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who is a conditional permanent resident. The worker presented a Permanent Resident Card (aka Green card) and an I-797 Notice of Action showing the card had been extended, but the employer initially would not accept the documentation because the expiration date on the face of the card had passed.  IER provided information to the employer explaining that the combination of the Green card and I-797 was acceptable List C document for the Form I-9.  Afterwards, the employer confirmed that the worker would be allowed to continue in his position.

Hereford, TX

On December 6, 2022, IER intervened and saved the job of an individual authorized to work in the United States. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of July 12, 2022, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Houston, TX

On December 7, 2022, IER learned it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident begin working after he was initially turned away despite providing sufficient documentation.  The caller presented a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer asked for documentation from the Department of Homeland Security such as a Permanent Resident Card (aka Greencard). IER contacted the employer and explained that lawful permanent residents do not have to present a Greencard for the Form I-9, and can choose to present any acceptable documentation. The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and move forward with the onboarding process.

Phoenix, AZ

On December 8, 2022, IER assisted a caller whose employer would not initially allow him to use his temporary driver’s license as an identity document for the Form I-9. The employer mistakenly believed that the temporary driver’s license was an ineligible receipt. IER contacted the company and provided information regarding acceptable documents for the Form I-9.  The company decided to accept the driver’s license and the worker was able to return to work. 

San Antonio, TX

On December 9, 2022, as the result of a successful intervention by IER, a Colombian asylum applicant was able to obtain employment.  The work authorized asylum applicant possessed an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) bearing an expiration date of February 17, 2022, together with an I-797 notice extending its validity for 540 days.  The employer refused to process his application.  The IER attorney contacted employer and provided information on these types of EAD extensions.  Consequently, the Hotline caller was able to obtain employment.

Washington

On December 9, 2022, IER assisted two individuals to get their Social Security cards.  A caller reached out because his daughters’ applications had been pending for several months. IER reached out to the Social Security Administration and that agency was able to complete the process and issue both Social Security cards.

Galveston, TX

On December 9, 2022, a worker called IER because her employer refused to accept her extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD), believing that the worker did not qualify.  IER contacted the employer to explain the requirements for the 540-day extension, and on December 12, 2022, the employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation and allowed her to start work.

Texas

On December 9, 2022, a non-U.S. citizen called IER because the DMV had not accepted the caller’s automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because the caller’s receipt notice referred to a 180-day extension instead of the current 540-day extension.  IER contacted the Texas DMV to explain that eligible EADs are extended for 540 days even if the original receipt notice referred to 180 days.  The DMV decided to accept the caller’s EAD and issued his new driver’s license.

California

On December 12, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention allowing an individual authorized to work to renew his driver’s license. The individual’s wife had called IER’s hotline to report that the DMV would not accept the documents he presented demonstrating his continued work authorization. IER contacted the DMV and provided information on the types of documentation the individual had presented. The DMV decided that this documentation met its requirements and the individual was able to renew his driver’s license.

Maple Grove, MN

On December 16, 2022, an asylum applicant called IER because his employer was asking him for information about his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) extension and the status of his asylum application. IER called the employer to explain that workers are entitled to present the documents of their choice, and that an employer that rejects valid documentation could violate the law IER enforces. The employer decided to accept the worker’s EAD.

Los Angeles, CA

On December 19, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported a staffing agency had refused to accept the documentation the worker presented for the Form I-9, which consisted of evidence that she qualified for a 540-day extension of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the agency and explained the requirements for the automatic extension of certain EADs and that workers have a right to choose which document(s) to present for the Form I-9. Based on the information IER provided, the agency decided to onboard the caller.

Chicago, IL

On December 19, 2022, a U visa holder called IER’s hotline to request assistance with a reverification. Though the worker presented his employer with sufficient evidence of continued work authorization, the worker reported the employer had indicated it would terminate his employment due to lack of work authorization. IER spoke with the employer and provided USCIS’s guidance on the documentation U visa holders with a pending adjustment application can show to demonstrate their work authorization. IER also explained that employers may not reject valid documentation for Form I-9, nor ask for more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to continue employing the hotline caller.

St. Louis, MO

On December 21, 2022, an IER staff member intervened to assist an asylum applicant who indicated that his employer had rejected the caller’s documents. The caller had presented an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card along with an extension letter I-797C confirming the continued validity of the card. IER called the employer to inform them that that an automatically-extended EAD is an acceptable Form I-9 document. As a result of IER’s call, the employer accepted the worker’s document and allowed him to begin employment.

Worcester, MA

On December 27, 2022, IER received a call from an asylum applicant whose employer was refusing to accept his automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) for the Form I-9 reverification process. IER contacted the employer and provided information about the types of EADs that may be covered by an automatic extension. IER explained that automatically extended EADs may be used for the Form I-9, and that employers must allow workers to choose any acceptable document from List A or List C of the Form I-9 List of Acceptable Documents during reverification. As a result of IER’s intervention, the employer acknowledged the validity of the worker’s documentation and confirmed that they would allow him to continue to work without requesting any additional documentation.

New Jersey

On January 3, 2023, a worker reached out to IER because her employer threatened to terminate her if she did not present new work authorization documentation within four days. When the worker was hired in June 2022, she presented for the Form I-9 an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) subject to a 540-day extension. But the employer erroneously recorded an extension of only 180-days on the Form I-9. With the 180-day period set to expire in January 2023, the employer asked the worker to fill out a new Form I-9 and present new work authorization documentation. The worker tried to explain that her EAD was actually valid for an additional 360 days, but the employer insisted the caller had to present a new document. IER contacted the employer and provided information on 540-day EAD extensions. As a result of IER's intervention the employer decided to allow the caller to continue working without presenting any additional documentation.

Dayton, NJ

On January 4, 2023, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that is automatically extended past the July 2022 expiration date listed on the card.  She has a receipt notice demonstrating the extension. The employer thought the caller needed present another EAD to continue working and told the caller to go home until the matter was cleared up. IER contacted the employer and provided information on the type of EAD extension the caller has. The representative understood and on January 5th allowed the caller to return to work.

Boise, ID

On January 5, 2023, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was going to be fired because her Permanent Resident Card was expiring and the employer was requesting additional documentation. IER explained to the employer that employers are not allowed to reverify employees whose unexpired Permanent Resident Cards later expire, and the employer decided to reinstate the caller.

Orlando, FL

On January 9, 2023, IER successfully completed an intervention to assist an asylum applicant complete the reverification process.  An IER employee worked with the company’s counsel and the company decided the caller’s documentation was sufficient for reverification.

Unknown

On January 9, 2023, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who reported that although she had presented a valid state ID and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, her employer demanded that she also show an immigration document as proof of her continued authorization to work in the U.S. IER spoke to the employer and explained that all workers, regardless of citizenship status, have the right to present their choice of acceptable documents for the Form I-9, and that an employer may not demand additional documents because of a worker’s citizenship status. The employer accepted the worker’s List B and C documents and dropped the demand for an immigration document.

Michigan

On January 10, 2023, IER assisted a worker who initially was not added to a staffing company’s pool of workers who could be placed due to an E-Verify case message. IER contacted the staffing agency that had rescinded her offer and determined that the worker had received a “Review Case” result in E-Verify. With IER’s assistance, the staffing agency was able to identify and address the source of the error. The staffing agency returned the caller to the pool of eligible candidates for placement.

Virginia

On January 11, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from an asylee who was having trouble applying an unrestricted Social Security card. IER contacted the Social Security Administration, which confirmed the caller’s asylee I-94 was acceptable documentation to show their immigration status, reached out to the caller to continue the application process, and issued her Social Security card.

California

On January 11, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from a U visa holder who was terminated from her job because the company believed she needed to show a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to continue working. But actually, as a U-visa holder with a pending application for lawful permanent resident status (Form I-485), the worker's receipt for her properly filed Form I-485 combined with her Form I-94 admission record is an acceptable List C document for the Form I-9. IER contacted the employer and provided information on this type of documentation and the employer decided to rehire the caller and pay her $1,650 in backpay, and restored her seniority date for benefits purposes.

Spartanburg, SC

On January 13, 2023, IER saved the job of a Ukrainian parolee who was denied employment by a staffing agency that was unaware that certain parolees’ I-94s are valid Form I-9 documents for a 90-day period.  IER reached out to the staffing agency and provided information from the Department of Homeland Security about Ukrainian parolee I-94s and the worker was able to resume the onboarding process.

New York

On January 15, 2023, IER learned that it successfully assisted an adjustment applicant renew the badge they needed to access certain kinds of work at an airport. The caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended beyond the expiration date on the card, but the airport’s badging office was not familiar with the automatic extension and did not initially accept the caller’s EAD. An IER staffer contacted the airport’s badging office and was able to provide information about EAD extensions. The caller subsequently received a new airport badge.

Leesburg, FL

On January 24, 2023, a lawful permanent resident called IER because her new employer rejected her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card during the Form I-9 process and would not allow her to onboard until she provided a Permanent Resident Card. IER contacted the employer to explain that workers have the choice of what documents to present, and that lawful permanent residents have access to unrestricted Social Security cards. The employer decided to accept the caller’s documents.

Lubbock, TX

On January 24, 2023, a non-U.S. citizen called IER because her employer rejected her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) during the reverification process. The caller’s receipt notice referred to a 180-day extension instead of the current 540-day extension. IER contacted the employer to explain that eligible EADs are extended for 540 days even if the original receipt notice referred to 180 days. The employer decided to accept the caller’s 180-day extension notice as proof of her EAD extension.

Orem, UT

On February 6, 2023, IER received a call from a worker who reported that her employer terminated her employment because her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) facially expired, even though the worker provided information about her 540-day EAD extension. After IER contacted the employer and provided information about this type of EAD automatic extension, the employer decided to reinstate the caller.

Orlando, FL

On February 8, 2023, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that had been automatically extended for 540 days. The caller’s employer thought the caller needed present another EAD to continue working, based on the expiration date listed on the card, which had passed. The employer told the caller to go home until the matter is cleared up. IER contacted the employer and provided information on 540-day EAD extensions.  The company decided to bring the caller back to work and paid him back pay for the weeks he did not work. 

Buford, GA

On February 14, 2023, IER learned that a lawful permanent resident’s onboarding at a retail store was delayed because the employer requested a copy of the worker’s Permanent Resident Card as part of the Form I-9, even though the caller had already provided an unrestricted Social Security card together with his driver’s license. IER explained the Form I-9 requirements to the employer, and the worker was allowed to onboard without further delay.

Chattanooga, TN

On February 16, 2023, IER learned that a staffing agency requested that a worker who had presented sufficient documentation for Form I-9 provide additional documentation to satisfy Form I-9 requirements. IER called the staffing agency and explained that the documents the worker had presented, a seemingly expired Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and I-797C receipt notice showing a timely application to renew the EAD under the same, eligible category code, could be used for Form I-9 purposes. The staffing agency decided to proceed with the worker’s onboarding.

Clovis, CA

On February 22, 2023, a U.S. citizen called IER because his employer rejected the receipt he presented for the replacement of his lost U.S. passport, which is a List A receipt for the Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer to explain that receipts for lost, stolen, or damaged documents are valid for 90 days from the employee’s start date.  On February 27, 2023, the employer notified IER that HR accepted the employee’s U.S. passport receipt.

Houston, TX

On February 27, 2023, a worker contacted IER after she and her husband – both asylum applicants – were both terminated from their jobs. Their employer fired them because their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and their accompanying I-797C receipt notices referred to a 180-day extension, not a 540-day extension. IER reached out to the company and provided guidance from USCIS regarding renewal applications that were filed before May 4, 2022, and the document combination that provides sufficient proof of an up to 540-day automatic extension. After IER’s intervention, the employer re-instated the workers immediately.

New York, NY

On March 1, 2023, IER helped a caller whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) has been automatically extended to keep working. The caller’s employer had informed the caller that she needed present proof of continued work in order to continue working, based on the expiration date listed on the EAD. IER explained to the employer that certain EADs can be extended for up to 540 days based on a timely filed renewal application, and that a worker can show this extension using their EAD plus the receipt notice for the renewal application. The employer decided not to request more documentation from the caller and she was able to continue to work.

Dallas, TX

On March 2, 2023, IER saved the job of an asylum applicant working at a janitorial company. The caller timely applied for a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) online before her old one was set to expire, and was eligible for the up to 540-day EAD extension. Her receipt did not have the required information to show the extension. Once USCIS posted an alert explaining that workers in this situation can show the receipt notice that USCIS mailed as proof of their EAD extension, IER contacted the employer and send it information regarding USCIS’s alert. The employer accepted the receipt, and the caller did not miss any time from her job.

Indianapolis, IN

On March 8, 2023, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant whose employer was requesting more documentation after the caller showed a receipt notice which was sufficient to establish his Employment Authorization Document had been extended for up to 540 days.  The caller’s employer requested documentation based on the expiration date listed on his EAD, and the caller provided his receipt notice for his renewal EAD and explained his EAD had been extended.  However, the company did not accept the caller’s explanation and documentation.  IER contacted the employer and explained that individuals in certain employment eligibility categories who file an EAD renewal application may receive automatic extensions of their expiring EAD for up to 540 days.  IER also explained that certain asylum applicants can use receipt notices that don’t include language on this EAD extension.  The employer decided to allow the caller to remain employed.

New York

On March 8, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident in providing information to her employer that her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card constituted sufficient documentation for the Form I-9, and lawful permanent residents do not need to present a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9. The caller had been asked to produce an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to complete her onboarding. The IER staffer provided information to the employer’s counsel and the employer subsequently allowed the caller to complete the Form I-9 and begin work.

Atlanta, GA

On March 13, 2023, IER learned that it saved the job of an asylum applicant. The caller was starting a job with a federal contractor and had to show proof of his lawful presence to get to the work location.  The caller showed his automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) with an I-797 receipt to demonstrate the EAD extension. The EAD was extended for 540 days but at the time the caller received his I-797, the extension was 180 days, which was the duration listed on the I-797. The federal agency was unaware of the additional extension and asked the caller for other documentation. IER contacted the federal agency, explained the 540-day extension and provided the federal agency with USCIS’s guidance on this type of extension. The agency accepted the caller’s documentation.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

On March 14, 2023, IER successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker was told by her employer that it would not accept her driver's license and U.S. birth certificate for the Form I-9, because the U.S. birth certificate reflected her maiden name and not her married name.  An IER staff member called the employer and explained that if the documents appear to be genuine and to reasonably relate to the person the employer should accept them for the Form I-9.  IER also provided the employer with information from I-9 Central explaining that workers are not required to provide proof of name change.  The employer decided the caller’s documents met the standard and accepted them, and the worker continued working.

Orlando, FL

On March 17, 2023, IER helped a lawful permanent resident to start work after their employer initially wouldn’t let him start his job even though he had shown acceptable documentation, because his Permanent Resident Card was expired.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on how to complete the Form I-9, including that all employees can provide their choice of documentation.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s acceptable documentation and paid him for 40 hours of missed work due to the request for a new Permanent Resident Card.

Orlando, FL

On March 17, 2023, IER intervened and ensured that a worker was allowed to begin her position after her new employer initially would not accept her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The caller’s EAD had been automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application.  The employer was confused by the expiration date listed on the card, and language in the worker’s receipt notice which did not explain that the worker was entitled to the 540-day extension.  IER pointed the employer to USCIS guidance that explained how the employer could confirm that the caller’s EAD had been extended. The employer allowed the worker to begin work.

Oregon

On March 20, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully intervened to help a U visa holder obtain a Social Security card (SSC). The U visa holder tried to get a Social Security card with her I-94, which shows work authorization for a U visa hold, but was unsuccessful. IER contacted the Social Security Administration which looked into the situation and decided the U visa holder’s paperwork met its requirements.  The U visa holder was able to receive their Social Security card.

Washington

On March 20, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully assisted two asylees obtain paper copies of their I-94s, which were needed to apply for Social Security numbers and public services.  The asylees’ attorney called IER’s hotline to report that her clients had not received the documents when they entered the U.S.  IER reached out to Customs and Border Protection and facilitated communication between the agency and the attorney, who was then able to arrange an appointment with CBP where her clients could receive their documents.

Orlando, FL

On March 20, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from an asylum seeker who had been terminated by her employer because the employer believed her work authorization had expired. The worker was eligible for a 540-day extension of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD), but the first receipt notice she received from USCIS did not meet the requirements to establish her eligibility. When USCIS sent out a corrected receipt notice, the worker presented it to her employer, but they refused to accept the corrected receipt. IER reached out to the employer, who decided that the corrected receipt notice should have been accepted. The employer agreed to rehire the worker immediately and issue her 70 hours of backpay.

Bowling Green, KY

On March 22, 2023, IER helped an asylum applicant keep his job. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been extended to up to 540 days, but the employer requested a new document.  IER contacted the company and explained the various types of EAD extensions, and directed the employer to USCIS resources. The employer called the worker who provided his I-797 receipt notice establishing the extension, and returned to work.

Garland, TX

On March 23, 2023, IER successfully saved the job of an asylum applicant.  The caller had a 540-day extension of his Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The employer refused to accept the caller’s EAD with receipt notice after the first 180 days of the extension because the receipt notice was issued at a time when USCIS only extended these types of EADs for 180 days.  IER contacted the employer and explained the additional extension and provided the company with USCIS’s guidance on automatic extensions and the notice of the additional extension, including that workers who received notices that referred to 180-extensions also were eligible for the 540-day extensions.  The employer accepted the caller’s I-797C receipt and the employee remains employed.

Georgia

On March 31, 2023, IER received a request for assistance from an asylum applicant with an automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) who was having difficulty renewing his driver’s license. IER contacted the relevant Department of Motor Vehicles to provide information on automatic 540-day EAD extensions. On June 14, 2023, IER learned that the DMV approved the worker for a renewed driver’s license valid until the extended expiration date of his EAD.

Georgia

On April 3, 2023, IER learned that it saved the jobs of six refugees. The refugees were hired to work at an airport and tried to get badges from the airport authority, but were told they could not do so because they lacked Employment Authorization Documents. IER contacted the attorneys representing the airport authority and provided information on different documentation refugees have to prove their identity and work authorization, which was what TSA requires badging offices to verify when giving workers airport badges. The badging office determined the workers’ documentation met its requirements and issued their badges, so they were able to access their worksites.

Columbia, SC

On April 3, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from an asylum applicant who, along with the caller’s spouse, had Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) that are automatically extended for 540 days past expiration date listed on the card.  The caller’s employer was requesting a new EAD from both workers, though, based on the expiration date on their EADs.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on the type of EAD extension both workers have.  On April 7, 2023, the caller informed IER that she and her husband were allowed to work.

Arkansas

On April 10, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from an asylum seeker whose new employer was not allowing him to proceed with the on-boarding process because they believed his EAD was expired. His Employment Authorization Document (EAD) has been extended for 540 days, and IER reached out to the company and explained the 540-day extension. The company agreed to accept the worker's EAD plus receipt notice and allowed him to proceed with onboarding.

Bethesda, MD

On April 12, 2023, IER was contacted by an individual who reported that her potential employer did not accept her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that has been extended to June 20, 2024. On April 12, 2023, IER contacted the potential employer and provided information about the caller’s EAD automatic extension. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to hire the caller.

Kansas

On April 14, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident who employer had requested a new Permanent Resident Card when the card she showed for the Form I-9 expired. The IER staffer provided information to the employer’s counsel and the employer subsequently decided the caller didn’t need to show any documentation and the caller returned to work.

New York, NY

On April 14, 2023, IER received a call from a worker advocate assisting an asylee who was having difficulty with the Form I-9 process. The asylee had presented a Form I-94 as a List C document but the employer rejected his documentation and requested that the worker provide his Social Security card instead. IER contacted the employer to inform it that asylees can use their I-94s as a List C document and that workers must be allowed to present any acceptable document(s) from the Form I-9 List of Acceptable Documents. IER also provided the advocate with this information and with information about working while waiting to be issued a Social Security Number. On May 15, 2023, IER learned that with the information IER had provided, the worker was able to pursue potential work opportunities with several employers, including the one that had initially rejected his documentation.

Houston, TX

On April 17, 2023, IER saved the job of an asylum applicant. He had timely applied for a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in the spring of 2022 and received an I-797 receipt from USCIS reflecting a 180-day extension. However, USCIS then changed the extension to up to 540 days, including retroactively for people who previously received a 180-day extension. The worker’s employer did not know of the longer extension and told him that he had 30 days to show other documentation. The worker called IER, and IER called the company. The HR representative was thrilled to learn that her employee had a longer EAD extension and the caller was able to continue working.

Frederick, MD

On April 19, 2023, IER helped a Ukrainian parolee start working.  The parolee’s employer called because it had received inaccurate information about the validity of Ukrainian I-94s as acceptable Form I-9 receipts for reverification, and understood it could no longer employee the worker unless they could show a different document that wasn’t a receipt.  IER was able to provide guidance and written resources explaining that a receipt can also be used for reverification.  Thanks to this clarifying guidance, the company decided it could continue employing the worker.

Indianapolis, IN

On April 20, 2023, IER helped a caller who was not being allowed to start a job because he had not been in the U.S. for the past 5 years. IER contacted the employer and provided information about acceptable documents for employees that establish identity and work authorization. The employer then offered the caller a job and the caller will begin work soon.

Unknown

On April 21, 2023, IER helped a caller whose job offer had been rescinded based on the expiration date listed on the caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER called the company to explain the 540-day extension that applied to the caller’s EAD and applicable I-9 rules, and the company decided to offer the position to the caller and proceed with the worker’s onboarding.

Newark, NY

On April 24, 2023, IER intervened to save the position of a worker in an IT vocational training and job placement program. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of April 16, 2022, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer decided to allow the worker to join the program.

Orlando, FL

On April 24, 2023, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant from Venezuela. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of March 21, 2022, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to return to work.

Dallas, TX

On April 26, 2023, IER saved the job of an asylum applicant. He had timely applied for a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and received an I-797 receipt from USCIS that was valid for a 540 day extension. The worker’s employer did not know that extensions were possible and told him that he needed to show a facially unexpired EAD. The worker called IER, and IER called the company to explain EAD extensions. The employer decided not to ask for more documentation and allowed the worker to continue the hiring process.

Virginia

On May 5, 2023, IER learned it helped an F-1 student get a Social Security number. The student applied for a Social Security number but her application had not been approved after several months.  Her university referred her to IER’s hotline and IER reached out to the Social Security Administration.  The Social Security Administration then looked into the situation and determined the caller was eligible for a Social Security number, which it then issued.

Tampa, FL

On May 8, 2023, IER successfully intervened to help an asylum applicant start a job after her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was initially rejected because the expiration date on the card had passed. The worker had timely applied for a new EAD and met the other qualifications for a 540-day extension of her EAD, but had received an I-797 Notice of Action with language saying her EAD was extended 180 days. IER contacted the employer and provided information from USCIS explaining that workers who received a 180-day extension are now eligible for the 540-day extension. After reviewing the information, the employer decided to move forward with her hiring.

Oregon

On May 19, 2023, IER saved the job of an asylum applicant who was denied an airport security badge the caller needed to access the caller’s job.  The caller’s Employment Authorization Document had been extended for 540 days but the badging office did not accept the extended EAD based on language in the caller’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension.  IER contacted the badging office and provided guidance from USCIS explaining that someone whose EAD was initially extended for 180 days under USCIS’s prior policy received a 540-day EAD extension when USCIS announced the new extension period.  The airport badging office decided it could accept the caller’s EAD and issued a new badge, allowing the caller to return to work.

Montgomery, AL

On May 19, 2023, IER helped a US citizen resume the onboarding process at a retailer. The caller wanted to show his U.S. passport for the Form I-9 but the store manager told him she preferred receiving driver’s licenses/state IDs and Social Security cards for the Form I-9, so she would not take his passport. The caller called IER and IER called the company. The company decided that the caller’s documentation was sufficient and the caller was able to return to the store to resume his onboarding.

Orlando, FL

On May 23, 2023, IER helped an asylum applicant continue in the process of applying for a mortgage.  The lender would not accept the caller’s extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) as part of the application process and requested a new EAD, even after the caller provided information from USCIS on EAD extensions like the caller’s.  IER reached out and provided information on 540-day EAD extensions.  The mortgage company then decided it could accept the caller’s EAD and continued to process the caller’s application.

Bloomingdale, IL

On May 23, 2023, IER assisted a worker in L-2S derivative status, whose I-94 was rejected by his employer.  IER provided information from USCIS on L nonimmigrant status and documents these non-citizens might use for the Form I-9.  With this additional information, the employer decided to accept the caller’s documents.

Boise, ID

On May 24, 2023, a worker called IER’s hotline because her new employer was rejecting her certificate of naturalization during the Form I-9 process. IER contacted the employer to provide information on Form I-9 documentation. The employer looked into the issue and confirmed that they could accept the worker’s certificate of naturalization as a Valid List C document.

Birmingham, AL

On May 24, 2023, a worker called the hotline because her employer would not accept her Employment Authorization Document indicating she is a DACA recipient. IER contacted the employer, who decided the caller’s documentation was sufficient for the Form I-9.  The caller started work the next day.

American Fork, UT

On May 25, 2023, IER helped an adjustment applicant start her job after her employer initially delayed her start date due to confusion about her Form I-9 documents.  The caller provided her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) along with other documentation and the hiring manager did not know how to complete the Form I-9 with the caller’s documents.  The employer sent the caller home and then did not follow up for a week.  IER contacted the company and provided information on EADs and the company resolved the issue and completed the caller’s Form I-9.  She then began her new job.

New York, NY

On May 26, 2023, IER intervened and ensured that a worker was allowed to begin her position after her new employer initially rejected her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The caller’s receipt notice did not have the standard language explaining the 540-day EAD extension but USCIS had announced that asylum applicants who received these types of receipts in error could use them to show their EAD extensions. IER pointed the employer to this guidance and the employer decided to allow the worker to begin work.

Washington

On June 2, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully assisted an asylee obtain a paper I-94, which can be used for the Form I-9 and to show immigration status in other situations like applying for a Social Security number or a State Identification Card. At the asylee’s request, IER reached out to Customs and Border Protection, who were able to provide the requested document.

Wayne, NE

On June 5, 2023, IER assisted a caller whose employer was rejecting his automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER called the employer to provide information about 540-day EAD extensions and provided guidance from USCIS explaining that people who received notices extending their EADs for 180 days also received 540-day extensions.  The employer confirmed that they would accept the worker’s EAD and he started work the following day.

San Diego, CA

On June 6, 2023, IER helped a lawful permanent resident to start her job after her employer initially rejected her extended Permanent Resident Card.  IER contacted the employer to provide information about extensions for Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer confirmed that it would accept the caller’s documents and she was able to begin working.

Florida

On June 6, 2023, IER helped an asylum applicant renew his driver’s license.  The caller had applied to renew his driver’s license in February and the DMV explained it was waiting for information from USCIS.  IER contacted the DMV and the DMV determined it had sufficient information and issued the caller’s license.

Florida

On June 8, 2023, IER helped an asylum applicant renew her driver’s license.  The caller applied for renewal at a DMV in February and was told that more information from USCIS is needed.  On June 8, 2023, IER contacted the DMV and the DMV determined it had verified the caller’s information and issued the caller’s license.

Yulee, FL

On June 9, 2023, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose Permanent Resident Card was automatically extended by virtue of a petition to remove the conditions on the card, but whose employer did not want to accept the document combination.  IER reached out to corporate headquarters and brought this issue to their attention, and the issue was resolved.  The company provided the worker with a job opportunity at an alternate location so that she would not have to work with the individuals who had rejected her documents.

Sumter County, FL

On June 13, 2023, IER received a call from a worker whose new employer would not accept her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) with proof of the 540-day extension and was requesting additional documentation of her work authorization. IER contacted the employer and provided information on the 540-day extension.  The employer decided to accept the worker's EAD and valid receipt notice, and allowed her to begin working.

Nationwide

On June 15, 2023, IER helped a caller with permission to work in the United States complete the onboarding process by confirming with his employer that the company doesn’t require employees to have a Social Security number to start working.  The caller had received an email from the company saying that the employee had to provide a Social Security number and the caller called IER because the caller is still waiting to be issued a Social Security number.  IER contacted the company, which confirmed a Social Security number isn’t required.  The company decided to update the type of email the caller received to make sure it’s clear that Social Security numbers aren’t required to start working.

Los Angeles, CA

On July 11, 2023, IER learned that an electronic Form I-9 software provider updated its system to prevent employers from unnecessarily reverifying some workers’ employment authorization before it expired. IER received a hotline call from an employer that wanted to hire a worker with an EAD and I-797 reflecting a 540-day extension, but the commercial Form I-9 software that the company used incorrectly populated, through automation, an 180-day extension due to the specific EAD expiration date for that worker. The employer recognized the error and completed a paper Form I-9 for the worker. The employer was an E-Verify user, so it also ran the worker through E-Verify directly through the USCIS website. However, the employer wanted the software company to fix the problem. The employer did not have any success contacting its commercial electronic software provider, so the employer asked IER for help. IER was able to contact the commercial Form I-9 software provider and explained the situation. The Form I-9 software company realized the source of the error and contacted all of its affected customers. It then corrected the software issue and updated its software for its customers.

Olmsted, OH

On July 25, 2023, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  During the Form I-9 process, the caller presented her U.S. Passport which was rejected.  The employer then requested the caller present her driver’s license, Social Security card and birth certificate, and informed the caller that no other documents would be accepted and ended the onboarding process.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on the Form I-9 process, including that employees get to provide their choice of valid documentation.  The employer decided to immediately bring the caller back to work and accept her passport for the Form I-9 process, and retrained the person who had completed the Form I-9 with the caller.

New York

On July 26, 2023, IER helped a lawful permanent resident get a paycheck her employer initially withheld because the caller’s Permanent Resident Card had expired.  The caller showed her unexpired Permanent Resident Card when she started her job.  When her card later expired, her employer asked for a new card and did not issue the caller her pay for work already completed.  IER contacted the company and provided information about Form I-9 procedures and that if someone decides to show an unexpired Permanent Resident Card when they start working, an employer shouldn’t ask for more documentation based on the Permanent Resident Card later expiring.  The company then decided to issue the caller the pay.

Appleton, WI

On July 27, 2023, an IER attorney received a call from a worker whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended until August 2023.  The caller’s employer would not accept the EAD plus the receipt notice showing the extension, based on the expiration date listed on the EAD.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on EAD automatic extensions.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s EAD and allowed them to continue to work.

Arizona

In July 2023, IER helped a worker who has been granted asylum to get an unrestricted Social Security card so he could return to work.  The caller had been suspended for over a month because he lacked current Form I-9 documentation, even though he is authorized to work. IER was able to assist the worker by reaching out to SAVE, an online service administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that allows benefit-granting agencies to verify a benefit applicant’s immigration status. SAVE confirmed for the Social Security Administration that the caller has been granted asylum and the Social Security Administration was able to issue the caller an unrestricted Social Security card that the caller could use to return to work.

Los Angeles, CA

On August 1, 2023, IER saved the job of an F-1 student who was able to work in off-campus jobs due to economic hardship. The worker was hired as an extra in a movie, and received a pre-hire onboarding email stating that to get paid, she needed to present an ID and U.S. birth certificate, or a U.S. Passport. The worker didn’t have these documents because she isn’t a U.S. citizen.  IER called the company and provided information on acceptable Form I-9 documents. The company decided it could accept the caller’s Form I-9 documentation and going forwarded decided to provide new hires the full lists of acceptable documents. 

St. Louis, MO

On August 8, 2023, IER received a call from a worker who had been suspended from her job because her employer would not accept proof of the automatic extension of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The worker began her job through Optional Practical Training (OPT) which allows for temporary employment authorization for students who have completed their academic studies. Prior to her EAD expiring, the worker applied for a STEM OPT extension available to students who received degrees in STEM fields. IER reached out to the employer and explained that the 180-day extension for workers who apply for an OPT STEM extension. After speaking with IER, the employer accepted the worker's documentation and allowed her to return to work.

New Haven, CT

On August 9, 2023, IER received a hotline call from an advocate for a worker who said that the worker's employer, a staffing agency, put his employment on hold because more than 180 days had passed since the facial expiration date on the worker's Employment Authorization Document (EAD). However, the type of EAD the worker has is eligible for a 540-day automatic extension with a Form I-797C receipt notice that meets certain requirements, even if the receipt notice only indicates a 180-day extension. This is because USCIS temporarily increased some 180-day automatic extensions to 540 days. After IER provided this information to the employer, the employer decided to honor the worker's 540-day extension and allowed the worker to begin working again and paid him for the shifts he missed due to this issue.

Nevada, IA

On August 11, 2023, IER helped to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card (aka green card) when he started working, but the green card had since expired. The employer suspended the worker until he provided new documentation. IER contacted the employer and provided information from USCIS explaining that green cards do not require reverification once they expire. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work and provide four days of backpay.

Brookly, NY

On August 14, 2023, IER helped an asylum applicant get a job after the caller initially was told the company only would consider U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about IER and provided USCIS guidance explaining that many categories of non-U.S. citizens are authorized to work.  The caller was then contacted by the employer and offered a job.

Midland, TX

On August 14, 2023, IER assisted a worker who had applied for a STEM-OPT extension (for recent graduates in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics). The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of July 10, 2023, but was automatically extended for 180 days because of his application for the extension. The agent for the employer hospital did not understand this and requested more or different documents from the worker. IER contacted the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS explaining the extension. The employer accepted the worker’s documents and allowed him to begin his position.

Trenton, NJ

On August 15, 2023, IER assisted an adjustment applicant whose employer asked for more documentation when the caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was automatically extended. The EAD was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension and requested a new EAD. IER called the employer, explained the automatic extension, and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the caller to return to work and paid him for the week that he was out of work as result of the company’s rejection of his EAD.

Virginia

On August 16, 2023, IER learned that it helped an asylum applicant obtain a Social Security number (SSN) and card. The asylum applicant was having issues showing an Employment Authorization Document to apply for an SSN.  IER contacted the Social Security Administration which looked into the situation and confirmed with the field office that an EAD is sufficient to apply for an SSN.  The applicant returned to SSA, submitted his documentation again, and received his SSC two weeks later.

California

On August 16, 2023, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was hired to work as a teacher. The teacher wanted to show her current university ID and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9.  However, the school’s HR personnel would not accept the ID because it did not contain the teacher’s middle name, which was included on the Social Security card. The teacher called IER and IER contacted the school and provided guidance from I-9 Central relating to differences in last names on Form I-9 documentation. The HR office appreciated knowing that it was not required to have a perfect match between documents with the names printed on them, and it onboarded the teacher.

Texas

On August 25, 2023, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an individual authorized to work to renew his driver’s license. The department of motor vehicles would not accept the documents he presented demonstrating his continued work authorization. IER contacted the agency and provided information on the types of documentation the individual had presented. The agency decided that this documentation met its requirements, and the caller was able to continue in the process and renew his driver’s license.

Massachusetts

On August 28, 2023, IER learned that it helped save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The LPR provided his MRIV with an I-551 stamp that was valid until 2024. However, the caller’s employer, a school, incorrectly thought that the expiration date printed on the MRIV (which had already passed) was the expiration for using this Form I-9 document.  IER contacted the school and provided information explaining Form I-9 rules, including that the validity of MRIVs for the Form I-9 are based on the date of the I-551 stamp near the MRIV, and not the expiration date printed on the MRIV itself. The school district reviewed the resources and completed the worker’s onboarding.

Akron, OH

On August 30, 2023, IER was able to help a worker, who was granted asylum, complete the Form I-9 and begin working. When the worker initially presented his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, the employer told him it needed an List A document because he selected of his non-citizen status. IER contacted the employer and provided information about acceptable documents for the Form I-9. The employer decided to accept the worker’s documents and allow him to continue in the onboarding process.

Waikiki, HI

On August 30, 2023, IER helped a lawful permanent resident start his job, after his employer initially required him to show a Permanent Resident Card, despite already showing sufficient documentation for the Form I-9.  The caller showed his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9 but the employer requested a Permanent Resident Card, as well.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about the Form I-9 process, including that all workers can provide their choice of acceptable documents and lawful permanent residents don’t have to show a Permanent Resident Card.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and the caller returned to work.

Tacoma, WA

In early September 2023, IER helped a lawful permanent resident keep his job.  The caller contacted IER’s hotline because his potential employer would not allow him to start working.  IER contacted the employer and discovered the issue involved the employer’s request for documentation to determine if the company had to request authorization for the caller to access export control items under the ITAR.  IER provided the employer information about the difference between the Form I-9 process and the process an employer might use to determine if it needed to seek authorization under the ITAR, and the fact that employers don’t need to seek any authorization to release export control items to lawful permanent residents.  The issue was resolved.

Illinois

On September 5, 2023, IER learned that it had successfully assisted an asylum applicant in providing information to her employer that her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that appeared facially expired was, in fact, automatically extended when presented together with her valid I-797C receipt notice, allowing her to return to work. The caller had been told that she had to produce a new EAD to continue working for the employer, or she would be terminated. The IER staffer provided information to the employer and the employer subsequently allowed the caller to continue working.

Indianapolis, IN

On September 5, 2023, IER helped an Afghan parolee whose employer initially did not accept the caller’s automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER contacted the employer and provided information about the type of extension the caller had and the employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation.  One week later, the caller got an email saying he had to provide documentation and was suspended. IER contacted the employer again, who indicated that its automated system was responsible for the error. The employer reinstated the worker and gave him three days of backpay for the time he missed as a result of the employer’s error. The employer further indicated it would not seek to reverify the worker until his documents had expired. 

Greenwood, IN

On September 6, 2023, IER successfully intervened to save the job of a U-Visa holder.  The worker was told by her employer that it would not accept her receipt notice for a timely filed Form I-485 together with her I-94 admission record.  The worker called IER’s worker hotline and asked IER to intervene.  IER contacted the employer to share information about acceptable Form I-9 documentation.  The employer reviewed the documentation and decided to invite the worker back to work.  The employer paid the worker $1,925 in back pay.

Waldorf, MD

On September 14, 2023, IER received a call from a worker who indicated that during orientation after starting a new job, she presented her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD), but the HR representative rejected her card and would not allow her to continue with the orientation. IER contacted the employer, which promptly reinstated her.

Jamaica, NY

On September 20, 2023, a worker asked for IER’s assistance after a prospective employer asked him to provide two forms of identification to proceed with the hiring process. When the hotline caller presented an automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD), the prospective employer prevented him from continuing on in the process. IER spoke with the company and explained that employers should not pre-screen job applicants’ citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, or reject valid documentation presented for the Form I-9. The company decided to proceed with the hiring process for this caller.

Jacksonville, FL

On September 20, 2023, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who had applied for a replacement Permanent Resident Card after losing his card, whose employer initially did not accept the receipt for the replacement card that the caller provided for the Form I-9. The employe rejected the document, not understanding that a receipt to replace for a lost, damaged, or stolen Permanent Resident Card is sufficient to show the worker’s employment eligibility for 90 days. IER explained the rule to the employer and shared USCIS guidance, at which point the employer immediately allowed the worker to begin his position. 

Phoenix, AZ

On September 21, 2023, IER learned that it saved the job of an asylum applicant whose employers initially rejected his automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the company and provided information about 540-day extensions.  The company decided to accept the caller’s documentation and the caller was able to onboard without further delay.

Arkansas

On September 28, 2023, a worker contacted IER to request assistance when she attempted to apply for a medical residency program that, according to the program’s website, was limited to US citizens and lawful permanent residents. IER contacted the medical residency program to inquire about the basis for the stated citizenship status restriction, and provided information about 8 USC 1324b’s prohibition on discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status in hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee. The medical residency program concluded that its website contained an erroneous restriction, and removed the restriction from its website.

Cincinnati, OH

On September 29, 2023, IER helped save the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The caller’s employer initially did not accept the caller’s documentation for the Form I-9. IER obtained more information from the caller about the person’s documentation and facilitated the caller providing the employer the caller’s preferred documentation, a state ID and unrestricted Social Security card. The employer accepted the documentation and continued with the onboarding process.

Florida

On September 29, 2023, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an individual authorized to work to renew her driver’s license. The individual had called IER’s hotline to report that the department of motor vehicles would not accept the documents she presented demonstrating her continued work authorization. IER contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles and provided information on the types of documentation the individual had presented. The Department of Motor Vehicles decided that this documentation met its requirements and the individual was able to continue in the process and renew her driver’s license.

Fiscal Year 2022

Bakersfield, CA

On October 3, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen whose employer refused to accept his U.S. birth certificate as a List C document and instead insisted that he provide a Social Security card.  IER contacted the company and the company decided to accept the worker’s documentation and also decided to have employers at the location where the issue arose who have any HR responsibilities, along with the company’s regional HR coordinators to attend an IER webinar for employer audiences.

Cave Creek, AZ

 On October 4, 2021 IER learned that it had saved the job of a worker with an automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document’s (EAD’s).  The employer had rejected the worker’s documentation and told the worker she was suspended until she presented a new EAD.  IER contacted the employer and explained that an I-797C receipt notice showing the EAD was extended was acceptable documentation together with the EAD.  The employer decided to accept the documentation of the EAD extension, and the worker was able to continue working.

Oakland, CA

On October 14, 2021, IER received a hotline call from a lawful permanent resident who was experiencing difficulties getting an appointment for an I-551 stamp. She needed the I-551 stamp because she had no other documentation available that was valid for the Form I-9, and without the stamp, she would not be able to start her new job. IER contacted USCIS which contacted the hotline caller and make an appointment at the local USCIS office. The hotline caller was able to receive the I-551 stamp, and with it, start her job.

New York

On October 22, 2021, a lawful permanent resident called IER because her employer was trying to reverify the caller’s work authorization even though she had provided documentation for the Form I-9 that are not subject to reverification.  IER contacted the employer to provide publicly available information explaining that when an employee presents an unexpired Permanent Resident at hire, as the caller had done, an employer should not reverify their work authorization, even when the document expires, because LPRs have permanent work authorization.  The employer decided not to request additional documentation from the worker or attempt to reverify her employment.

Burlington, MA

On October 22, 2021, a naturalized U.S. citizen called IER because his employer was rejecting his naturalization certificate for the Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer to share publicly available information explaining that the naturalization certificate is a valid List C document.  The employer decided to accept the documentation and continue onboarding the employee.

Irvine, CA

On November 5, 2021, a lawful permanent resident called IER because he was fired when his employer requested new work authorization documentation and then rejected the worker’s Permanent Resident Card.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel and the employer looked into the situation and decided to immediately reinstate the worker with the same position, benefits, and seniority, and pay him back pay for the nearly two months he was out of work.

Massachusetts

On November 5, 2021, an individual called the hotline because the DMV rejected his Permanent Resident Card when the caller applied to renew his driver’s license.  The caller’s expired driver’s license also led him to receive a notice that his unemployment benefits were terminated and that he owed the prior month’s unemployment benefits, $600. IER contacted the local DMV and they determined they could issue the caller a one-year driver’s license based on his expired Permanent Resident Card and issued the driver’s license before the hearing to appeal the caller’s unemployment benefits’ termination. With the renewed license, the State was able to verify his identity and his unemployment benefits were restored.

Wichita, KS

On November 8, 2021, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was initially turned away.  The caller presented a Permanent Resident Card with a receipt that extended the card for one year, but the employer refused to accept the combination of documents and asked to see a driver’s license and Social Security card.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on Form I-9 documentation like the caller’s and the employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation and onboard the employee.

Phoenix, AZ

On November 10, 2021, a naturalized U.S. citizen contacted IER because an employer rejected his certificate of naturalization during the employment eligibility verification process. The employer rescinded the worker’s offer of employment and asked the worker to reapply for another open position after he acquired proper documentation. IER intervened and informed the employer that a certificate of naturalization is a valid List C document according to the Form I-9 List of Acceptable Documents. On November 16, IER learned that the employer had contacted the worker to re-extend the offer of employment and move forward with the employment eligibility verification process.

Troy, MI

On November 12, 2021, a worker called the hotline because her employer was asking her to complete another I-9. IER reached out the company to request additional information on her suspension and the need to complete a new Form I-9. The employer explained it was required to complete a new Form I-9 because the worker was a rehire, expedited the completion of her I-9, and her suspension was lifted on November 15, 2021, the day she completed the form.

Asheboro, NC

On November 18, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a worker with DACA.  The employer had requested a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for reverification months after the expiration of the worker’s EAD she had presented at hire.  Unfortunately, although the worker had her new EAD at the time she should have been reverified, she had since the lost the card.  The worker called IER and IER provided the worker information about acceptable documents and receipts for reverification.  Once the worker obtained a receipt for an application to replace her lost EAD, IER contacted the employer and explained the worker’s receipt.  The employer accepted the receipt for the worker’s lost EAD, and the worker was allowed to return to work without any further incidents.

Fayetteville, NC

On November 22, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of an individual authorized to work whose employer had terminated the individual in the midst of onboarding.  The caller explained that the employer had restricted hiring for an open position to only green card holders and U.S. citizens and did not realize that a noncitizen could be authorized to work without a green card.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information on citizenship status discrimination, including that having a preference for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents could be unlawful if there is no law, regulation, government contract or executive order requiring the employer to limit consideration to these groups.  The employer decided to remove the preference from its hiring for the position and the employer reinstated the worker so that she could continue with the onboarding process.

Indianapolis, IN

On November 22, 2021, a U visa holder with a pending adjustment application called IER because his work permit had recently expired and his employer was requiring a new work permit.  U visa holders who timely filed an adjustment application receive a one-year extension of their work authorization which they can demonstrate with their most recent U visa I-94 and the receipt for the timely filed adjustment application.  IER shared with employers some USCIS guidance on documents that a U visa holder may possess that demonstrate continued work authorization.  On December 2, 2021, the employer called the worker back to work.

Neenah, WI

On November 23, 2021, IER was contacted by an employee reporting that his supervisor would not allow him to use his driver’s license as an identity document for the Form I-9, because the worker was not a citizen. IER contacted the company’s corporate counsel and provided information regarding acceptable documents for the Form I-9.  On December 2, 2021, the company confirmed that the worker had successfully completed the Form I-9. 

Apex, NC

On November 26, 2021, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of an Afghan parolee, who was being told he had to present a Social Security card, even though he had provided an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the employer and explained that an EAD is a valid List A document. The employer decided to accept the document for the Form I‐9 and call the applicant to start the onboarding process. 

Dallas, TX

On November 30, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who had attempted to start a job earlier in the month, but had been told she needed to show a Social Security card for the Form I-9. The caller did not have her Social Security card available, and had shown sufficient documents for the Form I-9, but the employer rejected her documents. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, reminding it that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that rejecting valid documents and requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to onboard the worker with the documents presented.

Missoula, MT

On December 1, 2021, IER completed a successful intervention on behalf of two Afghan parolees.  A state agency contacted IER because the workers’ employer did not allow people to apply for jobs without entering a Social Security number, and these parolees were still waiting for their Social Security numbers though they had valid, unexpired Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).  After the state agency called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer’s counsel and explained that the prospective workers had valid documents for the employment eligibility verification process, even though they were still waiting for their Social Security numbers.  The employer consequently waived the application’s Social Security number requirement and permitted the workers to apply in person.

Aimes, IA

On December 3, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer tried to reverify her even though she provided valid List B and C documents for the Form I-9 that did not require any reverification. When an IER attorney called the office, an HR manager acknowledged the mistake and assured IER that the worker would not be reverified, and decided to retrain its HR staff on proper I-9 procedures. 

Greensboro, NC

On December 6, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of a SIV holder from Niger. The worker, whose SIV status qualifies him as an LPR, tried to present his MRIV and I-551 stamp to be hired with a staffing company. The employer rejected the document. The worker’s service provider sent the employer an IER educational resource explaining the validity an MRIV/I-551 stamp for Afghan SIVs, but the employer continued to reject the document because the worker was not from Afghanistan. The service provider called IER, and IER called the company. IER forwarded the company information from USCIS regarding the use of the MRIV/I-551 for the Form I-9, with no limitations on its availability based on the worker’s country of origin. The employer accepted the document and hired the worker.

Greensboro, NC

On December 6, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of an Afghan parolee who was waiting for his Social Security number (SSN). The worker satisfied the Form I-9 process by presenting an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). However, the employer would not continue onboarding the worker because he had not been issued an SSN. The parolee’s service provider contacted IER, and IER contacted the company. IER sent the company several federal government resources regarding hiring workers without SSNs. Once the company realized that it could hire workers without SSNs, the company decided to do paper-based payroll processing for anyone who lacked an SSN until it developed a fix to its payroll software which required an SSN. The worker was able to finalize the onboarding process.

Silver Spring, MD

On December 10, 2021, IER successfully intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) who was terminated by a senior living facility. When he originally started working, the worker presented his unexpired Permanent Resident Card (PRC). During a subsequent audit, the facility became aware that the worker’s Form I-9 was missing. The facility asked him to present new documentation, but his PRC had subsequently expired and he did not have other Form I-9 documentation at that time. IER shared IER’s and ICE’s “Guidance for Employers Conducting Internal Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 Audits” and pointed out that employers should provide workers that claim to be work-authorized a reasonable amount of time to present new documentation. After reviewing the guidance, the worker was allowed to return to work. 

Los Angeles, CA

On December 13, 2021, IER learned that it had saved the job of an asylum applicant from Guatemala. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of July 4, 2021, but was automatically extended for six months based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and took the worker off the schedule due to presumed lack of work authorization. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working and paid her for the shifts she had missed. 

Oklahoma

On December 14, 2021, following IER’s intervention, IER received notice that the Social Security Administration (SSA) processed an application for a Social Security card for an Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiary.  SSA had not processed the caller’s application because the TPS beneficiary’s passport appeared expired, but had been extended beyond the expiration date listed on the passport.  After hearing from IER, SSA decided that the passport met its requirements and processed the caller’s application.

Los Angeles, CA

On December 16, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of a U visa holder at a retailer. The woman’s work authorization had been extended for 1 year based on her application for permanent residency, and she showed her employer the documentation reflecting that extension. However, the employer was unfamiliar with the documentation and suspended her. The worker called IER and IER called the company’s attorney. IER gave the attorney guidance regarding the U visa extension documentation. The company removed the worker’s suspension and she returned to work within two days.

Newark, NJ

On December 21, 2021, IER learned that a lawful permanent resident was suspended by a staffing company because the company subjected her to reverification for the Form I-9 and requested a specific document during reverification. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, reminding them that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that rejecting valid documents and requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to quickly reinstate the caller.

San Francisco, CA

On December 21, 2021, IER learned that a lawful permanent resident’s onboarding at a medical facility was delayed because the employer requested a copy of the worker’s Permanent Resident Card as part of the Form I-9, even though the caller had already provided sufficient documentation. IER explained the Form I-9 requirements to the employer, and the worker was allowed to onboard without further delay.

Boston, MA

On December 22, 2021, IER saved the job of an individual who was told that she would not be able to continue working if she did not present a Social Security card. The worker presented an Employment Authorization Document for Form I-9, but she did not give her employer a Social Security number because she had not been issued one, yet. The worker called IER and IER contacted the employer. IER gave the organization guidance from DHS, SSA, IRS, and the EEOC regarding hiring workers who are still waiting for their Social Security numbers. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working and get paid. 

San Bernardino, CA

On December 28, 2021, IER assisted a caller whose employer terminated her after rejecting her documentation during the Form I-9 reverification process, even though the worker provided documentation that is acceptable for this purpose. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, reminding them that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that rejecting valid documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to accept the documents the worker had previously presented and to reinstate the worker and provide her with back pay.

Laredo, TX

On December 29, 2021, IER received a call from a worker who believed he was likely to be terminated because his employer had learned that his Permanent Resident Card had recently expired. IER contacted the employer to explain that the Form I-9 rules instruct employers not to reverify a lawful permanent resident who initially presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card, even when the card expires. Ultimately, the employer confirmed that the worker would not be terminated because of his expired Permanent Resident Card. 

Massachusetts

On January 6, 2022, a worker with employment authorization called IER because the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles was rejecting documentation showing his valid immigration status in the process of renewing his Class B driver’s license.  The caller, a school bus driver, explained that based on the documentation he showed, the RMV had only extended his license for two months, and that he was at risk of losing his job.  IER contacted the RMV to inquire about the caller’s application and after looking into the case, the RMV extended the worker’s license for an additional year.

Aztex, NM

On January 6, 2022, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who wished to apply for a job with a restaurant.  When asking for an application, the caller learned that he was required to provide a copy of his Social Security card to be considered.  IER contacted the company to help the caller get more information on the request for his Social Security card.  After receiving information from IER, the employer decided not to require the caller’s Social Security card.

Tulsa, OK

On January 10, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen.  The worker’s employer initially said the caller could not continue working after she was unable to receive a certification from another state because she did not have a Social Security card.  IER contacted the employer, and the employer explained that not having a Social Security card can be a barrier to employment.  IER discussed employment eligibility verification procedures, including that a Social Security number is not required to work.  The employer decided that it had sufficient documentation and had its HR staff complete an IER webinar for HR professionals.  The caller also avoided missing any work.

Tillamook, OR

On January 11, 2022, IER learned that a U-Visa holder could continue working after his employer decided to accept his documentation. The worker contacted IER because his employer told him he would have to stop working if he could not provide new documentation showing his work authorization. IER spoke with the worker’s representative and the company’s HR Department to provided information about documentation that U visa holders with a timely filed, pending adjustment application can provide to show their continued work authorization.  These workers’ most recent U visa I-94 and I-485 receipt notice demonstrate a one-year extension of their prior work authorization. The employer already had the documents on file, and the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working with no interruption. 

Waunakee, WI

On January 12, 2022, IER saved the job of an adjustment applicant whose employer told her she would not be able to continue to work after the expiration date listed on her Employment Authorization Document (EAD), even though she had provided a receipt notice that showed her EAD had been extended for 180 days.  The worker called IER and IER contacted the company. IER explained the validity of certain receipt notices for certain category codes that match the code on the worker’s EAD. The employer recognized its mistake and stated that it would not fire the worker. 

Hebron, KY

On January 12, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been extended for 180 days past the listed expiration date of December 30, 2021.  The employer had refused to accept the worker’s valid documentation showing the extension and instead asked for a specific type of document that is not valid for the Form I-9.  The employer then informed the worker that the requested document he presented was not a valid document for reverification and terminated the worker.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and the employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation and reinstate him.

Hebron, KY

On January 12, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been extended for 180 days past the listed expiration date of December 30, 2021.  The employer had refused to accept the worker’s valid documentation showing the extension and instead asked for a specific type of document that is not valid for the Form I-9.  The employer then informed the worker that the requested document she presented was not a valid document for reverification and terminated the worker.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and the employer decided accept the worker’s documentation and reinstate her.

Texas

On January 13, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident to continue in the hiring process at her new job.  The caller contacted IER because her new employer was requiring her to show a Permanent Resident Card during the Form I-9 process, even though she had decided to present a driver’s license and Social Security card.  IER contacted the employer to provide publicly available information explaining that employees are allowed to choose which acceptable documents to present.  On January 13, 2022, the caller informed IER that her employer allowed her to present her driver’s license and Social Security card. 

Massachusetts

On January 14, 2022, IER assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen in renewing his driver’s license.  The caller was struggling to provide proof of his U.S. citizenship.  IER contacted the DMV to confirm the caller’s options and the DMV decided it could accept the caller’s receipt notice for a replacement Certificate of Naturalization, and issued the caller a new driver’s license. 

Dallas, TX

On January 14, 2022, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident who presented sufficient documents for the Form I-9 but his employer requested to also see an unrestricted Social Security card, which the caller had misplaced. IER provided the caller and the employer with links to IER’s fact sheets for workers and employers, which remind them that all employees may provide their choice of documents for the Form I-9 and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The hotline caller was able to begin work that same day. 

Houston, TX

On January 20, 2022, IER received a call from a representative of a conditional Lawful Permanent Resident who reported that her employer, a healthcare provider, requested that she present an updated Permanent Resident Card (commonly referred to as a Green Card) when her Green Card expired and, when she did not present it, did not allow her to continue working. Employers are not permitted to reverify Green Cards, including those issued to conditional Lawful Permanent Residents and doing so can constitute unlawful discrimination, depending on the circumstances. After IER provided this information to the employer, the employer determined it should not have asked the worker to provide updated work authorization documentation and invited her to return to work.

Midlothian, VA

On January 21, 2022, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who had recently arrived in the U.S. The LPR had been hired by a retailer, and when completing the Form I-9, showed his valid foreign passport with a CPB endorsement stamp and a machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV). However, the employer did not accept this document and would not continue onboarding. The worker called IER, and IER contacted the employer’s counsel, who identified an issue with the worker’s I-9 form that contributed to the confusion. The worker corrected the issue in Section 1 of the Form I-9, and the employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation.

Massachusetts

On January 23, 2022, IER assisted a driver who was experiencing problems renewing her driver’s license.  The caller’s information had been run through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program and was pending while it was under additional review.  SAVE then returned the individual’s case to the DMV, and IER followed up with the DMV to get information about the additional steps the individual needed to complete to obtain her license.  The DMV determined that the caller was eligible for a new driver’s license which it then issued.

St. Cloud, MN

On January 27, 2022, IER learned that it helped four Afghan parolees get hired at a pharmacy. The paroles had sufficient documentation to satisfy the Form I-9 requirement but had not yet received their Social Security numbers, and the company would not move them along in the process without their Social Security numbers. The parolees’ service provider contacted IER, and IER contacted the company’s attorney. The company determined that a Social Security number was not required for the background checks it needed to complete, and the parolees were able to continue their onboarding process.

Lincoln, CA

On February 2, 2022, IER assisted a U Visa holder who worked at a restaurant but had been suspended when her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expired, even though she had an I-94 and I-797 receipt showing she had applied for permanent residency.  IER explained that U visa holders whose EAD expires may present their Form I-94 admission record reflecting their most recent validity period of U nonimmigrant status in combination with a Form I-797C, Notice of Action, showing the application for lawful permanent residency was timely filed and the extension of current U nonimmigrant status, and that this document combination shows employment authorization for one year from the “Admit Until Date” on the Form I-94.  The employer accepted this explanation and allowed to worker to resume employment. 

Kansas City,  MO

On February 3, 2022, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer did not initially accept her driver’s license and Social Security card (“SSC”) because they had different last names.  The worker recently changed her last name to her married name on all her personal accounts and Driver’s License, but was unable to change it with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) due to office closures.  IER contacted the employer and the employer and worker were able to resolve the issue and the worker returned to work.

Albuquerque, NM

On February 3, 2022, IER learned that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) received full back pay after an employer incorrectly suspended her. The worker had presented a receipt for the replacement of her lost Permanent Resident Card when she was hired.  At the end of the 90 days, the worker tried to present an I-551 stamp in a foreign passport, but the employer would not accept it because it was not the underlying PRC.  The worker called IER and IER called the company’s counsel and shared information from USCIS explaining that workers can show other acceptable Form I-9 documents in lieu of the document relating to the receipt for a lost document. The company rehired the worker and gave her $622 for the 40 hours of work she missed.

Perry, OK

On February 8, 2022, IER helped to save the job of a U.S. citizen to complete the onboarding process for her new job.  The caller showed her state ID and U.S. birth certificate for the Form I-9.  The employer requested a Social Security card to be submitted with the caller’s Form I-9 documents.  IER contacted the employer and the employer explained the request for additional documentation was for payroll purposes.  IER provided information on keeping document requests for other purposes separate from the Form I-9 purpose and the worker continued the onboarding process. 

Gainesville, GA

On February 8, 2022, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was going to be fired because his Permanent Resident Card had expired.  IER explained to the employer that employers are not to reverify a Permanent Resident Card or terminate someone based on their Permanent Resident Card expiring after they start their job.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker and not request additional documents.

New Jersey

On February 8, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a worker who was denied access to the worksite to attend orientation for his new job because his only form of identification was a county ID card.  The caller therefore was delayed starting his job. IER contacted the employer to discuss why the worker was prevented from starting his job. The employer instructed security at the worksite to accept the worker’s county ID and invited the worker to attend the next new-hire orientation.

Richmond, VA

On February 9, 2022, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was initially turned away.  The caller presented a driver’s license and a certified copy of her birth certificate, but the employer refused to accept the birth certificate.  IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, explaining that all employees may provide their choice of documents.  The employer decided not to request additional documentation and the worker returned to work.

Chicago, IL

On February 9, 2022, IER saved the job of a U-visa holder who also has a pending adjustment application.  During the reverification process, the caller showed her I-94 and her adjustment application receipt notice, which together are acceptable list C documentation.  The employer did not accept the documentation and IER called the employer and provided information on this documentation.  After considering the information IER provided, the employer decided to accept the caller's I-94 and I-797C Receipt of Notice for the Form I-9 without additional documentation, and allowed the caller to continue working.

Landover Hills, MD

On February 14, 2022, IER assisted two asylees whose employer would not accept their driver’s licenses and Social Security cards for the Form I-9.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding acceptable documentation for completing the Form I-9.  The employer volunteered to invite the workers back to complete their paperwork.

Laguna Hills, CA

On February 16, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who presented a temporary I-551 stamp in her foreign passport for initial verification, but the employer rejected it, requesting a Permanent Resident Card instead.  IER provided the employer information about temporary I-551 stamps, which are List A documents that serve as valid proof of work authorization and identity until the stamp expires.  Upon receiving this information, the employer contacted the worker and proceeded with her onboarding.

Phoenix, AZ

On February 24, 2022, IER intervened after a construction company rejected valid work authorization documents provided by a lawful permanent resident.  IER provided information to the company from USCIS’s M-274 employer handbook that explained the circumstances when lawful permanent residents could present as a List C document an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a I-797 Notice of Action to extend the card’s validity.  Based on this explanation, the company reinstated the worker.

New York, NY

On February 28, 2022, IER received a call from a Lawful Permanent Resident who was terminated by her employer when her Permanent Resident Card expired. The employer had additionally refused to accept the worker’s unrestricted Social Security Card for employment eligibility verification. IER intervened by contacting the employer and explaining that Permanent Resident Cards are not subject to reverification. Additionally, IER explained that when reverification is proper, a List C document, such as an unrestricted Social Security Card, is a valid document for reverification. On March 1, 2022, the worker was reinstated by the employer. The employer additionally decided to pay the worker for hours she was unable to work while addressing this issue.

Cleveland, TN

On March 3, 2022, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident who reported that a staffing agency requested that she present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to demonstrate her authorization to work. The caller had presented other acceptable documentation for the Form I-9. IER contacted the employer and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of acceptable documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The worker was able to proceed with the onboarding and placement process.

Cleveland, TN

On March 3, 2022, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident who reported that s staffing agency requested that she present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to demonstrate her authorization to work. The caller had presented other acceptable documentation for the Form I-9. IER contacted the employer and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of acceptable documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The worker was able to begin work.

Santa Rosa, CA

On March 7, 2022, IER assisted a U visa holder in getting his job back after his employer initially would not accept the caller’s Form I-9 documentation.  The caller has a pending adjustment of status application and after contacting IER, IER reached out to the employer.  IER explained to the worker and the employer that U-visa holders with timely-filed adjustment applications may use their most recent U-visa Form I-94 with the receipt notice for their adjustment of status application as a List C document. This combination of documents is valid one year from the expiration date on the Form I-94, or until the application for adjustment of status is denied or withdrawn, whichever is earlier. The employer decided to offer the worker his job back. 

Whitestown, IN

On March 7, 2022, IER saved the job of a non-U.S. citizen who worked at a food company. The worker had an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) with a category code of A10 that had been extended for 180 days. However, the employer would not accept the receipt notice showing the extension and placed him on leave. IER contacted the employer and directed the HR manager to USCIS resources regarding the 180-day extension. The HR manager immediately recalled the worker from suspension.

Carmel, IN

On March 10, 2022, IER received a call from an asylum applicant who reported that his employer, a retail store, took him off the work schedule after not accepting his facially expired EAD with a Form I-797C receipt showing that he applied for a renewal Employment Authorization Document (EAD) before his EAD expired. EADs with certain category codes are eligible for an automatic extension when the worker applies for a renewal EAD under the same category code before the worker’s current EAD expired. In those cases, the worker’s Form I-797C receipt for the renewal EAD application can be used along with the EAD to prove work authorization through the end of the automatic extension. After IER contacted the company’s representative to provide this information, the company decided to allow the worker to return to work and provide back pay for the work the caller missed.

Oakland, CA

On March 15, 2022, a DACA recipient called IER’s hotline because his employer had not allowed him to return to work after receiving his new Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The employer had suspended the worker when his prior EAD expired but offered for the worker to return once he received his new EAD. However, the employer had not responded to the caller. IER contacted the employer to inquire about the worker’s status. The employer recalled the worker from suspension and agreed to issue backpay to the worker for the six days of missed work after he submitted his renewed EAD.

Garden City, KS

On March 18, 2022, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer had improperly demanded additional proof of his employment eligibility. When the worker was initially hired in 2015, he had presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card, which does not require reverification.  But when the worker’s Permanent Resident Card was about to expire six years later, the employer told him he could not continue working past the expiration date unless he presented a new card, because it mistakenly believed that it had to reverify all immigration documents when they expire.  The worker contacted IER’s hotline and IER provided the employer information regarding proper reverification.  Upon learning that no additional documents were needed under USCIS rules, the employer allowed the worker to continue working without presenting any further documentation. 

Houston, TX

On March 21, 2022, IER learned that it saved the job of a lawful permanent resident after he was suspended from his company for having an expired Permanent Resident Card, also known as a Green Card. The caller had a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, which can be used to show work permission. IER contacted the company and explained that workers do not need to show a Green Card and can how other documentation form the Form I-9 process. After reviewing the caller’s documents, the company decided to accept them. 

California

On March 25, 2022, a worker (AAW) called the hotline to complain that an airport badging office was refusing to issue him a badge, which he needed to begin a new position after receiving a promotion. The worker had recently lost his EAD, but he was able to present document showing his EAD had been extended for 180 days. However, the badging office would not accept the letter and requested to see the EAD.  Because the worker could not obtain his badge, his start date had been delayed for more than a month. IER contacted the badging office and the badging office decided it had sufficient documentation file along with the documentation showing the 180-day EAD extension.  On April 13, 2022, the worker received his badge, and he began his new job on April 25, 2022.

Montgomery, IL

On March 28, 2022, IER assisted a U visa holder in keeping her job.  During reverification, the caller’s employer rejected her I-94 and I-485 as documentation showing her continued work authorization to terminate her if she did not present different documents.  IER contacted the employer to provide recent USCIS guidance explaining that a U visa holder’s I-94 and I-485, when presented together, serve as a List C document establishing work authorization.  The employer decided to accept the documents and the caller did not miss any work. 

Concord, NC

On March 28, 2022, IER assisted a worker whose employer rejected her renewed Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  After showing her new EAD, the employer gave the caller a notice of her suspension.  IER contacted the employer and the employer decided to accept the EAD and reverse the worker’s suspension.  The employer also decided to pay the worker $359 in back pay for the days she missed work during the suspension. 

Concord, NC

On March 28, IER assisted a worker in returning to work after his employer rejected his new Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  After providing his new EAD, the employer issued the caller a notice of suspension.  IER contacted the employer, and the employer decided to reverse the suspension and pay the worker $668 in back pay for the days he missed work.

Maryland

On March 28, 2022, IER learned that it helped a Venezuelan asylum applicant receive her Social Security number. IER contacted the Social Security Administration (SSA) after the caller initially had issues presenting her extended Venezuelan passport.  The caller was able to show her passport, and SSA issued the asylum applicant her SSN.

Albuquerque, NM

On March 29, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer sought additional documentation from him when his permanent resident card expired.  IER provided information to the employer about reverification, including that Form I-551 permanent resident cards are not subject to reverification.  Upon receiving this information, the employer contacted the worker and did not require him to go through reverification.

Columbus, OH

On April 1, 2022, IER assisted a non-U.S. citizen whose employer rejected her Employment Authorization Document.  IER reached out to the employer and learned that the employer rejected the document because when photocopied the document appeared to lack certain watermarks that standard employment authorization documents carry.  Following IER’s intervention, the worker was invited to return to the worksite, and after examining the worker’s document in person, the employer determined that it reasonably appeared to be genuine and to relate to the worker, and allowed her to proceed with the onboarding process.

Bowling Green, KY

On April 6, 2022, IER learned that a helped Afghan parolees and other individuals still waiting for their Social Security numbers (SSNs), get jobs at a food retailer and manufacturer. A refugee service provider contacted IER because her clients had documents that satisfy Form I-9 requirements, but they did not yet have their SSNs. When one of her clients tried to get hired with the company, he was told that he could not apply or be onboarded without an SSN. The refugee service provider contacted IER, and IER contacted the company’s attorney. The attorney looked into the matter and determined that the company’s application and onboarding software did permit people to apply for, get hired, and paid, even if they lack SSNs. The company decided to train its HR staff so they and job applicants would be better informed.

New Jersey

On April 11, 2022, IER learned that an airport employee who was suspended after the airport badging office refused to accept her documentation was able to get her new badge and return to work. The worker showed documentation showing her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been extended for 180 days past the card’s listed expiration date, but the airport where the caller worked did not accept the extended EAD documentation. IER contacted the badging office and the badging office determined the caller’s documentation met the badging office’s requirements.  The next day, the caller was back to work.

Salt Lake City, UT

On April 12, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a lawful permanent resident who was denied entry into a hiring event because his Permanent Resident Card (PRC) appeared to be expired. Despite the date on the card, the worker’s PRC had been extended by USCIS. The worker presented a USCIS receipt notice that explained his PRC was extended for 24 months but the staff at the hiring event refused to accept these documents. IER contacted the employer and provided information on extended PRCs. The company invited the worker to attend the next hiring event where his documents were accepted and he was given a provisional job offer. 

Tucson, AZ

On April 13, 2022, IER received a hotline call from a lawful permanent resident who presented sufficient documents for the Form I-9 but her onboarding was delayed. The caller presented an I-551 stamp, which she obtained following a previous call to IER’s hotline, but the employer had questions about the validity of the stamp. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance about the Lists of Acceptable Documents for the Form I-9. IER also reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of acceptable documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The worker was able to return to work.

Bowling Green, KY

On April 20, 2022, IER learned that it saved the job of a humanitarian parolee. The parolee presented his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for the Form I-9, but had not yet received his Social Security number and the employer incorrectly believed it needed a Social Security number to onboard the caller.  IER contacted the company which confirmed that its policy is to follow government guidance on hiring and reporting wages for workers waiting for their Social Security numbers. The company continued the caller’s onboarding and decided to pay $1,370 for the time the caller missed.

Elizabethtown, PA

On April 21, 2022, IER saved the job of an adjustment applicant whose employer did not initially accept her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The caller’s EAD was extended for 180 days but the employer, a retail company, did not accept the documentation showing the extension.  IER contacted the company and the company decided the caller’s EAD plus receipt notice was acceptable and continued her onboarding without delay.

Denver, CO

On April 21, 2022, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker completed his Form I-9 with his ID and birth certificate, but was told he could not begin work unless he also presented a Social Security card. IER contacted the company and provided it with information from the IRS and SSA. After reviewing the guidance, the company decided that it did not need to see the caller’s Social Security card. 

Lorain, OH

On April 27, 2022, IER learned that it saved the job of a worker whose employer rejected her List A document during the initial employment eligibility verification process and threatened to terminate her employment if the worker did not provide List B and List C documents within three days. After IER reached out to the employer, the employer invited the worker to provide a List A document and the worker continues to be employed.

Sterling, VA

On April 29, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of an Afghan parolee who was hired by a retail store before she received a Social Security number.  The store told her that for payroll purposes, she could not work until she obtained the number.  An IER attorney communicated with the store’s outside counsel and shared information from the Social Security Administration on how to report wages for an employee waiting for their Social Security number.  The company decided to do a manual override of its electronic payroll system so that the employee could begin without her number.  The company also decided to share instructions with other locations to avoid this situation in the future. 

New York

On May 1, 2022, IER assisted a T visa holder to keep her job.  The caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was going to expire soon but her permission to work had been extended.  Her employer was considering separation if the caller could not provide a new EAD. IER contacted the employer to provide information regarding additional documents that can be used for T visaholders’ work authorization. The caller reported that her work authorization concerns were resolved and she was continuing her employment.

Miami, FL

On May 3, 2022, IER assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen to keep her job.  The worker called IER hotline because her new employer would not accept her receipt for her lost naturalization certificate as proof of her employment eligibility.  IER emailed the employer some guidance on the receipt rule. The employer decided to accept the receipt and the caller was hired.

Miami, FL

On May 3, 2022, IER saved the job of a married couple who were both asylum applicants and were suspended from their jobs. The workers’ Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) been extended but the 180-day extension ended in late April and they could not continue working. On May 4, 2022, USCIS increased such EAD extensions to 540 days. The workers learned of the extension and contacted their employer and share information on the new extensions. The employer did not accept this information, though. IER called the company and provided additional information on the new extensions. The employer realized its mistake and told the married couple that they can return to work the following day.

Cary, NC

On May 4, 2022, IER received a call from a worker who was fired from her job during reverification. The caller had an Employment Authorization Document that appeared to be expired, but during reverification, she presented evidence that the Employment Authorization Document was subject to an automatic extension. The employer did not accept the documentation and instead requested that the worker provide a new Employment Authorization Document. When she could not present it, the worker was fired. IER contacted the employer and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of acceptable documents during the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work and paid $1,016 in back pay for the hours of work she lost.

Escondido, CA

On May 5, 2022, IER assisted a U visa holder to return to her job.  The caller was suspended when her Employment Authorization Document expired.  The caller reached out to IER and IER provided information to the caller and her employer on documentation U visaholders can use to show their permission to work.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and she returned to work.

Florida

On May 5, 2022, IER assisted a U visa holder to return to her job.  The caller was suspended when her Employment Authorization Document expired.  The caller reached out to IER and IER provided information to the caller and her employer on documentation U visaholders can use to show their permission to work.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and she returned to work. 

North Carolina

On May 5, 2022, IER saved the job of a DACA recipient whose employer initially indicated it was not allowed to hire her.  Prior to the IER intervention, the employer mistakenly believed that she required employer sponsorship to have authorization to work.  After the intervention, the company determined the caller was authorized to work and hired her.

Georgia

On May 5, 2022, IER saved the job of a Temporary Protected Status recipient whose employer did not understand that his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended via a Federal Register notice.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about such automatically-extended EADs and the employer decided it did not need to request any additional documentation.

Pennsylvania

On May 5, 2022, IER saved the job of an authorized worker whose employer rejected her unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it was not familiar with EADs and mistakenly believed the company could only hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.  After the IER intervention, the HR representative confirmed with the company that it could hire other noncitizens and decided to accept the caller’s EAD. 

Arlington, TX

On May 6, 2022, IER saved the job of an employment-authorized non-U.S. citizen who worked in the home health industry.  The caller had a 180-day extension on his Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  On the expiration date of the 180-day extension, the employer informed the worker that he would need to present his new EAD or a valid combination of both a List B and List C document.  However, the worker still not had received his new EAD and did not have other documentation to provide to his employer.  IER called the employer and explained that the 180-day automatic extension had been replaced recently by a 540-day extension, and that the reverification requirements for assessing an eligible EAD and I-797C Notice of Action were the same.  The employer decided to accept the EAD and the I-797C Notice of Action and continue employing the worker. 

Calfornia

On May 6, 2022, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was told she could not start her job with a school because the school incorrectly believed her I-9 documentation was expired. The worker showed her machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) with a passport and her documentation was valid until February 5, 2023, but the HR person was unfamiliar with the document and looked at the expiration date on the MRIV, even though that date is irrelevant for the Form I-9. In the course of the intervention, the worker realized that she could present an ID and unrestricted Social Security card, and chose to present that documentation instead. However, the HR office believed they could not accept that documentation from the worker because of their erroneous belief that the MRIV was expired. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer. IER provided information on the applicable expiration date for documentation like the worker’s and workers’ right provide their choice of acceptable documentation.  The school hired the worker. 

Ohio

On May 6, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a worker who was unable to renew his driver's license because his local DMV believed his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was expired. Despite the expiration date on the card, the worker was eligible for a recently-announced 540-day extension. The worker also needed a valid driver's license to keep his job. After IER contacted the DMV and explained the new EAD extension, the DMV allowed the worker to renew his license and the worker was able to keep his job. 

Jacksonville, FL

On May 9, 2022, IER assisted a non-U.S. citizen with an extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to return to work.  The caller’s EAD had been extended for 180 days and that extension ended.  When USCIS announced a new extension for such EADs for 540 days, the caller returned to work with her EAD and extension notice, but the company asked for more documentation.  IER contacted the company and provided guidance from USCIS on the 540-day extensions and the company contacted the caller to return to work.

Vail, CO

On May 9, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer rejected his automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it appeared to be expired, and the employer was not aware that USCIS recently expanded the period of the extension to 540 days.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding the increased period of the automatic extension of EADs for individuals with certain EAD category codes, and the employer volunteered to invite the worker back to resume his employment.

Provo, UT

On May 10, 2022, IER completed a successful intervention on behalf of an asylum applicant.  The worker had an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that was eligible for a 180‐day extension based on a Form I-797C showing his timely application to renew his work authorization, but in March 2022, the employer terminated his employment on the printed expiration date and told him that the company could rehire him once he received his new card.  Although the worker still had not received his new EAD, in May 2022 he learned that USCIS had increased the extensions from 180 days to 540 days, and he called IER’s hotline for information and assistance.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel and provided information about the worker’s situation and the document extensions. The employer decided to accept the EAD extension, reinstated the worker, and paid him back pay for two months of missed work.

Tampa, FL

On May 11, 2022, IER assisted a caller to return to work after their employer did not accept their automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document. IER contacted the company and provided information regarding Automatic Extensions of EADs and the employer decided to allow the caller to return to work.

Miami, FL

On May 12, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant who whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended for 540 days based on a timely filed renewal application. The asylum applicant called IER’s hotline after a prospective employer told him they would not accept his extended EAD. IER contacted the employer and shared information about the extension, and the employer agreed to accept the extended EAD for the Form I-9.

New York, NY

On May 12, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a worker whose employer would not accept her proof of eligibility for a 540-day extension of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Because the worker's original 180-day EAD extension was set to expire in June, her employer instructed her to present proof of continued work authorization. The worker sent her employer a link to USCIS's announcement of the 540-day EAD extension, but the employer insisted that the worker was not eligible for the extension unless she presented a new receipt notice from USCIS that specifically stated she was eligible for the 540-day extension. IER contacted the employer and provided information from the USCIS website regarding the recently-announced extensions, including instructions on how to determine if someone with a notice referring to 180-day extensions was eligible for the new 540-day extension. After reviewing this information, the employer accepted the worker's documentation and allowed her to continue working.

Kissimmee, FL

On May 16, 2022, IER learned that it had assisted an asylum applicant whose employer rejected her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it appeared to be expired, and the employer was not aware that USCIS recently expanded the period of the extension to 540 days.  The caller had previously been placed on leave when her original 180-day extension expired.  IER spoke with the attorney for the employer, and upon learning of the new extension, the employer invited the caller back to work, and began the process of reaching out to others on its workforce that it had had to place on leave because of expiring documents. 

Sugar Land, TX

On May 16, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a U.S. citizen in explaining to his employer that they could accept his naturalization certificate as a work authorization document for the Form I-9. The individual had been told that her naturalization certificate could not be entered into the employer’s onboarding software. The IER staffer contacted the employer and was able provide information about types of acceptable documents for the Form I-9. The caller subsequently was able to be onboarded to work for the employer.

Danbury, CT

On May 17, 2022, IER received a call from a refugee’s representative who reported that the worker's employer requested that she present a renewed Employment Authorization Document (EAD) when her EAD expired and did not accept her unrestricted Social Security card. Employers are not allowed to request specific documents from employees or reject facially valid documentation when verifying or reverifying work authorization. When reverification is required, employers must allow workers to present any valid List A or List C document, which includes an unrestricted Social Security card. After IER provided this information to the employer, the employer decided to accept the worker's unrestricted Social Security card and allow her to return to work.

Chicago, IL

On May 17, 2022, IER received a call from a worker who reported her employer requested additional documents from her for the Form I-9 even though the caller had already presented sufficient documentation. IER contacted the employer and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of documents during the employment eligibility verification process and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to invite the worker to return to work immediately. 

Chicago, IL

On May 17, 2022, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen who presented his valid driver’s license and a receipt showing he applied for a replacement Social Security card which the employer refused to accept.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained that a receipt for a replacement document is a valid receipt that can be used for 90 days from the date of hire.  The staffer further explained that an individual who meets the I-9 requirements should not have their valid receipt rejected because of the employer’s past experience with workers not returning with the actual document.  As a result of IER’s intervention, the employer accepted the employee’s receipt and was able to immediately place the worker.

Houston, TX

On May 19, 2022, IER learned that a worker’s employer terminated him when the expiration date listed on his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) passed. The employer was unaware that the worker qualified for an automatic 540-day extension of his expired EAD. IER reached out to the employer and the employer allowed the worker to return to work. 

Miami, FL

On May 19, 2022, a worker called IER’s hotline to tell us that her employer would not accept her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because the expiration date listed on the card had passed. The employer was unaware that the worker qualified for an automatic 540-day extension of her expired EAD. IER reached out to the employer and the employer invited the worker to return and begin work immediately. 

Naples, FL

On May 20, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident by explaining to her employer that a driver’s license and Social Security card are sufficient types of documentation for the Form I-9. The individual had been told she needed to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to begin work. The IER staffer contacted the employer and was able provide information about types of acceptable documents for the Form I-9. The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and onboarded her.

Tampa, FL

On May 23, 2022, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).  The caller shared that his employer notified him that his Permanent Resident Card was due to expire and that if he did not bring in updated authorization by the expiration date the employer would have to terminate his employment.  IER called the employer and explained that a permanent resident who decides to provide their unexpired Permanent Resident Card at the time of initial hire is not reverified and their work authorization is permanent.  IER provided USCIS citations and reference materials to the employer.  After IER provided the guidance to the employer, the employer informed the worker that he did not need to provide any additional documentation.

Braselton, GA

On May 23, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer did not want to proceed with the rehire process because it was uncertain about a 540-day extension on the worker’s Employment Authorization Document, which had previously been extended for 180 days.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding the recent announcement of a 540-day extension, and explained that a receipt notice that describes the 180-day extension is valid for the 540-day extension as well.  The employer volunteered to reinitiate the caller’s re-hire process.

Boynton Beach, FL

On May 23, 2022, a worker called IER’s hotline to share that her employer believed it had to terminate her because it believed her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was expired. The EAD was extended under USCIS’s recent 540-day extension announcement for certain EADs but the employer insisted on seeing a letter from USCIS before it would re-hire the worker. IER reached out to the employer and the employer invited the worker to return to work.

Pasadena, CA

On May 24, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer was attempting to reverify her work authorization because the Permanent Resident Card she showed at hire had since expired.  IER contacted the employer to provide USCIS’s guidance explaining that employers should not reverify Permanent Resident Cards. The employer decided not to reverify the caller’s work authorization. 

Massachusetts

On May 25, 2022, IER assisted a worker in renewing her driver’s license.  The caller had an Employment Authorization Document that had been automatically extended but the DMV did not initially accept it.  IER called the DMV and the DMV recognized it had entered the information incorrectly, and was able to fix the error and issue the caller her driver’s license.

West Virginia

On May 26, 2022, IER saved the job of an employment-authorized non-U.S. citizen who was hired as a teacher.  The employer did not want to continue onboarding the worker because she had a facially expired Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The caller’s EAD was extended under USCIS’s recent 540-day extension.  After IER contacted the employer and provided information about these types of extensions, the employer decided to accept the caller’s EAD with the I-797C Notice of Action demonstrating the extension, and continued onboarding the worker. 

Chicago, IL

On May 26, 2022, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).  The caller’s employer refused to accept the LPR’s unexpired foreign passport and MRIV – machine-readable immigrant visa with the notation “Upon Endorsement Serves as Temporary I-551 Evidencing Permanent Resident for 1 year.” This is an acceptable List A document for the Form I-9.  The employer was requesting additional documents.  IER contacted the employer and explained that the MRIV with the I-551 endorsement presented with a valid unexpired foreign passport was an acceptable combination of documents and can be used as a List A document.  IER provided USCIS citations and other reference materials to the employer.  After IER provided the guidance to the employer, the employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation.

Clermont, FL

On June 3, 2022, IER saved the job of an employment-authorized non-U.S. citizen.  The caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had originally been extended for 180 days and recently was extended longer under a recently-announced 540-day EAD extension.  The employer was unaware of the recent 540-day extension announcement and did not want to continue employing the worker past the expiration of the prior 180-day extension.  IER called the employer and explained the eligibility requirements for the 540-day extension, and the employer decided to accept the extended EAD with the I-797C Notice of Action to continue employing the worker.

Kissimmee, FL

On June 7, 2022, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer mistook the worker’s Permanent Resident Card as an Employment Authorization Document at initial hire.  The employer attempted to reverify the caller’s work authorization, and demanded the worker show the same type of document the worker had at initial hire or face termination.  When IER contacted the employer, the employer reviewed its records and realized that the Form I-9 had been improperly completed and incorrect.  The company corrected the Form I-9 and the caller continued to work without further issue.

Salem, OR

On June 9, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer initially rejected her Form I-797 receipt notice showing she had applied to replace her lost Permanent Resident Card. The employer rejected her documentation and suspended her without pay for over two weeks. IER intervened by contacting the employer and explaining that workers may present a receipt showing that the worker has applied to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged List A, B, or C document, and the receipt is valid for the Form I-9 for 90 days from the first day of work. The company decided to reinstate the worker and pay her backpay for the work she missed.

Boston, MA

On June 9, 2022, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer was requiring him to complete an electronic Form I-9 when the worker preferred to complete a paper form.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information about the availability of the paper version of the Form I-9, and the employer agreed to allow the worker to complete the form without using the employer’s electronic I-9 software.

Maryland

On June 15, 2022, IER received a call from a student U-visa holder who was unable to enroll in college because it would not accept the documents she presented as proof of lawful residence in the United States. IER contacted the school and provided information on the type of documentation the caller was providing. On August 4, 2022, IER learned that the college had accepted the student’s documents and the student anticipates being able to enroll in classes.

California

On June 17, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident who presented a temporary I-551 stamp on an I-94 for initial verification. The employer initially rejected this acceptable receipt and suspended the worker.  IER provided the employer information about temporary I-551 stamps, which are receipts for List A documents.  Upon receiving this information, the employer contacted the worker and allowed her to return to work. The employer also decided to give the worker backpay for the time she had missed work.

Brownsville, TX

On June 23, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer was preparing to reject his automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because he was nearing the end of his 180-day extension, and the employer was not aware that USCIS recently expanded the period of the extension to 540 days.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding the increased period of the automatic extension of employment authorization documents for individuals with certain EAD category codes, and the employer volunteered to allow the worker to continue his employment.

Miami, FL

On June 23, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported his employer suspended him during the reverification of his Form I-9. The employer had told the caller that the 540-day automatic extension that applies to certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) does not apply to individuals from the country the caller is from.  The employer therefore would not accept the caller’s extended EAD. IER called the employer and explained the requirements for the automatic extension of certain EADs, which does not depend on the country of origin. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to reinstate the worker, who was able to return to work the same day.

Colorado Springs, CO

On June 23, 2022, IER learned that an asylum applicant was going to be hired after an employer initially refused to accept her valid employment documents. The worker had presented an I-797 letter confirming the automatic extension of her Employment Authorization Document to a retailer, but her employer refused to accept the documentation. The worker called IER and IER called the employer. The employer decided to accept the worker’s extended EAD and she began work immediately.

Mission, KS

On June 24, 2022, a naturalized U.S. citizen called IER because an employer rejected his Certificate of Naturalization when completing the Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer to share publicly available information explaining that the Certificate of Naturalization is a valid List C document.  The employer decided to accept the document and continue onboarding the employee.

Auburn, NY

On June 24, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer rejected her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it appeared to be expired, and the employer was not aware that USCIS recently expanded the period of the extension to 540 days.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding the increased period of the automatic extension of EADs for individuals with certain EAD category codes. The employer then accepted the document and allowed the worker to continue in the onboarding process.

Tacoma, TX

On June 24, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended for 540 days based on a timely filed renewal application. The asylum applicant called IER’s hotline after their employer asked them to present an updated receipt notice confirming the 540-day extension. IER contacted the employer and shared USCIS’s announcement that it was sending such updated receipt notices only to recipients of incorrect receipt notices issued between May 4 and June 2, 2022. Because the employee had received their receipt notice prior to May 4, 2022, the employer confirmed that no additional documentation was expected or needed from the employee at this time.

North Carolina

On June 24, 2022, a U visa holder called the hotline because his employer rejected his U visa I-94 during I-9 reverification and terminated him.  IER called the worker’s employer to explain that U visa holders have work authorization incident to their status and that their I-94s serve as valid List C documents for reverification.  On July 29, 2022, the employer informed IER that it would be reinstating the worker.

Colorado

On June 28, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention allowing an asylum applicant to renew his commercial driver’s license, which he needed work. The Department of Motor Vehicles did not initially accept the caller’s extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) which he presented to demonstrate his immigration status. IER contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles and provided information on the 540-day extension of certain EADs. IER also contacted USCIS which was able to verify the asylum applicant’s status, and the Department of Motor Vehicles decided to issue the requested commercial driver’s license.

Manassas, VA

On July 1, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer rejected his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it appeared to be expired. The employer dismissed the worker’s efforts to show that his EAD was eligible for up to 540 days past the listed expiration date.  IER contacted the employer and explained DHS’s recently issued temporary rule on the extension of certain EADs for up to 540 days.  IER sent the employer documents and links and after reviewing them, the employer decided to accept the worker’s EAD and paid the worker $504 for three days of lost wages.

Laurel, MD

On July 6, 2022, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer rejected her Social Security card during the employment eligibility verification process.  IER reached out to the employer and learned that the employer rejected the document because the last name listed on her Social Security card appeared to have a slight misspelling of her last name as presented on her state ID.  Following IER’s intervention, the worker was invited to return to the worksite, and after examining the worker’s documents in person, the employer determined that it reasonably appeared to be genuine and to relate to the worker, and allowed her to proceed with the onboarding process.

Arizona

On July 8, 2022, IER assisted a caller in renewing his driver’s license.  The DMV did not initially allow the caller to show her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to show her lawful presence because of the expiration date listed on the card.  The DMV representative was unaware that the caller’s EAD was valid for an additional 540 days. IER reached out to the DMV and the DMV determined the extended EAD met its requirements and issued the caller her new driver’s license.

Indianapolis, IN

On July 12, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported his employer had refused to accept the documentation the worker presented for the Form I-9, which consisted of evidence that he qualified for a 540-day extension of his Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the employer and explained the requirements for the automatic extension of certain EADs and that workers have a right to choose which document(s) to present for the Form I-9, including during reverification. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided not to suspend the worker.

San Jose, CA

On July 12, 2022, IER assisted a J-1 visa holder whose employer rejected her valid documentation for Form I-9 purposes.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information from the Department of Homeland Security on documentation available to J-1 visa holders and the employer decided to allow her to continue with her onboarding.

Tama, IA

On July 13, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer improperly reverified and terminated her after she failed to produce an unexpired Permanent Resident Card.  After an IER attorney explained to the company that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified, the company decided to rehire the worker and provide her with $494 in back-pay for time missed due to the error.  The official also assured IER that he would train his staff on when reverification is required and prohibited.

Compton, CA

On July 18, 2022, a lawful permanent resident called IER’s hotline because his employer demanded that he provide a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9, even after the caller had provided his driver’s license and Social Security card. IER reached out to the employer and provided guidance from USCIS’s Employer Handbook as well as other I-9 Guidance from USCIS. The employer invited the worker to begin work the following day.

Ann Arbor, MI

On July 19, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident whose new employer refused to accept a receipt during the Form I-9 process. The receipt showed that the worker had applied to replace his Permanent Resident Card, which had been stolen.  IER explained to the employer that all workers may present such a document for the Form I-9 as a receipt good for 90 days from the date of hire. The employer decided to accept the receipt and continue with onboarding.

Miami, FL

On July 20, 2022, a worker called IER hotline and reported her employer suspended her during the reverification of the Form I-9. The employer was apparently unaware of the 540-day automatic extension that applies to certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), and had told the worker she needed to show a personalized document from USCIS stating she qualified for the extension. IER called the employer and explained the requirements for the automatic extension of certain EADs and that workers have a right to choose which document(s) to present for the Form I-9. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to reinstate the worker, who was able to return to work without delay.

Dallas, TX

On July 20, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported her employer suspended her due to a potential Form I-9 issue. The employer was apparently unaware of the 540-day automatic extension that applies to certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), and had refused to accept the documentation the worker presented for the Form I-9. IER called the employer and explained the requirements for the automatic extension of certain EADs and that workers have a right to choose which document(s) to present for the Form I-9. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to reinstate the worker, who was able to return to work without delay.

Paramus, NJ

On July 20, 2022, a worker called the IER hotline and reported her start date was delayed because even though she had submitted sufficient documentation for the Form I-9, her employer insisted on seeing additional documentation. IER called the employer and explained that workers get to decide which acceptable document(s) to show for the Form I-9. Based on the information IER provided, the employer decided to proceed with the worker’s onboarding without delay.

Saratoga Springs, UT

On July 21, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended for 540 days based on a timely filed renewal application. The asylum applicant called IER’s hotline after his employer told him that he needed to present additional documentation showing continued work authorization to keep his job. IER contacted the employer and shared information about the extension. The employer decided to accepted the EAD and not ask for additional documentation.

Jonesboro, AR

On July 21, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose new employer told her that because she was not a U.S. citizen, she needed to present a List A document for the Form I-9. IER contacted the employer, explained that all workers may present their choice of acceptable documents for the Form I-9, and discussed USCIS rules about various forms of acceptable documentation. The employer decided to accept the valid List B and C documents the worker was providing.

Boardman, OR

On July 21, 2022, IER learned that a U-Visa holder could continue working after her employer decided her documents were acceptable. The worker contacted IER because her employer said she would have to stop working if she could not provide new documentation showing continued work authorization. IER spoke with the worker’s representative and the company to determine that her work authorization was extended for one year by virtue of her U-Visa status because she had timely filed for permanent residency. The employer already had the documents on file and decided to allow the worker to continue working.

Texas

On July 26, 2022, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a worker who was hired by a school but was barred from starting work because the district would not accept her proof of eligibility for a 540-day extension of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). The worker presented an EAD with a March 2022 expiration date along with an acceptable receipt notice to demonstrate her eligibility for the 540-day extension, but the district insisted that she present a new EAD. IER contacted the school district and provided information about the 540-day extension. The employer decided to accept the worker's documentation and cleared her to begin working.

Dallas, TX

On July 27, 2022, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that had been extended past the listed May 2022 expiration date.  The caller’s employer would not accept the automatically extended EAD plus the receipt notice demonstrating the extension.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on EAD extensions such as the caller’s. The employer decided to allow the caller to continue working.

Clifton,  NJ

On July 27, 2022, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that had been extended beyond the listed expiration date in March 2022.  However, the employer thought the caller needed present another EAD and terminated her.  IER explained to the employer that some EADs are extended based on timely file renewal applications and provided USCIS guidance on these extensions.  The employer decided to bring the caller back to work and accept their documentation.

Massachusetts

On July 29, 2022, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a hotline caller who was trying to renew her driver’s license. The caller reported that the Department of Motor Vehicles would not accept the extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) she presented demonstrating her legal status. IER contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles and provided information on the 540-day extension of certain EADs. The Department of Motor Vehicles decided that the EAD the caller provided met its requirements and she was able to renew her driver’s license.

Massachusetts

On July 29, 2022, IER received a call from an individual who was having difficulty renewing his Driver’s License using his automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). IER contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and explained the types of EADs that may be covered by an automatic extension, despite the expiration date printed on the card. After IER contacted the DMV, the DMV confirmed that the individual’s license had been successfully renewed.

Akron, PA

On August 1, 2022, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer misunderstood that a Permanent Resident Card does not require reverification.  The employer had attempted to reverify the worker’s work authorization, and demanded the worker to provide a new Permanent Resident Card or be suspended.  IER contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards do not require reverification.  The worker was allowed to continue working for the company without further issue.

Vermont

On August 1, 2022, IER helped a U.S. citizen keep her job after her employer requested a new identification document. The caller had shown an interim ID when she began her job, together with her birth certificate.  The employer mistakenly believed the interim ID was a receipt and requested a new document 90 days after the caller showed her interim ID.  The employer told the caller she would not be able to continue working without a new document.  IER contacted the employer and shared guidance from USCIS explaining that temporary IDs are treated like other List B documents and do not require reverification.  The employer decided it did not need to see additional documentation and the caller continued to work without interruption.

Maryland

On August 5, 2022, IER assisted an applicant for adjustment of status to obtain a driver’s license after her local motor vehicles office initially rejected her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document.  IER provided the state with information about the automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Documents and the caller was able to get a new driver’s license.

Jackson Hole, WY

On August 8, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant in keeping his job. The caller’s employer initially requested a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) even though the caller’s current EAD had been extended for 540 days. The caller had provided the receipt notice showing his EAD had been extended but the company believed the caller needed to show a new EAD instead.  IER contacted the company and provided information on USCIS’s 540-day EAD extensions. The company decided the caller’s documentation was sufficient and the caller continued to work without interruption.

Salt Lake City, UT

On August 11, 2022, IER learned that a worker who indicated that she was a VAWA recipient was fired after her employer refused to accept her Employment Authorization Document, which listed the worker’s current legal name, her maiden name. IER provided the employer information from the Department of Homeland Security on examining documentation. Following the contact from IER, the employer allowed the worker to continue to work.

Huntington, NY

On August 15, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an adjustment applicant. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) listed an upcoming expiration date, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions. 

Boston, MA

On August 15, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant from Haiti. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an upcoming expiration date, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Boston, MA

On August 16, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an adjustment applicant from Haiti. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an upcoming expiration date, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Hialeah, FL

On August 18, 2022, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended for 540 days based on a timely filed renewal application.  The asylum applicant’s new employer believed that under USCIS rules, onboarding could not continue unless the worker showed additional documentation that her EAD had been extended for more than 180 days.  IER spoke to the employer and shared USCIS guidance and the regulation that expanded the 180-day EAD extension to 540 days. The employer decided to accept the worker’s extended EAD and continue onboarding without additional documentation.

Colorado

On August 23, 2022, IER learned that it successfully assisted a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines to receive the badge they needed to access their job at an airport. The airport’s badging office believed that the worker needed to show a Permanent Resident Card for the badging process, even though the worker provided an unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card. An IER staffer contacted the airport’s badging office and TSA, which decided the caller didn’t need to show an immigration document for this process. The caller subsequently received a new airport badge and started his new job.

Dallas, TX

On August 26, 2022, a worker called because her employer was not allowing the caller or her daughter to show their automatically-extended Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), based on language in the receipt notices referring to a 180-day extension. IER contacted the employer to inform it that workers who qualified for the 180-day extension would not be receiving a new letter with the 540-day extension, but they were still eligible. On September 2, 2022, the employer decided to accept the documentation and allowed the workers to onboard.

Chicago, IL

On August 29, 2022, IER assisted a worker on a temporary work visa whose employer had refused to provide documentation needed to renew her visa. IER contacted the employer and the employer identified some miscommunication on the subject and decided to provide the necessary documentation.

New York, NY

On September 6, 2022, IER received a call from an asylum applicant who reported that his employer, a security services company, terminated his employment and said he could not return until he presented a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Although the EAD the caller previously presented to the employer was facially expired, EADs with certain category codes are considered automatically extended by 540 days when presented with a Form I-797C receipt showing that the worker applied for a renewal EAD under the same eligible category code before the printed expiration date on the EAD. The caller had presented such a Form I-797C receipt with his EAD to prove the 540-day extension, but the employer did not honor the full term of the extension. After IER contacted the company’s representative to provide information about automatic extensions of EADs, the company decided to allow the worker to return to work and provided back pay for the work the caller missed due to this issue.

Texas

On September 8, 2022, IER helped a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiary renew his driver’s license after the DMV initially would not accept his automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  IER contacted the DMV and provided information on TPS extended EADs and the DMV determined the documentation met its requirements and issued a new driver’s license.

Harrisonburg, VA

On September 13, 2022, IER intervened to assist a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had shown his valid Permanent Resident Card (PRC) when he started his job two months prior. However, the employer requested that the worker show a new PRC when that PRC card expired. The worker called IER, and IER contacted the employer and explained that a PRC should not be reverified. The employer decided to drop the request for a new PRC and told the worker he did not need to present any additional documents.

New York, NY

On September 13, 2022, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer asked for new documentation when his Permanent Resident Card expired.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about reverification, which does not require lawful permanent residents who show Permanent Resident Cards upon initial hire to show a new document when their card expires.  With this information, the employer did not require the worker to show any new documents and he was able to continue in his employment. 

Orlando, FL

On September 15, 2022, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an asylum applicant. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an upcoming expiration date, but was automatically extended for 540 days based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The employer was also confused by language in the worker’s receipt notice that referred to a 180-day extension. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and provided guidance from USCIS on how to determine if an EAD has a 540-day extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Garland, TX

On September 16, 2022, a lawful permanent resident called the IER hotline and reported she was terminated after she was asked to present a Permanent Resident Card, even though she had already produced sufficient documentation for the Form I-9. IER spoke with the employer and explained that workers have a right to choose which document(s) to present for the Form I-9. The employer decided to pay the worker for the work already performed and reinstate the worker.

Middletown, KY

On September 19, 2022, a worker called IER’s hotline to tell us that his employer rejected his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and his I-797 showing the EAD had been extended past the expiration date listed on the card. IER reached out to the company and provided guidance from the M-274 as well as other guidance from USCIS’s website. The following day, the employer called the worker and invited him to return to work.

Patterson, NJ

On September 21, 2022, IER helped an asylum applicant whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was extended past the expiration date listed on the card.  Months before his EAD’s listed expiration date, the caller received a I-797C stating that USCIS received his request for a new EAD.  The caller’s employer thought the caller needed to present another EAD and terminated him.  IER provided the employer information on EAD extensions like the one the caller had. The employer understood and decided to allow the caller to return to work, and paid the caller for the week of work he missed.

San Diego, CA

On September 21, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully intervened to save the job of a conditional permanent resident, who was terminated when his Permanent Resident Card (aka Green Card) expired. The worker presented an unexpired Green Card when he started working at the company and the company asked for additional documents when the Green Card expired and then terminated the caller when he didn’t meet the company’s request. IER contacted the company and provided information that reverification of work authorization is not necessary when a Green Card expires. After reviewing the information IER provided, the company decided to re-hire the employee and provide full back pay.

McLean, VA

On September 23, 2022, IER learned that it helped a Lawful Permanent Resident move forward in the hiring process after the employer initially refused to accept his documentation. The worker presented an ID and an unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer specifically requested to see his Permanent Resident Card. IER contacted the company and provided information about workers having the right to choose which acceptable documentation to provide during the Form I-9 process. After reviewing the information provided, the company decided to move forward with the worker’s onboarding.

Texas

On September 26, 2022, IER helped a non-U.S. citizen get his driver’s license.  The caller had been told by the DMV that he needed to show a green card to show his lawful presence.  IER contacted the agency and provided information about the caller and pointed to TXDPS regulations allowing non-U.S. citizens to show a variety of documentation. TX DPS then arranged for a new appointment for the caller to allow him to take his driver’s test to obtain his license.

Fiscal Year 2021

Brooklyn, NY

On October 5, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a worker with a U Visa who had applied to become a lawful permanent resident.  The worker contacted IER because her employer told her she could not continue working after her Employment Authorization Document expired.  IER provided information from USCIS that explained that an I-797 can indicate an extension of status and be used to verify employment authorization for the Form I-9 while a U Visa holder’s application to adjust status to lawful permanent resident is pending.  The employee was able to continue working for her employer based on this information.

Monroe, NY

On October 8, 2020, IER saved the job of an 18-year old who presented an unrestricted Social Security card and a school ID to work at a home health company. The company rejected the school ID because of confusion regarding its expiration date. The employer also asked the worker to present a birth certificate instead of a Social Security card to verify the caller’s age under a separate State requirement. The worker’s aunt called IER and IER called the company. IER explained that workers can present their choice of documentation for the Form I-9, and that Form I-9 requirements are unrelated to other potential document requirements. IER also provided information about list B documents such as a school ID, including USCIS’s temporary policies allowing employers to accept List B documents that expired after March 1, 2020. The employer decided that the documentation met Form I-9 requirements, allowing the worker to start his job.

Houston, TX

On October 9, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who contacted IER because her employer was reverifying her work authorization due to an upcoming expiration date on the caller’s Permanent Resident Card.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on proper reverification practices, including that employers are not to ask for updated documentation based on an expiring Permanent Resident Card.  As a result of IER’s actions, the LPR can continue to work. 

Griffin, GA

On October 22, 2020, IER saved the job of a worker who was going to be fired because his employer believed his Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) had expired.  The worker’s EAD had been automatically extended for 180 days and IER contacted the employer to provide information about these types of automatic extensions.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s EAD and receipt notice demonstrating the extension.  

Chicago, IL

On October 31, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer was going to terminate her employment for failing to mail own copies of Form I-9 documentation within 3 days of her hire date, even though the worker had offered other methods of providing copies.  IER pointed the employer to information about employer’s responsibilities in the Form I-9 process, including that typically the employer is responsible for making copies of Form I-9 document if the employer is maintaining copies.  The employer decided not to terminate the worker.  

San Bernardino, CA

On November 6, 2020, a worker called IER for assistance after being suspended during the reverification process.  The caller has an automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and IER provided the employer copies of her EAD and receipt notice demonstrating the extension.  The employer accepted the documents and the caller returned to her job.  

Louisville, KY

On November 9, 2020, an employee called IER because her employer would not accept her driver’s license stating “Not Acceptable For Federal Purposes.”  IER called the employer and provided guidance from the Department of Homeland Security stating that a driver’s license with this type of notation is an acceptable List B document if it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and address.  An employee may show a List B driver’s license together with a List C document that establishes the employee’s work authorization.  The employer decided to accept the driver’s license and the worker started her job.

Lawrence, NY

On November 16, 2020, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The worker’s Permanent Resident card is due to expire on November 28, 2020, and the employer requested that the worker bring in a new permanent resident card or the worker would be terminated.  IER called the employer and explained that permanent residents who decide to present their unexpired permanent resident card at the time of hire are not subject to reverification when their card expires, and that their legal right to work does not expire when the card expires.  IER provided the employer with USCIS’s guidance on permanent residents.  As a result, the employer did not require the employee be reverified. IER also provided the employer with IER’s Employer Hotline number for future assistance.  

Elmhurst, IL

On November 16, 2020, IER completed a hotline intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The worker was asked by his employer to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one he used to complete the Form I-9 at time of hire had since expired. The worker called IER’s hotline and IER contacted the employer to explain that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. IER directed the employer to USCIS guidance on this topic, and informed the employer about IER’s outreach, including employer webinars and the employer hotline. The worker was allowed to continue working without providing more documentation of work authorization.

Lanham, MD

On November 18, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who was turned away from a job because the employer believed she needed sponsorship to be able to work.  The caller had explained that although she is an LPR, she did not require visa sponsorship from the company in which she was applying because she already was authorized to work.  The company, however, rescinded its verbal call offer to the worker based upon its understanding she required sponsorship.  IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, explaining that LPRS are authorized to work in the United States without sponsorship.  The employer opened a new position to the caller that matched the location, title, and pay of the previously-applied position and encouraged her to apply. 

Florida

On November 20, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who was seeking a position with an employer that places workers at various airport authorities.  The caller reported that the employer was unwilling to hire him because his permanent resident card was expired, although he had an ID and unrestricted Social Security card (SSC).  The employer was concerned that the airport badging offices where the worker would be placed would require an unexpired permanent resident card to issue the worker security badges. IER contacted the employer and explained that an ID and SSC was valid for Form I-9.  With that information, the employer agreed to continue with the employee’s onboarding.

Freeport, NY

On December 2, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was not going to be rehired for a seasonal position.  The caller provided an unexpired Permanent Resident Card when he was hired but his card had subsequently expired.  IER pointed the employer to USCIS’s instructions for when a seasonal employee is resuming employment and the employer decided not to require a new document. 

Denver, CO

On December 2, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was going to be fired because the Permanent Resident Card the worker showed at hire had since expired.  IER contacted the employer and pointed it to USCIS guidance explaining that employers should not reverify Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer decided not to request any additional documentation. 

Phoenix, MD

On December 4, 2020, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a Micronesian caller whose employer did not accept as a valid List A document for the Form I-9 the caller’s Micronesian passport with a Form I-94 indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI.  An IER staffer contacted the employer and and employer said that the company’s internal I-9 software did not accept the document.  The representative resolved the problem by accepting the worker’s passport and completing the I-9 process.  The worker was able to continue working with any disruption.

Glendale, CA

On December 7, 2020, IER saved the job of an adjustment applicant whose employer told him that he must present additional proof of his work authorization even though the caller’s Employment Authorization Document expired had been automatically extended.  The caller’s employer did not accept the Notice of Action demonstrating the automatic extension, and believed it had to terminate the employee.  IER explained that an employee’s EAD may be combined with the Notice of Action showing both the renewal application was timely filed and the same qualifying eligibility category as that on the expired work permit, to demonstrate the extended validity of the work permit for 180 days.  The employer accepted the documentation and the employee continued working.

New Iberia, LA

On December 8, 2020, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker was asked to produce her State Driver’s License and Social Security card for the Form I-9 even though the work provided her valid U.S. Passport, which is a List A document.  The employer believe it was not acceptable and that a Social Security card was needed.  IER called the employer and explained that the U.S. Passport is an acceptable List A document establishing identity and work authorization document, and that an employer cannot request specific documents that appear to be genuine and relate to the employee.  IER also provided the employer with USCIS’s guidance on acceptable Form I-9 documents.  As a result, the employer accepted the worker’s documentation.  IER also provided the employer with IER’s Employer Hotline number for future guidance.

New York, NY

On December 8, 2020, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a worker on post-completion OPT status.  The worker had previously obtained an approved I-20 and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) with an expiration date for June 2021 when he worked for his first employer.  When the worker changed employers and was hired by the new employer, the new employer refused to accept the worker’s valid EAD absent a renewed I-20.  IER contacted the employer and provided the employer with USCIS’s guidance on acceptable Form I-9 documents and OPT individuals. The employer decided to accept the worker’s EAD and allowed him to begin to work.

Key Largo, FL

On December 11, 2020, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer did not accept his valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card during the Form I-9 process, and instead required that he provide a permanent resident card. An IER staffer contacted the company’s HR department several times. They acknowledged the error and accepted the List B and C documents.  The employer also paid the worker $382.28 for the three days he missed due to the employer’s actions. 

Portland, OR

On December 15, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer rejected his foreign passport with an I-551 stamp as proof of employment eligibility. IER contacted the Employer and provided information from the Handbook for Employers M-274 explaining that a foreign passport with an unexpired I-551 stamp is a List A document.  After reviewing the information, the Employer voluntarily reinstated the worker and paid him $1,200 in lost wages. The Employer further volunteered to have its recruiters at the office where this occurred attend an IER webinar.

San Juan, PR

On December 21, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was not going to be rehired for a temporary position with same employer because of her Permanent Resident Card had expired.  IER explained to the employer it was not appropriate to require an updated LPR card for a worker who had presented it already before its expiration date and that LPR cards is one of the documents that do not require re-verification upon its expiration date. Also instructed worker on options available to her and referral to USCIS if she decided to renew her LPR or if she needed more information.

Norristown, PA

On December 23, 2020, IER successfully intervened to save the job of a T visa holder at a landscaping company.  The worker’s advocate called IER’s hotline to request assistance because his employer was going to terminate him after rejecting the worker’s receipt notice indicating that his T visa status has been extended.  IER provided the employer information from the Department of Homeland Security on the receipt notice establishing a one-year extension of work authorization.  The employer decided that the worker could continue working. 

Portland, OR

On December 31, 2020, IER intervened and saved the job of a Micronesian citizen.  She presented an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) at the time of initial hire and then showed a List C unrestricted Social Security card for reverification.  The employer rejected her documentation, insisting that the worker present a new EAD or a Form I-94. IER contacted the employer and provided information about proper reverification procedures, including that workers have the right to choose which valid List A or List C document to show for reverification.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker.

Brawley, CA

On January 11, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer requested additional documents after an identity mismatch on a facial recognition time clock.  The company initially stated that the worker’s employment would be terminated if she failed to provide additional identity documents, different from the ones she provided for the Form I-9, within two weeks.  After IER spoke with the employer, it recognized its error in relying on the facial recognition time clock that had, in the past, also incorrectly flagged the same worker with a mismatch. The employer allowed her to continue working without providing any additional documentation. 

Hamburg, NY

On January 13, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The caller provided an unexpired Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9 when the caller completed the Form I-9 and the employer requested a new card when the original card expired, even though Permanent Resident Cards are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the M-274 Handbook for Employers.  The employer allowed the worker to continue to work without any further incident.

Dallas, TX

On January 13, 2021, IER assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen complete the Form I-9 and begin his new job.  The worker had valid List B document along with a List C naturalization certificate but was concerned that the employer would not accept his documentation because the naturalization certified was issued in the 1970s and also had a notation that it could not be copied.  IER provided both the caller and his employer information about this documentation and that employers are allowed to copy a naturalization certificate for Form I-9 purposes, and the employer accepted the worker’s documents. 

Grand Island, NE

On January 15, 2021, IER learned that it helped save the job of a worker at a food manufacturer. The worker provided updated identity information to the company from the information she had provided several years earlier in a job application, due to her having subsequently obtained work authorization in the U.S.  The company initially told the caller that she was not eligible under company policy to work for the company due to having provided incorrect identity information. The worker called IER and IER called the company informally to confirm whether the caller was eligible to work for the company. The company looked into the situation and determined that the worker had not violated the company’s policies and could continue the onboarding process.

Waukevan, IL

On January 25, 2021, a US citizen called IER’s hotline because his employer rejected his receipt for a lost driver’s license (DL) after the worker had initially shown a temporary DL that the employer incorrectly reverified. IER contacted the employer’s counsel, who was very familiar with Form I-9 rules. The attorney explained the mistake to its client and the employer reinstated the worker.

Camden, NY

On January 26, 2021, an IER staff member assisted a U.S. citizen successfully complete Section 3 of the Form I-9.  The worker got married and wanted to update all her employment documents with her married name.  When completing Section 3 of the Form I-9 to update her new last name, the worker provided her employer with a copy of her marriage certificate. The employer rejected it and demanded she provide one document from List A or one document from List C.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and provided it with the relevant citation in the Handbook for Employers (M-274) that explains when workers wish to indicate a name change, they are not subject employment authorization reverification rules. As a result, the employer accepted the worker’s marriage certificate to show the name change in Section 3 of the Form I-9.

California

On January 27, 2021, an IER staff member successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a U.S. citizen federal work study student to begin a job.  The worker provided an unexpired U.S. Passport to the institution, but the employer insisted that he show his Social Security Card (SSC).  IER contacted the school district’s counsel and provided information about acceptable List A documents and also guidance from SSA and IRS stating that while employers are permitted to ask for SSCs, workers may present them “if available.”  The school allowed the student to work. 

Las Vegas, NV

On January 29, 2021, IER received a hotline call from a lawful Permanent Resident worker who had begun a job two weeks prior and had completed his employment verification process.  The worker explained that his employer was requesting his Permanent Resident card (PRC) number but the worker did not have his PRC.  IER contacted the employer to explain the employee’s rights when providing documentation to satisfy the Form I-9 and provided the E-Verify technical help desk to answer his E-Verify questions.  IER also provided to the worker the USCIS customer service number to assist him with obtaining his A number, which he did need to provide to the company for the Form I-9 process even though he did not also need to show the employer a document reflecting the A number.

Meriden, CT

On February 5, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The worker showed an unexpired PRC when hired. The employer then requested a new PRC when it expired, even though PRCs are not subject to reverification under Form I-9 rules.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the Handbook for Employers (M-274).  The employer then allowed the worker to continue working without further issue.

Riverside, CA

On February 8, 2021, IER assisted a Lawful Permanent Resident who was terminated from a construction company.  Upon hire, the caller presented a Permanent Resident Card that listed her maiden name. However, the worker had listed her married name in Section 1 of the Form I-9 and omitted her maiden name from the “other last names used” field. IER explained to both the worker and the employer the significance of the “other last names used” field in Section 1, as well as DHS guidance stating that employers can ask workers to provide verbal explanations regarding a possible difference in name. The worker and employer understood their Form I-9 obligations.

Lyons, NY

On February 16, 2021, a worker on an E-3 visa called, complaining that his employer withheld his wages for six months and had recently not permitted him to work while he waited to receive his Social Security card for payroll purposes.   IER contacted the worker’s employer to provide guidance from the Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service, which states that employees are permitted to work, and wages may not be withheld, while they await Social Security cards.  Following the call, the employer permitted the worker to continue working and paid his previously withheld wages.

Quincy, MA

On February 18, 2021, IER completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR worker. The worker’s employer asked him to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file had expired. The employer insisted that they needed to see an unexpired card or the worker would be placed on a 30-day leave and ultimately terminated. IER contacted the employer and provided resources from USCIS’s I-9 Central explaining that a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The HR director stated that worker would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Pendergrass, GA

On March 2, 2021, IER saved the job of a hotline caller whose employer terminated her several months after presenting a temporary driver license for the Form I-9.  The company had originally classified the temporary driver license as a receipt that expired in 90 days.  IER contacted the employer and provided information, and the employer determined the temporary license was a List B document, not a receipt.  The caller was reinstated and will also receive back pay for missed work.

Richmond, VA

On March 4, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a recently naturalized citizen.  The employer did not think that the worker’s Certificate of Citizenship was valid as a List C document for the Form I-9 because it did not appear on the Lists of Acceptable Documents.  IER contacted the employer and provided information from the USCIS I-9 Central website noting that the Certificate of Citizenship qualifies as an “Employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security,” under List C #7 on the Lists of Acceptable Documents.  The employer then allowed the caller to continue onboarding without further issue. 

Tampa, FL

On March 15, 2021, IER received a hotline call worker who is a lawful permanent resident.  She was allegedly asked by her new employer to show document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because she possessed a Social Security card with the wording “only to be used with the DHS authorization.” The caller believed that her employer wanted paperwork from DHS but not her Permanent Resident Card (PRC).  An IER caked the employer and cleared up the error.  The employer stated it will accept the caller’s PRC. 

Walnut Creek, CA

On March 17, 2021, IER completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident who had not been allowed to start work because her Permanent Resident card was lost in the mail and her employer refused to accept her receipt or I-551 stamp. The worker also possessed an unrestricted Social Security card.  After the worker called IER’s hotline, IER called the employer and provided information on I-9 documents and the employment verification process.  The employer decided to accept the caller’s documentation and allow her start to work.

North Haven, CT

On March 23, 2021, a representative for a Congo national contacted IER because an employer had demanded that the worker present an unexpired EAD in order to reverify his work authorization.  The caller explained that the worker was awaiting his new EAD but possessed an unrestricted Social Security card (SSC), which the employer would not accept.  IER contacted the employer regarding this issue.  On March 26, the employer’s counsel confirmed that the employer accepted the SSC and the reverification issue was resolved.

San Diego, CA

On March 31, 2021, a worker contacted IER, complaining that he had recently been improperly suspended for failing to provide updated reverification documentation. Even though he presented a new EAD a week prior to its expiration date, HR suspended him due to the expiration of his original EAD.  He stated that earlier that morning he received notice that he would be terminated on 4/3 due to his missed days of work, even though he was not permitted to work due to his improper suspension. IER contacted the employer, who acknowledged the problem resulted from an HR employee’s mistake in failing to update his I-9 with his updated EAD information.  The next day the employer asked the employee to return to work and subsequently issued him $756 dollars in back pay resulting from the improper suspension.

Fredericksburg, VA

On April 9, 2021, IER assisted two lawful permanent residents who presented sufficient documentation during the employment eligibility verification process, Form I-9, but were not permitted to work.  A worker advocate who called on behalf of the workers explained that both presented a foreign passport with an I-551 stamp. The employer, however, rejected the workers’ documents and did not permit them to work. IER contacted the employer's legal counsel and after quickly investigating the matter, the employer voluntarily reinstated the workers and paid both workers back pay totaling $2,770.

Prince Williams County, VA

On April 26, 2021, IER received a call from a worker and an email from another worker whose employer rejected their valid Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). The employer claimed that because the EADs expired before the contracts expired, they would not accept the documents. IER intervened and informed the employer’s Human Resources personnel and legal counsel that documents with a future expiration date are acceptable under Form I-9 rules . The employer decided to accept the documents and offer the workers their job back for the upcoming year.

Las Vegas, NV

On May 4, 2021, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident who said that his new employer refused to accept his unexpired state ID, which is a List B document, and unrestricted Social Security card, which is a List C document, as sufficient documentation for the Form I-9. The worker reported that the employer told him that he must present a Permanent Resident Card to begin working. IER called the employer and provided information about the rules of the Form I-9 to the employer. Upon considering the information IER provided, the employer decided to accept the documents the worker presented and allow him to begin working the same day without the need to show more documentation for the Form I-9.

Rochester, NY

On May 7, 2021, a non-U.S. citizen contacted IER about an employer denying him the opportunity to work because he did not have a lawful permanent resident card in his possession. The individual had presented a state identification document and an unrestricted Social Security Card–valid List B and C documents–for the Form I-9 but was nonetheless denied the opportunity to work. IER contacted the employer and provided information, reminding them that all employees may provide their choice of documents from the List of Acceptable Documents and that requesting more or different documents, or rejecting valid, reasonably genuine-looking documents, based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer allowed the worker to begin working on May 17, 2021. 

Pikesville, MD

On May 19, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer did not accept his valid List B and C documents for the Form I-9—specifically, an unexpired U.S. license and an unrestricted Social Security card.  Instead, the employer demanded an unexpired permanent resident card, which the worker was unable to produce.  The employer eventually hired the worker, but not before he missed 10 days of work as a result of the employer’s request.  An IER staffer communicated with the company’s general manager who, after admitting to the error, allowed the worker to begin working and provided him with $1040 in back pay for the missed days of work.

Lancaster, NY

On May 21, 2021, IER saved the job of a worker at a large retail store. The worker had an EAD that was going to expire at the end of May, and she tried to show HR an I-797 receipt from USCIS that extended the validity of her EAD for 180 days. The employer wrongly rejected the receipt and told the worker that she needed to show a new EAD. The worker contacted IER and IER contacted the company. The company’s counsel responded immediately and within 24 hours, corporate HR educated the local HR official about the validity of certain I-797 receipts, and explained how HR officials cannot specify which documents workers can present. The worker did not lose any time off of work.

Candler, NC

On May 24, 2021 IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was initially turned away.  The caller presented a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer would not allow the worker to continue on the job without seeing an unexpired permanent resident card. IER contacted the employer and provided information about Form I-9 rules, reminding them that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer corrected their initial mistake and allowed the worker to retain his employment.

McIntosh, SD

On May 28, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was unable to complete an electronic Form I-9 for a bank contractor. The worker was hired remotely and the employer asked her to complete Section 2 with the representative of her choice. However, the employer used an electronic Form I-9 that required a software download, and the person who the worker selected to complete Section 2 was unable to download that software. The worker asked the company if she could complete a paper Form I-9, and the company said that it was unlawful for it to do so because it used electronic Forms I-9. The worker called IER and IER contacted the contractor. IER provided the contractor with information from a DHS website explaining that employers can have a mix of paper or electronic Forms I-9. The recruiter realized its error and permitted the worker to complete a paper Form I-9.

Fresno, CA

On June 3, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of an asylum applicant whose employer had refused to accept a receipt notice showing that her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) card had been extended.  When the worker presented the receipt notice for reverification of her employment authorization, the employer told the worker her receipt notice was not valid and she would be taken off of the schedule until she received her new EAD.  After IER spoke with the company’s human resources office and provided information about EAD extensions, the company corrected the error and returned the worker to work the following day.

New Britain, CT

On June 4, 2021, a naturalized US Citizen called the hotline explaining that she was scheduled to start a new job soon, but her employer was delaying her start date because HR would not accept her certificate of citizenship (Form N-560).  She was particularly worried about a long delay in her start date since she did not have any other unexpired documentation to prove her work authorization.  At the worker’s request, IER called the employer to share information from USCIS’s I-9 Central webpage that explains that a certificate of citizenship is a valid List C document.  The worker informed IER that the employer ended up accepting her certificate of citizenship, along with her DL, and she was able to onboard on time thanks to IER’s intervention. 

Las Vegas, NV

On June 8, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer had failed to accept his valid employment eligibility documents for reverification.  The worker had presented both a Form I-94 with I-551 stamp and an unrestricted Social Security card, but the HR representative reviewing the documents was unfamiliar with the I-551 stamp appearing on a Form I-94, and asked the worker for a foreign passport.  The worker was suspended from work because the HR representative was unsure whether the company could accept the documents presented. After IER contacted the company’s counsel with information about the worker’s documents, the company decided to accept the unrestricted Social Security card for reverification, reinstated the worker, and paid him five days of back pay to compensate him for the period he was suspended.

Washington, DC

On June 15, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who was scheduled to begin working at a hospital. The worker attempted to show an ID as a List B, and her naturalization certificate as a List C#7 document. The hospital rejected the naturalization certificate because it could not locate the document on the Lists of Acceptable Documents. The worker called IER and IER contacted the hospital’s HR office. IER sent a link to DHS resources confirming that the naturalization certificate is a List C#7, and the company rehired the worker with back pay.

Madison, WI

On June 21, 2021, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident after her employer, a food processing company, had rejected the worker for failing to present a Permanent Resident Card, despite her ability to show a receipt verifying an application to replace a lost card.  IER provided information that the worker’s I-797 receipt showing an application to replace a lost, damaged, or stolen Permanent Resident Card can serve as acceptable receipt proving work authorization for a 90-day period from an employee’s first day of employment.  The company accepted this explanation and the employee was permitted to begin working.

Chicago, IL

On June 28, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of a DACA beneficiary who was fired from an engineering firm after the company rejected the worker’s EAD. A few days after the worker completed the Form I-9, the company’s HR officer told him that it could not continue employing him because his EAD expired in a few months. The worker called IER and IER called the company. The company realized that it misunderstood the significance of the EAD and that workers who have them do not necessarily require sponsorship, and it rehired the DACA beneficiary. 

Tucson, AZ

On June 29, 2021, IER intervened and assisted a U.S. Citizen whose employer asked directly for his Social Security card during onboarding. The worker presented his Certificate of Citizenship and a Driver’s License, but the employer insisted on seeing his Social Security card. IER intervened and informed the employer that a Driver’s License is a list B document and a Certificate of Citizenship is a list C document and enough for Form I-9 purposes. IER also provided guidance to the employer on Form I-9 rules. The employer offered to have the worker begin as soon as possible. 

Jackson, NJ

On July 14, 2021, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had received a Social Security Tentative Non-Confirmation (“SSA”) (“TNC”).  The employer provided the citizen employee with the Further Action Notice (“FAN”), and explained to the employee that the TNC had to be resolved before the employee could continue with orientation and be put on the work schedule.  The employee contacted the SSA and was told that the employer incorrectly typed her SS number into the system.  When the employee told the employer that the number was incorrectly typed, the employer refused to make the correction.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained how to complete the E-Verify process during the pandemic for individuals who receive an SSA TNC and provided the appropriate E-Verify guidance and technical help desk telephone number.  The staffer further explained to the employer that the E-Verify rules do not allow an adverse action, such as delayed orientation or start date or termination to be taken against any employee who receives a TNC, and that employees have eight federal business days to contact the appropriate agency, and that resolving the TNC may take longer.  As a result, the employer immediately scheduled the employee to complete her orientation.

Denver, CO

On July 14, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer, a nonprofit housing organization, refused to accept a List A and B document for the Form I-9 and insisted that the worker provide a permanent resident card.  After the worker said that she didn’t have her permanent resident card and even pointed to IER’s website to explain why she didn’t need to provide it, the organization refused to hire her. An IER attorney spoke to the director of HR, who refused to budge.  When IER later called the executive director, the organization immediately reversed course; it hired the applicant, who started work the following day, and agreed to provide her with $673.92 in back pay for the time she missed due to the error.  The organization also committed to having its HR staff complete an IER webinar.

Pennsylvania

On July 16, 2021, a lawful permanent resident contacted IER because the airport where he worked refused to accept a receipt for the caller’s lost Permanent Resident Card during the process of renewing the caller’s badge. The airport allowed workers to show Form I-9 documentation and receipts for the badge renewal process, but the airport had not accepted the caller’s receipt. IER contacted the employer and explained USCIS’s receipt rule, specifically, that a Form I-797 confirming an application to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged document, is a valid receipt for the employment eligibility verification process. Ultimately, the employer accepted the worker’s documentation and allowed him to renew his badge and return to work. 

Florida

On July 19, 2021, IER saved the job of a conditional permanent resident who for the Form I-9 had presented a List B document and her Permanent Resident Card with a Form I-797 showing the card was extended.  After two weeks, her employer suspended her due to the upcoming expiration date listed on the Permanent Resident Card, and told the caller it would not have hired her had it known her work authorization was going to end shortly after hire.  The worker called IER and IER contacted the company’s counsel to explain that the worker had sufficient documentation to show that she was work authorized.  The company decided to reverify the employee on the proper date and accepted her unrestricted Social Security card, placed her back on the schedule, and paid her $525 in lost wages.

Pompano Beach, FL

On July 22, 2021, a U.S. citizen called IER because his employer was rejecting the caller’s naturalization certificate during the Form I-9 process.  Because the employer had not accepted the naturalization certificate (with the List B document the worker also had presented), her start date was delayed approximately one month.  IER contacted the employer’s corporate counsel to explain that a certificate of naturalization is an acceptable List C document.  The employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation and paid her back pay for the time she was delayed starting her job. 

Carlisle, PA

On July 26, 2021, IER received a hotline call from an asylum applicant with an expired EAD.  He possessed a I-797C with Category code of “C08”.  The employer thought the caller needed to present another EAD.  The IER explained to the owner that individuals with EADs in certain employment eligibility categories who file an EAD renewal application may receive automatic extensions of their expiring EAD for up to 180 days. The extension begins on the date the EAD expires and continues for up to 180 days unless the renewal application is denied. The employer decided to allow her employee to work. 

Collierville, TN

On August 9, 2021, a U.S. citizen called IER because his employer had rejected the caller’s certificate of citizenship in the Form I-9 process.  IER contacted the employer to explain that a certificate of citizenship is a valid List C document, and on August 10, 2021, the employer decided to accept the document.

Atlanta, GA

On August 28, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer, a small consulting company, asked her to provide a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9 after the worker offered her driver’s license and Social Security card.  When an IER attorney called the company, the CEO realized its error and decided to accept the worker’s license and Social Security card.  The CEO also decided to have the company’s HR staff attend an upcoming IER webinar for employer audiences.

Revere, MA

On August 31, 2021, IER learned that it saved the job of an individual authorized to work. The worker had an automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) but her employer rejected it. She contacted IER, and IER contacted the company’s attorney. The company decided to rehire the worker and gave her six days of back pay for the time she missed.

Aurora, CO

On August 31, 2021, IER received a call from a DACA recipient who had been unable to complete the Form I-9 reverification process when her Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) expired because her new EAD was lost in the mail and the employer did not accept the worker’s receipt for the replacement EAD. IER intervened and explained the USCIS receipt rule to the worker and to the employer. After being on unpaid leave for almost a month, the worker was able to present a receipt for a lost EAD and return to work.

Kissimmee, FL

On September 3, 2021, IER assisted an asylum applicant whose employer rejected her automatically extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it appeared to be expired due the expiration date listed on the card.  IER spoke with the employer and provided information regarding the automatic extension of EADs for individuals with certain EAD category codes, and the employer volunteered to invite the worker back and continue with her onboarding.

Douglasville, GA

On September 9, 2021, IER successfully assisted a Lawful Permanent Resident whose employer refused to accept a permanent resident card together with a receipt notice showing the caller had applied to renew their card, for the Form I-9. IER contacted the employer and shared USCIS guidance which states that these two documents are acceptable as a List A document, and that these documents do not need to be reverified. After speaking with IER, the employer decided to accept the documents and allowed the worker to continue the onboarding process. 

Unknown

On September 15, 2021, IER assisted a U visa holder is keeping his job at an airport.  The individual’s work authorization was extended for a year, but the worker’s employer incorrectly believed their work authorization had expired.  The worker’s attorneys contacted IER, and IER contacted the employer and provided information on extensions for certain U visa holders like the worker.  The employer decided not request additional documentation and the worker remained employed.

Gresham, OR

On September 17, 2021, IER learned that an adjustment applicant with a U visa could continue working after her employer decided her documents were acceptable. The worker called IER’s hotline because her employer told her she would have to stop working if she could not provide a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD), because the EAD’s expiration date had passed. IER spoke with the worker’s representative and HR to determine that the worker had an EAD category code that qualifies for a 180‐day extension when presented together with a I-797‐C Action of Notice displaying the matching category code. The employer already had the appropriate I-797‐C on file, and the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working with no interruption. 

New Jersey

On September 22, 2021, IER saved the job of a U visa holder at a security company. The worker had a one-year extension on her work authorization, but her employer erroneously believed her employment authorization had expired. The worker called IER, and IER called the company and provided information about the 1 year extension.  The employer decided to continue the worker’s employment.

New York

On September 24, 2021, IER it helped a U visa holder get an airport badge to access her job at an airport. The airport badging office initially told the worker that it would not accept evidence of the one-year extension on her work authorization, and that it would only grant her a badge for 180 days based on a misunderstanding of the length of her extension. The worker’s attorney called IER, and IER called the attorney for the airport and provided information on extensions for U visa holders like the worker. The badging office decided to issue the worker a badge for the length of her one year work authorization extension. 

 

Fiscal Year 2020

Eagan, MN

On October 15, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was initially turned away.  The caller presented a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer asked to see an immigration document before they would allow her to start work and would not let her start her job because she did not provide the requested document.  IER contacted the employer and provided guidance, reminding them that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful.  The employer decided not to request additional documentation and the worker returned to work.

Indianapolis, IN

On October 16, 2019, an IER attorney received a hotline call from an employer’s counsel who requested assistance regarding whether the employer could accept the documentation a new employee presented for the I-9 process.  The documentation the caller described did not meet Form I-9 requirements because it was a copy of a document.  After additional discussion, however, the attorney discovered that the worker had a valid receipt for the replacement of a lost List A Permanent Resident Card.  IER explained the receipt rule and the employer decided to accept the receipt and onboard the employee.

Raleigh, NC

On October 18, 2019, IER successfully completed an intervention to assist a U-visa holder whose employer refused to allow her to continue to work through the date of her extension of employment authorization.  The worker’s employment authorization had been extended through an I-797 Notice of Action.  IER contacted the employer and provided written information from the Department of Homeland Security about extensions of work authorization for certain T- and U-visa holders.  The employer applied the extension and allowed the worker to return to work.

Boston, MA

On October 30, 2019, IER resolved an issue where a lawful permanent resident (LPR) was not allowed to start work because the employer believed that the LPR could not establish his work authorization.  The caller contacted IER because his employer was requiring him to show a Permanent Resident Card, despite the fact that the caller had already shown sufficient I-9 documentation.  The LPR requested guidance on acceptable work authorization documentation that he should share with his employer, which IER provided.  The employer accepted the guidance and the LPR began his job.

Raleigh, NC

On November 4, 2019, IER received a hotline call from a U-visa recipient whose employer had terminated her because her Employment Authorization had expired, even though the worker had documentation demonstrating her continued work authorization.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about the worker’s I-797C Notice of Action demonstrating that she had applied to adjust her status.  IER further provided general information about U-Visa recipients’ continued work authorization.  The employer decided to offer the worker her job back and also paid the worker $418 in lost wages.  The worker ultimately decided not to return to the job and the company paid the worker for accrued vacation leave.  

Los Angeles, CA

On November 5, 2019, IER received a call from a Lawful Permanent Resident who had been terminated by her employer after not producing a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD) when her prior EAD expired.  The employee recently became a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and informed her employer of that fact and provided evidence of continued work authorization, but the employer did not allow the caller to continue working.  IER contacted the employer and provided a copy of the worker’s Permanent Resident Card.  The employer decided to accept the documentation, the worker returned to work, and the company paid the worker $234 in back pay for the time lost. 

Fort Worth, TX

On November 5, 2019, IER received a hotline call from the representative of a worker whose employer requested that the worker provide a new Employment Authorization (EAD) or Permanent Resident Card by the expiration date of his current EAD. The worker had an unrestricted Social Security card.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about reverification, including that an employee can select any document from either List A or List C for reverification.  The employer decided to accept the worker’s unrestricted Social Security card for reverification.

Raleigh, NC

On November 8, 2019, IER assisted a U visa holder in returning to work after his employer rejected valid documentation showing his continued employment authorization.  The caller had applied for lawful permanent residence and received a receipt notice that can be used to demonstrate his continued work authorization for one year from the expiration of his prior Employment Authorization Document.  The employer did not accept the documentation, though, and would not allow the caller to continue working.  The caller reached out to IER and IER contacted the employer.  The employer decided to accept the documentation and contacted the worker to return to his job.

Adel, IA

On November 14, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who was fired because she was unable meet the employer’s request for a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) during the employment eligibility verification (EEV) process. IER contacted the employer and provided information about the Lists of Acceptable Documents and how to complete the EEV process.  Following the call from IER, the employer decided to accept the documents originally presented by the worker and to pay her $900.00 in back pay for period of time she was not permitted to work.

Las Vegas, NV

On November 15, 2019, IER completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The caller’s employer asked her to produce a new Permanent Resident Card after she card she showed at hire expired.  The caller said that her employer told her not to come back until she could produce one.  The worker called IER’s hotline, and IER contacted the employer to explain that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified.  IER directed the employer to USCIS guidance on this topic, and informed the employer about IER’s outreach, including employer webinars and the employer hotline.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work and gave her back pay for the time she had missed. 

Valley Stream, NY

On November 19, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who contacted IER because her employer sought to reverify her work authorization.  The worker had shown a Permanent Resident Card when she initially completed her Form I-9.  She said that upon the upcoming expiration of that document, her employer stated it would terminate her if she did not provide a specific new immigration document.  IER contacted the employer to inquire about the worker’s situation, and explained that employers should not reverify Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer decided not to request additional document and the worker continued working without further interruption.

Philadelphia, PA

On November 26, 2019, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer requested a valid permanent resident card from the worker when his permanent resident card expired, even though permanent resident cards are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the M-274, as well as IER outreach materials.  The employer reinstated the worker.

Henderson, NV

On December 2, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who was initially turned away from a job because his employer required the caller to show a Permanent Resident Card.  The worker presented his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer did not accept the documentation and requested an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance from USCIS that all employees may provide their choice of valid documents for the Form I-9 process, and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided to accept the caller’s valid documentation and the caller resumed working.  

Texas

On December 30, 2019, IER learned that it had successfully assisted an individual to renew their commercial driver’s license.  The individual had been denied the renewal at the DMV initially because the representative was unfamiliar with the automatic extension of the caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  An IER staffer contacted the DMV and was able to provide information from USCIS on EAD auto-extensions.  The DMV determined that the caller was eligible for a renewed license, which it subsequently issued.

Miami, FL

On January 10, 2020, IER learned that it had saved the job of a recent lawful permanent resident whose employer rejected the worker’s I-94 with a temporary I-551 stamp. IER pointed the employer to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance explaining that these documents may be presented as a receipt for a Permanent Resident Card.  IER also explained that an employer is not allowed to request more or different documentation than required when an employee has already provided valid Form I-9 documentation.  The employer allowed the employee to continue working and decided not to request more documentation.

Providence, RI

On January 16, 2020, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been suspended from work when his Permanent Resident Card expired.  When an employer decides to show an unexpired Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9, the employer should not require the worker to provide any additional documentation when the card later expire.  However, the caller’s employer suspended him from work and also refused to accept other documents proving his employment eligibility.  After the worker and his representative called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer’s counsel and provided information about proper reverification procedures.  The employer allowed the worker to return to work.

Colorado

On January 28, 2020, IER learned that it successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who is a conditional permanent resident and presented a List B document along with List C documentation in the form of the caller’s Permanent Resident Card and an I-797 indicating an extension of his work authorization.  The employer initially rejected the caller’s documentation.  While providing the employer with information about Permanent Resident Card and I-797, IER also informed the employer that workers have the right to present their choice of valid documents, including a driver’s license and unrestricted social security card, which the worker also described having presented.  The employer confirmed that the worker would be allowed to return to work using his choice of documentation.

Zionsville, IN

On February 3, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a worker who was recently hired but whose renewed Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was lost in the mail.  IER was able to assist the employee and the employer understand that the I-797 Notice of Action that the employee received when he applied to replace his lost EAD could be used as a receipt for the replacement of a lost, stolen, or damaged list A document.  The worker returned to work.

Bowling Green, KY

On February 6, 2020, IER assisted an indefinitely work-authorized non-immigrant who called the hotline after he presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was turned away.  The caller presented a valid driver’s license and a Form I-94 Arrival-Departure Record, but the employer would not accept the Form I-94 as a list C document because it did not have an expiration date. IER contacted the employer and pointed it to USCIS guidance about various employment authorization documents issued by DHS to work-authorized non-immigrants, and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The employer decided not to request additional documentation and allowed the caller to begin work. 

Orange County, CA

On February 11, 2020, IER helped a lawful permanent resident begin his job. The worker presented a receipt for the replacement of his lost Permanent Resident Card, which is acceptable for the Form I-9 for 90 days.  The employer thought that it needed to see additional documentation based on a different regulation regarding certain automatically extended documents.  The worker called IER and IER called the employer and explained the difference between the “receipt rule,” under which the caller was showing his receipt, and the separate rule regarding certain automatically extended EADs. The employer was grateful for the explanation and the link to DHS resources that further explain proper Form I-9 procedures.

Montgomery, IL

On February 11, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The recently-arrived caller did not have the requisite years of living the U.S. for a background check that the employer’s background check company was running.  After speaking with the employer and background check company, the employer realized that the background check company was conducting a different background check than the employer requested.  The employer reached out to the background check company regarding the requested background check and the worker was able to proceed with her employment.

Newella, OK

On February 12, 2020, IER received a call from a naturalized U.S. citizen whose employer refused to accept his List C Certificate of Naturalization as proof of his work authorization. An IER attorney talked the employer and forwarded USCIS guidance on Certificates of Naturalization.  Namely, that the Certificate of Naturalization is an acceptable List C employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security.  The employer will accept the document and allow the caller to continue his employment.

Visalia, CA

On February 13, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer insisted on seeing a Social Security card, which the caller did not want to present out of concern for identity theft.  IER reached out to the employer and explained the acceptable documents for the Form I-9 and the employer decided to accept the valid documentation that the caller had presented.

Pennsylvania

On February 27, 2020, IER successfully completed an intervention to assist a naturalized Untied States citizen who was being asked for additional documents to renew his gun permit.  The agency issuing the permit required either a U.S. passport or a naturalization certification but then did not accept the applicant’s U.S. passport, requesting his naturalization certificate.  IER contacted the department to clarify the requirements, and the agency subsequently decided the applicant’s documentation met its requirement and renewed his permit.

Philadelphia, PA

On March 19, 2020, IER learned that it saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker got a job at a home health care agency and the company asked her to present proof of her citizenship status for the Form I-9. The worker knew that she did not need to prove her status and called IER for assistance. IER called the employer and explained that workers do not need to prove their citizenship status for the Form I-9, and that employers cannot limit the acceptable documents workers can present from the Lists of Acceptable Documents. The employer had believed that it was required to get proof of citizenship status from all of its employees and was grateful to learn that it did not have to do that additional work. IER directed the employer to USCIS and IER educational materials on the Form I-9 process.

Kennewick, WA

On March 23, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a Lawful Permanent Resident who was terminated because his permanent resident card had expired.  The worker lost 10 weeks of work. After IER intervened the company placed the worker back to work as he was deemed an essential worker, and decided to pay him $6,000 in back pay for the time he was out of work.

Shepherdsville, KY

On March 27, 2020, IER learned that it saved the job of a U.S. citizen. When completing the Form I-9, the worker showed a List C document and a driver’s license that, on its face, looked like it was expired, but the state of Kentucky had automatically extended the validity of some licenses for 90 days, due to COVID-19-related office closures. IER called the company and provided information on the extensions for driver’s licenses from that state. The worker was immediately rehired with his driver’s license and List C document without further issue. 

Lebanon, TN

On March 27, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was denied a job by a temporary employment agency because his Permanent Resident Card appeared to be expired, even though it had been extended.  IER contacted the employer and provided information from USCIS on extensions for certain Permanent Resident Cards, which the worker could establish with the card and an I-797 receipt notice extending the card for 18 months.

Idado Falls, ID

On April 3, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident to return to her job.  The caller’s employer requested a new Permanent Resident Card when the card that the caller showed at the time she began her employment expired. The company would not let the caller work until she provided a new card.  IER contacted the employer and provided information from USCIS explaining that employers should not reverify Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer decided not to require any new documentation and the caller returned to work.

Poway, CA

On April 6, 2020, IER learned that it saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was fired from her new job because she lacked a Social Security card. The worker received a job at a supermarket and showed her ID and U.S. birth certificate for the Form I-9. The HR employee rejected the birth certificate and said that all workers needed to show a Social Security card for hire. The worker called IER, and IER called the company’s corporate HR office. The company’s corporate HR department stated that they advise their local HR employees to request Social Security cards for payroll, but that if someone does not have the card the company still hires the worker. The HR department contacted the store to clarify the company’s policy, and the worker immediately returned to work.

Bronx, NY

On April 6, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a Lawful Permanent Resident who was terminated when his Permanent Resident Card expired.  The company said that it requested additional documentation due to an E-Verify alert.  After additional discussion, the company decided to return the worker to his job as a security guard for a non-profit and paid him $6,000 in back pay. 

Phildelphia, PA

On April 10, 2019, IER completed a hotline intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who in March 2020 presented a passport with an I-551 stamp, learner’s permit and an unrestricted Social Security card in order to demonstrate his work authorization. Despite having shown more documentation than required for the I-9, the employer would not accept his Form I-9 documents. The worker contacted IER and IER contacted the company.  The company decided to accept the worker’s documentation and the caller returned to work and will receive back wages for the delay in starting work.

Hammond, IN

On April 13, 2020, IER completed an intervention preventing a lawful permanent resident from missing work. The employer believed the worker needed to show additional documentation after his permanent resident card expired. IER contacted the employer and explained that permanent resident cards are not subject to reverification, pointing to the relevant sections in the M-274 Handbook for Employers. The employer decided not to request additional documentation and the employee continued working without incident.

Madison, WI

On April 13, 2020, IER assisted an alien authorized to work who was fired after his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expired despite the fact that he presented the employer with a I-797C Notice of Action showing his EAD was eligible for an automatic extension for up to 180 days. After contacting the employer’s legal counsel, the employer voluntarily rehired the worker and paid him $3,400 in back pay for the period of time he was out of work. 

Houston, TX

On April 15, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been suspended from her job as a home health aide after her Permanent Resident Card expired, even though employers should not reverify a Permanent Resident Card.  After the worker called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer and provided information about proper reverification procedures.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work.

Austin, TX

On April 16, 2020, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  Her new employer rejected her receipt for the replacement of her lost U.S. birth certificate.  The worker called IER and an IER staff member reached out to the employer to explain the rule regarding receipts for lost, stolen, or damaged documents.  The employer decided not to terminate the worker. 

Minneapolis, MN

On April 28, 2020, IER helped to save the job of a recently-admitted immigrant who had been incorrectly informed that he was ineligible to work at a grocery store until he received his Social Security number (SSN). The worker had a valid EAD and presented it for the Form I‐9. However, the worker did not yet have an SSN, and the employer, an E-Verify user, required an SSN to begin employment. The worker contacted IER and asked for assistance. IER spoke with the employer and provided them with information on processing a new hire who is still awaiting an SSN. The worker was then permitted to start his job. 

Indianapolis, IN

On May 1, 2020, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker had presented a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) that had been extended, along with the receipt notice demonstrating the extension.  The caller’s employer did not understand this extension and requested a new PRC.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel and explained that an extended PRC with the I-797 extending the card are valid for the Form I-9.  After IER contacted the employer and explained the extension, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions, and gave the employee back pay in the amount of $440.00 for the days of missed worked. 

Henderson, NV

On May 5, 2020, IER saved the job of a worker whose employer would not accept her government-issued ID for the Form I-9. The worker’s driver’s license had expired in February 2020 but she had a Parks and Recreation Card identification card issued by the City of Henderson, NV, that had the worker’s photo. The employer did not think that the local government agency ID was acceptable, and told the worker that she would have to reapply for a job. IER called the company and pointed the employer to the description of documents under List B for government-issued IDs, along with other DHS guidance on List B documents. The employer decided to accept the ID. 

Arlington, VA

On May 6, 2020, IER learned that it saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who was told she could not get hired for a job at a janitorial company because she did not have a Permanent Resident Card (PRC), even though she had a valid ID and unrestricted Social Security card. IER contacted the company and the company’s attorney looked into the situation.  The company rehired the LPR and provided additional training to an HR employee who believed in error that company software required non-U.S. citizens to show immigration documentation.

Waukesha, WI

On May 6, 2020, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker had presented a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) with an I-797C showing that the card was extended.  The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new PRC.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel and explained that if a worker decides to show an extended PRC with the I-797 extending the card, the employer should accept the extension.  After IER contacted the employer and explained the extension, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions, and gave the employee back pay for the days of missed worked. 

Orlando, FL

On May 8, 2020, IER learned that it helped save the job of a worker who was fired in February because the company incorrectly rejected the worker’s valid employment documentation. The worker had a receipt notice showing that she timely reapplied for a new Employment Authorization Document (EAD), and that receipt notice demonstrated that the caller’s current EAD was valid for an additional 180 days.  The employer, a retail store, did not think that document was sufficient. IER contacted the company. The company rehired the worker and gave her $6,732 in back pay. The company also provided additional training to the store managers in the store about proper Form I-9 procedures.

Missouri

On May 11, 2020, IER assisted a long-time lawful permanent resident (LPR) complete his application for unemployment benefits.  The online application required an expiration date for a Permanent Resident Card, but the caller’s card was issued during a time when cards did not include an expiration date.  The online application would not process his request without an expiration date.  IER reached out to USCIS and the unemployment agency, and USCIS also contacted the unemployment agency.  The state agency contacted the caller to complete the application process.

Austin, TX

On May 12, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who presented sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 but was denied pay based upon her failure to show a Social Security card (“SSC”). The caller presented her U.S. passport as a valid List A document, but the employer asked to see her SSC.  The caller explained that she had lost her SSC and could not visit SSA to request a new one due to office closures.  The employer was willing to let the caller work without pay until she was able to provide the replacement SSC.  IER contacted the employer and learned that the employer required all new hires’ Social Security numbers to run a background check.  IER provided guidance to the employer, reminding them that all employees may provide the document(s) of their choice for the Form I-9 and that any requests for documents apart from the Form I-9 should be explicitly separate from any conversations regarding the Form I-9.  The employer decided to take additional steps to ensure that the background check request for future workers’ SSNs would not be misconstrued as a request to see future workers’ SSCs for the Form I-9. 

Dallas, TX

On May 19, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen.  The caller accepted a job with a trucking company and provided his PO Box for the address in Section 1 of the Form I-9.  The employer informed the worker that if he could not provide a physical address of where he actually resides, he would be terminated.  The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and shared USCIS guidance allowing a PO Box for the Section 1 address field.  The employer decided to accept the address provided by the worker and the worker remained employed. 

Illinois

On May 21, 2020, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”).  The individual satisfied the Form I-9 requirements by providing List B and C documents but the employer told the worker that it required an unexpired permanent resident card to obtain a badge to access restricted areas in the airport where the company operates.  After an IER staffer contacted the employer and provided information on other documentation that could satisfy this this process, the employer accepted the worker’s alternative documentation and employed the worker. 

San Antonio, TX

On May 29, 2020, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer requested a valid Permanent Resident Card (PRC) from the worker when it expired, even though PRCs are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the M-274, which explains that employers should not reverify expiring PRCs.  The employer allowed the worker to continue to work without any further incidents.

Zion Crossroads, VA

On June 2, 2020, IER staff learned that it saved the job of an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) holder.  The worker called IER because her new workplace rejected her EAD and would not allow her to start work.  IER staff reached the company’s general counsel who straightened out the mistake.  The worker received a call from the employer the same day, and started orientation soon thereafter.

Mason City, IA

On June 4, 2020, a worker started a job contacted IER because her employer was not initially accepting her expired driver’s license for the Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about temporary USCIS policies allowing workers to show certain expired List B documents for the Form I-9, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The employer decided to accept the document and the worker began her job.

Henderson, NV

On June 4, 2020, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer did not hire him because the identity document he showed for the Form I-9 had expired in May 2020. The employer thought that it could not accept the expired ID because it was not a driver’s license and was instead an ID issued by a small state agency. After the worker protested, the employer contacted IER to double-check proper Form I-9 procedures. The employer had learned about IER from a previous intervention that IER did on behalf of a worker. IER directed the employer to DHS guidance permitting employers to accept identity documents that expired after March 1, 2020. The employer was grateful for the information and hired the worker without further delay.

New York City, NY

On June 16, 2020, IER assisted an individual who will be teaching a summer class remotely. The school for which the caller will be teaching incorrectly believed that the individual needed to complete a Form I-9 to teach the class even though the caller is not teaching in the United States.  The school would not let the caller start until he completed a Form I-9. The worker called IER and IER called the employer to provide guidance from the Department of Homeland Security about when a Form I-9 is required.  The school decided a Form I-9 was not required because the teacher will not be performing work in the U.S. and allowed to worker to continue in the process.

Massachusettes

On June 18, 2020, IER assisted a hotline caller in renewing his driver’s license.  The caller is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and though he had appeared at a Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) location with his naturalization certificate, the state still had not processed his application to renew his license.  IER reached out to the RMV regarding the issue.  Following IER’s invention, Massachusetts contacted the applicant and processed his application. 

Detroit, MI

On June 22, 2020, an IER staff member assisted a DACA recipient to keep his job. The caller had an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for the Form I-9, but the company indicated the worker had to additionally present an unexpired foreign passport, which he did not possess and could not access due to his consulate’s closure in light of COVID-19.  The company postponed the worker’s original start date to give the worker additional time to obtain his foreign passport.  IER contacted the company to resolve the situation, and provided information on proper Form I-9 procedures.  The worker began his employment without having to present an unexpired foreign passport.

San Marcos, CA

On June 23, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was going to be fired because her I-551 (LPR card) expired.  IER explained to the employer it was not appropriate to reverify an LPR who shows an unexpired LPR card for the Form I-9, or to suspend or terminate an LPR based on their failure to provide a new document when they are not required to show updated documentation, based on their citizenship status or national origin.

Austin, TX

On June 23, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).  The caller said that the agency she works for notified her that her permanent resident card was due to expire and that if she did not bring in another card or other evidence of her continued right to work she would be terminated.  IER called the employer and explained that a permanent resident who provides their permanent resident card at the time of initial hire, regardless if the card is a two-year conditional card or a ten-year card, is not reverified when the permanent resident card eventually expires.  After IER provided the guidance to the employer, the employer informed the worker that she did not need to present a new card or other evidence of continued employment authorization.

New York, NY

On June 26, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was going to be fired because his I-551 (“LPR card”) expired.  IER contacted the employer and explained that employers should not reverify an LPR card that is unexpired when presented, or suspend or terminate a worker for not meeting such a demand for a new document.  The caller was able to continue in employment.

San Jose, CA

On June 29, 2020, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) called IER because her green card was set to expire and the employer demanded a new green card.  An IER attorney sent the caller guidance from USCIS explaining that employers are not allowed to reverify employees who present green cards as proof of their work authorization.  As a result, the caller will not be subjected to reverification.

Baltimore, MD

On June 29, 2020, IER received a call from a worker who was recently terminated.  The caller’s work permit was automatically extended beyond the expiration date on the card, but the company did not allow the caller to continue working without a new work permit.  IER contacted company and the caller was reinstated with backpay.

South Carolina

On July 2, 2020, IER assisted an alien authorized to work in receiving his Social Security number and card.  The caller’s application had been pending for longer than expected and he contacted IER for assistance.  IER reached out to the Social Security Administration (SSA) which was able to identify the cause of delay.  Shortly thereafter, SSA determined that the caller was eligible for a Social Security number and issued the card. 

Las Vegas, NV

On July 3, 2020, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and her employer called IER because of an issue with the reverification process.  The LPR had provided her foreign passport with a temporary I-551 stamp.  When the employer reverified the caller, she presented her unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer believed it should not accept the card as proof of continued work authorization. An IER attorney sent information from USCIS stating that an LPR can provide their choice of a valid List A or List C document for reverification.  As a result, on July 8, 2020, IER was informed that the LPR will be allowed to continue to work.

Deerfield Beach, FL

On July 7, 2020, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who stated that her employer reverified and then terminated her on the day her permanent resident card expired, even though permanent resident cards should not be reverified.  After an IER staffer contacted the employer and informed an HR representative that LPRs who decide to show an unexpired permanent resident card for the Form I-9 should not be reverified, the company quickly rehired the LPR and decided to pay her the appropriate amount of back pay.

California

On July 13, 2020, an IER attorney received a hotline call from a recent lawful permanent resident who, along with his wife, had been unable to get their Social Security numbers after filing the required paperwork.  Both individuals needed their numbers to obtain health insurance and other medical services.  IER reached out to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to help get more information for the applicants and SSA looked into the situation.  Following IER’s intervention, the Social Security Administration scheduled an appointment for the couple and they received their cards a few weeks later.

Denver, CO

On July 15, 2020, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer specifically requested that he present a Permanent Resident Card, despite the fact that he had already presented a driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card to complete the Form I-9.  IER called the employer and explained that a driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card are acceptable List B and C documents for the Form I-9 and that requests for specific documents based on citizenship status may violate the law that IER enforces.  The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work without any further incidents. 

Norman, OK

On July 15, 2020, IER assisted a worker whose former employer was requesting to see the caller’s U.S. passport and that she complete a Form I-9 to receive pay for work already performed.  The caller did not want to provide documentation again or complete a Form I-9 because workers are not required to complete a Form I-9 for a former employer.  The worker called IER and IER called the company to explain proper Form I-9 rules.  The employer paid the worker approximately $250 for the two days of work she was owed.

Illinois

On July 16, 2020, IER helped a naturalized U.S. citizen obtain a badge at an airport so she could access her job at a private company operating on the airport’s premises. The worker produced the necessary documentation and information required for the badging process but then received a letter from TSA stating that it could not verify her citizenship status. The worker was not able to get additional information on the issue from the airport and contacted IER.  IER contacted TSA and it appeared that TSA had not received the worker’s information from the airport.  The worker was able to resolve the issue and began working at her job with a private company.

Biscayne, FL

On July 20, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a Lawful Permanent Resident worker who was terminated because she could not present a new Permanent Resident Card to her employer.  IER contacted the employer’s HR manager and explained that employers do not reverify Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer decided to return the caller to work and also paid her $545 for the five days of work that she missed. 

Imperial Beach, CA

On July 23, 2020, an IER attorney assisted a lawful permanent resident whose employer was seeking to reverify the caller due to his Permanent Resident Card (PRC) expiring.  The IER attorney talked to a human resources representative and informed her that employees who present a PRC at the start of their employment do not need to be reverified when that card expires and that employers are prohibited from requesting specific I-9 documents based on a worker’s citizenship status or national origin.  IER also provided USCIS materials on proper reverification procedures.  The employer decided not to request any additional documentation. 

California

On July 29, 2020, IER intervened to assist a new Lawful Permanent Resident obtain her Social Security Number. After the caller had been unable to make an appointment to visit her local Social Security office, IER reached out to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to get more information for the applicant.  Shortly thereafter, SSA issued the applicant her Social Security number and mailed her card.

Port Arthur, TX

On July 30, 2020, IER assisted a worker with limited English proficiency whose employer rejected his documents before following the Form I-9 process for examining documents.  The employee was beginning a job and was set to present documentation in person to the employer to complete the Form I-9.  Prior to presenting the documentation in person, the employer rejected the documentation based on its review of a scanned version.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information on examining documentation in person for employers that are not operating under temporary COVID-19 Form I-9 procedures.  The employer volunteered to continue the worker’s onboarding and have a company representative inspect the caller’s documentation in person. 

New Jordan, UT

On August 7, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who was incorrectly reverified at the retail store where she worked.  The caller presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card when she started her job in 2020.  When the card expired, the store’s HR manager incorrectly asked the caller to present a new PRC, contrary to Form I-9 rules, and then rejected the caller’s unrestricted Social Security card, which is a valid document for reverification.  The worker called IER and IER called the company.  The company said that the worker was mistakenly marked as an AAW in Section 1 of her Form I-9, and her Permanent Resident Card was listed as an Employment Authorization Document (which is required to be reverified upon expiration) in the company’s system in error.  The company decided not to reverify the worker and also reviewed its reverification communications with employees to make clear that employees who are required to be reverified are allowed to produce any List A or List C document, including an unrestricted Social Security card.

Providence, RI

On August 11, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose driver’s license expired but was automatically extended by the Secretary of State of Rhode Island. During the employment eligibility verification process, the worker presented his employer with a copy of his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card. The Employer refused to accept the driver’s license and fired the worker after he was unable to present alternative documentation. IER contacted the employer and provided it information on Rhode Island driver’s licenses along with a copy of DHS’s Temporary Policies Related to COVID-19.  After reviewing the documents, the Employer voluntarily reinstated the worker and has paid him $150 in back pay. 

Chicago, IL

On August 12, 2020, IER helped a lawful permanent resident (LPR) get an I-551 stamp in her foreign passport which allowed her to resume her employment and obtain new employment. The LPR had applied for a replacement Permanent Resident Card (PRC) but had not yet received it and did not have any other documentation proving her permission to work. When she called USCIS’s customer service line to get an emergency Infopass appointment, she was not able to finalize the process but did not know why. The worker called IER and IER contacted USCIS for additional guidance. Shortly thereafter, the caller received an Infopass appointment and an I-551 stamp in her passport. 

Colorado

On August 27, 2020, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a Lawful Permanent Resident in securing a renewed airport badge.  The airport’s badging office was unfamiliar with the airport’s rules regarding badging renewal and Permanent Resident Cards (“PRCs”).  An IER staffer contacted a badging manager and was able to explain the individual’s documentation.  The badging manager decided that the individual’s documentation met the airport’s requirements and issued the caller a new badge. 

Baltimore, MD

On August 28, 2020, IER helped to save the job of an Alien Authorized to Work. The worker had a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and presented it for the Form I‐9. However, the worker did not yet have a Social Security card and believed she was required to show it for the Form I-9.  The worker contacted IER and asked for assistance. IER spoke with the employer and the employer explained that it required the number for payroll process.  IER provided them with information from the Social Security Administration on how to hire a worker without a Social Security Number, and provided information on avoiding discrimination in the Form I-9 process, along with information on separating out document requests for the Form I-9 and document requests for payroll.  The worker continued the onboarding process.

Clinton, MD

On September 1, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a Cameroon national whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) application was approved.  The caller had the EAD approval notice and under temporary USCIS policies, this approval notice is a valid List C document.  The caller’s employer did not accept the approval notice, however.  An IER attorney called the employer and provided the HR Director some USCIS guidance regarding such approval notices.  The employer accepted the I-797 for reverification purposes and allow the caller to continue working.

Lakeland, FL

On September 1, 2020, IER learned that it helped save the job of a U.S. citizen who was unable to complete the Form I-9 initially.  The worker was hired for a job where she would work from home and the company instructed her to find a notary to complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 on the company’s behalf. The worker was unable to find a notary who would consent to doing so and the company said it would terminate the worker for not having Section 2 completed in a timely manner. The worker called IER and IER called the employer to assist the worker in getting more information.  IER provided the employer with DHS information on who can be an authorized representative for the company.  The company decided that the worker could go to a different company office and have another company employee complete Section 2.  The worker was hired without additional delay.

Michigan

On September 3, 2020, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an adjustment applicant to renew his driver’s license. The caller had an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that was eligible for a 180‐day automatic extension based on his timely application to renew his work authorization. However, the DMV initially was not able to verify his status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  IER contacted USCIS and USCIS identified the issue and was able to verify the caller’s status, allowing the caller to receive his renewed license.

Los Angeles, CA

On September 4, 2020, a DACA recipient called IER because her employer was requesting to see the caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) over a year after completing the Form I-9, even though the EAD had not expired.  The worker had lost her EAD and the company had not permitted her to work until she presents a new EAD.  IER contacted the company and provided information on proper reverification and the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.  The company determined that it had no need to see the EAD and did not need to see updated documentation until the worker’s EAD expires.  The HR manager said she was grateful for the information and asked for the employer hotline number in case similar situations arise in the future.

Houston, TX

On September 14, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).  The caller reached out to IER because he was being asked to show a new Permanent Resident Card several months after starting his job, even though he showed his unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card to complete the Form I-9, while also showing his Permanent Resident Card.  The documents the caller showed are not to be reverified.  IER contacted the employer and provided information about reverification, including that even if an LPR shows an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to complete the Form I-9, an employer should not reverify the employee if and when the Permanent Resident Card later expires.  The employer then informed the caller that he did not need to present a new card.

Ocilia, GA

On September 17, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a worker after his employer had told him his employment would be terminated, even though he had an I-797 receipt showing he had timely applied to renew his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that qualified for a 180-day extension.  IER contacted the employer and explained that, in certain circumstances, a timely application to renew an EAD extends the validity of an EAD that appears on its face to be expired.  The employer accepted this explanation and reinstated the worker.

Wilmington, NC

On September 24, 2020, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was told she couldn’t be hired because her driver’s license was expired. The worker tried to show her license as a List B document for the Form I-9. The NC DMV had extended licenses like the caller’s beyond their expiration date, but the caller’s employer was not aware of the extension. IER spoke to the employer and provided information on the extension for certain NC driver’s licenses, and the employer was happy it could hire the worker.

Illinois

On September 25, 2020, IER helped a lawful permanent resident (LPR) get a badge at an airport. The LPR had been working for the airport for many years and her badge was up for renewal. She tried to show an I-551 stamp in her foreign passport but the airport would not accept the document as proof of employment authorization because it believed the document was not valid. IER called the badging office to give it public information reflecting that DHS has designated an I-551 stamp in a foreign passport as proof of both identity and permission to work. The badging office renewed the worker’s badge and she was able to return to her job. 

Hawthorne, NY

On September 30, 2020, IER received a call from a worker who was on the verge of being terminated.  The employer was reverifying the caller based on an expiring Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The caller’s EAD was extended for 180 days and the worker provided his I-797C to show the extension, but the employer did not initially accept the I-797C.  IER spoke with the company and provided information from the Department of Homeland Security on EAD extensions like the caller’s, and the caller was allowed to continue working. 

 

Fiscal Year 2019

Newport News, VA

On October 5, 2018, IER learned that a lawful permanent resident had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), including back benefits, after a prior denial.  The applicant’s representative contacted IER for assistance, and IER reached out to the Social Security Administration with information on the applicant’s immigration status.  Following IER’s invention, the Social Security Administration granted the applicant’s new request for benefits and for $6,750 in back benefits. 

Miami, FL

On October 11, 2018, IER helped a U-visa holder keep her job after her employer called IER because it was concerned it would need to terminate her.  The worker’s employer called because the worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expired and she did not have a new EAD and the employer did not know if the worker had other documentation for reverification.  The worker has a pending application to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, and the receipt notice extends her work authorization while her adjustment application was pending.  Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, this documentation is a List C document.  IER provided the employer with information from USCIS on the type of documentation the worker had, and the employer decided to accept the documentation and allow the worker to continue to work.

Indianapolis, IN

On October 25, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer requested a valid permanent resident card from the worker when it expired, even though permanent resident cards are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the M-274.  The employer allowed the worker to continue to work without any further incidents.

Honolulu, HI

On October 29, 2018, IER learned that it had successfully intervened on behalf of a lawful permanent resident in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The worker had presented a state ID, unrestricted Social Security card, and Permanent Resident Card that had been extended beyond its initial validity period for employment eligibility verification purposes, but the employer refused to hire her until she presented a new Permanent Resident Card.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel and explained that if a worker decides to show an extended Permanent Resident Card with the I-797 extending the card, the employer should accept it as a List C document.  The employer decided to hire the worker without further delay, and to provide her with $1,118 in back pay for the hours of work she lost.

San Francisco, CA

On November 6, 2018, IER learned that it successfully intervened on behalf of a U visa holder to avoid losing her job.  The worker called IER’s hotline to request assistance because her employer rejected her Form I-9 documentation: a receipt notice and expired Employment Authorization Document.  Though the particular type of receipt notice the worker presented was not valid for the Form I-9, IER was able to confirm through the worker’s advocate that the worker had alternate documentation that established a one-year extension of her U visa status and work authorization.  IER provided this information and confirmed with the employer that the worker completed the onboarding process and would begin employment.

Phoenix, AZ

On November 11, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker’s mother contacted IER after his employer told him that he would not be able to work because of an issue with his Form I-9.  It appeared that the employer did not allow him to continue working based on an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  IER contacted the employer and learned that it was a social security mismatch issue and not a TNC.  The employer’s counsel looked into the situation and took steps to resolve it.  The worker returned to work without further incidents.

Kingston, NY

On November 11, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer requested a valid permanent resident card from the worker upon its upcoming expiration date, even though permanent resident cards are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the M-274.  The employer allowed the worker to continue to work without any further incidents.

Tampa, FL

On November 20, 2018, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker presented a receipt for his lost/stolen driver’s license, in combination with his Social Security card for the Form I-9.  The employer rejected the receipt even though it is acceptable for the Form I-9.  The employer also rejected alternate documentation that the worker showed.  The worker called IER and IER contacted the employer to provide information about the types of documentation the worker was showing.  The employer decided to accept the documentation and the caller was able to work without any further delay.  

Dunedin, FL

On December 4, 2018, an employee called IER because her employer would not accept her driver’s license stating “Not Acceptable For Federal Purposes.”  An IER attorney called the employer and provided guidance from the Department of Homeland Security stating that a driver’s license with this type of notation is an acceptable List B document if it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and address.  An employee may show a List B driver’s license together with a List C document that establishes the employee’s work authorization.  The employer decided to accept the driver’s license and the caller began working.

El Paso, TX

On December 19, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer sought to reverify her when her Permanent Resident Card (PRCs) expired, even though PRCs are not supposed to be reverified.  The employer would not allow the caller to return to work without showing an additional document.  IER called the employer and explained that a PRC is not subject to reverification under Form I-9 rules.  The employer decided not to require any additional documentation and invited the worker to return to work. 

San Antonio, TX

On December 20, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer specifically requested that she present a Permanent Resident Card, despite the fact that she had already presented a I-551 stamp to complete the Form I-9.  IER called the employer and explained that an I-551 stamp is a valid List A document for the Form I-9 and that requests for specific documents based on citizenship status may violate the law that IER enforces.  The employer invited the worker back to work and paid her $588 in back pay.

Philadelphia, PA

On January 31, 2019, IER saved the job of an employment-authorized non-U.S. citizen who worked in the home health industry.  The worker called IER because her employer required her to show a Permanent Resident Card, even though the worker had already provided sufficient documentation to complete her Form I-9.  The employer also told the worker that she would be suspended or fired if she could not provide the document immediately. IER called the employer and through IER’s intervention, the employer identified an internal misunderstanding about document requirements outside of the Form I-9 process to determine a worker’s state of residency that led the employer to request a PRC in error.  The employer appreciated learning about the miscommunication because the worker was able to produce a state ID immediately and thus continue her employment without interruption.  

Moscow, ID

On February 1, 2019, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who said his employer requested a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9 and informed him that, because he is not a U.S. citizen, it would not accept an unexpired driver’s license (a List B document) and unrestricted Social Security card (a list C document). IER called the employer and explained that a worker may present either a List A document or a combination of a List B document and a List C document for the Form I-9. IER also informed the employer that rejecting valid Form I-9 documentation or requesting specific documentation merely because of a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful discrimination. After considering the information IER provided, the employer decided to allow the worker to start work as originally scheduled with the List B and List C documents that the worker chose to present for the Form I-9.

San Francisco, CA

On February 5, 2019, IER learned that it helped a worker with a U visa resume his employment. The employer initially fired the worker due to an expiration date on the face of the worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD), despite the fact that USCIS had extended the worker’s EAD. When the worker received his new EAD, the employer also refused to reinstate the worker. The worker’s attorney called IER, and IER contacted the employer and the worker’s union and provided information from USCIS on extensions for certain EADs held by U visa holders. The employer appreciated learning about this information and rehired the worker.

Philadelphia, PA

On February 12, 2019, an U.S. citizen called because his employer would not accept his birth certificate as proof of his employment eligibility. The worker showed a certified copy of his birth certificate along with a List B document for the Form I-9.  The employer did not believe it could accept the certified copy.  IER contacted the employer and provided guidance from USCIS that an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state, county, municipal authority or outlying territory of the United States bearing an official seal is acceptable for the Form I-9.  The employer decided to accept the certificate and allowed the caller to start work. 

Miami, FL

On February 15, 2019, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).  The employer rejected the worker’s passport with an unexpired I-551 stamp during the Form I-9 process, even though this is an acceptable List A document.  IER intervened and referred the employer to information in the Handbook for Employers (M-274) on this topic.  The employer allowed the employee to return to work and paid the employee $800 in back pay.

Port Elizabeth, NJ

On February 19, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to continue working without interruption after his employer requested him to produce more or different Form I-9 documents than necessary.  When the worker started his job, he presented his Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9.  A human resources official noticed the future expiration date on the card, and requested a new Permanent Resident Card from the worker when the date approached.  An IER staff member contacted the company and explained that an employer should not reverify Permanent Resident Card.  IER also sent the company USCIS guidance on this topic, including the Form I-9 instructions and Handbook for Employers.

Weston, FL

On February 22, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a worker who was not permitted to complete the onboarding process because the employer did not recognize the document he presented to establish his identity and work authorization.  The worker presented his foreign passport with a temporary I-551 stamp.  Having never been presented with a foreign passport with an I-551 stamp, the employer asked the employee for another document or documents to establish his identify and work authorization and sent the worker home when the worker did not provide alternate documentation.  An IER staff member contacted the employer’s human resources director and explained that a foreign passport with an unexpired temporary I-551 is a valid List A document.  IER also emailed the human resources director a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274).  After looking into the situation, the employer voluntarily contacted the employee and rescheduled him for orientation.  His document was subsequently accepted and the Employer paid him $600 in lost pay.

Salt Lake City, UT

On February 25, 2019, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an alien authorized to work from Romania.  The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of January 28, 2019, but was automatically extended for six months based on the timely filed renewal application.  When the employer realized that the expiration date on the face of the employee’s EAD had passed, it suspended the employee and said it would terminate her if she did not provide a new EAD.  The employee produced a valid Notice of Action Form I-797C demonstrating the automatic extension, but the employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD.  After IER contacted the employer and explained the extension, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions, and gave the employee back pay in the amount of $264.00 for the days of missed worked.

Northridge, CA

On March 1, 2019, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The worker showed a permanent resident card for the Form I-9 process and the employer requested a new permanent resident card by the original card’s expiration date, even though Permanent Resident Cards are not subject to reverification.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the reverification section in the Handbook for Employers (M-274).  The employer allowed the worker to continue to work without any further incidents.

Grays Lake, IL

On March 1, 2019, IER intervened and saved the job of a U.S. Citizen.  The employer requested a birth certificate in addition to the worker’s driver’s license and Social Security card, even though a worker who decides to show a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card is not required to show additional documentation.  IER intervened and referred the employer to the acceptable documents section in the Handbook for Employers (M-274).  The employee returned to work immediately and received $462 in back pay for missed work.

Columbus, OH

On March 8, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an alien authorized to work to return to work after being fired due to the expiration date on her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The employee applied to renew her EAD before it expired and had an I-797C receipt notice from USCIS showing a category code that qualifies her for an automatic 180-day extension.  An IER staff member contacted the company, and the company decided to rehire the individual upon presentation of her EAD and I-797C receipt notice. 

Atlantic City, NJ

On March 11, 2019, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been told that he would be fired on March 31, 2019 unless he could show a new Permanent Resident Card.  The employer mistakenly believed that it had to reverify Permanent Resident Cards when they expired.  IER explained that employers do not reverify a worker who provides an unexpired Permanent Resident Card upon hire.  The employer decided to no longer request a new document.

Dallas, TX

On March 15, 2019, IER learned that it had saved the job of a healthcare worker whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been extended.  The employer had rejected an I-797C showing a 180-day extension of the worker’s EAD expiration date and told the worker she would be terminated on the original expiration date unless she presented a new EAD.  IER contacted the employer and explained that the I-797C was acceptable documentation of a 180-day extension.  The employer agreed to accept the documentation of the EAD extension, and the worker was able to continue working. 

Orange Beach, AL

On March 15, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer had threatened to fire the worker unless he could show that he had renewed the Permanent Resident Card provided at initial hire.  IER explained that a worker’s Permanent Resident Card is not to be reverified.  The employer withdrew its request for an additional document based on IER’s explanation.

Chicago, IL

On March 15, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) keep her job. When the LPR began working for the media company, she presented her state ID and unrestricted Social Security card. Her employer later requested that she show her Permanent Resident Card (PRC) because it mistakenly believed she needed to show the PRC to fill in the alien registration number on the Form I-9. The worker explained that she knew her alien registration number and could provide it, but the employer insisted on seeing the PRC. IER called the employer and explained that while the alien registration number is required to complete the Form I-9, an LPR should not be required to present their PRC as proof of that number.  The employer decided not to require the PRC.

Los Angeles, CA

On March 26, 2019, an IER attorney saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer initially did not accept the worker’s receipt for the replacement of her lost Social Security card for the Form I-9.  The worker presented a driver’s license but a receipt for her replacement Social Security card, which is acceptable to complete the Form I-9.  The employer did not accept the receipt initially and the worker called IER’s hotline for assistance.  The IER attorney explained to the employer that a receipt is to replace a lost, stolen or damaged card is valid for 90 days.  The employer decided to accept the receipt and allow the caller to work.

Riverdale, NJ

On April 3, 2019, IER saved the job of a worker whose employer did not believe that it could employ her.  The worker has an L-1 visa and her employer and she were not certain of the documentation that might satisfy the Form I-9 in her situation.  The worker initially did not provide sufficient documentation for Section 2 but the employer called IER prior to terminating the worker due to hotline assistance that IER had given the employer in the past.  IER provided information to the employer and worker on how to access the worker’s I-94, which, in combination with the documentation the worker already presented, met USCIS’s guidance for the Form I-9.  The company successfully onboarded the worker.

Denver, CO

On April 6, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a worker who was erroneously discharged one day after the expiration date printed on her Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The worker, an asylum applicant, applied to renew her EAD and presented the employer with an I-797 showing that she had timely applied for a new EAD and had a qualifying category code that automatically extended the validity of her EAD by up to 180 days.  The employer discharged the worker despite being presented with the worker’s valid documentation.  An IER staff member contacted the employer’s general counsel, who, after looking into the matter, contacted the worker and voluntarily reinstated her employment.  The employer also paid the worker one month of back pay in the amount of $1,800.

New York, NY

On April 10, 2019, an IER staff completed a successful hotline intervention on behalf of a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) who was asked to present a Permanent Resident Card (“PRC”) specifically for the Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer and learned that the employer was requesting PRCs from LPRs so that it could reverify an LPR’s status upon expiration of the PRC.  The employer believed that an LPR’s work authorization status expires upon the PRC’s expiration date.  IER clarified that employers should not ask for specific documents to complete the Form I-9, and that employers should never reverify U.S. citizens’ documents, U.S. nationals’ documents, Permanent Resident Cards, or List B documents.  The employer decided not to require a PRC from the caller and to stop the PRC reverification process immediately.

Houston, TX

On April 11, 2019, IER completed a successful telephone intervention allowing a worker to move forward with the onboarding process. The worker called IER’s hotline requesting assistance because his employer would not accept a receipt showing that he applied to replace his lost Social Security card, which the worker showed in combination with a List B document. IER notified the employer that receipts for lost, stolen, or damaged documents are valid for the Form I-9. IER then confirmed with the worker that the employer accepted his receipt and would allow him to begin working.

Bronx, NY

On April 15, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) who contacted IER’s hotline because his employer, a real estate maintenance company, requested an unexpired Permanent Resident Card after the worker showed an unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9.  The worker had an expired Permanent Resident Card. IER called the employer and explained that although an expired Permanent Resident Card cannot be used for the Form I-9, a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security satisfy Section 2 and an LPR is permanently work authorized. The employer was excited that it did not need to delay the worker’s hire. The employer called the worker to return to work to complete the hiring process.

Frisco, TX

On April 17, 2019, IER assisted an adjustment applicant whose employer terminated her after it rejected her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).  The worker learned about IER’s hotline several weeks after her termination and contacted IER for assistance.  IER reached out to the company and the company reviewed the worker’s documentation and decided to accept her EAD and receipt notice and not request additional documentation.  The company reinstated the worker and paid her nearly $6,000 in back pay for the time she was out of work. 

Patterson, CA

On April 18, 2019, IER successfully completed an intervention to assist a work-authorized worker whose employer terminated the worker’s employment prior to the expiration of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  The worker received her new EAD prior to the expiration of her previous card but after her employer had already terminated her.  IER contacted counsel for the employer and explained that an employer cannot terminate a worker for employment eligibility verification purposes, prior to the expiration date of that worker’s employment authorization.  The employer subsequently reinstated the worker to and gave her back pay for the time she missed.

Little Rock, AR

On April 25, 2019, an IER attorney saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident who whose employer did not initially accept the worker’s foreign passport with an I-551 stamp as proof of his identity and work authorization.  The employer’s human resources officer had never seen this document and rejected it.  The worker called IER and IER reached out to the company and provided information on an I-551 stamp in an unexpired foreign passport, which is a List A document.  The employer decided to accept the documentation and the worker began work immediately. 

St. Paul, MN

On April 25, 2019, IER saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident whose employer told her that she must present additional proof of her work authorization after her Permanent Resident Card expired. The employee, who presented a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9 when she was hired in 2018, was told that she could not continue working after her Permanent Resident Card expired on May 7, 2019 unless she presented additional proof of her work authorization.  IER contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards may not be reverified, and the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without presenting additional documents.

New York, NY

On April 26, 2019, an IER attorney saved the job of worker with an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).  The worker’s EAD expires in four months and the worker’s employment authorization does not require sponsorship.  The human resource officer called IER because she wanted to hire the worker but her supervisor did not because of the EAD’s expiration date due to the project the worker would work on the need to reverify.  The IER attorney contacted the employer and explained that the fact that an EAD has an expiration date does not mean that a worker will not receive a new EAD or other work authorization documentation. The employer decided to hire the worker.  

New York, NY

On May 1, 2019, an IER attorney saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer was requesting evidence of lawful permanent residence during the reverification process.  The worker presented a foreign passport with a temporary I-551 stamp for the Form I-9, and this documentation must be reverified.  During the reverification process, the caller provided his unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer believed it had to see a Permanent Resident Card or a new I-551 stamp for the caller to continue working.  IER talked to the employer and explained that a Social Security card is a valid List C document and sufficient for reverification.  The employer decided to accept the worker’s Social Security card and the worker can continue working.  

Stockton, CA

On May 2, 2019, IER learned that it had successfully assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen to keep her job and receive back pay, after her employer initially refused the worker’s receipt for a replacement naturalization certificate as an acceptable receipt for a List C document. The worker contacted IER for assistance, and IER worked with the employer’s counsel to ensure that the Human Resources staff understood that the worker’s receipt was valid for employment eligibility verification, in combination with a List B document.  The worker returned to work without further delay, and the employer decided to pay her $450 in back pay for the hours she missed.

Rancho Cordoba, CA

On May 9, 2019, IER successfully assisted a minor who was seeking to provide documentation to his new employer under Form I-9 rules specifically for minors.  The employer rejected the documentation and insisted on a photo ID.  IER contacted the employer and provided Form I-9 guidance on completing Forms I-9 for minors and the employer decided to hire the worker without further delay.

Roswell, GA

On May 20, 2019, IER helped an Alien Authorized to Work save his job.  The worker called IER after being told that he could not work until he received a new Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) despite showing the employer that he was entitled to a 180-day extension of his EAD.  IER explained that, in some circumstances, a worker’s receipt for a renewal EAD provides proof of continued work authorization while the worker awaits a renewal EAD.  The employer accepted the explanation and reinstated the worker.

Springfield, MA

On May 20, 2019, IER intervened to save a job for Alien Authorized to Work.  The worker presented a Foreign Passport, an I-20 endorsed for employment, and an I-94.  However, the employer was unfamiliar with these documents and told the worker to obtain another document.  After IER provided information on acceptable documentation for the Form I-9, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue employment.

Boston, MA

On May 29, 2019, a hospital employee called IER because his employer threatened to fire him for refusing to provide new documentation when reverification was not required.  The employee is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who provided his I-551 or green card when he started to working for the hospital. The IER attorney explained to the hospital’s counsel that employers are not to reverify the work authorization of LPRs who provided green card when they start working.  The employer decided to allow the employee to continue to work.

Las Vegas, NV

On May 30, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident by providing information on proper reverification procedures to the worker’s employer. The employer called IER’s hotline for guidance on acceptable documents and in the course of the call explained that it was requesting documentation from the worker because it believed it had to reverify a lawful permanent resident’s documentation when it expired.  IER confirmed from the employer that the type of document the worker showed at hire is a document that USCIS does not require to be reverified.  IER provided information about the types of documents that should be reverified and not, along with information on proper reverification procedures.  The employer was very pleased that she could keep the worker in question and other permanent residents she thought she needed to reverify.

Simpsonville, SC

On May 30, 2019, IER assisted an alien authorized to work in keeping her job after her employer indicated she would be terminated for not being a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen, due to a merger with a company holding government contracts. IER contacted the company and clarified that while the new parent company does have some contracts that require only U.S. persons be employed, no non-U.S. persons would lose work because of it.  IER ensured that the employer was aware of IER’s resources on ITAR/EAR and citizenship status discrimination.  IER then also facilitated the worker receiving assistance from the company in her first language during the reverification process.

Mobile, AL

On June 12, 2019, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had not been permitted to start work after his worker rejected his Form I-9 documentation. The worker had presented his Permanent Resident Card with a Form I-797 Notice of Action indicating that the card’s validity was extended for 18 months, but the employer refused to allow him to start working, and the worker called IER’s hotline.  After IER contacted the employer and providing information about expired Permanent Resident Cards with I-797 as temporary proof of continued employment eligibility, and the employer decided to allow the worker to return to work.

Farmer's Branch, TX

On June 14, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer told him that he could not be hired without a Permanent Resident Card (PRC). The worker showed his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, but the recruiter with whom he spoke said the worker needed to show an immigration document, so the worker also presented his MRIV and I-551 stamp in a foreign passport. The recruiter and an HR representative misunderstood the applicable expiration date on the documentation and believed the LPR was not authorized to work. The worker called IER and IER called the recruiter and employer. IER explained that workers have the right to show their choice of Form I-9 documentation and that in the same way that employers accept driver’s licenses and unrestricted Social Security cards from U.S. citizens, an employer must do so for non-citizens who choose to show these documents. IER also explained the relevant expiration date for the worker’s passport and MRIV (found on the I-551 stamp in the foreign passport).  The employer was excited to learn that it could continue hiring the worker with his license and Social Security card, and that IER offered free monthly webinars that HR staff and recruiters could take for a better understanding of the Form I-9 process.

San Antonio, TX

On June 26, 2019, IER learned that it saved the job of a worker on an H-4 visa whose employer incorrectly terminated her. The worker’s most recent EAD got lost in the mail so the worker never received it. The worker applied for a replacement EAD and showed her employer the USCIS I-797 receipt for the replacement H-4 EAD as a receipt valid for 90 days due to a lost, damaged or stolen document. The employer was aware of the 90 day receipt rule for lost, damaged or stolen documents, but it fired her because it believed that EADs were excluded from this rule. IER called the employer and explained that workers can use receipts for lost, damaged or stolen EADs for 90 days, so long as those 90 days did not go beyond the validity of the worker’s employment authorization. The employer appreciated knowing that it could keep a valued employee. It rehired the worker and gave her $5,000 in back pay for the three weeks of work that she missed.

Melbourne, FL

On June 28, 2019, an IER staff member helped save the job of a newly-hired naturalized U.S. citizen.  The worker had a naturalization certificate but sent the original certificate with her U.S. passport application and was not sure how to satisfy the Form I-9 for her new job.  IER discussed different document options and contacted the employer which decided to hold the job open for the worker while she waited for her U.S. passport.  Once the passport arrived, the employee successfully completed the employment eligibility verification process and began work.

Minot, ND

On July 1, 2019, IER helped a lawful permanent resident return to work.  A week earlier, the worker’s employer terminated him even though he had shown valid Form I-9 documentation (an unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card), because of a variation in the names on the documentation, without providing the worker an opportunity to explain the variation.  IER explained that an employer cannot provide U.S. citizens, but not lawful permanent residents, an opportunity to explain spelling variations, and that workers sometimes can resolve any employer concerns about such variations by giving the worker an opportunity to explain the reason for the variation.  After the employer provided this opportunity, it determined that the worker had satisfactorily explained the variation and reinstated the worker based on the information he provided.

Frindley, MN

On July 3, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone conversation on behalf of lawful permanent resident whose employer suspended him for failing to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card.  During the onboarding process, the worker provided his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, which are sufficient to complete the Form I-9, and also showed an expired Permanent Resident Card.  The employer’s human resources official told the employee he could not work until he presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card, and suspended the worker.  An IER staff member contacted the employer’s legal representative and explained that a lawful permanent resident who decides to show a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card is not required to show additional documentation, including a Permanent Resident Card.  The employer voluntarily contacted the employee and reinstated his employment.  The employer also volunteered to pay the worker $880, for two weeks of lost pay.

Brooklyn Center, MN

On July 3, 2019, an U.S. citizen called IER because her new employer was demanding her U.S. passport.  The caller had provided her state identification card and unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes.  An IER lawyer contacted the caller’s human resources manager who believed that the caller needed additional documentation.  IER lawyer explained the requirements of the I-9 and answered several questions about the Form I-9 process.  The manager decide to allow the caller to start working and not request her passport.

New York, NY

On July 5, 2019, IER learned that it saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer incorrectly terminated him. The worker presented an ID and unrestricted Social Security card to complete the Form I-9, but the employer mistakenly believed that it also needed to see the worker’s Permanent Resident Card (“green card”). The worker called IER’s hotline, and IER called the employer to explain employers may not request more or different documents because an employee is not a U.S. citizen. The employer appreciated knowing that it could keep a valued employee. It reinstated the worker and offered him additional hours to make up for any lost work.

Chillicothe, OH

On July 7, 2019, IER helped a lawful permanent resident get paid for the work he performed. After the worker began his job the employer determined it could not accept the documentation the worker showed and then told the worker he could not get paid for the work he already performed until he produced proper Form I-9 documentation. IER spoke with the company’s attorney and the company determined based on federal labor law governing requirements to pay individuals for work performed, that the company would pay the worker approximately $400 for the work he performed. The employer was also grateful to learn of free IER resources available to employers, such as its joint audit guidance, educational material, and monthly webinars.

Hackensack, NJ

On July 8, 2019, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident after his employer threatened to terminate him unless he could provide proof he had renewed his Permanent Resident Card, despite also receiving the worker’s driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card during the Form I-9 process.  IER provided information to the employer about workers’ right to provide a combination of one document from List B and one document from List C for purposes of establishing employment eligibility.  Based upon this explanation, the employer accepted the documentation provided by the worker and withdrew the threat of termination.

North Lauderdale, FL

On July 9, 2019, a naturalized U.S. citizen returned to work after a large retail store incorrectly fired him. The worker presented his state ID and naturalization certificate for the Form I-9. His employer incorrectly believed that the naturalization certificate was not valid for the Form I-9, even though it is a List C document. The worker complained to the company but was told that the store could not accept a naturalization certificate. A manager also told the worker he had to present a U.S. passport. After being out of work for over a month, the worker learned of IER and called IER’s hotline. IER contacted the employer’s attorney and the attorney explained to the relevant staff that a naturalization certificate was a valid Form I-9 document. The employer did not initially have an opening for the management position it originally hired the worker to fill but gave him back pay while it looked for a comparable position. The worker returned to his job after seven weeks, and the employer gave him approximately $4200 in back pay for the full period he was not working. The employer also formally apologized to the worker for its mistake.

Abilene, TX

On July 26, 2019, IER informally intervened on behalf of a worker who described being terminated after failing to present a birth certificate for the Form I-9, even though the worker had other acceptable Form I-9 documentation.  IER reached out to the employer and the employer decided not to require specific documentation and invited the worker to return to work immediately with her choice of Form I-9 documentation.

Dallas, TX

On July 29, 2019, IER completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident who had been suspended from work after being asked to present a new Permanent Resident Card.  During an audit, the employer had noticed that the original card the worker had presented was an old Resident Alien card with no expiration date.  The employer told the worker his old card was not valid and he would be suspended until he could bring in a new Permanent Resident Card.  After the worker called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified and old Resident Alien cards without expiration dates remain valid.  The employer realized it was mistaken, and decided to allow the worker to return to work and pay him back pay for the time he missed.

Austin, TX

On July 31, 2019, an IER attorney assisted a hotline caller remain employed.  The employee’s Employment Authorization Document had been automatically extended but her employer did not accept the Notice of Action demonstrating the automatic extension, and believed it had to terminate the employee.  IER explained that an employee’s EAD may be combined with the Notice of Action showing both the renewal application was timely filed and the same qualifying eligibility category as that on the expired work permit, to demonstrate the extended validity of the work permit for 180 days.  The employer accepted the documentation and the employee continued working.

Flushing, NY

On August 23, 2019, IER completed a successful telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident (LPR) to return to work.  The worker had presented sufficient documentation for the I-9, from Lists B and C.  The employer then insisted on an unexpired immigration document from the worker. IER explained that workers who present sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 are not required to provide additional documentation.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work.

Greenville, SC

On September 3, 2019, IER assisted an individual from the Federated States of Micronesia keep her job.  The worker provided her passport and I-94 for the Form I-9, but the employer initially did not accept her documents.  IER contacted the employer to provide guidance about the documentation, and the employer decided to accept the documentation and asked the worker to return to work.

Alpharetta, GA

On September 16, 2019, a lawful permanent resident called IER because her new employer would not accept her passport with the I-551 stamp as proof of her work authorization.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on passports with I-551 stamps, which are acceptable as List A documents.  The employer accepted the caller’s passport and the worker began her job.

Security-Widefield, CO

On September 16, 2019, IER learned that it saved the job of a native-born U.S. citizen who was told that she could not present her birth certificate for the Form I-9. The worker was hired at a restaurant and presented a school ID as a List B identity document and a birth certificate as her List C document.  The store manager who was completing Section 2 of the Form I-9 said that the worker needed to present a Social Security card for List C. IER contacted the company and provided information about acceptable List C documents and also guidance from other federal agencies on payroll reporting. The company explained that the company policy was to request, but not require, a Social Security card for payroll purposes, consistent with guidance from the IRS and SSA.  The manager involved had misunderstood and policy. The company subsequently hired the worker with her ID and birth certificate.

San Antonio, TX

On September 17, 2019, IER learned that it had successfully intervened on behalf of an asylum applicant who described being removed from a staffing agency’s pool of available temporary employees upon the expiration of his Employment Authorization Document, even though he qualified for a 180-day automatic extension, and had attempted to show his I797C to the employer.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information on the automatic extension, and the employer decided to accept the worker’s documentation.

Rome, NY

On September 25, 2019, IER learned that it had successfully saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer was requesting evidence of lawful permanent residence after the worker’s Permanent Resident Card expired.  The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9 upon initial hire and said that the employer told him that he could not continue working past the expiration date on the card, unless he presented additional proof of work authorization.  IER contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified, and the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without presenting additional documents.

Aurora, IL

On September 30, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who came to the U.S. on a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). The worker presented his ID, unrestricted Social Security card, and SIV for the Form I-9.  The company incorrectly believed that the expiration date on the face of the visa meant that he was not employment authorized because it did not realize that there was an I-551 stamp in the worker’s passport that contained the operative expiration information. IER called the company and provided information on the SIV and also explained that a worker can also satisfy the Form I-9 with an ID and unrestricted Social Security card. The employer was grateful to learn of IER’s free resources and the caller was able to start work as planned.

 

Fiscal Year 2018

Dallas, TX

On October 2, 2017, an IER staff member saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work.  The worker presented his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire.  However, when the EAD was about to expire, the employer requested a new EAD.  The worker has an I‐797 receipt identifying him with a category that qualified his EAD for an automatic six‐month extension after the expiration date.  The worker called IER and IER contacted the employer and explained the automatic extension to the employer.  The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Los Angeles, CA

On October 3, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident.  The LPR presented a Permanent Resident Card that does not contain an expiration date (an older version that is no longer issued).  The employer rejected the card because it did not have an expiration date.  The worker called USCIS, in turn USCIS told the worker to call IER, and he did.  IER called the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards issued without an expiration date are still valid and acceptable for the Form I‐9.  The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue employment without any further delays.

Clarksville, AR

On October 12, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR).  The LPR presented a valid driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes.  The employer insisted on a Permanent Resident Card, however.  The worker called IER and IER called the employer and explained that a worker can satisfy Form I-9 requirements by presenting valid List B & C documents. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue employment without any further delays.

Bismarck, ND

On October 30, 2017, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an alien authorized to work to begin work.  The worker has an expired EAD with a C08 category and an I-797C renewal receipt notice that qualifies the worker’s EAD for an automatic 180-day extension.  An IER staffer directed the employer to the USCIS Fact Sheet on automatic EAD extensions for Form I-9 processing of these documents and the E-Verify User Manual on how to create an E-Verify case.  The employer reviewed the USCIS guidance and started employment of the worker immediately.

California

On November 6, 2017, an IER staff member completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of an Alien Authorized to Work in California whose Employment Authorization Document had expired. The worker also had a valid List C document that would have been sufficient for reverification but her employer did not initially accept it.  The IER staff member called the employer and provided guidance on the type of document the worker was showing. The employer decided to accept the document and issued back pay to the worker.

Ogden, UT

On November 13, 2017, IER received a call on its hotline from a Freely Associated States citizen who received a restricted driver’s license valid for one year.  IER contacted the DMV to provide information on FAS citizens’ legal right to live and work in the United States. The DMV appreciated the information, followed its verification procedures, and issued the caller an unrestricted license.

Dover, NH

On November 15, 2017, IER learned that a U.S. citizen was allowed to continue work at her job following IER’s intervention.  Several years after she started her job, the caller’s employer requested that the U.S. citizen provide her Social Security card and told the worker it was because the company believed she may not have authorization to work in the U.S.  The caller also said that her employer was going to suspend the worker if she failed to provide the requested documentation.  The worker called the IER hotline, and IER contacted the employer.  The HR director explained that the company was performing a Form I-9 audit and discovered that the employer had not filled Section 2 in completely when it hired the employee.  The HR director said that the employee’s supervisor should not have suggested that the company was concerned about the worker’s employment authorization in the U.S., but that the document request was to correct the employee’s Form I-9.  IER provided the company IER’s joint guidance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement on internal Form I-9 audits, and the employer clarified that the worker could show her choice of documentation and that the worker would continue to work.

Los Angeles, CA

On November 16, 2017, IER received confirmation that its intervention had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  Even though the worker had provided sufficient documentation to complete the Form I-9, the employer insisted that the lawful permanent resident provide a Permanent Resident Card as well to begin working.  IER contacted the employer and explained that employers may not request more or specific documents based on citizenship status during the employment eligibility verification process.  The employer decided to allow the employee to begin working without presenting his Permanent Resident Card.

Colorado

On November 20, 2017, an IER staff member completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of a United States citizen in Colorado who had applied for but not yet received a Social Security number. His employer was concerned because the company had recently been acquired by a federal contractor, and needed to run all its employees through E-Verify. The IER staff member called the employer to clarify that it could wait until the worker received his Social Security number to create his E-Verify case. The employer understood, and agreed to allow the worker to continue working without interruption while waiting for his Social Security number.

Vancouver, WA

On November 21, 2017, IER received confirmation that its intervention had saved the job of a work-authorized employee.  Based on its review of a copy of an updated EAD provided during the reverification process, the employer questioned the legitimacy of the employee’s EAD and demanded that she provide additional documentation, including a signed affidavit and copies of her correspondence with USCIS regarding her application for immigration benefits.  IER contacted the employer and its counsel and advised that an employer should not request more or additional documents than required for reverification and should decide whether a document reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to a worker based on a personal inspection of a document, rather than a copy.  The employer decided to allow the employee to continue working, completed the reverification process after noting that the copy did not accurately depict the EAD, and decided not to request any additional documents from the employee.

Schuyler, NE

On December 5, 2017, IER assisted a worker in returning to his job after his employer dismissed the worker based on an erroneous understanding that the worker’s employment authorization ended.   The worker’s representative contacted IER because the worker's supervisor fired the worker when his work permit expired.  The work permit was automatically extended, though.  IER contacted the employer and provided information explaining the worker’s continued work authorization.  IER provided the plant's counsel copies of certain documents showing that the worker was work authorized and the employer decided to reinstate the worker.

New York, NY

On December 11, 2017, IER assisted a U.S. citizen in returning to his job after his employer rejected his valid Form I-9 documentation.  The worker contacted IER because his employer fired him when he could not present a U.S. Passport.  The worker also claimed that the employer had rejected his naturalization certificate for Form I-9 purposes.  IER called the employer and explained that a naturalization certificate is a valid Form I-9 List C document and provided USCIS guidance.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker provided back pay for the days the worker missed, approximately $400.

Forest Park, IL

On December 22, 2017, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to resume working after his company suspended him for one week following the expiration of his Permanent Resident Card.  An IER staff member contacted the company’s human resources department, and the department confirmed that it had a policy of reverifying Permanent Resident Cards when they expired.  The IER staffer sent the HR director links to USCIS resources that discuss reverification policies, such as the Form I-9 instructions and Handbook for Employers.  The company called the worker back to work immediately.

Coral Gables, FL

On December 28, 2017, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident in keeping his job.  The caller’s employer had notified the worker that he had to show a new Permanent Resident Card by the expiration date on his current card or he would not be able to continue working.  IER contacted the employer and provided information from the Handbook for Employers that employers should not reverify Permanent Resident Cards.  The employer decided not to request additional documentation from the worker.

San Fernando, CA

On January 10, 2018, an IER staffer intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The caller reported that during her orientation process with a new employer, the employer requested that she provide her Permanent Resident Card (PRC). After asserting her rights to produce the documents of her choice, including her unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, the employer accepted those documents but also copied her previous, expired PRC. The employer used information from these three documents (including the expired PRC) in running the worker’s E‐Verify case, resulting in an error. The employer told the worker she would not be allowed to continue working until she resolved the issue. The worker contacted IER, and IER spoke with the employer about employee rights and best practices in the employment eligibility verification process. The employer reviewed the information and decided to return the worker to her job the next day.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

On January 11, 2018, an IER staffer learned that she successfully intervened to save the job of an individual whose work authorization had been extended. The worker called IER on January 5, reporting that his employer told him that he could not continue to work past the expiration date on his employment Authorization Document (EAD), even though the worker had provided sufficient documentary proof that he was entitled to an automatic extension by virtue of his status and timely filing for a new EAD. The worker also reported that the badging office at the airport where he worked would not extend his badge because of his expiring EAD. The IER staffer spoke with personnel from the airport badging office and provided guidance about EAD extensions. The badging office then determined that it could extend the worker’s credentials. IER also contacted the employer’s counsel, who looked into the worker’s situation and informed IER soon thereafter that the matter had been resolved in the worker’s favor. The worker also confirmed that he was allowed to continue to work with his automatically extended EAD.

Bremerton, WA

On January 12, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). The LPR presented a valid Permanent Resident Card (PRC) upon hire. When the card expired, the worker’s employer requested a new PRC from the worker even though employers should not reverify a PRC. When the worker was unable to provide a new card, the employer told the worker that he could not work until he could present a new PRC. The worker called the Department of Homeland Security, which referred the worker to IER. IER called the employer and explained that employers should not reverify a PRC if it was unexpired when the worker presents it. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work and paid the worker $490.00 in lost wages.

Chicago, IL

On January 23, 2018, IER learned that it had saved the job of a work‐authorized non‐U.S. citizen with protection under the Violence Against Women Act, whose employer requested additional documentation about her immigration status after she presented her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). IER contacted the employer and explained that employers may not request additional documents if a worker has already presented valid employment authorization documentation. The employer then decided to allow the worker to start work and did not require her to present any additional documentation.

Waldorf, MD

On January 29, 2018, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer, a retail store, had attempted to reverify her Permanent Resident Card (PRC). After IER contacted the employer and explained that a PRC should not be reverified, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue working and stopped demanding additional documentation.

Nanuet, NY

On January 29, 2018, IER learned that it successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who qualified for an automatic extension of her Employment Authorization Card (EAD). The worker’s employer, a retail store, suspended her after she attempted to show, for reverification purposes, her EAD and receipt notice demonstrating that her EAD had been automatically extended. IER reached out to the employer to provide information about the EAD automatic extension. The employer then accepted the worker’s documentation and she returned to work immediately.

South Lake, TX

On January 29, 2018, IER learned that it successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who qualified for an automatic extension of her Employment Authorization Card (EAD). The worker’s employer, a retail store, suspended her after she attempted to show, for reverification purposes, her EAD and receipt notice demonstrating that her EAD had been automatically extended. IER reached out to the employer to provide information about the EAD automatic extension. The worker confirmed that she was back to work and the employer decided to pay her back pay for the days she missed work.

Palm City, FL

On January 31, 2018, an IER staffer assisted a recent LPR who was incorrectly denied a driver’s license due to insufficient documentation. The state DMV allegedly told the LPR that he could not obtain a driver’s license without a Permanent Resident Card (PRC), which the LPR did not have because it was lost in the mail. The IER staffer reviewed the state’s requirements and helped the worker identify a document he already possessed (a machine‐readable immigrant visa (“RIV” in a foreign passport with an unexpired I‐551 stamp) that seemed consistent with the state’ requirements. The LPR returned to the DMV with the documentation, and although the DMV initially rejected it, the LPR was able to convince DMV staff to further review the matter based on IER’ and USCIS’guidance. The DMV staff reconsidered its decision and decided that the LPR’ document was sufficient to issue the LPR his license. The IER staffer also explained to the LPR that his license and unrestricted Social Security card were sufficient for the Form I‐9, and that he need not show his MRIV or PRC (once it arrives) to work.

Los Angeles, CA

On February 2, 2018, an IER staff member saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work. The worker presented her Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire. The worker’s EAD was automatically extended but the employer would not accept it after the expiration date on the face of the EAD. The worker called IER for assistance. In turn, IER contacted the employer and explained to the employer about the automatic six‐month extension. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to return to work and paid $1,152 in back pay.

Disputanta, VA

On February 2, 2018, IER learned that it saved the job of a worker and that the employer paid him $3,000 in back pay for the time he was out of work. The worker was employed at a warehouse for several years and he showed an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) at hire. The worker’s EAD was later automatically extended for 180 days and the worker showed his employer documentation demonstrating the automatic extension, but his employer refused to continue his documentation. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer’s corporate counsel. The employer rehired the worker within a few days of IER’s call and gave him full back pay within a month.

Santa Clara, CA

On February 15, 2018, IER successfully intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The caller showed an unexpired Permanent Resident Card at hire and the card was expiring. The caller’s employer demanded that he provide a new unexpired permanent resident card or be terminated. IER contacted the employer to explain that employers may not reverify Permanent Resident Cards and may not demand that employees produce specific documents based on citizenship status during the employment eligibility verification process. The employer called the employee back to work the same day.

Atlanta, GA

On February 19, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an alien authorized to work to be considered for a position with a health care provider. The employer refused to consider the worker for a position because he did not have a “green card,” despite the fact that he had a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and was authorized to work. IER contacted the employer and provided information from the Handbook for Employers (M‐274) regarding the appropriate time to request employment authorization documentation. The employer decided to consider the worker’ application and ultimately offered him a position.

St. Louis, MO

On March 5, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer suspended her when her lawful permanent resident card expired. The employer would not allow the worker to continue working until she presented a new, unexpired permanent resident card. An IER staff member contacted the employer and provided guidance on reverifying employees’ work authorization. In particular, IER provided the employer DHS guidance that a lawful permanent resident who presents a permanent resident card is not subject to reverification upon the expiration of the card. The employer decided to reinstate the employee and pay her for two weeks of back pay.

Herndon, VA

On March 9, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR presented her foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp on it for the Form I‐9, a List A document. The employer insisted on obtaining a Permanent Resident Card, however. The worker called IER and IER  contacted the employer and provided information about the type of documentation the worker showed. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue employment without any further delays.

Brooklyn, NY

On March 16, 2018, an IER staff member saved the job of an alien authorized to work whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended. The worker presented her EAD upon hire. However, when the EAD expired, the employer requested a new EAD and advised the worker that she could not work until she presented a new EAD. The worker had applied for a renewal EAD and had an I‐797 receipt identifying her with a category that qualified for an automatic extension of her EAD. The worker called IER for assistance. In turn, IER contacted the employer and explained the automatic extension to the employer. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to continue to work without further delay.

Roanoke, VA

On March 19, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen had presented his driver’s license and birth certificate for the Form I‐9. However, the employer requested to see the worker’ Social Security card for the Form I‐9. The worker called IER. IER contacted the employer and explained that a birth certificate is an acceptable List C document. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment without further delay.

Buena Vista, FL

On March 27, 2018, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an alien authorized to work from Haiti. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had an expiration date of March 6, 2018, but was automatically extended for six months based on the timely filed renewal  application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD. Since the worker had not yet received his new card, the employer terminated the worker. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension. As a result, the employer reinstated the worker without loss of seniority or benefits.

Hyattsville, MD

On April 2, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had been offered a job and showed her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9, along with an expired Permanent Resident Card. Based on the expired Permanent Resident Card, the employer was not sure if it could hire the worker. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that an employee can provide her choice of valid documentation to complete the Form I‐9 and LPRs do not have to show a Permanent Resident Card. The employer then decided to accept the alternative documents allow the individual to commence employment.

Reading, PA

On April 2, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention that resulted in reinstatement of a previously‐terminated worker, with full back pay. The employer was not aware that the worker’s I‐797 receipt extended his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and had therefore terminated the worker based on the expiration date on the worker’s EAD. Based on information that IER provided about the type of automatic extension that the worker had, the employer reinstated the worker.

Ontario, CA

On April 5, 2018, IER learned that a worker received back pay and reinstatement after a larger retailer incorrectly fired her. The worker is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who showed an I‐551 stamp in a foreign passport for Section 2 of the Form I‐9 when the employer hired her several months ago. The I‐551 stamp expired. Although the employer was supposed to reverify the worker’s employment authorization, it incorrectly instructed her to produce a Permanent Resident Card instead of allowing the worker the opportunity to present any List A or List C document. The worker later tried to present her unrestricted Social Security card (a List C document) but the employer incorrectly rejected it. The worker called IER and IER called the employer’s counsel. The employer rehired the worker and paid her $880 in back pay for the hours she would have worked.

Miami, FL

On April 6, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident. The caller’s employer attempted to reverify his Permanent Resident Card, and terminated him when he was unable to provide a new card. IER called the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The employer issued back pay to the worker in the amount of $2,615 for the eight weeks of work that the worker missed, and offered him reinstatement.

St. Louis, MO

On April 9, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of an adjustment applicant. The worker’s employer requested that the worker show a new Employment Authorization (EAD) Document and told the worker her could not continue to work without a new EAD, even though his current EAD was not yet expired. The employer also insisted on a new EAD, despite the fact that the worker indicated he intended to present a different valid document for reverification. IER called the employer and explained that workers do not need to show new documentation before their EAD expires and may choose which valid List A or List C document to show for reverification. The employer allowed the worker to continue working.

Ohio

On April 11, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an alien authorized to work (AAW) to renew his driver’s license. The AAW called IER’s hotline to report that the department of motor vehicles would not renew his driver’s license with the documents he presented. IER contacted the department of motor vehicles and got clarification on the documents the agency could accept. IER conveyed this information to the AAW, and when he returned to the department of motor vehicles, he received his new license.

Michigan

On April 18, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an adjustment applicant to renew her driver’s license. The caller had an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) that was eligible for a 180‐day automatic extension based on her timely renewal application. The DMV, because of technical issues, was not able to verify the 180‐day extension. IER contacted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which resolved the technical issue, allowing the caller to receive her new license.

Washington, DC

On April 19, 2018, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer, an educational institution, did not let her begin work without presenting a Permanent Resident Card (PRC). The worker presented a valid State ID card and Social Security card (List B and C documents) but the employer demanded a PRC. The IER staffer contacted the employer who decided to onboard the worker and allow her to begin work.

New York, NY

On April 20, 2018, the efforts of an IER attorney made it possible for a recently hired individual to start work. The employer called IER because the new employee presented an automatically‐extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) with an I‐797C Notice of Action, which together was a List A EAD. The attorney forwarded the employer U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services educational materials stating that that EADs in the same category as the worker’ can be eligible for an automatic extension. The employer decided to let the worker begin work.

Lehigh, PA

On April 23, 2018, IER successfully intervened and assisted a lawful permanent resident obtain restatement after she was improperly discharged. The employer told the worker, who presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card during the employment eligibility verification process, that she needed to present a new card because the picture on the card was that of a child and the employer could not determine if the card related to the employee. The worker provided a stated‐issued identification and an unrestricted Social Security card, which are List B and C documents. The employer nevertheless terminated her employment and advised her that she was eligible for rehire once she returned with a new permanent resident card. An IER staff member contacted the employer and provided him with materials from USCIS and IER’ website explaining that workers can provide their choice of valid documentation for the Form I‐9. After reviewing the materials, the employer decided to reinstate the employee.

Lakeland, FL

On May 11, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The employer requested that the worker provide a Permanent Resident Card during the Form I‐9 process and rejected the worker’s I‐551 stamp on a Form I‐94 as an acceptable receipt. IER intervened and provided the employer with guidance that workers can provide their choice of valid documentation for the Form I‐9 process, and also referred the employer to the acceptable receipts section in the M‐274 Handbook for Employers. The employer reached out to the worker and completed the onboarding process for her to start without any delays.

Clarksburg, MD

On May 11, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The employer requested that the worker provide a Permanent Resident Card during the employment eligibility verification process and did not accept the valid receipt that the worker provided. IER intervened and referred the employer to the acceptable receipts section in the M‐274 Handbook for Employers. The employer reached out to the worker and completed the onboarding process for him to start without any delays.

Kissimmee, FL

On May 14, 2018, IER learned that it saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose new employer rejected her MRIV with an I‐551 notation for the Form I‐9. The employer misunderstood the expiration date, and prevented the worker from starting work on the start date they had agreed upon. The worker contacted IER’s worker hotline. IER staff contacted the employer and pointed them to USCIS language about the MRIV with an I‐551 notation. The employer resumed the onboarding process, and the worker started her new job.

Rosharon, TX

On May 17, 2018, IER learned that its intervention resulted in the reinstatement of an alien authorized to work whose EAD was eligible for an automatic 180‐day extension. The worker indicated that she timely applied for renewal of her EAD, which had one of the category codes eligible for an automatic 180‐day extension. However, the I‐797 receipt USCIS sent the worker did not have a category code on it, which was necessary to prove the automatic extension of her EAD. After speaking with IER, the worker contacted USCIS to obtain a corrected I‐797 receipt, but did not receive it until after the employer terminated her employment on the expiration date on her EAD. The worker presented the corrected I‐797 receipt to the employer, but the employer initially declined to reinstate the worker since the corrected I‐797 receipt indicated it was sent after the expiration date on the EAD. IER called the employer and explained that the work authorization of a worker whose EAD received an automatic extension due to timely application for a renewal EAD does not lapse upon the expiration date on the EAD, even if USCIS sent the I‐797 receipt needed to prove the automatic extension after the expiration date on the EAD. After considering the information IER provided, the employer decided to reinstate the worker.

Oxon Hill, MD

On May 30, 2018, IER learned that it saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been denied a position at a private company due to his inability to pass a Maryland state background check. The relevant state agency initially told the worker that they needed his naturalization certificate to run him through SAVE, a DHS program that confirms an individual’s immigration/citizenship status. The worker called IER, and IER told the worker that SAVE’s guidance material states that the system only requires the naturalization certificate number, and not the document itself. The worker relayed that information to the state agency, and the state agency confirmed that it only needed the document number. However, the agency never ran the worker through SAVE and therefore did not pass his background check. The worker called IER, and IER contacted the state agency. The state agency immediately realized it’s error and within 24 hours of IER’s call, and resolved the situation and confirmed the worker’s eligibility so he could obtain his job at the private company.

Miami, FL

On May 31, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had been offered a job and showed his foreign passport with an MRIV with I‐551 notation, which is a Form I‐9 List A document. This confused the employer who told him that he must present a Green Card, which he had not yet received. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that an employee can provide the employee’ choice of valid Form I‐9 documentation, including an unexpired foreign passport with the MRIV stamp with the I‐551 notation. The employer then decided to accept these documents and allowed the individual to commence employment.

Omaha, NE

On June 4, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of an alien authorized to work. The worker explained that she was not allowed to complete onboarding due to different compound last names (married and maiden). IER called the employer and explained the “other names used” field on the Form I‐9. The employer completed the worker’ onboarding without any delays.

Vista, CA

On June 20, 2018, IER received a hotline call from a human resources representative and saved a lawful permanent resident’s (LPR’s) job based on the assistance it provided. The LPR showed his unrestricted Social Security card and state‐issued identification card for the Form I‐9. The representative’s supervisor wanted her to demand a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) from the worker. The supervisor believed that the newly‐hired worker had to demonstrate that his PRC matched his alien number listed on the Form I‐9 and that the company had to fire the worker if he did not present a PRC. IER informed the representative that the worker, not the employer, chooses which documents to present for employment verification purposes and that all workers may decide to show a combination of valid documents from List B and List C. IER provided additional information to the representative on the Form I‐9 process. The employer decided to no longer demand a PRC from the worker.

Houston, TX

On June 22, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an alien authorized to work to begin her job. The worker said that she presented her Employment Authorization Document (EAD), but her employer then requested that she present either a U.S. Passport or Permanent Resident Card. IER reached out to the employer to explain proper employment eligibility verification procedures, including that a worker may choose which valid documentation to present for the Form I‐9. After the employer looked into the situation, it decided to allow the worker to begin working and provided her with back pay for the period of time she was not allowed to begin working.

Phoenix, AZ

On June 22, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of an alien authorized to work whose employer did not accept the evidence that his employment authorization document had been automatically renewed for 180 days. An IER attorney provided the employer with information on the automatic extension of certain employment authorization documents, and the employer immediately reinstated the worker, allowing him to work a shift that very night.

Pasco, WA

On June 25, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer had not provided her with an opportunity to present her driver’s license and Social Security card at initial hire. IER called the employer and explained that a driver’s license and unrestricted social security card were acceptable documents for the Form I‐9. The employer invited the worker back to complete her Form I‐9 and begin working.

Anchorage, AK

On June 26, 2018, IER learned that it saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who attempted to get a job in the fishing industry. The company initially refused to hire the worker because it incorrectly believed that it needed a DHS document for the Form I‐9. A service provider contacted IER on behalf of the worker. IER called the company to explain that all workers can show any documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents, including a state ID (List B) and unrestricted Social Security card (List C). The company appreciated IER’ guidance and resumed the hiring process for the worker. The employer requested additional Form I‐9 guidance and was excited to learn of IER’ hotline as a free resource for its HR staff.

Phoenix, AZ

On July 9, 2018, IER saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work.  Her employer had suspended her based on the expiration of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD), even though the employee showed the employer an I-797 receipt extending her employment authorization for 180 days.  The employer had told the worker that it did not want the receipt and would only accept a new EAD.  IER spoke with the employer and explained that certain Aliens Authorized to Work are eligible for a 180-day extension of their work eligibility if they timely apply for a renewal EAD.  The employer confirmed that the worker met the eligibility criteria for the 180-day extension, accepted the I-797 receipt, and allowed the employee to return to work.

Chicago, IL

On July 18, 2018, an IER staff member saved the job of an alien authorized to work. The worker presented his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire. The employer requested a new EAD based on the expiration date on the EAD and advised the worker that he could not work until he presented a new EAD. The worker’s EAD qualified for an automatic 180‐day extension when presented with a receipt notice showing the worker applied for a renewal EAD on a timely basis. The worker called IER section. In turn, IER contacted the employer and explained the automatic six‐month extension. The employer accepted decided to allow the worker to continue to work without further delay.

Bradenton, FL

On July 25, 2018, an H‐4 visaholder called IER because an employer refused to hire her based on an erroneous belief that she required sponsorship. The attorney provided the employer information from USCIS’ website about H‐4 visas and employment authorization. The next day, the employer’s human resources manager called the visaholder and apologized for the confusion regarding the visa. If the visaholder passes her background check, the employer will hire her.

Dallas, TX

On July 27, 2018, IER received a hotline call from a worker whose employer suspended her employment on July 24, 2018 due to the July 24, 2018 expiration date on her Employment Authorization Document (EAD). However, EADs like the one the caller had are eligible for an automatic 180‐day extension past the printed expiration date if the worker applies for a renewal EAD with the same category code before the expiration date. To prove the 180‐day automatic extension, such a worker can provide his or her recently expired (or soon‐to‐be‐expired) EAD with the Form I‐797 receipt that USCIS sends when it receives the renewal application. Although the caller had the correct Form I‐797 receipt and presented it to the employer, the employer refused to accept it as proof of continuing work authorization. After IER provided information to the employer regarding automatic extensions of EADs, the employer decided to reinstate the caller with back pay.

Los Angeles, CA

On August 1, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen whose employer had insisted on seeing a birth certificate or a U.S. passport to verify his citizenship status, after the worker had already presented a valid driver’s license and Social Security card for the Form I‐9. IER called the employer and explained that a driver’s license and a Social Security card are List B and C documents, respectively, that satisfy the Form I‐9, and that an employer restricting position to U.S. citizens is generally unlawful unless there is a law, regulation, or government contract that requires such a restriction. With this information, the employer reassessed its documentation requirements and no longer required the worker to present such additional documentation.

Tucson, AZ

On August 2, 2018, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job a lawful permanent resident. The employer rejected the worker’s valid List B and C documents during the employment eligibility verification process, because the worker had an expired Permanent Resident Card. IER contacted counsel for the employer and explained that an employer cannot reject valid documents that meet the requirements for the Form I‐9. The employer subsequently allowed the worker to complete the Form I‐9 with his valid List B and C documents.

Maumee, OH

On August 7, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a U.S. citizen to receive paychecks in her legal name. The caller presented valid List B and C documents for the Form I‐9. The List B document has her married last name, which is her current legal last name. The List C document has her maiden last name. Although the employee wrote her current last name on Form I‐9, the employer changed it to her maiden last name and issued a paycheck in the incorrect last name, which the employee could not deposit. The employer then requested the employee to provide her Social Security card. An IER staffer contacted the company and provided information from the Handbook for Employers stating that Section 1 should be completed using the employee’s current legal name.

Menlo Park, CA

On August 13, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer rejected the worker’s receipt for a lost, stolen, or damaged Permanent Resident Card during the Form I-9 process. The employer would not let the caller work unless he provided other documentation to establish his employment authorization.  An IER staff member contacted the employer’s legal counsel and directed them to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, M-274.  After reviewing the M-274, the employer voluntarily contacted the employee and reinstated his employment.  The employer also voluntarily paid the worker $3,900 in lost wages.

Pennsylvania

On August 20, 2018, IER intervened on behalf of an alien authorized to work who called and stated that his employer would not accept his documents to show his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had been automatically extended. The worker also said that his employer said it would suspend him after the expiration date on his EAD if the worker did not show a new EAD. IER called the employer to explain the procedure for an EAD automatic extension and how to determine if a worker’s EAD has been extended. The worker then returned with his documents and the employer reverified the worker with the 180‐day extension.

Miami, FL

On August 21, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to Work.  His employer had rejected his receipt for a lost Employment Authorization Document (EAD) because it believed that it needed to see his actual EAD before could begin work.  IER called the employer and explained that a receipt to replace a lost, stolen, or damaged document is a valid document for 90 days from the date of hire.  The employer accepted this explanation and allowed the employee to begin working.

Atlanta, GA

On August 23, 2018, IER successfully completed an intervention to assist a worker whose former employer was requiring a new Form I‐9 to issue payment related to her prior work. The worker contacted IER because her former employer told her that its payroll company required a new Form I‐9 to process the payment. IER contacted the payroll company and explained Form I‐9 procedures and the company decided to pay the worker.

Jefferson, IN

On August 24, 2018, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker’s employer was requesting that the worker show a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) even though the worker had provided sufficient documentation to satisfy the Form I‐9. IER called the employer and provided guidance on the types of documents that are acceptable for the Form I‐9, and the employer decided to rehire the worker with the documentation he already provided.

Greensboro, NC

On August 27, 2018, an IER staff member successfully completed a telephone intervention saving the job of a U.S. citizen with a job placement agency. The citizen presented her temporary driver’s license as a List B document for the Form I‐9, along with a valid List C document. The company was mistaken in how to enter the temporary driver’s license into E‐Verify and entered it as a receipt instead of a driver’s license. E‐Verify was unable to process the information. IER contacted the placement agency and shared USCIS guidance explaining that temporary driver’s licenses are valid List B documents and not receipts. As a result, the placement agency successfully verified the employee’s employment eligibility and immediately allowed her to begin work.

Indianapolis, IN

On August 30, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had presented a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card upon hire. The employer requested to see the worker’s Permanent Resident Card. The worker called the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DHS referred the worker to IER. IER called the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card is not required for employment eligibility verification purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

New York, NY

On August 31, 2018, IER successfully completed an intervention and saved the job of an adjustment applicant. The caller provided an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for the Form I‐9. The caller’s employer used an onboarding software program that requested a visa number, which did not apply to the worker. IER contacted the employer and provided information on Form I‐9 procedures and the employer decided to continue the onboarding process. The worker began his job the next workday.

San Marcos, CA

On September 5, 2018, an IER staff member completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who reported that her employer rejected her Permanent Resident Card in the rehiring process because of a misunderstanding about the card’s validity period. IER called the employer and provided information about the type of Permanent Resident Card that the worker has, which has a validity period starting prior to the date the worker became an LPR. The employer committed to working with the applicant to find an available position.

Brooklyn, NY

On September 11, 2018, an IER staff member saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who contacted IER because her employer required her to show a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) during the Form I-9 process.  The worker presented her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security Card for the Form I-9 but the employer’s HR professional demanded to see her PRC.  When the worker did not provide one, the employer rescinded the worker’s offer of employment.  IER staff contacted the employer and explained proper Form I-9 procedures, including that workers can provide their choice of valid documentation regardless of citizenship status.  The employer decided to accept the worker’s valid documentation and immediately reinstated her. 

Broussard, LA

On September 14, 2018, IER assisted a human resources representative and to allow a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) to keep his job. The HR representative contacted IER because she was having difficulty onboarding an LPR. Although the LPR presented valid List B and List C documents for the Form I‐9, the HR representative’ supervisors insisted that the LPR provide an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. An IER attorney discussed the employment eligibility verification process with the representative and emailed her information from USCIS about proper Form I‐9 procedures. The representative forwarded that information to her supervisors. On September 14, 2018, the company accepted the LPR’s documents and allowed the worker to start work.

 

Fiscal Year 2017

Commerce, CA

On October 13, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been informed that she would not be permitted to work beyond October 17, 2016, the expiration date of her Permanent Resident Card, unless she provided additional documentation verifying her continuing work authorization. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained that these cards should not be reverified. The worker was allowed to continue working without presenting any additional documentation.

Levittown, NY

On October 20, 2016, OSC learned that a lawful permanent resident who had been denied employment because she could not provide an unexpired Permanent Resident Card or proof of her efforts to become a U.S. Citizen had started work and been paid $499.20 in back pay. The worker’s husband called OSC’s hotline after the worker was unable to move forward in the hiring process without the requested documents, even though she had valid, unexpired List B and List C documents proving her ability to work in the United States. After the advocate contacted OSC, an OSC staffer contacted the employer’s counsel to look into the situation. The employer determined that the worker should have been allowed to present her valid List B and List C documents and to start work. The employer moved forward with the employee’s hire and decided to pay her for her lost time at work.

Bridgeport, CT

On October 21, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer attempted to reverify the worker’s Permanent Resident Card. The employer told the worker that she must provide a renewed Permanent Resident Card, provide a letter from her immigration attorney within thirty days, or lose her job. The worker called OSC’S hotline. OSC staff called the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards should never be reverified. OSC staff also sent the employer an email with links to the relevant government websites and instructions on how to update the workers Form I‐9. The employer decided to continue employing the worker without demanding additional documentation. The worker’s work schedule suffered no interruption.

Odenton, MD

On October 28, 2016, OSC saved the job of a conditional lawful permanent resident who had been told that she would be terminated from her job due to the expiration of her conditional Permanent Resident Card (Form I‐551). OSC explained to the employer that the worker’s I‐551 had been extended by USCIS for one year as evidenced by her I‐751 receipt notice. The employer decided not to discharge the worker.

Indianapolis, IN

On November 1, 2016, OSC intervened to give an employer guidance to ensure that the employer instituted a Form I‐9 audit in a non‐discriminatory way. OSC received a call on its hotline from a worker in a hotel whose supervisor appeared to be singling out Latino non‐citizens during an internal Form I‐9 audit for extra information based on their national origin and/or immigration status. An OSC attorney called the hotel’s assistant general manager and explained best practices during Form I‐9 audits. The employer did not realize that its supervisor had been going beyond the instructions to complete/correct Forms I‐9 for those employees whose Forms I‐9 were missing or deficient. The employer stated that the company would make sure that its managers would not make assumptions about individuals’ employment authorization and would treat all workers consistently during the audit.

San Diego, CA

On November 1, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been told he could not work at a car wash until he provided his Permanent Resident Card. The worker researched his rights and found OSC’s hotline. An OSC attorney spoke to the worker and called the car wash manager to explain that all workers, regardless of citizenship, can present documentation from the Form I‐9 Lists of Acceptable Documents. Once the employer understood proper Form I‐9 procedures, it allowed the worker to present his state ID and his unrestricted Social Security card. The manager called the worker so that he would return on the same day to start his job. The OSC attorney also sent the manager a link to OSC and USCIS resources so that he could learn more about the process.

Riverside, CA

On November 4, 2016, OSC saved the job of a worker working at a large retail store. The employee is an LPR whose Permanent Resident Card recently expired. The worker’s daughter called OSC after the store allegedly refused to accept her library card and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC called the employer’s outside counsel and the matter was resolved. The worker was allowed to start work and the employer paid her for her time in orientation.

West Palm Beach, FL

On November 7, 2016, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to continue with the hiring process after a resort rejected her valid Form I‐9 Lists B and C documents. The worker showed the company her valid driver’s license (List B document) and expired Permanent Resident Card (PRC) together with a Form I‐797 notice extending the card’s validity until 2017 (List C document). The resort delayed her start date and told the worker that she needed another document instead of the expired PRC and I‐797 notice. An OSC staffer called the company and guided the HR representative to the page in the USCIS Handbook for Employers that explains that an expired PRC with a Form I‐797 one‐year extension is a valid List C document. After OSC’s call, the company continued the hiring process for the worker.

Euless, TX

On November 14, 2016, an OSC staff member completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker had presented an expired Permanent Resident Card, her state identification card and Social Security card. However, the employer stated that it needed to see the current unexpired card in order to begin employment, could not continue to process the hiring paperwork without it. The worker contacted USCIS to request a replacement card, and USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC called the employer and provided guidance on acceptable documents for Form I‐9, explaining that a List B and List C document are sufficient. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue in the hiring process and paid her $3,800.00 in back pay.

Jack, AL

On November 14, 2016, OSC saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been told that he would be fired if he did not present a Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker wished to show his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card (as permitted under Form I‐9 rules), but was told by the employer that the Form I‐9 required the worker to present his Permanent Resident Card. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 rules. The worker was allowed to present his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card without further issues.

Austin, TX

On November 15, 2016, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of an LPR whose Permanent Resident Card (Form I‐551) was issued without an expiration date. The employer asked the worker to show proof that the card was valid. The worker called USCIS, which referred her to OSC. OSC contacted HR director and let him know that certain cards lacking an expiration date are nonetheless valid. The worker was allowed to begin work without any further problems.

Boston, MA

On December 5, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been told that his I‐551 stamp in a foreign passport was insufficient for the Form I‐9. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the worker’s employer to explain that an I‐551 stamp is a valid Form I‐9 document. The employer apologized for its error and the worker did not lose any time off of work due to the mistake.

Houston, TX

On December 5, 2016 OSC learned that a U.S. citizen was allowed to resume work at his new job following OSC’s intervention. The employer suspended the worker after he was unable to meet the employer’s demand for a Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker initially presented a List B document with a birth certificate, which the employer rejected. The worker then presented a receipt for a lost Social Security card, which was the employer also rejected. When the employer demanded that the worker present a Social Security card, the worker called the OSC hotline. OSC staff contacted the employer, and explained that the employer should not reject acceptable Form I‐9 documentation based on the worker’s citizenship, immigration status or national origin. The employer thanked OSC staff for sharing the helpful information. OSC staff encouraged the employer to review records to make sure no other employee has been denied the choice of documentation in the Form I‐9 process. The worker was allowed to return to work without further delay.

Franklin, KY

On December 9, 2016, OSC assisted an LPR in keeping her job. The worker’s two‐year Form I‐551 was about to expire and she brought her employer the notice extending her card for an additional year. The employer told the worker that she would not be able to work past the original expiration date without a new card. The worker called OSC and OSC contacted the employer. The employer believed the worker was attempting to show a receipt for a renewal EAD. However, when the employer reviewed the worker’s Form I‐9, it realized that based on the documentation the worker showed at hire she did not have to show any further documentation. The worker was able to continue working.

Chicago, IL

On December 14, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver’s license, and unrestricted Social Security card, along with her expired Permanent Resident Card. The employer told the worker that she needed to get a new Permanent Resident Card because the employer could not accept any expired documents. The worker called USCIS, and in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC reached out to the employer and explained that the valid List B and List C documents were sufficient to satisfy the Form I‐9 requirements. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue in her job without further interruptions.

Silver Spring, MD

On December 20, 2016, an OSC staff member completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a conditional LPR. The LPR was offered and accepted a job but her employer’s fingerprinting office refused to process the fingerprints because the I‐551 stamp on her passport appeared to have expired. The worker called her caseworker, who in turn called OSC. OSC contacted the fingerprinting office and headquarters office and explained that the expiration on the I‐551 stamp was one year from the endorsement date of Sept 2016, making the stamp valid until September 2017. The employer decided to allow the worker to be fingerprinted and to begin her job.

Ohio

On January 6, 2017, OSC learned that it helped an LPR maintain his commercial driver’s license (CDL), after a DMV initially told the caller in error that he was ineligible for a CDL due to his status as a conditional lawful permanent resident. The LPR’s wife contacted OSC, and OSC, after consulting with the Department of Transportation (DOT), contacted the state DMV to provide information about the caller’s Permanent Resident Card and referred the DMV to contact DOT to seek clarification as needed. The DMV realized its error and permitted the LPR to keep his CDL.

Houston, TX

On January 27, 2017, an employer contacted IER to ask about how long it takes a worker to receive an updated permanent resident card because its employee’s card was expiring and the employer assumed Permanent Resident Cards were subject to reverification. IER staff referred the employer and HR staff to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, and explained that legal permanent residents are not subject to reverification of their employment authorization. The employer and HR staff were grateful for the information and allowed to worker to continue without interruption.

Austin, TX

On January 27, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an LPR worker. The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card at hire and the employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired and asked the worker for a new Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted IER, and in turn, IER contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9, and that an employer should not reverify a Permanent Resident Card. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow worker to continue with his employment.

Texas

On February 3, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had been told by a staffing agency that she could not use a temporary driver’s license to complete the Form I‐9. IER provided the worker with USCIS guidance on the acceptability of a temporary driver’s license for the Form I‐9 and also conveyed the information to the staffing agency. IER later learned from the worker that the staffing agency agreed to accept her documents without further issues.

Groveland, FL

On February 6, 2017, an IER attorney assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) whose green card expired during his employment to keep his job. The employer’s HR Director wanted the LPR to present a new green card as proof of his continued work authorization. IER provided the LPR information from USCIS explaining that employers should not reverify green cards and the LPR presented it to the HR Director. The employer decided to allow the LPR to continue working.

Los Angeles, CA

On February 8, 2017, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of an LPR whose employer rejected the worker’s valid permanent resident card. The card was issued in 1985 and contains no expiration date. The employer, a healthcare provider, was not sure if the card was legitimate and asked the worker to try to obtain one with an expiration date. The worker contacted USCIS, in turn, USCIS referred the worker to IER. IER contacted the employer and explained that this type of permanent resident card is still valid, and as long as it appears genuine and relates to the worker, an employer should accept it. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin employment immediately.

Easton, PA

On February 10, 2017, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to continue to work with back pay. The company, a major retail store, reverified the employee’s work authorization after the EAD she showed at hire expired. The employee has since become a conditional lawful permanent resident and showed her original I‐551 card with a receipt notice showing the I‐551 was extended for one year (List C documents). The company rejected these documents, requested an unexpired Permanent Resident Card, and suspended her without pay. An IER staffer called the company’s legal counsel and the company immediately accepted the employee’s proffered documents, reinstated her, and paid approximately $250 in back pay.

Rochester, NY

On February 13, 2017, an IER attorney saved the job of an F‐1 student. An employer called because he did not understand the I‐9 requirements related to F‐1 students and was going not to accept the worker’s valid documentation based on this confusion. IER provided the employer the Handbook for Employer and pointed the employer to information in the Handbook about acceptable documentation for F‐1 students, along with other materials on F‐1 students. The student was hired.

Minneapolis, MN

On February 14, 2017, IER saved the job of a refugee who had been terminated for not presenting specific documents for Form I‐9 Section 3 reverification. The worker was told to present an unexpired EAD or permanent resident card, neither of which the worker possessed. IER contacted the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 reverification rules. The worker was allowed to present her Social Security card without further issues.

Mobile, AL

On February 21, 2017, an employer called IER requesting guidance on how complete a Form I‐9 for a refugee worker who was unable to present an updated EAD. IER staff explained that employees must be allowed to choose which Form I‐9 documentation to present. The employer decided to allow the worker to present his Social Security card and State ID without further issues.

Woodridge, IL

On March 6, 2017, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to resume working after he was suspended for two weeks. The human resources office stated that it has a policy of reverifying Permanent Resident Cards when they expire. The hotline caller’s card expired in February 2017, and he was suspended without pay. An IER staffer called the company and explained that neither the antidiscrimination provision of the INA, nor USCIS guidance, authorizes reverification of Permanent Resident Cards. The IER staffer directed the representative to the Handbook for Employers. The company called the worker back to work immediately and is determining whether it will pay him for lost wages.

Bronx, NY

On March 6, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with an EAD that had been extended for an additional 180 days. The worker had being working for a health services agency; however, her employer noticed that her EAD was about to expire and requested a new EAD. The worker called IER and explained that her EAD category was A10, which qualifies for an automatic 6‐month extension. IER called the employer and explained that the worker’s EAD category was identified by USCIS as one that qualified for a 6‐month extension. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to return the worker to her job immediately.

Nassau, NY

On March 7, 2017, an IER staff member assisted a worker in the onboarding process after an electronic Form I‐9 initially rejected his information. The worker called IER because he believed his employer was refusing to accept his Form I‐9 and denying him the job. IER contacted the employer and the employer reviewed the worker’s Form I‐9 and identified a technical issue with the information the worker inputted into Section 1. With IER’s assistance, the employer walked the worker through the process of entering his information correctly and the worker was able to complete the form and begin his job without interruption.

East Bloomington, MN

On March 17, 2017, an IER attorney intervened and saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident from Ethiopia. The worker lost his permanent resident card, and asked his employer if they had a copy of the card that they could provide him. Upon being informed that the worker had lost the card, his supervisor told him that he would not be put back on the schedule until he showed a new PRC, even though the worker had provided sufficient documentation at hire. The IER attorney called the employer's counsel and explained that an employer should not require a worker who has shown sufficient documentation at hire to resubmit documentation when not required. The employer's Human Resources official decided to let the worker continue working, and put him back on the schedule.

Huntsville, TX

On March 21, 2017, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work from Nigeria. The worker’s EAD had an expiration date of March 21, 2017, but was automatically extended for six months based on the timely filed renewal application. The employer did not understand this extension, and requested a new EAD immediately. The IER staffer called the employer and explained the automatic extension. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

San Diego, CA

On March 22, 2017, IER learned that it ensured continuity of employment for a worker whose employer rejected his unrestricted Social Security card for reverification. When his EAD expired, the worker showed an unrestricted Social Security card for reverification. The employer rejected it and requested a new EAD, or letter from DHS confirming his work authorization. IER staff spoke with the employer to explain that workers have the right to choose a List A or List C documentation for reverification regardless of what kind of documentation the worker chose to present for Section 2. The worker suffered no interruption in employment, and the employer expressed gratitude for the guidance.

Newport, KY

On March 22, 2017, the efforts of an IER attorney made it possible for a lawful permanent resident (LPR) to start work. The employer initially rejected the worker’s permanent resident card because it contained her prior last name. The employer called IER and IER explained the documentation presented was acceptable if the employer determined that it reasonably appeared to be genuine and to relate to the person. The employer decided to accept the documentation presented and the worker was allowed to begin work.

Scottsdale, AZ

On March 22, 2017, an employer called to ask if it could accept a driver’s license with the notation “NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES” for the Form I‐9 because it initially rejected the ID. IER informed the employer that a driver’s license with this type of notation is an acceptable List B document if it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and address and if it reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the worker. IER also informed the employer that if she accepts the state‐issued license with a limiting notation, the employer must also examine a List C document establishing employment authorization. The employer stated that the new hire possessed a List C. The new hire now can start working immediately.

El Paso, TX

On March 23, 2017, IER learned that it helped a worker start his new job. The worker was referred to IER’s hotline after calling USCIS seeking assistance. The employer rejected his combination of a List B document together with his unrestricted Social Security card and the worker missed a week of work as a result. The employer said it would not allow him to start working unless the worker presented his permanent resident card. IER sent the worker an employer handout outlining proper I‐9 procedure which the worker shared with his employer. The employer agreed to allow the worker to start work the next day.

Houston, TX

On March 24, 2017, an IER staff member saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The employer called IER to ask how to proceed when a LPR worker could not present an updated Permanent Resident Card in a timely manner. The IER staff member referred the employer to the M‐274 employer handbook detailing the reverification process and explained that Permanent Resident Cards cannot be reverified. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without interruption.

Houston, TX

On March 28, 2017, an IER staff member saved the job of a worker whose EAD was extended for 180 days past the expiration date on the card. The worker’s EAD listed a category A10 (withholding of deportation or removal granted), which is a qualifying category for EADs that are automatically extended for 180 days if a timely renewal application remains pending at the time of the card’s expiration date. The employer called IER requesting guidance on how to proceed after the worker’s EAD had expired and IER referred the employer to USCIS’s Fact Sheet detailing the automatic extension of the worker’s EAD. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working.

Mobile, AL

On March 28, 2017, an IER staff member saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The employer called IER to ask how to proceed after a Permanent Resident Card had expired. The IER staff member referred the employer to the M‐274 employer handbook detailing the reverification process and explained that Permanent Resident Cards cannot be reverified. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without interruption.

Toppenish, AL

On March 29, 2017, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident in Washington State. The worker was a client at an organization that IER had recently conducted outreach to. The worker’s PRC had an expiration date of April 3, 2017, and his employer demanded that he produce a new PRC for reverification purposes or lose his job. The IER staffer called the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards never need to be reverified. The employer allowed the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Queens, NY

On March 29, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The LPR had presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire; however, when the card expired, the employer insisted on obtaining a new card. The worker called IER and IER called the employer and explained that an LPR card should not be reverified. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue with her employment without any further delays.

Placentia, CA

On March 29, 2017, IER intervened to save two Lawful Permanent Residents’ jobs after they were terminated based on the expiration of their Permanent Resident Cards. A worker called IER after being terminated for not producing a new Permanent Resident Card, even though the card was unexpired at the time he presented it for the Form I‐9. Despite the LPR’s explanation that he still was authorized to work, the employer said he could not return to work until he could produce a new unexpired Permanent Resident Card. IER staff called the employer and referenced the Form I‐9 instructions and USCIS M‐274 handbook which explain that an employer does not need to reverify Permanent Resident Cards when they expire. The employer accepted the explanation and reinstated the employee, and also informed IER that it had identified a second employee in the same situation who also had been reinstated.

Kingsville, TX

On April 3, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a U.S. Citizen who was asked to produce a specific List C document for the Form I‐9 at initial hire. The worker showed a receipt for a List C document, along with her List B document. The employer questioned whether it could accept the documentation the worker showed at the end of the 90‐day period for the receipt. IER and the worker reached out to USCIS for guidance, and shared USCIS’s written guidance with the employer. The employer decided to accept the worker’s birth certificate and allow the employee to continue working.

West Palm Beach, CA

On April 6, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of an LPR from the Dominican Republic. The worker showed her passport with an I‐551 stamp for the Form I‐9. Her employer, a national job placement firm, informed her that she would be terminated on April 7, 2017, unless she showed her permanent resident card, even though her documentation was acceptable until July 6, 2017. An IER attorney reached out to the employer and explained that a passport with an I‐551 stamp is acceptable for one year after the date of admission, after which the worker can show any valid List A or List C document. The employer decided to continue to accept the worker’s documentation with no disruption in her work. IER also shared with the employer information about IER’s employer webinars, and links to USCIS’s website.

Beaverton, OR

On April 7, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a U.S. Citizen whose List B document was rejected at the time of hire. Although the employee sought to present a temporary driver’s license that met the requirements of List B of the Form I‐9, as well as a valid List C document, the employer refused to allow him to begin working on the belief that the temporary driver’s license would not satisfy E-Verify requirements. The employee reached out to IER and the IER staffer identified guidance from USCIS regarding the proper handling of temporary driver’s licenses on the Form I‐9 and in E‐Verify, which the IER staffer shared with the employer. The employer subsequently accepted the worker’s document and proceeded to onboard him.

Houston, TX

On April 18, 2017, IER completed a successful intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The employer refused to allow the employee to complete the Form I‐9 and begin working unless he produced either a List B or a List C document in addition to the valid United States passport he had already presented. An IER staff member called the employer, explained proper Form I‐9 procedure and documentation, and the employer subsequently allowed the employee to complete the Form I‐9 and begin working within two hours of his first contact with IER, with no additional documentation.

Pensacola, FL

On May 2, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire; however, when the card expired, the employer insisted on obtaining a new Permanent Resident Card. When the worker was unable to provide a new card, the employer took her off the working schedule until she could produce a new card. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that an LPR card is not to be reverified. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to return to work and paid $2,814.00 in back pay.

Morganstown, KY

On May 5, 2017, IER learned that it helped save the job of two LPRs and possibly dozens of others. A refugee service provider contacted IER for help because her client, an LPR through the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, was unable to get a job. IER called the employer and learned that the worker’s immigration documents had not been accepted by a government agency that had to verify workers’ documentation due to the nature of the job. IER then reached out to the government agency and provided guidance on the type of documentation the worker had shown. The government agency determined that it could accept the documentation. The agency appreciated IER’s guidance regarding the documentation and stated it would train its employees so that they would know to accept this type of valid documentation in the future. For its part, the employer said it would resubmit the applications for several SIV LPRs whose documentation had not previously been accepted.

Hackestown, NJ

On May 9, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a worker whose EAD had been automatically extended. The caller presented an EAD upon hire and when the card expired, the caller’s employer insisted on obtaining a new EAD. The caller had not received her new EAD yet but her EAD had been automatically extended for 180 days. When the caller contacted USCIS for an update on her EAD application, USCIS referred her to IER. IER called the employer and explained that the worker’s EAD was automatically extended and that she had applied on time and received the appropriate I‐797, Notice of Action. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue with her employment without any further delays.

Houston, TX

On May 9, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire; however, when the card expired, the employer insisted on obtaining a new LPR card. The worker was unable to provide a new card and called IER. IER called the employer and explained that the LPR card is not to be reverified. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue with her employment without any further delays.

New York, NY

On May 11, 2017, an IER attorney intervened and saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The worker’s employer rejected her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for employment eligibility verification purposes and withdrew her job offer, because the worker had an expired Permanent Resident Card. The IER attorney called the employer and informed it that a valid driver’s license and Social Security card are acceptable List B and C documents for the Form I‐9. The employer invited the worker to come back to fill out the Form I‐9 and begin working.

Billings, MT

On May 12, 2017, an IER attorney saved the job of a U.S. citizen who lost his Social Security card. The worker possessed a driver’s license but lost his Social Security card and therefore went to his local Social Security Administration (SSA) office to request a replacement card. SSA gave the worker a receipt. The IER attorney explained to the employer that a receipt for the replacement of a lost, stolen or damaged document is acceptable for the Form I‐9 for 90 days and the employer decided to accept the receipt.

Stockton, CA

On May 16, 2017, IER learned that an intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident was successful. The employer laid the employee off due to her inability to produce her permanent resident card for the Form I‐9 process. An IER staff member spoke with the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 procedure and documentation, including an employee’s right to choice of valid documentation for the Form I‐9. The employer subsequently allowed the employee to return to work and follow proper Form I‐9 procedures.

Imperial, CA

On May 18, 2017, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident in California. The worker attempted to show a Mexican passport with a temporary I‐551 stamp as proof of employment eligibility, but it was refused by the HR representative, who was unfamiliar with this document. The IER staffer called the employer and explained that a foreign passport with an unexpired I‐551 stamp is valid for employment eligibility verification purposes. The employer later called the IER staffer to confirm that the worker had been hired with this document.

Ellicott City, MD

On May 22, 2017, an IER staffer intervened to prevent a Lawful Permanent Resident from losing paid work time arising because of a Social Security Number mismatch. The worker contacted IER initially saying that the employer did not accept her foreign passport with an unexpired I‐551 stamp, a List A document, for the Form I‐9 and told her she must present a Green Card to continue working. IER explained to the worker that a passport with I‐551 stamp is acceptable for the Form I‐9. After the worker spoke further with the employer, the worker reported to IER that she would be allowed to continue work, but only after being terminated and re‐hired after a week or so due to a Social Security number mismatch. The IER staffer contacted the company’s counsel, who looked into the situation and advised that the worker would be returned to the schedule shortly thereafter. The worker also confirmed this with IER.

Indianapolis, IN

On May 26, 2017, an IER staffer completed an intervention to assist a recent Lawful Permanent Resident in completing the application and employment eligibility verification processes company. The worker’s representative contacted because the staffing company required the worker to present a state‐issued identification in addition to the Form I‐9 documentation he had provided (an MRIV with I‐551 notation) and also told the worker that he needed to have a Social Security number to work there. The representative also sought assistance in getting the worker a state‐issued ID because of confusion at the DMV. The IER staffer reached out to the company’s counsel, who then looked into the matter and ensured that both the worker’s documents and temporary lack of Social Security number would not present a barrier to his application.  The worker subsequently completed the application. The IER staffer also reached the worker’s documentation was sufficient proof of his legal residency and to identify a process for his completion of the state identification application.

San Diego, CA

On June 6, 2017, an IER staff member assisted in saving a TPS beneficiary from Yemen’s two part‐time jobs. The worker’s EAD listed an expiration date of March 3, 2017. The worker’s two employers were not aware that the worker’s EAD had been automatically extended for six months; thus, the employers asked the worker to provide a new EAD and advised him that he could not begin to work until he had the new EAD. The worker who had being assisted by IER in the past called IER again for help. In turn, IER contacted the employers and explained to them about the new six‐month extension. The employers decided to allow the worker to begin working without further interruptions.

Carlsbad, NM

On June 7, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work. The employer laid the employee off due to the expiration of the employee’s EAD. However, the EAD was subject to an automatic 180‐day extension. An IER staff member worked with the employee to identify the correct information to confirm the extension. The employer decided to allow the employee to return to work the same day.

Dover, NJ

On June 7, 2017, IER learned that an intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident was successful. The employer terminated the employee from his position at a facility subject to ITAR based on its determination that the employee’s immigration status did not make him a “U.S. person” under ITAR. An IER staff member spoke with the employer and directed the employer to information on ITAR and U.S. persons. The employer decided that the worker fell within the definition and decided to reemploy the employee.

Wellton, AZ

On June 6, 2017, IER completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen presented her passport for the Form I‐9. The employer, an E‐Verify user, advised the worker that they received a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). However, the worker never received the required E‐Verify notice. The worker was unfamiliar with the process and end up calling IER. IER staff spoke with the HR staff member, who in turn referred the case to the regional HR director. After further research it was discovered that the employer had made a mistake in the E‐Verify case. The employer followed E‐Verify’s instructions and received a work‐authorized result. The worker was allowed to begin work immediately without any further delays.

Lake Mary, FL

On June 9, 2017, IER learned that an intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident was successful. The employee had presented List B and C documents for the Form I‐9, and the employer threatened to terminate him if he did not provide his permanent resident card as well. An IER staff member advised the employer that such requests can constitute unfair documentary practices when undertaken because of citizenship/immigration status or national origin, and that an employee who shows valid documents from Lists B and C does not need to show additional documentation. The employer decided to allow the employee to continue working without providing additional documentation.

Hendersonville, NV

On June 9, 2017, IER saved the job of a non‐U.S. citizen whose employer was going to fire her that day due to the expiration of her EAD. The worker’s EAD had been automatically extended but her employer rejected the document even after the worker provided information from USCIS on the extension. The worker’s attorney contacted a colleague who was familiar with IER’s work, and referred the issue to an IER attorney. The IER attorney called the company provided information on the 180‐day extension. The employer was grateful to learn of IER’s employer hotline and the office’s free webinars, and indicated it would train staff to ensure that they did not lose workers due to errors.

Santa Maria, CA

On June 12, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. In the process of completing the Form I‐9, the worker presented valid B&C documents but the employer insisted on obtaining a valid LPR card after learning that the worker’s Permanent Resident Card was expired. The worker called IER, in turn, IER called the employer and explained that valid documents from Lists B and C are sufficient to satisfy the Form I‐9. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin her employment without any further delays.

Salt Lake City, UT

On June 16, 2017, due to an IER intervention, a company decided to change its policy of reverifying lawful Permanent Resident Cards which led to an employee getting back his job. The employee’s Permanent Resident Card recently expired. The caller’s manager called IER after the company’s HR office insisted on reverifying the caller. IER forwarded the Handbook for Employers and other materials explaining proper reverification. The employee was allowed to continue to work and company will revise its policies.

Cypress, TX

On June 20, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). The LPR presented a valid driver’s license and a receipt for the replacement of her lost Social Security card. The employer was not sure if they could accept the receipt. The worker called IER, in turn, IER called the employer and explained that a receipt from the Social Security Administration is a receipt valid for 90 days where the worker applies for a replacement of a lost, stolen or damaged card. IER staff further explained that a worker who shows this type of receipt has to present the Social Security card by the end of the 90‐day period. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin her employment without any further delays.

Fairfield, OH

On June 20, 2017, an IER staff member completed a successful telephone intervention after a lawful permanent resident contacted IER about a job the caller was interested in applying for. The caller shared an online job posting with language stating that the position was limited to U.S. citizens only. The IER staff member called the employer and inquired about the U.S. citizen‐only hiring requirement. The employer explained that the language in the posting was a mistake and that work‐authorized non‐U.S. citizens were also eligible to apply. The employer and removed the language from the job posting immediately. The employer also indicated it would be vigilant to avoid this error in the future.

Oshkosh, WI

On June 20, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The worker presented his valid permanent resident card upon hire for his employer. The employer advised the worker that his permanent resident card was expiring and that he needed to present a replacement permanent resident card. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer. The employer’s legal counsel stated that they had made a mistake and advised to allow the worker back to the job. The employer allowed the worker back to his job and paid $5,254.00 in back pay.

Brea, CA

On June 23, 2017, an IER attorney intervened and saved the job of a DACA recipient in Brea, California. The worker had shown her Employment Authorization Document for employment eligibility verification purposes, which is sufficient for the Form I‐9 without additional documentation. However, her employer requested a second form of identification, which the worker was unable to provide. The IER attorney called the employer and informed them that an employment authorization document is an acceptable List A document for the Form I‐9. The employer invited the worker to attend orientation the following day and the worker was able to begin working.

Brooklyn, NY

On June 26, 2017, IER saved the job of a worker whose employer was not accepting her automatically‐extended EAD. The worker’s EAD was due to expire on June 27, 2017, and she had not received her new EAD. The employer informed the worker that if she did not bring in an updated card by June 27, 2017, she would be terminated. An IER staff member contacted the employer and explained that the worker’s employment authorization was automatically extended for 180 days by virtue of her timely application for a renewal EAD and I‐797C which, together with the worker’s original EAD, met the criteria for documentation showing the automatic extension. The employer accepted the documentation and the worker remains employed.

Brooklyn Park, MN

On June 26, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been told that she would be fired if she did not present a Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 Section 3 reverification. The worker had shown documentation at hire which required reverification. The worker wished to show her unrestricted Social Security card, but was told she had to present a Permanent Resident Card because she is an LPR. IER contacted the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 reverification rules. The worker was allowed to present her Social Security card without further issues.

Dallas, TX

On June 27, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been told that she would be fired if she did not present a Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker had lost her Permanent Resident Card, and wished to show a receipt for the application of a replacement card, which is a receipt for a List A document valid for 90 days. The worker was told she could not return to work until she presented her actual replacement card, and subsequently the worker lost four days of work. IER contacted the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 verification rules. The worker was permitted to return to work. The employer anticipates providing approximately $390 in back pay to the worker.

Orlan, CA

On June 27, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The employer had threatened the employee with termination if he did not present an updated permanent resident card in advance of the expiration date listed on the permanent resident card shown at hire. An IER staff member called the employer and advised the employer that an employer may not reverify a worker when a permanent resident card expires and to do so could be discriminatory. The employer decided to no longer request an updated document and allowed the employee to continue working.

Dallas, TX

On June 28, 2017, IER saved the job of a worker who is from the Federated States of Micronesia and who is in possession of an I‐94 with an expiration date of June 30, 2017. During the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I‐9 process, the employer informed the newly hired worker that it could not accept her I‐94 because it would expired soon and she needed to get it renewed. The employee also had a state‐issued Identification Card and an unrestricted Social Security Card, but was unaware she could have presented both cards in combination to show her identity and legal right to work. The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained the employee’s right to work does not expire and she could provide her choice of documentation for the Form I‐9, including her Identification Card and unrestricted Social Security card. The employer stated that it would call the worker back to complete the employment eligibility verification process and will accept her documentation.

Sterling, VA

On July 5, 2017, through the work of several IER staff members, IER was able to assist a hotline caller whose Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was automatically extended. The caller’s employer would not allow him to work after the expiration date on his EAD, even though the EAD was automatically extended. After speaking with the employer and providing information concerning the automatic extension, the employer promptly allowed the worker to return to his normal work schedule. On July 10th, IER learned that the employer also decided to provide the worker with back pay for the six days of work the hotline caller had missed, amounting to nearly $700.

Dallas, TX

On July 6, 2017, IER learned that it successfully intervened to save the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. The caller’s employer suspended the employee because the employee was unable to complete the process for maintaining access to a restricted area of the worksite under Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements. IER contacted the employer and worked with the employer to clarify TSA requirements, and worked with the employee to obtain her naturalization certificate number, which was needed to continue in the process. The employee received the necessary clearance which allowed her to return to work.

Austin, TX

On July 12, 2017, an IER attorney saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and the LPR will receive two days of back pay ($320). In addition to a List B document, the worker provided a Permanent Resident Card with a Form I‐797 extending the Permanent Resident Card for one year. The employer would not accept the documents and did not allow the LPR to work. IER contacted the employer and told its human resources manager that the combination of an expired Permanent Resident Card and a Form I‐797, Notice of Action, that indicates that the card is valid for an additional year, is an acceptable List C document, which can used together with a List B document. As a result of IER’s actions, the employer decided to allow the LPR to return to work.

Frederick, MD

On July 12, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The employer had repeatedly requested the worker’s permanent resident card to reverify her work authorization. IER contacted the employer and explained that employers should not reverify permanent resident cards. The employer decided to allow the employee to continue working.

Los Angeles, CA

On July 14, 2017, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) was allowed to work following an IER intervention. The LPR’s employer was rejecting the LPR’s permanent resident card because it was not familiar with the version of the card the worker was showing. In addition, the employer was asking the LPR to reverify his work authorization after his green card expired. The IER attorney called the employer and shared information on the version of the permanent resident card that the worker had. IER also informed the employers that employers should not reverify permanent resident cards. The employer decided to allow the LPR to return to work.

Houston, TX

On July 14, 2017, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) was reinstated and will receive back wages and a bonus totaling $2,600 because of an IER intervention. The LPR claimed that his employer terminated him because his permanent resident card expired and he failed to provide a new card, even though employers should not reverify permanent resident cards. An IER attorney sent the employer information about proper reverification and the employer decided to allow the LPR to return to work.

Bakersfield, CA

On July 20, 2017, an IER attorney intervened and saved the job of a DACA recipient in Bakersfield, California. The worker’s employment authorization document had been stolen, and the employer refused to accept her receipt for her replacement card in order to complete section 2 of the Form I‐9. Additionally, after receiving calls from an IER attorney, the employer revoked the worker’s offer entirely. The IER attorney called the employer and informed them that a receipt for a lost or stolen document is a valid document for Form I‐9 purposes for 90 days, and that retaliation against a worker for asserting her rights under section 1324b is unlawful. The employer reinstated the worker’s job offer and accepted the worker’s document.

Toledo, OH

On July 21, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an LPR. The LPR had worked for a trucking company for several years and showed his valid Permanent Resident Card (PRC) when he started his job. However, the employer requested that the worker show a new PRC when his card expired and suspended the worker until he could provide a new card. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that a PRC should not be reverified. The employer accepted IER’s explanation and allowed the worker to return to work and stated that they would pay about $480.00 in back pay.

Austin, TX

On July 21, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR had worked for about six months for a retail company and showed his valid Permanent Resident Card (PRC) when he started his job. However, the employer requested that the worker show a new PRC when her card expired. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer and explained that the employer should not reverify a PRC. The employer accepted IER’s explanation and allowed the worker to continue to work with any further delays.

Garden City, KS

On July 24, 2017, IER saved the job of an asylee whose I‐94 had been rejected as a valid work authorization document. IER explained to the employer that an asylee’s I‐94 is a valid List C document. The employer decided to accept the document and the worker continued with the onboarding process.

Blacksburg, VA

On July 26, 2017, an IER attorney intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker’s Permanent Resident Card was about to expire, and the employer sought to reverify her employment authorization. The IER attorney called the employer and informed it that a permanent resident card is a valid List A document for Form I‐9 purposes, and should never be reverified. The employer decided not to ask for any further documentation and allowed her to continue working without interruption.

Bowling Green, KY

On July 28, 2017, IER learned that it saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been fired due to a failed background check. The worker’s company ran a background check and was unable to confirm her high school graduation due to the fact that her diploma was in a foreign language. IER called the company’s corporate counsel to inquire into the issue. The corporate counsel considered the matter and rehired the worker.

Loma Linda, CA

On August 1, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. After the lawful permanent resident presented her driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9, her employer demanded to see her permanent resident card and/or evidence of her application for citizenship. IER contacted the employer and explained that employers may not request more or specific documents based on citizenship status during the employment eligibility verification process. The employer decided to let the employee begin working without presenting additional documentation.

Phoenix, AZ

On August 2, 2017, IER learned that it facilitated a worker’s return to work. The worker’s employer called IER’s hotline seeking guidance on Employment Authorization Document (EAD) automatic extensions. IER staff talked the employer through USCIS’s guidance on how to identify whether an EAD has been automatically extended. IER staff then spoke with the worker to explain the EAD automatic extension procedure. The worker presented the EAD with a receipt notice showing the 180‐day extension. The employer accepted it and allowed the worker to quickly get back on the job.

Lauderhill, FL

On August 8, 2017, IER received a call from an employee who was discharged after his employer refused to accept his I‐797 receipt notice with his EAD, as proof that his EAD card had been extended for up to an additional 180 days beyond its printed expiration date. The Employer demanded that the employee provide a new unexpired document to establish his continued work authorization. The IER staff member contacted the Employer and provided information and USCIS guidance on automatic extensions for expiring EADs. After reviewing the information, the Employer decided to reinstate the employee. The Employer also requested to sign up for an IER webinar.

New York, NY

On August 16, 2017, an IER attorney assisted a hotline caller keep her job. The caller’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) was automatically extended for 180 days but the caller’s employer did not accept the EAD with a receipt notice showing the automatic extension and threatened to dismiss the worker. IER called the employer and explained the automatic extension and documentation that the caller was presenting. The employer decided to keep the caller on the job.

San Francisco, CA

On August 17, 2017, IER successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who qualified for an automatic extension of his Employment Authorization Card (EAD). The worker’s representative called IER’s hotline to ask about the worker’s right to continue working for his employer, a restaurant. Based on the information that the worker’s representative provided, the worker qualified for a 180‐day extension of his EAD. IER provided the worker with publicly‐available information from USCIS, called the employer to discuss the guidance, and the employer representative confirmed that the corporate office approved the worker’s return without further disruption.

San Antonio, TX

On August 21, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR presented her foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp for the Form I‐9. Her employer misread the applicable expiration date and requested a new stamp or the actual Permanent Resident Card before the date when the employer should have reverified. The worker’ husband called IER, in turn, IER called the employer and educated the employer about the correct expiration date on this type of document and that workers can show their choice of documentation when reverification is required. The employer accepted IER’s explanation and decided to allow the worker to begin work without further delays.

Miami, FL

On August 24, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR presented his valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire. The worker’s employer asked to see a new card when the one on file expired, even though employer should not request new documentation when a Permanent Resident Card expires. The employer also told the worker that he could not work until he had the new Permanent Resident Card. The worker called IER, in turn, IER called the employer and explained that an employer should not reverify a Permanent Resident Card. The employer accepted IER’s explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue working without further delays, and paid the worker $652.55 in lost wages.

New Jersey

On August 24, 2017, an IER staff member completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of a United States Citizen whose employer requested new work authorization documents. The worker showed a Permanent Resident Card at hire many years ago, and the card did not have an expiration date. The worker subsequently became a U.S. citizen. The employer believed that lack of expiration date was an error and requested new documentation. The IER staff member called the employer and explained that an employer should not reverify a worker who presents a valid Permanent Resident Card. The employer understood, and decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruption.

Chicago, IL

On August 25, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work (AAW). The AAW presented her valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire. When the worker’s EAD expired, the employer insisted on a new EAD, but the worker’s original EAD was extended for six months. IER called the employer and explained that the worker EAD was eligible for a six‐month extension and that the EAD with the Form I‐797 allowed the worker to continue working during this extension. The employer accepted IER’ explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue working without further delays.

Los Angeles, CA

On August 25, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work (AAW). The AAW presented his valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire. When the worker’s EAD expired, the employer insisted on a new EAD, but the worker’s original EAD was extended for six months. IER called the employer and explained that the worker EAD was eligible for a six‐month extension and that the EAD with the Form I‐797 allowed the worker to continue working during this extension. The employer accepted IER’ explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue working without further delays.

Illinois

On August 31, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer, a local school district, told her that she could not start work because of a future expiration date on her Form I‐9 documentation. When the employee presented her List B document and conditional permanent resident card along with an I‐797C receipt indicating that its expiration date was extended for one year, the district told her that it could not accept her documents because she would reach her extended expiration date during the school year. After IER spoke to the employer and explained that the documents provided for the Form I‐9 permitted the worker to start work and employers should not generally reject workers based on a future expiration date, the employer decided to allow the employee to start work.

Maryland

On September 11, 2017, IER successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who qualified for an automatic extension of his Employment Authorization Card (EAD). The employer’s HR representative had called the IER representative to ask about the worker’s ability to continue working after the expiration of the worker’s EAD. Based on the information the worker and employer’s representative provided, the worker qualified for a 180‐day extension of her EAD under the AC21 rule USCIS published in January 2017. IER provided both the worker and employer representative with publicly available information from USCIS and discussed the guidance, and the employer representative confirmed that the worker was approved to return to work without further interruption.

New York, NY

On September 21, 2017, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident in starting a new job after her employer rejected her valid Form I‐9 documentation and required her to show an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The worker showed her State ID and unrestricted Social Security card to complete the Form I‐9 but the employer required her to show a Permanent Resident Card because she had selected Lawful Permanent Resident in the Section 1 attestation. The employer would not let her start her job until she showed her card. The worker called IER and IER spoke with the company’s representative. The company decided to accept the worker’ ID and Social Security card and she began her job without further delay.

Orlando, FL

On September 29, 2017, an IER staff member saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work. The worker presented his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon hire. However, when the EAD was about to expire, the employer requested a new EAD. The worker has an I‐797 receipt identifying him with a category that qualified his EAD for an automatic six‐month extension after the expiration date. The worker called IER and IER contacted the employer and explained to the employer about the automatic six‐month extension. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without further interruptions.

Whitestown, IN

On September 29, 2017, an alien authorized to work got his job back and back pay for his missed shifts after an IER attorney intervened and saved his job. The worker’s Employment Authorization Document had expired, and the employer would not accept evidence that he was eligible for an automatic extension of his EAD based on his timely filed application for a new card, and suspended him without pay. The employer invited the worker back to work following IER’s guidance, and decided to pay him back pay for the time he missed.

 

Fiscal Year 2016

Portland, OR

On October 6, 2015, an LPR called OSC because his employer’s agent, a payroll company, insisted that the employer could not accept the worker’s driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9. After OSC called the employer and explained that a government identification card and unrestricted Social Security card can be used for verification purposes, the LPR was allowed to work.

Woodbury, NY

On October 7, 2015, OSC intervened to allow an LPR to start working as a registered nurse at a nursing home facility in upstate New York. The LPR had presented a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9, but had also shown a Permanent Resident Card that was expired. After initially accepting the driver’s license and Social Security card as sufficient, the employer notified the worker that she would need to provide proof that she had applied for a new Permanent Resident Card and would not be able to start until she did so. After the employee did so, the employer still did not allow her to start. The worker called OSC’s hotline. OSC called the employer and provided guidance on acceptable documents for the Form I‐9, explaining that LPRs who present a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card have satisfied the I‐9 requirements and can begin work, and that the expiration of the Permanent Resident Card does not affect the employee’s work authorization. The employer decided to let the employee start as soon as possible.

Chicago, IL

On October 7, 2015, an LPR called OSC because his employer refused to accept his receipt for a lost permanent resident card. OSC called the employer and explained that the receipt is a valid List A document for a period of 90 days. OSC also provided the employer with a copy of the M‐274 USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer agreed to accept the document and contacted the employee to return to work.

Clearwater, FL

On October 19, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been offered a job with a well‐known Florida grocery chain (“the Company”). During completion of his Form I‐9, the worker presented his unexpired U.S. passport to an HR representative who was present during the process. The HR representative required the worker to also present his Social Security card. The worker, who came to the United States as a child, had a restricted Social Security card, and though he had obtained his U.S. citizenship years ago, he had not notified the Social Security Administration of his change in immigration status, and had yet to receive his new, unrestricted Social Security card. The HR representative informed the worker that he could not start work until he brought back a “new” Social Security card, despite the fact that the worker had already presented his valid U.S. Passport. The worker called OSC’s Hotline, and OSC contacted the HR representative and legal counsel for the Company, informing them that the worker’s valid, unexpired U.S. Passport was an acceptable document for purposes of completing the Form I‐9, and that the worker did not need to present additional documents. OSC also informed the Company that it should not have suspended the worker until he produced a new Social Security card, as he was not under any legal obligation to do so. The Company reinstated the worker and agreed to provide $80 in back pay.

Houston, TX

On October 20, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card upon hiring. However, the employer asked for the LPR’s Permanent Resident Card since he had attested to being an LPR on the Form I‐9. The worker had not renewed his LPR card. The worker contacted OSC after learning about OSC from USCIS, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 by providing an acceptable document from Lists B and C, and that the LPR card was not needed. OSC provided an electronic copy of the M‐274 Employer Handbook to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Bethlehem, PA

On October 28, 2015, a hotline caller showed a List B document and an expired conditional permanent resident card with a Form I‐797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer refused to accept the documents as proof of work authorization. After OSC educated the employer that this combination is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I‐797, he accepted the documents and allowed the caller to start working.

Fresno, CA

On October 29, 2015, a construction worker called OSC because his employer would not accept his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for employment eligibility verification purposes and was requesting an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. After calling the owner and explaining that a government identification card and unrestricted Social Security card can be used for identity and verification purposes, the construction worker was allowed to work.

Plainville, CT

On November 4, 2015, a hotline caller reached out to OSC to seek assistance because a temporary staffing agency rejected the I‐551 stamp on his passport and specifically requested a green card for work authorization. OSC contacted the company to explain what the caller alleged had happened and the law. The Area Vice President stated that the company does accept the temporary I‐551 stamp as an acceptable List A document, and the employee was given a new appointment the next day.

East Boston, MA

On November 6, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR whose employer terminated her when she did not provide a new Permanent Resident Card after her previous card expired. After being contacted by the worker’s advocate on November 4, the OSC staffer called the HR department of the employer and explained that an LPR who provides a valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card (a List A document) for the Form I‐9 at initial hire does not need to have her work authorization re‐verified. On November 6, the worker’s advocate advised the OSC staffer that the worker had been reinstated.

Fairfax, VA

On November 23, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been hired at a large, retail store but was told she could not start work until she showed her permanent resident card. The worker tried to show her foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp but the HR worker was unfamiliar with the document and believed a permanent resident card was necessary for hire. The worker called OSC and OSC called the company’s attorney, who resolved the matter within 48 hours. The worker was paid $200 for the days that she missed.

Austin, TX

On November 24, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker had being working for several months; however, his EAD and DL did not exactly match on the sequence of last names. Thus, the staffing agency requested that the worker change his DL to match the EAD. The worker contacted the DMV and was told that it would take a while to fix it; then, the worker called USCIS and was referred to OSC. The OSC staff member spoke to the employer about the proper Form I‐9 process, specifically that the worker need only show a List A document if the worker chose to and that an employer may not make unnecessary requests for more documents. OSC made reference to the Employer’s Handbook, M‐274. The employer decided to follow the process and allow the worker to continue without interruptions.

Patterson, CA

On December 1, 2015 OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card upon filling out the Form I‐9. However, the employer asked to see an LPR card since the worker had attested to being an LPR on section one of the Form I‐9. The worker presented an LPR card that was expired, and the employer requested to see a new card. The worker had not renewed her LPR card; consequently, the worker was not allowed to start employment until she could provide a valid LPR card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 by providing an acceptable List B and List C document. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Marietta, GA

On December 1, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR who wanted to show his foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp, but the employer would not accept it. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the company and sent it guidance regarding I‐551 stamps. The worker was hired and will start working immediately.

New York, NY

On December 8, 2015, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to receive payment for time worked. When the worker started working, she showed her state I.D. and unrestricted Social Security card to the company for Form I‐9 purposes. Several days later, the company requested that she show a Permanent Resident Card, which was unnecessary. When the worker presented her expired Permanent Resident Card, the company withheld her paycheck and requested that she provide an updated immigration document. The worker quit the job and contacted OSC’s hotline. An OSC staffer called the company and explained that the worker already met her burden by showing a List B and List C document, and that to request more or different documents from her based on her citizenship status or national origin could be a violation of the antidiscrimination provision of the INA. The company soon thereafter paid the former worker for the time she worked.

Frisco, TX

On December 11, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of a worker employed by a large retail chain. The employer had recently become an LPR. However, his Permanent Resident Card was lost in the mail. The worker produced a USCIS document showing that he had applied for a replacement card. The employer refused to accept the document. The OSC attorney informed the employer’s counsel that the document is acceptable for Form I‐9 purposes as a valid receipt. The worker has informed OSC that his employer will accept the receipt and that he will be allowed to continue working.

Hinton, OK

On December 11, 2015, a work‐authorized immigrant received an Oklahoma commercial driver’s license after an OSC intervention. The immigrant was prepared to sit for his commercial driver’s license exam, but an examiner at the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), which administers the test, rejected his Permanent Resident Card because it did not have an expiration date, even though it was a valid document. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC in turn contacted the Oklahoma DPS. After an OSC attorney spoke with the DPS’s Assistant General Counsel, the DPS allowed the immigrant to take the exam, which he successfully completed. Moreover, the Assistant General Counsel informed OSC that the DPS would issue a statewide directive to ensure that CDL examiners were aware of the issue raised in this matter and that immigrants seeking to obtain a CDL would not face similar obstacles.

Miami, FL

On December 14, 2015, OSC learned that an LPR received $3,600 in lost sick leave and vacation as a result of OSC’s work. The employer had incorrectly fired a worker in 2014 because the worker’s LPR card had expired. As a result of OSC’s follow‐up with the employer, the employer learned that it had incorrectly terminated the worker and reinstated her. The employer regretted its error and invited OSC to train over 50 of its HR representatives.

Denver, CO

On December 18, 2015, OSC learned that it had successfully completed a telephone intervention resulting in a conditional permanent resident being re‐offered a position. After being offered a job in late October of 2015, the worker was not allowed to start work after the employer’s HR representative had difficulty entering the worker’s valid work authorization and identification documents (a driver’s license, expired Permanent Resident Card, and I‐797 receipt extending her work authorization for a period of one year) into the E‐Verify system. The employer’s HR representative contacted USCIS for assistance and believed that the worker was not allowed to start work with a new employer as a conditional permanent resident in the process of removing conditions. The worker found other employment, but called OSC to report the problem. The OSC staffer contacted the employer, and USCIS contacted the employer to clarify proper procedures as well. The employer subsequently notified OSC that it had invited the worker back to the job.

Los Angeles, CA

On December 21, 2015, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to continue with the hiring process after a health care company rejected her identity and work authorization documents. The worker showed the company her driver’s license and expired Permanent Resident Card with a one‐year extension receipt, which are acceptable Lists B and C documents for Form I‐9 purposes. However, an HR representative rejected the documents and demanded that the worker present a different unexpired or unrestricted card. An OSC staffer called the company and explained that the worker had met her burden for Form I‐9 purposes and that to request more or different documents from her based on her citizenship status or national origin could be a violation of the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA. After OSC’s call, the company continued the hiring process for the worker.

Glendale, CA

On January 5, 2016, an OSC attorney saved the job of a worker who had just moved to California but lost her Social Security card and birth certificate. The worker applied for a replacement Social Security card and birth certificate, and had her receipts indicating she had applied for replacement documents; however, her employer refused the documents. The OSC attorney informed the employer that it should accept valid receipts for the replacement of a lost, stolen, or damaged document and that they are valid for 90 days in accordance with the “receipt rule.” The employer decided to accept the receipt and to allow the worker to continue to work.

Fort Worth, TX

On January 7, 2016, an OSC investigator saved the job of an immigrant worker. An employer called OSC's anonymous hotline to inquire whether a worker who presented an EAD and restricted Social Security card (SSC) could proceed with on‐boarding. The employer was hesitant to accept the EAD because she wasn’t sure whether it constituted DHS authorization, which she believed was required based on the restricted SSC. The investigator explained that restricted SSCs are not valid for the Form I‐9, and that an EAD alone is sufficient for the Form I‐9 because it proves both the worker's identity and work authorization.

Bloomington, IN

On January 8, 2016, OSC learned that its efforts resulted in a worker being reoffered a job. In November 2015, OSC began an intervention to assist a worker with a nonimmigrant visa to obtain employment as a laborer. The company had made a job offer to the worker and then rescinded it, in part because the worker’s employment authorization would expire in three months and would need to be renewed, and in part because it claimed the worker did not provide the appropriate information to complete the Form I‐9 and be run through E‐Verify. The worker had already applied to renew his work authorization. OSC worked with both the worker and the company to explain which documents could be provided to complete the Form I‐9, and to explain that the fact that a work authorization document expires in the future does not preclude the worker from having continuous work authorization and is not a basis for refusing employment.

Boston, MA

On January 13, 2016, OSC learned that its efforts to assist an LPR seeking unemployment benefits were successful. In November 2015, OSC received a hotline call from the attorney for a worker whose application for unemployment benefits had been denied because her permanent resident card had expired. Although the worker presented a driver’s license and Social Security card as part of her application, the state unemployment agency questioned whether she had established her work authorization or immigration status sufficient to show her eligibility for benefits. OSC contacted the agency to explain that the expiration of a permanent resident card has no effect on an LPR’s status, and that she would be authorized to work for any employer based on showing her driver’s license and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC also communicated with SAVE, which is responsible for verifying the worker’s status and eligibility for the agency. Based on OSC’s intervention, the agency changed its decision and decided that the worker was eligible for benefits.

San Francisco, CA

On January 15, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker, who was an LPR at the time he was hired in 2006, presented his permanent resident card for I‐9 purposes. Years later, an HR supervisor for the employer, a national hotel chain, contacted the worker and informed him that he had to complete a new Form I‐9. The worker brought in his naturalization certificate, but the HR supervisor told him that he would be terminated, unless he presented a U.S. passport. The worker then called OSC for assistance. OSC contacted the HR supervisor and determined that the worker was asked to complete a new Form I‐9 because the HR supervisor mistakenly believed that the worker had to be re‐verified upon the expiration of his permanent resident card. OSC explained that the worker should not have been re‐verified in the first place. The HR supervisor recognized that the worker should not have been re‐verified, and assured OSC that the hotel would not take any adverse employment actions against this or any other worker who is similarly situated. Further, the hotel outlined the steps that they have taken or will take to ensure that their policies and practices are in line with the legal requirements of the anti‐discrimination provision, including: (1) revising their existing re‐verification policies; (2) training HR staff on the changes; and (3) participating in OSC‐sponsored employer webinars.

Winter Park, FL

On January 19, 2016, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid permanent resident card. However, the employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired, and asked the worker for a new permanent resident card. Because the worker had not renewed her card, the worker contacted OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 requirements, and that the card should not be reverified. OSC provided an electronic copy of the USCIS Employer’s Handbook to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment.

Chicago, IL

On January 25, 2016, an employer’s HR representative called OSC because she believed that she may have to terminate a newly hired worker. The newly hired worker started working the previous week and presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card as proof of work authorization. The card then expired, and the employer reverified the worker. OSC informed the representative that she does not need to reverify the newly hired worker because an employer is prohibited from reverifying persons who present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card for initial employment eligibility verification. The representative decided to allow the worker to continue working.

Boston, MA

On February 4, 2016, OSC completed an intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen to continue in his job. The worker was hired and presented a valid Massachusetts driver’s license and a certified state birth certificate. However, the employer refused to accept the birth certificate because it believed the birth certificate was not valid for employment eligibility verification purposes. The OSC staff member contacted the employer and explained that the birth certificate is an acceptable List C document for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to complete the onboarding process, offered back pay for the lost work hours, and invited the worker back to work a few days later.

Dallas, TX

On February 5, 2016, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid Permanent Resident Card. Later, the employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired; however, the worker had not renewed her card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 requirements, and that a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. OSC provided an electronic copy of the USCIS Employer’s Handbook to the employer. The employer decided to allow worker to continue with his employment.

St. Augustine, FL

On February 19, 2016, OSC successfully completed a phone intervention to help a U.S. citizen begin work at a retail store. The worker called the hotline because his employer would not accept his state identification, a concealed weapon permit that was issued by a state agency and contained a photograph. OSC called a corporate HR representative of the employer to explain that the document is an acceptable List B document for the Form I‐9 and E‐Verify. The HR representative directed the local store to accept the document and allow the worker to begin work.

Des Moines, IA

On February 26, 2016, OSC learned that it saved the job of an immigrant worker whose employer had rejected her employment documents even though they had been automatically extended. The worker, who had applied for an OPT STEM extension, worked for a large bank that was unaware that DHS granted automatic extensions for some individuals whose employers satisfy certain criteria. The worker contacted USCIS’ customer service hotline to request assistance, and USCIS transferred her to OSC’s hotline. The worker did not want OSC to contact her  employer, and instead asked that OSC send her information that she could use to show her employer that automatic extensions existed. An OSC attorney sent the worker information from USCIS’ website and from the Handbook for Employers (M‐274). The worker directed her employer to the publicly available guidance and was permitted to continue working.

Los Angeles, CA

On March 9, 2016, OSC intervened to allow a newly‐naturalized citizen to begin work. The worker called the hotline because she had been offered a job but was not allowed to start because she did not have a List B document with a picture, which is necessary for the E‐Verify process. The worker told OSC that she was scheduled to pick up her U.S. passport the next day, and wanted to start work and produce the identification document the following day. OSC called the employer and explained that the worker has three days from the date of hire to produce documents for the I‐9, and that the employer has three days from the date of hire to complete the E‐Verify process. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work.

Seattle, WA

On March 14, 2016, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR who was improperly terminated because his Permanent Resident Card had expired. The OSC staffer called the employer and explained that an LPR's right to work is permanent and does not expire when the card expires. The HR recognized the error and reinstated the worker with full back pay in the amount of $1,607.76. The employer also credited back the paid time off he was paid at the time of his termination.

Siler City, NC

On March 15, 2016, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR. The worker’s attorney called OSC because the employer was barring his client from working. The attorney stated that that the worker possessed an expired Permanent Resident Card and a Form I‐797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer refused to accept the documents as proof of work authorization for Form I‐9 purposes. After the OSC attorney educated the employer that this combination is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I‐797, the employer decided to accept the documents and allowed the worker to start working.

Houston, TX

On March 17, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR who was told by a temporary employment agency that he would not be hired because his Permanent Resident Card had expired. The employer initially refused to accept the applicant’s I‐797, Notice of Action that extended the validity of his Permanent Resident Card for an additional year. OSC called the employer and explained the acceptability of this combination for Form I‐9 purposes. As a result, the employer informed OSC that it would accept the employment eligibility verification documents that it had initially rejected.

Houston, TX

On March 24, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR who was not going to be hired because his Permanent Resident Card appeared expired. The employer initially did not accept the applicant’s I‐797, Notice of Action, which extended the validity of his Permanent Resident Card for an additional year. OSC called the employer and explained the effect of the I‐797. As a result, the employer informed OSC that it had decided to accept the employment eligibility verification documents and return the worker to his job.

New York, NY

On March 28, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR from Ukraine. The worker was hired by an in‐home health care provider. When she was completing her Form I‐9, the worker presented her passport containing an I‐551 stamp, her New York driver’s license, and her unrestricted Social Security card to the employer. The employer informed the worker that she needed to present a Permanent Resident Card in order to start work. The worker contacted OSC, and an OSC attorney reached out to the employer to explain that the worker's passport with the I‐ 551, or valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card were sufficient for I‐9 purposes. OSC also informed the employer that the worker was not required to present a List A document, such as an EAD, in order to show that he is  work‐authorized. The employer thanked OSC for the information and the worker was allowed to begin work without further incident.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

On April 4, 2016, an LPR called OSC because his Permanent Resident Card had just expired and his employer wanted to reverify the LPR’s employment eligibility. The LPR was waiting to receive his new unexpired card, and only had a restricted Social Security card, which is not acceptable for I‐9 purposes. After calling the owner and explaining that it should not reverify workers whose Permanent Resident Cards have expired, the LPR was allowed to continue working.

Lexington, KY

On April 12, 2016, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was offered a job with a major health care company. He presented his driver’s license and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. However, the employer requested to see his Permanent Resident Card because the employer believed that if the worker attested to being an LPR in Section 1 of the Form I‐9 that it had to see a Permanent Resident Card. The worker’s card was expired and the employer requested an unexpired card. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and emailed the employer a copy of the Employer’s Handbook (M‐274), identifying the section where it explains that an LPR is not required to show a Permanent Resident Card. The OSC staff member explained that a worker may choose which documents to present for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with job orientation immediately.

New York, NY

On April 12, 2016, OSC assisted an LPR who was going through the hiring process at a security services company. The worker called OSC because the employer requested that she show a Permanent Resident Card after providing valid List B and C documents for the I‐9 process. When the worker explained that she did not have an unexpired card and was not required to show one, the company told her that she could not continue in the process until she provided an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the company and spoke with the HR manager who was familiar with I‐9 requirements. The company acknowledged its error and decided to allow the LPR to continue in the hiring process.

Atlanta, GA

On April 19, 2016, OSC helped save the job of a Cuban parolee who had been incorrectly told that she was not eligible to work at a retail store until she received her Social Security Number (SSN). The worker had an EAD and presented it for the Form I‐9. However, the worker did not yet have an SSN, and the employer, which uses E‐Verify, required an SSN to begin employment. The worker’s service provider contacted an OSC attorney, who he had seen present at a conference, and asked for assistance. The OSC attorney emailed the service provider with DHS, SSA, and IRS guidance regarding how to hire a worker without an SSN, as well as OSC educational material regarding this issue. The service provider forwarded the information to the retail store HR representative, who then understood that the proper process is to put the worker’s E‐Verify query on hold until the worker receives the SSN. The worker was permitted to start her job.

Temple, TX

On April 19, 2016, a work‐authorized immigrant was returned to work and offered back pay after reaching out to OSC. The worker, an LPR, contacted OSC on April 14th because his employer terminated him when his Permanent Resident Card expired. The OSC staffer confirmed for the worker that he was correct that the expiration of his Permanent Resident Card did not mean that he was no longer work‐authorized. The OSC staffer reached out to the employer’s HR staff, and the worker also reached out to his manager to share what he had learned from OSC. Subsequently, the worker learned that the employer had investigated the situation and decided that the worker should be re‐hired and paid for the time he had missed, approximately $700.

New York, NY

On May 3, 2016, a hotline caller possessing an unrestricted Social Security card and a New York Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card contacted OSC about her employer not accepting the EBT card as proof of identity for I‐9 purposes. An OSC attorney educated the employer that an EBT card is a state identification card that is an acceptable Form I‐9 document if it meets the regulatory requirements (must contain a photograph or identifying information) and appears to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it. The employer decided to accept the card and allow the worker to work.

New Albany, OH

On May 5, 2016, OSC successfully intervened and saved the job of a LPR who had been working at a factory for more than three years when he was terminated. The employer terminated the worker after the worker allegedly failed to respond to his employer’s attempts to reverify his employment authorization. OSC contacted the employer and the employer stated that after an ICE audit of its facility, the employer sought to reverify employees whose Forms I‐9 had been incorrectly completed or had not been completed at all. The worker who contacted OSC has the same name as one of the other employees who was asked to provide proof of employment eligibility and who failed to comply with the request. While explaining the situation, the employer realized its mistake. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker and pay him three days of lost wages (approximately $500).

San Diego, CA

On May 11, 2016, OSC learned that it saved the job of an LPR whose employer was set to terminate the worker upon the expiration of his Permanent Resident Card (PRC). The worker informed the employer that his card was set to expire and the employer, who had never reverified a worker before, incorrectly believed that the worker needed to present another document. After speaking with the worker’s attorney, OSC called the employer and explained that PRCs should not be reverified. OSC also mentioned its free resources for HR officials, such as its employer hotline and employer webinars. The employer expressed regret for its error and was excited to learn about the resources it could use to better understand proper Form I‐9 and E‐Verify procedures.

Hillsboro, WA

On May 12, 2016, OSC learned that it saved the job of a worker with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) whose employment offer was withdrawn. The employer initially offered the worker a job and then rescinded the offer once the employer realized that the DACA recipient did not have “permanent permission” to work in the United States. The DACA recipient called OSC, and an OSC attorney called the employer’s attorney to determine whether there was a misunderstanding about the ability of a work‐authorized individual to work. After speaking with the OSC attorney, the company decided to reinstate the individual.

Murrayville, GA

On May 12, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been incorrectly terminated. The worker was working at a poultry plant when the temporary I‐551 stamp in his foreign passport expired. The employer told the worker that it needed proof of his continued work authorization, but because of a language barrier, the worker did not realize that he could present his unrestricted Social Security card. The worker called OSC after learning of the office through a friend who had recently received helped with his Form I‐9 issue through OSC’s hotline. An OSC attorney called the poultry plant HR office and explained the issue. The HR office scheduled the worker to return with his documents and the worker was rehired within twelve hours of having contacted OSC.

Waynesboro, VA

On May 16, 2016, OSC learned that it helped a Cuban parolee receive his Social Security benefits. The worker had applied for SSA benefits and was told by his local office that he was ineligible, even though he had been living and working in the United States since the 1960s. The  worker called an OSC attorney for assistance based on a referral the worker received from a Florida organization. After speaking with the worker, OSC contacted SSA headquarters to inquire about the local SSA office’s decision. SSA determined that the worker was eligible for benefits, and advised the OSC attorney that the worker would begin receiving his benefits at the beginning of the next month.

Hallandale Beach, FL

On May 26, 2016, OSC learned that it saved the job of an LPR. The worker had been hired at a large retail chain and was fired after she presented a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9 because the employer believed that she also needed to present an immigration document. The worker contacted an OSC attorney who had previously assisted a friend of hers. The OSC attorney contacted the employer’s counsel, who resolved the issue within a few days. As part of the resolution, the employer rehired the worker, paid the worker $1,076 in back pay, and conducted additional training on proper Form I‐9 procedures with the HR individuals at the store.

Fenton, MO

On June 2, 2016, OSC saved an LPR’s job as a truck driver. The LPR, an employee of a subcontractor, had established his employment eligibility verification with the subcontractor by providing his commercial driver’s license and Social Security card. The prime contractor, who was verifying the LPR’s license as an over‐the‐road van operator, threatened to remove the LPR from his position unless he showed the prime contractor his Permanent Resident Card and commercial driver’s license. The prime contractor claimed that it was asking to see documentation to satisfy licensing requirements. However, the prime contractor admitted that it requires U.S. citizens to provide only a commercial driver’s license for this purpose. The OSC staff member contacted the prime contractor and explained that the worker may allege citizenship status discrimination under the law that OSC enforces if the worker believes that the difference in treatment was related to employment eligibility verification. The OSC staff member explained that if the prime contractor is asking non‐citizens for additional documents for employment eligibility verification and not for licensing, the prime contractor may be violating the law that OSC enforces. After speaking with the OSC staff member and consulting with the company’s legal counsel, the prime contractor allowed the LPR to remain on the contract and required him to provide only his commercial driver’s license.

Oklahoma City, OK

On June 3, 2016, OSC prevented an LPR from being placed in a non‐pay status with possible termination. The LPR had worked for the employer for approximately 18 years and upon hire, presented her Permanent Resident Card, which has no expiration date. When the employer obtained a federal government contract with a federal acquisition regulation (“FAR”) clause requiring the use of E‐verify, the employer, as permitted, opted to verify its entire work force through E‐verify. The employer requested that the worker obtain an updated card in its belief that the card had expired since it was issued over ten years ago and the card did not have the worker’s current last name because she had since divorced and remarried. After the OSC staff member contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card was not expired and that the worker was still work‐authorized, and after the employer consulted with the company’s legal counsel, the employer elected to retain the worker and keep her on the work schedule.

Richland, WA

On June 3, 2016, OSC saved the job of an immigrant from the Marshall Islands. The immigrant's service provider contacted an OSC attorney, who she heard speak at a conference in the past. The service provider called because her client tried to get a job at a poultry factory but had been turned away after the HR worker rejected her public library photo ID as a valid List B document for the Form I‐9. The OSC attorney called a contact at corporate headquarters to try to resolve the problem. The contact at headquarters immediately called the factory and the worker was able to begin work.

Saint Paul, MN

On June 7, 2016, an OSC attorney learned that her intervention enabled an LPR to start working for a health care provider. The worker contacted OSC through a refugee service provider indicating that he had an unrestricted Social Security card, an expired Permanent Resident Card, and a receipt for his application for a state identification card. The employer refused to accept this documentation and insisted that the worker provide Form I‐9 documentation immediately. The OSC attorney worked with the worker and the service provider to determine what acceptable documentation was readily available to the worker. When the worker told the OSC attorney that he had obtained a receipt for a lost driver’s license, the OSC attorney contacted the employer to explain the “receipt rule.” The employer informed OSC that he would accept the receipt as a List B document, and the service provider later verified that the employee had started working.

Unknown city and state

On June 13, 2016, OSC learned that it helped a worker avoid a delay in starting a job. OSC had received an email from the worker asking about document requirements for the employment eligibility verification process in light of her recent name change due to marriage. Specifically, the worker reported that her new employer would not accept her EAD because it reflected her maiden name. OSC provided the worker with information concerning document requirements for the Form I‐9 process and specific USCIS guidance on the issue of name changes. OSC was subsequently informed that the employer had accepted the worker’s documents and approved the worker’s on‐boarding.

Arlington, TX

On June 14, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker’s wife contacted OSC to request assistance. The employer, a national retail chain, suspended the worker because his Permanent Resident Card (“green card”) had expired, and the HR representative involved refused to accept the worker’s unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for purposes of completing Form I‐9. OSC spoke with the HR representative and informed her that the worker’s driver’s license and Social Security card were sufficient to complete Form I‐9 and the E‐Verify processes. The HR representative decided to immediately reinstate the worker and to further educate herself through an OSC webinar about the employment eligibility verification process.

Washington, DC

On June 21, 2016, OSC successfully intervened and assisted an LPR in getting reinstated after she was improperly discharged. The worker, who had been hired by a non‐profit organization several weeks before, was asked for a new Permanent Resident Card because the picture on the card was that of a child. Unable to provide a new card, the worker presented a stated‐issued identification card and an unrestricted Social Security card instead. Despite the fact that the worker’s documents satisfied the requirements of the employment eligibility verification process, the employer terminated the worker and advised her that she was eligible for rehire once she returned with a new Permanent Resident Card. An OSC staff member contacted the employer and provided it with materials from USCIS’s and OSC’s website. After reviewing the materials, the employer decided to reinstate the employee and pay her back pay for the period she was out of work. The worker will receive $498 in back pay.

Madison, WI

On June 23, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The worker had worked for the same agricultural employer over several years but completed a new Form I‐9 at the start of each season. The worker was told that he could not begin work this year because the Social Security card that he sought to present (along with his State ID) was laminated, and the employer had a policy against accepting laminated Social Security cards. The worker’s attorney contacted OSC, and OSC called the company’s counsel to ask if the company is aware of USCIS’ May 2016 guidance captured in a publicly available summary of a USCIS meeting with the American Immigration Lawyers Association stating that “An otherwise acceptable laminated SSA card is acceptable as a List C document even if it states ‘not valid if laminated’ or ‘do not laminate.’” The company had not known that it was permitted to accept laminated Social Security cards and decided to change its policy. It also paid the worker $400 for his missed earnings as a result of the company’s document rejection.

Hartford, CT

On June 23, 2016, OSC saved the job of a worker whose employer had decided to terminate him because he updated his Social Security number. The employer called OSC’s hotline to inquire about what to do with a worker’s Form I‐9. OSC informed the employer that there is no federal requirement that employers terminate workers who update their identity or employment authorization information. The employer was excited that it was able to keep its worker on the job since he had been working for the company for many years. OSC also referred the employer to the USCIS M‐274 Handbook for Employers, which provides employers with information on how to update Forms I‐9 or how to complete new Forms I‐9 when workers present new identity or employment authorization information.

Charlotte, NC

On June 28, 2016, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, an LPR was able to begin a new job. The worker possessed a Permanent Resident Card that had expired, and the employer demanded to see a new Permanent Resident Card. However, the expired card had been extended for a year via a USCIS Form I‐797 “Approval Notice,” which the worker had already presented to his employer. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained that the LPR should be hired without being required to present additional documentation.  Consequently, the employer allowed the new hire to begin working.

Houston, TX

On June 29, 2016, a worker called OSC explaining that he believed his employer was going to terminate him because his Permanent Resident Card recently expired. The worker had started the job several months earlier and presented a Permanent Resident Card as proof of employment authorization. The card recently expired and the worker has a restricted Social Security card that cannot be accepted for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC informed the employer that employers may not reverify employees who presented Permanent Resident Cards. The employer stated that it would allow the worker to continue working.

Phoenix, AZ

On July 8, 2016, OSC assisted a U.S. citizen in keeping his job. The worker showed a driver’s license and certified copy of his birth certificate for the Form I‐9 but his employer insisted that he provide an additional certified copy of his birth certificate for the employer to retain at a corporate office. The employer claimed this was necessary for E‐Verify. OSC contacted the employer and explained that an employer can photocopy original I‐9 documents but a worker is not required to provide a separate certified copy of a birth certificate for the employer to keep. The employer decided not to request the additional certified copy.

Bronx, NY

On July 11, 2016, an OSC equal opportunity specialist completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident whose valid driver’s license was rejected. The employer rejected the driver’s license because it was issued in the state of Virginia and not in the state of New York, where the employer is located. In addition, the employer requested that the worker present his Permanent Resident Card. The employee is in the process of naturalizing and decided not to renew his Permanent Resident Card. Since the employer believed the worker did not possess the appropriate identity and employment eligibility documents, it terminated the worker. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had presented documentation sufficient for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC further explained that the employer should not request more or different documents when the worker has already satisfied the Form I‐9 requirements. OSC also referenced the appropriate sections of the USCIS Employer Handbook (M‐274) and the instructions for completing the Form I‐9. As a result of OSC’s intervention, the company reinstated the worker.

Lexington, KY

On July 19, 2016, OSC learned that it helped avoid a delay in employment for an alien authorized to work. An employer representative had called OSC’s hotline on July 15, 2016, for information regarding proper employment verification procedures for the worker who did not yet have a Social Security number. The employer representative informed OSC that her employer’s payroll department did not know how to process the worker to begin employment without given the Social Security number delay. An OSC staff member provided the worker representative with information about proper verification procedures and federal guidance on employer responsibilities when hiring foreign workers. The worker representative later informed OSC that the worker was allowed to begin work without delay based on the information OSC provided, which the representative also shared internally.

Morganton, NC

On July 25, 2016, OSC assisted an LPR in being reinstated along with an additional four LPRs who had been sent home because the employer misinterpreted a contract with citizenship restrictions also returned to work. The employer, a staffing agency, had placed the five LPRs at a job with a government contractor. The contract required that only U.S. citizens and LPRs complete the contract work, but in the course of a recent audit by the contractor, the employer read the contract to require only U.S. citizens and pulled all five LPRs from the contract. In addition, the employer told the caller that she could not be placed at a new job (with no citizenship restrictions) until she presented a new Permanent Resident Card even though the Permanent Resident Card she had shown for the Form I‐9 was unexpired when she presented it. The caller contacted OSC’s hotline and OSC reached out to the employer to request information about any citizenship restrictions in its contract and its employment eligibility verification policies. The employer realized that its contract did not require U.S. citizenship and returned the five LPRs to their placements with no loss of work, and also decided not to request any additional documentation from the caller. In addition, the employer distributed OSC’s employer hotline information to its managers and decided that all managers will participate in OSC’s next employer webinar.

Valhalla, NY

On July 27, 2016, OSC’s efforts helped a nurse start her job. OSC received a call from an employer, a health care provider, who received a driver’s license with the notation “NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES.” The employer was uncertain whether it could accept such a card. An OSC attorney informed the employer that the driver’s license with this type of notation is acceptable as a List B document if it contains a photograph or information, such as name, date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and address. Only the employer can determine whether it meets Form I‐9 requirements upon reviewing it. The employer accepted the license and the nurse will start work.

Houston, TX

On July 29, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker had accepted a job offer and presented his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card to his employer for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer requested to see his Permanent Resident Card to verify his employment authorization and, upon realizing that the card had expired, refused to allow the worker to start until he produced either an updated Permanent Resident Card or another document from DHS indicating that the worker had been approved for an updated Permanent Resident Card for the Form I‐9. An OSC staff member spoke with the employer and explained that the List B and List C documents the worker had already supplied were sufficient for employment eligibility verification and Form I‐9 purposes. The employer completed the Form I‐9 and scheduled the employee to begin work.

Cherokee, NC

On August 4, 2016, OSC saved the job of a U.S. Citizen who was born abroad. She had been told by her new employer that she needed additional proof of U.S. citizenship despite the fact that she produced a U.S. Passport. The OSC attorney contacted the employer, and explained that it should not reject a genuine U.S. Passport solely because the passport indicated that the new employee had been born outside of the U.S. The employer representative realized the error and decided to issue the new employee an ID badge and allow her to start her job.

San Diego, CA

On August 15, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had been told in advance of his start date that he could not present a State ID and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9 process. The employer was a government contractor that could only hire “U.S. persons” for its positions based on federal regulations. The company appeared to incorrectly request that all new employees present U.S. citizenship documentation or a permanent resident card for the Form I‐9. The worker called OSC’s hotline for assistance, and spoke to an OSC attorney. The OSC attorney called the company and spoke to the company’s legal representative. The OSC attorney explained that employers cannot limit the documentation workers can otherwise present for the Form I‐9. The OSC attorney also noted that even if the company required proof of citizenship or immigration status for non‐Form I‐9 reasons, the company’s expectation that individuals would present documentation reflecting U.S. citizenship or permanent residency excludes three categories of “U.S. persons” (nationals, asylees, and refugees) that would not be issued either class of documents. The company attorney stated that the company would reevaluate its practices in light of OSC’s call. The attorney also stated that the worker would be allowed to begin work, and that he could present the acceptable documentation of his choice for the Form I‐9.

Austin, TX

On August 17, 2016, as a result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) was placed back on the schedule and provided two days of back pay. At the time of hire thirteen years ago, the LPR provided her permanent resident card that contained a future expiration date for the Form I‐9. When the employer discovered that the worker’s permanent resident card had since expired, the employer requested a new permanent resident card and removed the LPR from the schedule until she could provide either an unexpired permanent resident card or a certificate of naturalization. The OSC staff member contacted the employer and explained 1) Permanent Resident Cards presented at the time of hire with either an expiration date or no expiration date are List A documents that should not be reverified; and 2) for employees that require reverification, the employee may present a document that shows current employment authorization, such as any document from List A or List C on the List of Acceptable Documents. As a result, the employer retracted their request for employment authorization documents, placed the LPR back on the schedule and provided her back pay.

Dallas, TX

On August 22, 2016, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a United States citizen was able to remain employed and receive pay previously owed. The worker, a contractor for a staffing agency, had completed a Form I‐9, presenting a driver’s license and Social Security card. Upon the expiration of his driver’s license, the staffing agency requested a new driver’s license for reverification purposes. The OSC staff member contacted the worker’s employer and explained proper Form I‐9 reverification rules. As a result, the employer ceased its request for a current driver’s license and no longer withheld pay previously owed.

El Paso, TX

On August 22, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The worker presented his unexpired Permanent Resident Card upon hiring. The employer erroneously believed it needed to reverify the worker when the card expired. The employer called OSC hotline and OSC educated the employer on the reverification process, and referred the Employer to the (M‐274) handbook. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue his employment without any interruption.

New York, NY

On August 25, 2016, OSC learned that a worker who had been told she could not return to work until producing a green card received $1,098.00 in back pay from her employer. Upon hire in early 2016, the worker showed her MRIV with a 551 printed notation, and February 2017 expiration date, which is a List A document. On July 29, 2016, after six months of employment, the worker was told that if she did not produce a green card, she could not return to work. The worker then showed her unrestricted Social Security card and New York driver’s license, which the employer rejected. The worker contacted OSC’s worker hotline. OSC contacted the employer and pointed the employer to USCIS language about the MRIV with a 551 printed notation. OSC also explained proper Form I‐9 EEV rules, and provided the employer with the USCIS M‐274 Employer Handbook. In addition to offering two and a half weeks of back pay including overtime pay, the employer offered the worker reinstatement.

Anchorage, AL

On August 29, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had been told she could not start her job without showing a Social Security card. The employer rejected her birth certificate and a receipt for a lost Social Security card for the Form I‐9’s Section 2. The worker contacted the OSC worker hotline. OSC staff contacted the employer and explained proper Form I‐9 employment eligibility verification rules. The worker was allowed to start work.

Treasure Coast, FL

On August 29, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was not allowed to work after she was unable provide a Permanent Resident Card during the employment eligibility verification process despite having shown a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card. The OSC attorney immediately contacted the employer and explained the employment eligibility verification process. The OSC attorney also provided the employer with OSC education materials. After discussing the process, the employer, on its own initiative, contacted the worker and scheduled her for work that same day.

Houston, TX

On September 2, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had been told that she would not be able to start work on her start date of September 1, 2016, if she did not present a Social Security card as her List C document for Form I‐9 purposes. She presented the receipt for a replacement Social Security card and a birth certificate, which were both rejected. OSC contacted the company and explained proper Form I‐9 rules. The worker was allowed to present her receipt for the lost Social Security card in conjunction with a List B document, and started work without further issues.

El Paso, TX

On September 6, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a lawful permanent resident. The worker presented his unexpired Permanent Resident Card upon hire. However, at the time of reverification, the employer called OSC’s hotline seeking to reverify the worker and an OSC hotline specialist educated the employer that workers who present Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue his employment without any interruption.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

On September 9, 2016, OSC assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen to start receiving pay after the employer rejected her U.S. passport and demanded an unrestricted Social Security card. The worker showed her U.S. passport upon hire for Form I‐9 but the employer requested her Social Security card. The worker originally received a restricted Social Security card and never updated it when she became a lawful permanent resident and later a U.S. citizen. When the worker showed the restricted Social Security card, the employer allowed her to work, but kept her off payroll and demanded that she bring in an unrestricted Social Security card. OSC contacted the employer’s counsel and the employer immediately rectified its error and paid the worker $1500 in unpaid wages.

Poughkeepsie, NY

On September 15, 2016, OSC was contacted by an LPR who was not allowed to work after he presented his foreign passport with a temporary I‐551 stamp during the employment eligibility verification process. The OSC attorney immediately contacted the employer’s human resources director, referred her to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, and explained that the document presented by the worker was a valid List A document. After reviewing the USCIS Handbook for Employers, the employer decided to contact the worker, accept the document he presented, and allow him to work.

Miami, FL

On September 21, 2016, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR. The worker presented his valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire. However, the employer requested to see the worker’s Social Security card. The worker had not yet obtained one due to his recent arrival to the U.S. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer. OSC explained that the worker had satisfied the requirements for the Form I‐9 as a Social Security number is optional on the Form I‐9. The employer was concerned about not being able to run an E‐Verify query on the new employee, and the OSC staff member explained that the E‐Verify guidelines allow the employer to wait until the worker receives his Social security number to run the E‐Verify query but to allow the worker to work until then. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin employment and to run the query once the worker received his number.

Aurora, CO

On September 28, 2016, OSC’s efforts helped a construction worker continue to work. OSC received a call from an employer who received an approval notice from a construction worker whose work permit was scheduled to expire. The employer was uncertain whether it could accept such a document – she believed that that the worker needed to present an unexpired work permit. An OSC attorney reviewed the approval notice informed the employer that it meets Form I‐9 requirements. The employer accepted the notice and will allow the worker to continue to work.

 

Fiscal Year 2015

Cedar Rapids, IA

On October 6, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a janitorial and facility maintenance firm for over thirteen years. An HR representative recently emailed the worker, notifying her that she had to renew her Permanent Resident Card, and present it to the employer for reverification or risk being terminated. The worker called OSC to ask if she could show an identification card paired with a Social Security card to her employer. OSC staff explained that the employer should not reverify a Permanent Resident Card, and contacted the employer as well to explain this. The worker did not lose any hours of work, and the employer received additional guidance materials from OSC in order to learn more about these issues.

Dallas, TX

On October 10, 2014, a naturalized U.S. citizen was allowed to work due to the efforts of OSC. The naturalized US citizen presented to her employer her certificate of naturalization and driver's license for employment eligibility verification purposes. The employer refused to accept the certificate and the worker called OSC. An OSC attorney called the employer and instructed her on List C documents and, in particular, the acceptability of certificates of naturalization for Form I-9 purposes. The OSC attorney also emailed the employer some information on acceptable employment eligibility verification documents. The employer decided to allow the worker to start working.

New York, NY

On October 10, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a work-authorized Canadian. The employee called OSC because her employer, a hospital, would not accept her receipt of her lost EAD as proof of continued work authorization. The caller recently lost her EAD but had applied for a replacement. The OSC attorney explained the "receipt rule" that allows a worker to present a receipt for a lost, stolen, or misplaced document for I-9 purposes, and informed the employer that it should accept the receipt if it appeared valid. The employer decided to accept the receipt as proof of continued work authorization and to allow the worker to continue working for the hospital.

Miami, FL

On October 15, 2014, OSC saved the job of an LPR. Upon hire, the worker presented her unexpired conditional Permanent Resident card for Form I-9 purposes. However, after several months on the job, the employer advised the worker that she would need to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card before the one on file expired. The worker called USCIS to inquire about expediting her recent request for a new LPR card, and USCIS referred the worker to OSC. An OSC staff member called the employer and explained that a conditional Permanent Resident card is a List A document on the list of acceptable documents and should not be reverified. The OSC staff member referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work without further interruptions.

Fishkill, NY

On October 16, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR who had been recently hired by a staffing agency but was about to be fired. The worker attempted to present a driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes, but the employer rejected them and wanted to see a DHS-issued document. The worker asked his employer to call OSC, and the OSC hotline attorney educated the employer on proper Form I-9 rules. The employer was grateful for the information and stated she and her staff would sign up for OSC's monthly employer webinar.

Springfield, MO

On October 17, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a conditional permanent resident. The worker's Permanent Resident Card expired in February 2014, but he received a Form I-797 extending the validity of his card for one year. The worker was hired by a new employer in October 2014. The worker called OSC's hotline to say that his employer would not let him start working because the employer was concerned about the future expiration date on the card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that an expired Permanent Resident Card coupled with a Form I-797 is a valid List C document for one year from the expiration date of the card. OSC also stated that an employer may not prevent a worker from working based on a future expiration date on the worker's employment eligibility documentation. The employer immediately put the worker to work.

San Rafael, CA

On October 21, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a Permanent Resident Card to her employer upon initial hire. The card expired in August 2014. Because the caller is in the process of applying for naturalization, she did not seek to renew her Permanent Resident Card. When the worker's supervisor discovered that the card was expired, the supervisor terminated the worker until she could present a new document. The worker called OSC's hotline, and OSC immediately contacted the employer on her behalf. OSC explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified, and that to do so could represent document abuse. The employer decided to reinstate the employee and provide full back pay for the two weeks the caller was off work.

Chicago, IL

On October 27, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card upon filling out the Form I-9. However, the employer asked to see a Permanent Resident Card since the worker had attested to being an LPR on section one of the Form I-9. The worker presented a card that was expired, and the employer requested to see a new card. The worker had not renewed his Permanent Resident Card; consequently, the worker was not allowed to start employment until he could provide an unexpired card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I-9 requirements by providing an acceptable unexpired List B and List C document. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Minneapolis, MN

On October 28, 2014, OSC assisted a former Chinese national who is a naturalized U.S. citizen to start a position with a federal agency. The human resources representative was allegedly requesting a List A document from the naturalized U.S. citizen in order to complete his Form I-9. The worker had provided the representative with his Social Security card and state identification card for Form I-9 purposes, but the agency representative allegedly insisted that she needed a List A document from the worker as proof of his U.S. citizenship status because the position required that he be a U.S. citizen. Following a discussion with an OSC attorney about the purpose of the Form I-9 process (which is to verify employment authorization and not verify actual status nor to be used to support a separate job requirement of citizenship status), the representative stated that a certificate of naturalization would suffice for the non-I-9 purpose, and the worker provided the certificate.

Toledo, OH

On October 28, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was hired and submitted a driver's license and birth certificate for Form I-9 purposes. The HR personnel rejected the worker's birth certificate and asked for a Social Security card; however, the worker had lost her Social Security card. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer and explained that the birth certificate was an acceptable List C document and that the worker had satisfied the requirements for Form I-9. The HR director decided to allow the worker to begin her job immediately.

Temecula, CA

On October 28, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired by a major retailer and presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9. However, the employer asked to see a Permanent Resident Card since the worker had attested to being an LPR on section one of the Form I-9. The worker presented a Permanent Resident Card that was expired, leading the employer to request to see a new card. The worker had not renewed his card because he had applied for U.S. citizenship; consequently, the worker was not allowed to start employment until he could provide an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I-9 requirements by providing an acceptable List B and List C document. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Arlington, VA

On October 28, 2014, as a result of a successful intervention by OSC, a volunteer for an employer located inside an airport was allowed to return to work. The volunteer, a foreign-born U.S. Citizen, had been asked to complete an I-9 Form during her badging process for the airport. The volunteer's employer had instructed the volunteer to fill out an I-9 Form to renew her employee badge, consistent with instructions provided to the employer by the Airport Authority. After the OSC attorney contacted the general counsel for the Airport Authority, the Airport Authority decided to redraft its identification badging application to avoid any confusion with the Form I-9 process.

Boise, ID

On October 29, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. Upon hire, the worker presented to his employer for Form I-9 purposes his foreign passport with a Form I-94 containing a temporary I-551 stamp. The document was set to expire in September 2015. The employer representative refused to accept the document because she had not seen such a document before and thought it was expired. The worker, along with an advocate, contacted OSC for assistance. OSC contacted the employer and explained that this document is considered a receipt and will not expire until September 2015. The employer immediately put the worker back to work.

Clifton, NJ

On October 30, 2014, an LPR was able to start working for a large retailer because of the efforts of an OSC attorney. The worker called OSC because the human resources representative would not accept his passport with an I-551 stamp. The OSC attorney informed the retailer's outside counsel about the refusal. One day later, the employer decided to allow the worker to continue in employment.

Wichita, KS

On November 3, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9. However, the employer asked to see a Permanent Resident Card since the worker had attested to being an LPR in section one of the Form I-9. The worker presented a Permanent Resident card that was expired, leading the employer to request to see an unexpired card, which the worker did not have because he had not renewed his card. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I-9 requirements by providing an acceptable List B document and List C document. The employer decided to allow worker to begin work immediately.

Los Angeles, CA

On November 4, 2014, OSC saved the job of a work-authorized individual. The worker was offered and accepted a job and presented his EAD for Form I-9 purposes. The employer then rescinded the job offer, stating that they did not sponsor work visas. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC called the employer and explained that worker did not need sponsorship because he had an independent grant of employment authorization. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin his job immediately.

Topeka, KS

On November 6, 2014, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to be reinstated to work after a county health agency fired her when her Permanent Resident Card expired. The worker originally presented a valid driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9 when she was hired, but when the human resources representative saw that the worker checked the "lawful permanent resident" box on the Form I-9, the representative asked to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card. An OSC staffer contacted the county agency, and the agency agreed to reinstate the worker with back pay of approximately $637.

Kendall Park, NJ

On November 19, OSC completed a successful intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for and was offered a teller position with a bank. When she was completing the Form I-9, the bank's HR representative asked to see the worker's ID. The worker showed him her driver's license, her Canadian passport, her expired green card, and unrestricted Social Security Card. The HR representative looked at her expired green card, and told her, "I don't know if I can help you work here." The HR representative informed the worker that she needed to get a new green card, and until that time, she could not return to work for the bank. The worker called OSC's hotline, and OSC contacted the HR representative and legal counsel for the bank, informing them that the worker's valid, unexpired driver's license and unrestricted Social Security Card were acceptable documents and should not have been rejected. Further, OSC informed the employer that they should not have suspended the worker until she produced a new green card, as she was not under any legal obligation to do so. The employer representatives were grateful for OSC's guidance, and related that they were not aware of this legal requirement, but would fully comply with the law. The bank decided to provide two weeks' back pay ($770.00) to the worker and ask her to immediately return to work.

Napa Valley, CA

On November 19, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker, a retiree who was supplementing her income, had began training at a gas station and was terminated because the company claimed that the worker had been unable to complete the I-9 process. The worker had provided the company with a valid driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card. The driver's license the worker provided had her married and maiden name listed and her Social Security card only had her married name listed. Despite the worker correctly completing section one of the I-9 Form and including her maiden name in the appropriate box, her documents were rejected. The HR representative based the rejection on advice she had obtained from an I-9 Central representative via telephone. OSC provided the HR representative with a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274), which allows an employee to be hired under these circumstances. The employer decided to reinstate the worker immediately.

Miami, FL

On November 24, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a recent conditional permanent resident. The worker presented a valid foreign passport containing a temporary I-551 printed notation on a machine readable immigrant visa after being hired by the employer. During the hiring process, the worker volunteered information regarding the expected receipt of her green card. The employer rejected the document presented by the worker and told the worker she had to either present a work permit or green card otherwise she would not be permitted to work. The worker informed the employer that she was work-authorized, but the employer did not allow the worker to begin employment as scheduled on November 13, 2014. Days later the worker called OSC's hotline for assistance. After OSC contacted the legal department and explained that the document presented by the worker during the hiring process was a valid List A document and was valid for one year from the date of issuance, the employer decided to continue with the hiring process and provide full back pay for the two weeks the worker would have been working if the employer had not rejected the document initially presented by the worker. The employer also agreed to sign up for an OSC sponsored webinar.

San Diego, CA

On December 8, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR who was told she would be terminated because her Permanent Resident Card expired. The worker researched her rights online and found OSC’s hotline. After an OSC attorney spoke with the worker, the attorney contacted the employer to explain that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The employer knew not to reverify Permanent Resident Cards, but had been unaware that one of its managers had taken it upon herself to reverify the worker. The employer stated that the worker would not be terminated and that it would train its managers on proper protocol.

Denver, CO

On December 8, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. The worker presented his Certificate of Naturalization (N‐560) and his valid driver’s license for Form I‐9 purposes. However, the employer rejected the N‐560 stating that it was not listed on the Form I‐9 as an acceptable document. The worker contacted USCIS, and in turn, USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the N‐560 is an acceptable List C document and referred the employer to the I‐9 Central website where this document is listed as a List C acceptable document. The employer decided to put the worker back on the job immediately.

Los Angeles, CA

On December 11, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. Upon hire, the worker presented his Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 purposes. The document expired in July 2014. When the employer discovered this in December 2014, the employer suspended the worker. The worker called OSC’s hotline immediately. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified, referencing the USCIS Handbook for Employers and Form I‐9 instructions. The employer immediately put the worker back to work.

Rochester, NY

On December 17, 2014, OSC conducted a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. Citizen. The worker had just been hired by a staffing agency, and presented his driver’s license and Certificate of Naturalization for Form I‐9 purposes. His employer had never seen a Certificate of Naturalization before, and rejected the document. The worker called OSC, and OSC immediately contacted the employer. OSC explained that the Certificate of Naturalization is a valid List C document, and pointed the employer to the appropriate citation on the USCIS I‐9 Central website. The employer decided to accept the document. OSC explained that when employers encounter I‐9 documents they have never seen before, rather than simply rejecting those documents outright, they should check the latest USCIS materials and/or call OSC’s hotline.

Vista, CA

On December 18, 2014, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to continue working after her employer threatened to fire her if she did not present a Permanent Resident Card (PRC). When the worker was hired, she presented an unexpired driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card, documents that together were sufficient to complete the Form I‐9. After hire, the employer requested that the worker produce an additional document ‐‐ her PRC ‐‐ because she is an LPR. Months later, the employer lost a copy of the employee’s PRC copy and requested that she provide her PRC again. When the worker stated that it was lost and she would not be able to produce the PRC, the employer gave her a deadline to produce the document or be terminated. An OSC staffer called the employer and explained that the worker already met her burden to present documents under the Form I‐9 and that to request more or different documents from her because she is an LPR could be a violation of the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA. The employer apologized for its actions and informed the worker that she no longer needed to produce the PRC.

McConnellsburg, PA

On December 18, 2014, OSC saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen whose employer incorrectly applied International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) requirements to the employee. The worker called OSC and an OSC attorney called the employer and explained that ITAR does not prohibit certain kinds of foreign-born individuals, such as naturalized U.S. citizens, nationals, LPRs, asylees and refugees from obtaining employment, and that companies should not incorrectly exclude individuals from employment based on their citizenship status unless necessary to comply with a law, regulation, government contract or executive order. The employer contacted the worker and allowed him to return to work, with back pay.

Carrollton, TX

On December 19, 2014, OSC staff completed an intervention on behalf of a recent LPR resulting in the worker receiving full back pay for her first day of work. The worker was hired by a nursing home facility, and for I‐9 purposes, she provided her foreign passport with a valid and current I‐551 (permanent resident stamp) valid for one year. After providing that document to the nursing home administrator, she was advised that she would not receive pay until she was able to provide the actual Permanent Resident Card, which conflicts with Form I‐9 rules. The worker immediately called OSC, and OSC staff contacted the corporate headquarters to speak with the HR director. The director was unaware of this issue, and resolved the issue immediately. She advised OSC that the worker would be paid in full for her first day of work and orientation, and would be allowed to continue working.

Houston, TX

On December 22, 2014, OSC completed a successful intervention to save the job of a worker. The worker, a naturalized U.S. citizen, applied for and was offered a job with a national fast food chain. He presented his valid state identification card and his certificate of naturalization (Form I‐550) in order to complete Form I‐9. The company’s human resources manager, however, rejected his certificate of naturalization certificate and demanded that he present his social security card instead. When the worker informed the HR manager that he had lost his social security card, the HR manager sent him home until he could produce his social security card. The worker called OSC’s Hotline, and OSC contacted the HR manager to inform him that the worker’s valid, unexpired state identification and certificate of naturalization were acceptable documents and should not have been rejected. Further, OSC informed the employer that it should not have suspended the worker until he produced social security card, as he was not under any legal obligation to do so. The employer was grateful for OSC’s guidance, and related that they were not aware of this legal requirement, but would fully comply with the law. The restaurant agreed to pay the worker for the day of work that he missed, and has contacted the worker to return to work immediately.

Chicago, IL

On January 2, 2015, an HR representative called OSC because a newly hired worker’s EAD just expired and the worker would not receive an unexpired card until next month. The newly hired worker possessed an unrestricted Social Security card, a List C document, that can also be used to demonstrate work eligibility for Form I‐9 purposes. After OSC explained the significance of an unrestricted Social Security card, the HR representative accepted the social security card and allowed the worker to continue working.

Phoenix, AZ

On January 6, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of a janitorial worker. The worker’s employer at first refused to accept the worker’s foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC forwarded information to the employer about the acceptability of the I‐551 stamp for employment eligibility verification. The employer accepted the passport with the I‐551 stamp, and the worker will be allowed to start work immediately.

Long Beach, CA

On January 12, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I‐9. However, two weeks later, the employer advised the worker that there was a mismatch with her Social Security number and that she had to stop working until she fixed the mismatch. The worker did not receive an E‐Verify Further Action Notice; however, she contacted OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that since the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 requirements it was not clear if the employer had also run the worker through E‐Verify. The employer admitted that they had made an error while attempting to run an E‐Verify query on the worker. The employer allowed the worker to return to work immediately and paid her approximately $380.00 in back pay.

Baldwin Park, CA

On January 14, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker, a conditional permanent resident, presented a valid Permanent Resident Card with a two‐year expiration date upon initial hire. When the worker’s Permanent Resident Card expired, his employer told him that he needed to provide a new card, or he would be suspended. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC immediately contacted the employer. Citing the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274) and the I‐9 central website, OSC explained that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified, regardless of whether they contain a two‐year or a ten‐year expiration date. The employer decided not to suspend the worker. The employer also stated that its HR staff would not reverify Permanent Resident Cards in the future.

Topeka, KS

On January 15, 2015, OSC saved the job of an individual working under Optional Practical Training. The worker called OSC’s hotline because she was told she would be fired upon the expiration of her EAD. However, the worker qualified for a 180‐day grace period for her work authorization. The OSC attorney called the employer and directed the employer to both USCIS and ICE guidance regarding the grace period. The employer was happy that the worker could remain employed and was grateful for the information.

New Orleans, LA

On January 27, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to allow an LPR to begin employment. The employer refused an I‐797 Notice of Action as proof of work authorization as a result of the fact that the worker’s Permanent Resident Card had expired. The worker was referred to OSC by USCIS. A staff member from OSC spoke with the employer and explained that the one‐year extension on the I‐797 should be treated as a List C document and combined with the worker’s unexpired driver’s license, satisfied Form I‐9 obligations. The employer decided to allow the worker to start her job immediately.

Montgomery, AL

On January 28, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The worker presented his unexpired conditional Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 purposes; however, the employer asked for proof that he had applied for a new Permanent Resident Card. The worker called USCIS to inquire about obtaining a receipt, and in turn, USCIS referred the worker to OSC. An OSC staff member called the employer and explained that a conditional Permanent Resident Card is a List A document on the List of Acceptable Documents; furthermore, it does not need to be reverified. The OSC staff member referred the employer to the USCIS Employer’s Handbook (M‐274). The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with the hiring process.

Conroe, TX

On January 28, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon filling out the Form I‐9 several years ago. However, the card was about to expire and the employer requested to see a new card. The worker had not begun the process to renew her Permanent Resident Card; consequently, the worker was advised that he had a few days to produce an unexpired card or he would be suspended. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The employer decided to allow worker to continue to work without any more interruptions.

Charlotte, NC

On January 29, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a manufacturing company through a staffing company. The manufacturing company decided to hire the LPR permanently and asked the worker to complete a new Form I‐9. The worker completed the Form I‐9 and presented his foreign passport with an I‐551 stamp. The HR representative was not familiar with the document, so she told the worker she believed she needed a letter from DHS showing he was work authorized. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the HR representative and explained that the document the worker had provided is an acceptable List A document for Section 2 purposes. The worker’s hiring was not affected and he did not lose any hours of work. OSC also emailed the HR representative the USCIS I‐9 Handbook for Employers (M‐274), the OSC Employer Hotline number, and OSC’s website for future reference.

Orlando, FL

On January 31, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was employed by a large retail company for approximately two months before she was called into the HR office and informed that there was a problem with her Form I‐9. According to the worker, she was told to sign a TNC document, but she refused because no one explained to her what the TNC was or why she had to sign it. The HR representative gave the worker the number to Everify and told her to call the number to find out what the problem was. In the meantime, the worker was terminated because the employer claimed that she refused to sign the TNC. OSC contacted the company, through its legal counsel, who claimed the company did provide the worker with an explanation. Nevertheless, the company decided to pay the worker one week of full back pay ($267.20) and to have its HR staff attend an E‐verify webinar.

Sacramento, CA

On February 3, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker provided her driver’s license and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer ran the worker’s information through E‐Verify and received an SSA TNC. The employer advised the worker to take care of the TNC and provided the referral letter to her. The worker visited the SSA office and received a letter stating that she was a naturalized citizen. The worker provided the letter to the employer. However, several months later, the employer asked the worker to go back to SSA and obtain another letter, placing the worker on unpaid administrative leave until she presented a new letter from SSA. The worker called OSC, and after an OSC staff member discussed proper EVerify practices with the employer, the employer decided to run another E‐Verify query. The employer obtained an “employment authorized” result and the worker was returned to work immediately. The employer stated that the worker will receive back pay for her absence during administrative leave.

Lakewood, CO

On February 4, 2015, OSC saved the job of a worker with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). The worker’s employer would not allow the worker to start work, claiming that her Social Security number was invalid. The worker called OSC’s hotline after her employer said she could not continue with the hiring process until she produced additional evidence that she was work‐authorized. The worker had already produced her EAD for the Form I‐9 and her restricted Social Security card for payroll purposes. OSC called the employer to find out why the employer requested additional information. The employer representative stated that she had learned that individuals with Social Security cards like the one the worker possessed were invalid. OSC advised the employer that restricted Social Security cards are not acceptable Form I‐9 documents, but that EADs are, so the employer should accept the EAD if she thought it looked valid and reasonably related to the worker. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue the hiring process.

Charleston, SC

On February 4, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. worker. Upon hire, the employee presented his driver’s license and Social Security card for employment eligibility verification purposes. After working for several months, the worker informed the employer that he was now a member of the Moorish American nation and had changed his name. The employer told the worker that he could not return to work until he presented proof of his name change. OSC called the company’s HR personnel and explained that a name change does not require a new Form I‐9. HR personnel discussed the matter internally, allowed the worker to return to work, and decided that the employer would pay the worker for the missed days.

New York, NY

On February 5, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired by a national retailer, and while completing the Form I‐9 he chose to provide the employer with a valid List B document (unexpired driver’s license) and a valid List C document (unrestricted Social Security card). The documents met the requirements for the Form I‐9. However, upon reviewing the Form I‐9, the store’s HR manager decided to request a Permanent Resident card when she noticed that the worker checked the box indicating that he was an LPR. The HR manager explained that the worker needed to provide the document in three business days or he would not be allowed to work. The worker knew that he did not have to provide any additional documents after reading the instructions for the Form I‐9. He found OSC’s number on the instructions and immediately called for assistance. OSC staff called the employer, but the HR manager believed her request was acceptable. OSC staff then requested to speak with corporate HR or corporate counsel. The next day the retailer’s corporate counsel called to advise OSC that they had resolved the issue, and the worker confirmed with the worker that the matter had been resolved. The worker was allowed to start work on his original start date and did not lose any pay or training time. The retailer’s employment counsel decided to keep OSC’s contact information in order to call OSC in the future with questions about the employment eligibility verification process.

Poughkeepsie, NY

On February 5, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. When the worker was hired in September 2014, she initially produced her valid Jamaican passport with a temporary I‐551 notation on a machine‐readable immigrant visa (MRIV). The expiration date on the visa was December 15, 2014. Individuals who provide temporary evidence of their permanent resident status for the Form I‐9, must be reverified when the temporary evidence expires. On December 15, 2014, the employer attempted to reverify the worker, who had not yet received her Permanent Resident Card. The employer removed the worker from the work schedule and advised her that she was not allowed to resume her duties until she received her new card. The worker contacted OSC and an OSC staffer noticed that next to the worker’s visa was a U.S. Custom’s entry stamp with the notation F‐11, and a date of July 19, 2015. The F‐11 status is granted to a child of a U.S. citizen who is not married to the mother or father of the child. The date on the stamp represents the expiration date of the temporary evidence of permanent resident status. OSC called the employer and explained that the December 15, 2014, expiration date on the visa represents the date by which the worker had to enter the United States and that the July 19, 2015, date represents the expiration of the temporary evidence of the worker’s status. As a result of OSC’s intervention, the employer immediately notified the worker that she was able to return to work and informed OSC that in the future, its HR personnel responsible for the Form I‐9 process will call OSC’s employer hotline in similar situations.

Colorado Springs, CO

On February 6, 2015, an OSC attorney completed an intervention involving a staffing company that was refusing to hire work‐authorized immigrants who were awaiting their Social Security numbers (SSN) because the company’s software required the information. The OSC attorney learned about the issue from a member of the Colorado Springs refugee advocate community, who contacted OSC. The OSC attorney called the HR office of the staffing company and explained that workers who are awaiting their SSNs are still able to work if they provide sufficient documentation for the Form I‐9. The attorney also referred the HR representative to SSA resources on how to pay individuals who lack SSNs, and USCIS guidance on how to handle E‐Verify queries for workers who have not yet received their SSNs. The HR representative stated that it would look into creating a procedure to hire workers without SSNs by either fixing the software requirements or by allowing the workers to complete paper applications.

San Francisco, CA

On February 9, 2015, an employer representative called the hotline because she did not know whether she could accept a Resident Alien card presented by an LPR for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker had received her Resident Alien card when she was much younger, and the card has no expiration date. OSC explained to the employer representative that she must accept the Resident Alien card if it appears reasonably genuine and relates to the worker. The employer accepted the card and allowed the worker to work.

Emporia, KS

On February 9, 2015, an OSC attorney prevented a worker from being terminated because his Permanent Resident Card expired. The worker, whose card expired in late January 2015, was provided with several weeks to provide a new unexpired card. OSC called the employer and explained that it must not reverify the employment eligibility of LPRs whose Permanent Resident Cards expire. The employer decided to allow the worker to retain his position.

Miami, FL

On February 10, 2015, an OSC attorney assisted the co‐owner of a small party store to navigate the Form I‐9 process, which resulted in the employer allowing several individuals to work. The company had never completed Form I‐9s, and was unfamiliar with employment eligibility verification documents. The OSC attorney explained the significance of the Lists of Acceptable Documents and specifically discussed the acceptability of a Permanent Resident Card that was presented by one of the newly hired individuals. All of the individuals were allowed to work.

Tempe, AZ

On February 10, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a sports apparel manufacturing plant for two weeks. HR personnel were not familiar with the worker’s older Permanent Resident Card, and rejected the valid document because they did not know how to properly submit an E‐Verify query for the worker. The employer advised the worker to obtain a new document for E‐Verify purposes. The worker visited a USCIS field office and asked about the process for renewal, but the USCIS staff explained that her card was valid and that she did not need a new one. When the worker explained the USCIS guidance to HR, the HR staff told the worker that she could finish her day of work, but that she would not be able to return. The worker immediately called OSC for assistance. OSC staff called the employer and explained that rejecting valid documents may constitute employment discrimination under the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA. OSC staff provided the employer with publicly available E‐Verify guidance regarding older LPR cards, as well as the links to I‐9 Central and OSC’s employer guidance. The employer immediately called E‐Verify for assistance with the system, and invited the worker to return to work. The employer provided the worker with the full day of pay that she missed, and the employer has assured OSC that in the future it will contact OSC before rejecting employment eligibility verification documentation.

Westchester, NY

On February 11, 2015, OSC saved the job of an immigrant whose employer requested additional documentation as proof of the worker’s work authorization. The worker had been hired at a local community college in December 2014, and for Form I‐9 purposes, the worker had presented his foreign passport with an unexpired I‐551 stamp, which proves both identity and work authorization. The employer initially accepted the documents, but after the winter break, informed the worker that he needed to provide additional proof of work authorization because the visa had expired. The OSC attorney spoke with the employer’s legal counsel and directed him to the USCIS M‐274, Handbook for Employers, for guidance. Upon review, the employer decided to (1) provide back pay in the amount of $675, and (2) require the HR staff involved in the LPR’s Form I‐9 process to view an I‐9 webinar through the USCIS I‐9 Central website. The employer also decided to place the worker on the schedule immediately.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

On February 12, 2015, an OSC attorney gave guidance to an IT company that creates onboarding software, likely resulting in the ability of work‐authorized individuals who are awaiting their Social Security numbers (SSN) to more easily apply for jobs with employers that utilize the software. The company representative called OSC for general information regarding Forms I‐9. OSC provided the requested information, and during the course of the phone call explained that onboarding software often incorrectly requires SSNs to complete a worker’s hire, which then prevents some workauthorized immigrants from obtaining employment. The software company representative was grateful for the information and stated that the company will look into potential fixes to allow individuals awaiting SSNs to apply for work.

St. Paul, MN

On February 18, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid Permanent Resident Card. The employer asked the worker to present a new card when the card expired. However, the worker had not renewed his card. The worker contacted OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 documentation requirements, and that the a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. OSC provided an  electronic copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment.

Dallas, TX

On February 20, 2015, OSC received word that a refugee working at a large retail chain in Texas would be allowed to continue working after having been initially told that he could not present his unrestricted Social Security card as proof of work authorization. OSC learned of the issue due to a hotline call that a refugee advocate made from a local non‐profit organization. OSC contacted the company’s attorney and explained that an unrestricted Social Security card is a valid List C document. The company realized that it erred when it rejected the worker’s unrestricted Social Security card, and the worker was able to continue his employment without missing any work.

Chicago, IL

On February 23, 2015, OSC received word that an LPR was reinstated after his improper termination. The company rejected the worker’s expired LPR card and I‐797 receipt from USCIS reflecting his application for a new card, even though this combination of documentation was valid for the Form I‐9. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and an OSC attorney called the employer to explain the validity of the documentation and to direct the employer to publicly available resources from OSC and USCIS. The employer was grateful for OSC’s guidance.

Chicago, IL

On February 24, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker had been working for several months, and when she received her DACA documentation she turned it over to HR. Because the employer was not sure how to handle the restricted Social Security card, it advised the worker that she would be terminated. The worker called an immigrant rights group that in turn called OSC. An OSC staff member discussed the proper process to update Form I‐9 records with the HR representative, referring the HR representative to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274). The employer decided to follow the process and allow the worker to continue working without interruptions.

Portland, OR

On February 26, 2015, an OSC attorney intervened to help save a work‐authorized individual’s job after the worker’s employer rejected his valid Form I‐9 documentation. The worker called the OSC attorney, who had previously assisted him on the hotline, when the worker’s new employer rejected the worker’s Social Security card receipt that the worker presented together with his state identification card. The employer had rejected the worker’s Social Security card receipt because it looked different than other receipts the employer had previously seen. The OSC attorney called the employer and explained that SSA changed its receipt in 2014 and that the new receipt was still an acceptable Form I‐9 receipt for a lost, stolen, or damaged Social Security card, valid for 90 days after the worker presented it. The employer was grateful that it did not have to repost its position and rehired the worker without delay.

Seattle, WA

On March 11, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of an individual from the Mariana Islands whose employer was going to terminate him. The employer called OSC to confirm whether a passport from the Mariana Islands alone (without an I‐94) was sufficient for the Form I‐9 because the employer would terminate the worker if it was not. The OSC attorney noted that some I‐94s are electronic, but that a foreign passport alone was insufficient. The attorney noted, however, that workers may present other documentation, such as a state ID and unrestricted SS card, for the Form I‐9. The employer stated that the worker did possess those documents but that she had believed that nationals and other non‐U.S. citizens were required to produce List A documentation for employment eligibility verification. The OSC attorney explained proper Form I‐9 practices, and directed the employer to USCIS’ Handbook for Employers (M‐274), which the employer had been unfamiliar with. The employer said that she
would read the M‐274 and call OSC’s hotline in the future to ensure she was in proper compliance with Form I‐9 laws and regulations.

Houston, TX

On March 12, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. The worker applied and was hired for a job, but his employer told him that he needed to show a Permanent Resident Card for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker presented his driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, but was told that these documents were not sufficient. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC contacted the employer immediately. OSC explained that employers should not ask for more or different documents than are required for Form I‐9 purposes, and should not reject documents that appear on the List of Acceptable Documents if they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the worker. The employer decided to bring the worker back to work immediately. The employer told OSC that a new HR employee was responsible for the document request, and that the request is not reflective of the employer’s regular Form I‐9 policies. The employer told OSC that it would ensure that its HR employees have proper training and do not request specific documents from workers in the future.

San Diego, CA

On March 13, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of a newly hired worker. The employer called OSC because the worker produced a receipt for her Permanent Resident Card. The worker had a photo identification card but had lost her Permanent Resident Card and unrestricted Social Security card. The OSC attorney informed the employer that it should accept a valid receipt, explaining the Form I‐9 “receipt rule.” The employer informed OSC that he would accept the receipt.

Worcester, MA

On March 16, 2015, an OSC staffer saved the job of an H‐1B visa holder. The worker’s former employer was withholding his Form I‐94, which it had obtained as an attachment to the Form I‐797 approval notice received in the process of sponsoring the worker for a visa. The worker could not access the Form I‐94 electronically through the USCIS website so the worker did not have sufficient Form I‐9 documentation to work for his new employer. An OSC staffer called the former employer, and the former employer agreed to provide the Form I‐94. The caller was able to retrieve the Form I‐94 on March 20, 2015, and was told he can start his new job on March 23, 2015.

El Paso, TX

On March 17, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and presented a valid Permanent Resident Card. However, the employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired and asked the worker for a new card. Since the worker had not renewed her card, the worker contacted OSC after learning about OSC during an outreach event by OSC staff. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9, and that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. OSC provided an electronic copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to her employment and provided $279.00 in back pay.

Dallas, TX

On March 23, 2015, OSC assisted an LPR in renewing his airport driver’s permit. The LPR was having difficulty renewing his driver’s permit at the airport where he works because his Permanent Resident Card was about to expire. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the issuing authority at the airport and explained that the worker’s LPR status did not expire with his permanent resident card. After airport staff consulted with their management, the worker was allowed to renew his driver’s permit for another two years, which is the standard renewal period.

Albany, NY

On March 24, 2015, OSC resolved an intervention that resulted in the reinstatement of an LPR. On March 20, 2015, the employer requested that a newly hired worker produce his “green card” to complete the Form I‐9. The employee had recently lost his Permanent Resident Card and had not yet applied for a replacement card. After explaining this to the company, he was told that a “green card” was needed to complete the hiring process. On March 23rd, after having reviewed OSC’s website, the worker called the employer and asked whether he could provide his driver’s license and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer insisted that a green card was needed. An OSC equal opportunity specialist called the employer and explained that an employer may not request specific documents, and cannot refuse to accept an acceptable combination of documents for completing the Form I‐9. As a result of OSC’s intervention, the employer decided to accept the worker’s driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card and reinstated him.

Baton Rouge, LA

On March 25, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen. The worker had completed the Form I‐9 upon initial hire, but her supervisor lost the Form I‐9. An HR official then told the worker, without giving the worker the opportunity to complete a new Form I‐9, that she was terminated because she did not have a Form I‐9 on record. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC immediately contacted the employer. OSC was able to help clear up the issue, and the employer ultimately found the worker’s Form I‐9. The employer put the worker back to work.

New York, NY

On March 30, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. The worker presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card to her employer for Form I‐9 purposes upon initial hire. The document expired approximately two weeks after the worker’s date of hire. Several months later, the employer discovered during a review of its records that the worker’s Permanent Resident Card was expired. The employer suspended the worker and stated that she would not be rehired until she provided a new unexpired card. The worker’s advocate called OSC, and OSC contacted the employer. OSC explained, citing the relevant portion of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274) and the Form I‐9 instructions, that Permanent Resident  Cards are not to be reverified. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker and to provide back pay.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

On April 2, 2015, OSC saved the job of a conditional permanent resident who was told she would be fired if she could not produce a new Permanent Resident Card. The worker’s attorney had seen an OSC presentation in Miami and knew to direct the worker to OSC. OSC called the employer to explain proper reverification procedures. The employer stated that she had received incorrect information regarding conditional permanent residents with cards that are valid for two years, and believed she needed to obtain a new immigration document from the worker upon its expiration. OSC directed the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274), which explicitly states that no Permanent Resident Card, regardless of its expiration date (or lack thereof) should be reverified. The employer apologized for her error and told the worker that she did not need to present any additional documentation.

Vista, CA

On April 6, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker called OSC’s hotline because her employer (a company that does not use E‐Verify) was refusing to accept her temporary driver’s license as a List B document because it did not contain a photo. The document did contain other information, including the worker’s name, date of birth, gender, and address. OSC called the employer and explained that List B documents must contain photos only for employers that use E‐Verify. OSC explained, pointing to the Lists of Acceptable Documents and the guidance on USCIS’ website, that for non‐E‐Verify employers a state‐issued driver’s license or ID is acceptable if it contains a photo or if it contains other identifying information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address. OSC also pointed to the information on USCIS’ website indicating that state‐issued temporary driver’s licenses can be acceptable List B documents if they meet the above described conditions. The employer reviewed the worker’s document and determined that it was acceptable for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker was able to continue working without issue.

San Diego, CA

On April 8, 2015, OSC saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was fired when she tried to present a driver’s license receipt. The employer is a fast food restaurant that uses E‐Verify. The employer believed that the worker’s receipt was not valid because it lacked a photo, which is required for all List B documents presented to an employer enrolled in E‐Verify. The worker called the hotline, and an OSC attorney called the restaurant to explain that although E‐Verify employers can only accept List B documents with photos, the receipt for a lost, stolen, or misplaced List B document need not have a photo and the employer should not run the E‐Verify query until after the worker provides the actual document. The restaurant called the worker back, and she was reemployed the same day.

Columbia, MD

On April 8, 2015, OSC saved the job of a native‐born U.S. citizen who was told he would not be paid for work already performed, and could possibly be fired, if he did not produce an unexpired driver’s license for the Form I‐9. The worker had previously worked at his company and left for a month. When he returned, the employer asked him to complete a new Form I‐9 because his driver’s license had expired during his previous period of employment. The worker did not have any valid identity documents and called OSC. An OSC attorney called the employer and the employer explained that they reverified all documents, including U.S. passports, Permanent Resident Cards, and driver’s licenses. The OSC attorney explained that employers should not reverify List B documents, nor should it reverify certain other documents, such as Permanent Resident Cards. The attorney also explained that if the employer desired, it could rely on the worker’s previous Form I‐9 in this case of rehire. The OSC attorney also explained that employers cannot withhold wage payment due to a workers completion or non‐completion of the Form I‐9. The employer stated it would pay the worker immediately and was glad that it was permitted to rely on the original Form I‐9.

Las Vegas, NV

On April 13, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR who was terminated for allegedly violating the honesty policy of her employer, a large casino and resort property. The worker had been hired by the employer in 1994 under an assumed identity because she lacked work authorization at that time. In 1997, the worker adjusted her status and notified her employer of her true identity. In doing so, the worker provided the employer with documents to establish her employment eligibility. On February 20, 2015, the worker visited the employer’s HR office to inquire about her benefits, and an HR representative notified the worker that she was being discharged for violating the employer’s honesty policy. The Culinary Workers’ Union Local 226 called OSC and requested assistance. An OSC staff member contacted the employer’s general counsel and explained that under the circumstances he described, the law would not prevent a currently employment‐authorized worker from continuing in employment. The OSC staff member also referred the employer’s general counsel to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274) addressing this issue, and provided him with a recently issued OSC technical assistance letter on this topic. The employer decided to reinstate the worker and to pay her back pay.

San Francisco, CA

On April 15, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. The worker called OSC because his employer was not certain how to enter information about his Alien Registration Receipt Card into E‐Verify. Through conversation with the worker, OSC learned that the worker had initially presented his employer with an unrestricted Social Security card and unexpired driver’s license, but was told he needed to present a List A document. OSC spoke to the worker’s employer and explained that employers should not ask workers for more or different documents than are required, or for specific documents, for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer decided to accept the worker’s List B and C documents. The employer then successfully ran the worker through E‐Verify.

Ft. Worth, TX

On April 15, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a logistics company, was planning to suspend the worker, a Congolese national who presented a Congolese Passport with an expired I‐551 stamp for Form I‐9 purposes. After speaking with the employer’s HR representative, OSC determined that the worker had also presented a valid unexpired Texas driver’s license, and an unrestricted Social Security card, but had misplaced his Permanent Resident Card. OSC informed the employer that the worker’s driver’s license and Social Security card should suffice for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer decided that it would not suspend the worker, and expressed gratitude for OSC’s guidance.

Arkansas

On April 16, 2015, OSC assisted an employer who was requiring a new hire to show additional documentation to complete the Form I‐9, after the worker had already shown valid documents from Lists B and C. The employer called to get guidance because the employer had requested the worker’s I‐94 card and the worker did not have an I‐94 card. OSC confirmed with the employer that the worker had shown documents that fall within Lists B and C and then explained that an employer cannot request additional documentation. The employer decided not to require additional documentation and accept the documents the worker presented.

New York, NY

On April 23, 2015, OSC assisted an LPR’s return to work after her employer requested that she show a new Form I‐551 (or “green card”) based on the expiration of her prior Form I‐551. The caller has worked for her employer for approximately six years and was terminated when she could not provide a new card. OSC contacted the employer and the employer realized its error and decided to reinstate the worker.

Orlando, FL

On April 29, 2015, an OSC staffer spoke with a worker who reported that an employer had demanded that he produce a Social Security Card to be hired. He had lost his card and had alternative documents for the Form I‐9, and despite telling the employer that he was allowed to present the documents of his choice, the employer refused to accept these documents. The OSC staffer contacted the company and provided information regarding proper Form I‐9 procedures. After receiving this information, the company investigated the situation and decided on May 1st that it would allow the worker to begin work on May 7, 2015.

Philadelphia, PA

On May 8, 2015, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, an LPR was able to return to work. The LPR’s Resident Alien card (Form I‐551) had expired, and as a result she had been removed from the work schedule. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained that employers may not reverify LPRs who initially present an unexpired I‐551 at the time of hire for Form I‐9 purposes. The OSC attorney explained that although Forms I‐551 do expire, LPRs continue to remain work authorized indefinitely, and do not need to present additional documentation. Consequently, the employer put the individual back on the work schedule.

New York, NY

On May 12, 2015, an OSC staff member assisted a worker who reported that his employer refused to accept his expired Permanent Resident Card and a Form I‐797 Notice of Action providing a one‐year extension of his Permanent Resident Card. The OSC staff member contacted the employer’s corporate office and provided information regarding proper Form I‐9 procedures for accepting and documenting the documents presented by the worker. The OSC staff member also referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274). After receiving this information, the employer accepted the worker’s documents and assigned him to work.

Galveston, TX

On May 13, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR whose employer insisted he present a specific document for Form I‐9 purposes. The worker applied for a job with a company, and upon hire, the company asked him to provide his Permanent Resident Card, driver’s license, and Social Security card for the Form I‐9. The worker produced his expired Permanent Resident Card, unexpired driver’s license, and unexpired unrestricted Social Security card. The company told him that he needed to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC contacted the company. OSC explained that employers should not ask workers for more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility verification. OSC noted that LPRs, like other workers, have the right to present either a List A document or a combination of a List B document and a List C document for Form I‐9 purposes. OSC explained that even though the worker’s Permanent Resident Card is expired, the other documents that the worker presented would meet the requirements of the Form I‐9 if they reasonably appeared to be genuine and to relate to the worker. The employer decided to accept the worker’s driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card and to return the worker to his job.

Millersville, MD

On May 13, 2015, an OSC staff member spoke with a worker advocate who reported that her client’s employer refused to hire her because she had not yet been issued a Social Security number. The worker is a recently arrived refugee. The OSC staff member contacted the employer and explained the proper procedures for completing the Form I‐9 for workers who have not yet been issued a Social Security card. The OSC staff member also referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274) and IRS Publication 15. After receiving this information, the employer decided to put the worker back to work and to pay her two weeks of back pay.

Allentown, PA

On May 14, 2015, an OSC attorney completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR who was offered employment. During the hiring process, the worker presented an expired Permanent Resident Card, driver’s license, and Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer demanded that he present a new Permanent Resident Card or he would not be allowed to work. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained that the employer can accept a driver’s license and Social Security card for the Form I‐9 and does not need a Permanent Resident Card.

Portland, OR

On May 19, 2015, an OSC staffer learned that an employer had reformed its practices to avoid discriminating under the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA, also preventing a worker from losing time on the job. An OSC staffer originally spoke with an immigrants’ rights advocate, who reported that an employer had been requiring excessive documents from refugees, including one of her clients, in the I‐9 process, and that the company had also told refugee workers that they must present Permanent Resident Cards in order to continue working even though they had already presented valid unexpired Form I‐9 documents. The OSC staffer contacted the company and provided information regarding the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA and about document abuse. The company investigated the situation and subsequently confirmed that a worker who had been told he must provide a Permanent Resident Card to remain employed was retained without providing such documentation. After receiving additional information from the employer, the OSC staffer contacted the employer to further discuss avoiding missteps in the I‐9 process, particularly regarding refugee workers. The employer’s representative stated that the company will adopt revised practices and will use OSC resources going forward.

Boston, MA

On May 19, 2015, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been granted permanent resident status near the same date his Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expired. He obtained an I‐551 stamp with an expiration date of December 31, 2016, in his foreign passport as temporary evidence of his permanent resident status. When the worker’s EAD had expired and he had not yet received his Permanent Resident Card, the worker applied for a new EAD not realizing that as a permanent resident he was no longer required to apply for employment authorization. Within a few days of having submitted his application for a new EAD, he contacted USCIS and inquired about when he would receive his Permanent Resident Card. USCIS informed him that the document must have been lost in the mail, and informed him to apply for a replacement card. In the interim, the worker had received his unrestricted Social Security Card, and he also accepted an offer of employment. During the I‐9 process, the worker submitted his receipt for a new EAD. The employer rejected the receipt because it was not an acceptable Form I‐9 document. The employer also questioned why the worker had applied for a new EAD if he claimed to be an LPR. The worker then presented his foreign passport with the I‐551 stamp. Again the employer rejected the worker’s document because his passport had since expired. However, because the stamp in the worker’s passport was still valid, he could have presented it as a List C document, or he could have presented his unrestricted Social Security Card, but he did not possess a List B document to pair with a List C document. OSC informed the worker that his receipt for a replacement of a lost document is an acceptable document and is good for 90 days. When the worker presented his receipt for a replacement Permanent Resident Card to the employer, it again rejected the document. The OSC staff member contacted the employer and pointed out the guidance in the Form I‐9 instructions, and also in the USCIS Employer Handbook (M‐274) that states that receipts for replacement cards are acceptable documents to complete the Form I‐9 and are valid for 90 days. The employer accepted the receipt and the worker was able to begin his job by the start date.

St. Paul, MN

On May 26, 2015, an OSC staffer learned that she had saved the job of a non‐citizen worker whose documents had been rejected for the Form I‐9. The staffer contacted the employer and explained that the employer could not reject documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the worker, or request specific documents, and provided guidance on how the document the worker had provided could be recorded on the Form I‐9 and in the E‐Verify system. The company thanked the OSC staffer for providing the guidance and the number for OSC’s hotline. The worker was called back to the jobsite.

Port Orchard, WA

On June 1, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR. The employer had recently been sold, and the new owner was in the process of verifying the employees’ employment eligibility verification. In Section 1 of the Form I‐9, the employee identified herself as an LPR, and for Section 2 produced her valid state issued Driver’s License and unrestricted Social Security card. In addition, the employer required that the employee produce her Permanent Resident Card. The employee informed the employer that her card is expired. As a result, the employee was given three business days to bring in her Permanent Resident Card or be terminated, during which time she was taken off the work schedule until she produced a new card. OSC immediately contacted the employer and explained that employees do not have to prove the legal status they select in Section 1, and that an employee can satisfy the Form I‐9 with a valid state issued Driver’s License and unrestricted Social Security Card. OSC further informed the employer that an employer cannot ask for more or additional documents than the law requires to satisfy this process. The employer agreed to accept the documents the employee already produced and immediately put the employee back to work.

Fayetteville, NC

On June 2, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of an LPR who had been employed for two years with the employer. The employee produced his valid state issued Driver’s License and unrestricted Social Security card when he was hired. At that time, he also provided the company with the expiration date of his Permanent Resident Card. The employer attempted to reverify the employee’s employment eligibility by requesting he produce a new Permanent Resident Card. OSC immediately contacted the employer and explained that an employee can satisfy the Form I‐9 process with a valid state issued Driver’s License and unrestricted Social Security card, and that an employee does not need to provide the expiration date of a Permanent Resident Card as well. OSC further informed the employer that an employer may not reverify an employee who shows documents that do not require reverification. The employer decided not to request the employee to bring in a new
Permanent Resident Card or reverify his employment eligibility during this employment.

Auburn, AL

On June 2, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen employee who during the completion of the Form I‐9, presented his employer with his Voter Registration card and Social Security card. After his first day of work, the employee was asked to provide an unexpired driver’s license. Unable to provide an unexpired driver’s license, the employee was terminated. The employer also refused to pay the employee for the day he worked until he provided a valid driver’s license. At the request of the employee, the OSC staff member contacted the employer and explained that an employer can use a Voter Registration card to establish his or her identity for purposes of employment eligibility verification. The OSC staff member further explained that unless an employer is enrolled in E‐Verify, it cannot require an employee to provide a List B document that contains a photograph. The employer subsequently decided to reinstate the employee and pay him for the hours he previously worked.

Edison, NJ

On June 3, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been impermissibly turned away from a staffing agency. The staffing agency incorrectly rejected the LPR’s valid I‐551 stamp because his entry visa, which is not a Form I‐9 document, had expired. The LPR’s daughter contacted OSC and OSC contacted the employer. The employer realized its mistake and continued the hiring process with the LPR.

Davis, CA

On June 3, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker presented an EAD upon hire, but was told the document was not valid because it contained a future expiration date. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC contacted the employer. OSC explained that employers should not refuse to accept documents because they have future expiration dates. The employer understood and decided to bring the worker back to work immediately.

Clearwater, FL

On June 4, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a national retailer, rejected the worker’s valid List C combination of an I‐797 Notice of Action and expired conditional Lawful Permanent Resident Card, which the worker presented with a valid List B document. OSC staff called the employer and provided guidance from the M‐274 on the acceptability of the worker’s documents. The worker was immediately allowed to begin working.

Kansas City, MO

On June 9, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card at hire. The employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired and asked the worker for a new LPR card. However, the worker had not renewed her LPR card. The worker contacted OSC after learning about OSC during an OSC outreach event. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9, and that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. OSC also provided the employer an electronic copy of the Handbook for Employers. Employer decided to allow the worker to return to her employment and provided $279.00 in back pay.

San Antonio, TX

On June 30, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid DL and unrestricted Social Security card upon hiring. The employer asked for a Permanent Resident Card since the worker had attested to being an LPR on the Form I‐9, but the worker did not have a Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC after learning about OSC from USCIS; OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9 by providing acceptable documents from Lists B and C, and that the Permanent Resident Card was not needed. OSC provided an electronic copy of the Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Newark, NJ

On July 9, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of an alien authorized to work. A non‐US citizen presented for I‐9 purposes a Social Security card with the annotation “For Social Security and Tax Purposes Only.” The employer did not know whether to accept the card. OSC researched the issue and explained to the employer that the USCIS website states that this type of card is acceptable for employment verification purposes. The employer decided to accept the document.

Corpus Christi, TX

On July 13, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an employment authorized individual. The employee’s EAD expired, the employer requested the employee present a new EAD for reverification. The employee had not yet received a new EAD, but he did possess an unrestricted Social Security card, but was unaware he could present this card. OSC called the employer and provided guidance on acceptable documents for Form I‐9, explaining that a List C document, such as an unrestricted Social Security card, is sufficient for reverification. As a result, the employer contacted the employee to return to work.

Jacksonville, FL

On July 16, 2015 OSC intervened to save the job of a conditional LPR. During the Form I‐9 process the worker provided List B document with an expired conditional resident card and an I‐797 extending her card for a year (a combination List C document), but the employer rejected the List C documentation. OSC staff immediately contacted the employer to provide guidance on this combination of List C documents. The employer explained that it initially accepted the documents, but then said that it contacted USCIS to confirm that the expired I‐551 and I‐797 together were valid for List C and, according to the employer, USCIS guidance was to reject the documentation. OSC reached out to USCIS’s Verification Division, which in turn contacted the employer to explain that the employer should accept the documentation. The employer immediately rehired the worker and provided full back pay for the days the worker missed while this issue was being sorted out.

Meridian, ID

On July 28, 2015 a human resources (HR) representative called OSC because a newly hired employee’s work permit just expired and he would not receive an unexpired card until next month. The newly hired employee, a native of the Congo, possessed an unrestricted Social Security card, a List C document that can also be used to demonstrate work eligibility. After explaining that an unrestricted Social Security card can be used for reverification purposes, the HR representative was ready to accept the card and allowed that employee to continue working.

El Paso, TX

On July 29, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of a new hire who presented his employer with a valid EAD. The employer turned the worker away because it wanted to see two forms of photo identification. An OSC attorney educated the employer on proper Form I‐9 rules. The employer was grateful for the information and stated he would call the new hire back to start work the following day.

New York, NY

On July 31, 2015, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to start working after her employer attempted to delay her start date because she did not have an unexpired Permanent Resident Card (PRC) for Form I‐9. When the employee was hired, she presented an unexpired driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card – documents that together were sufficient to complete Form I‐9. After hire, the employer requested the employee to produce an additional document – an unexpired PRC. An OSC staffer called the employer and explained that the employee already met her burden for the Form I‐9 and that to request more or different documents from her based on her citizenship status or national origin could violate the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA. The employer allowed the employee to start working without delay.

Peekskill, NY

On August 5, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of a work‐authorized individual whose employer terminated her when she failed to provide a List A document during the employment eligibility verification process. The OSC staffer contacted the HR department of the employer and explained that the worker could provide documents from either List A or Lists B and C in order to prove her work authorization, and explained how to properly input the relevant data in the E‐Verify system. The company returned the employee to work the next day.

Salt Lake City, UT

On August 11, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a valid Permanent Resident Card from the employee because the one he presented expired, even though the employee had also presented a valid driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card. The employee called OSC to inquire if he needed to renew his card for employment. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the valid List B document along with the List C document were sufficient for Form I‐9 purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment.

Los Angeles, CA

On August 12, 2015, a college student and DACA recipient presented his unexpired work permit as proof of his identity and work authorization at his job. He called OSC because his employer was also demanding numerous other documents including a Form I‐20. After emailing the employer a USCIS document describing DACA and explaining that I‐20s are issued to, and may be presented by, F‐1 visa holders, the employer stopped its demands and allowed that employee to continue working.

Phoenix, AZ

On August 17, 2015, OSC learned that it saved the jobs of three non‐U.S. citizens who worked at a staffing company. OSC received a phone call from a refugee service provider saying that the employer was going to fire her client (and two other workers) because the employer was requiring an immigration document from non‐U.S. citizen workers, even those that presented valid List B and List C documents for the Form I‐9 that did not require reverification. The service provider had learned of OSC through an OSC webinar sponsored by a refugee service organization. OSC called the employer and the employer said that her supervisor was requiring her to reverify the non‐U.S. citizen employees, even those who produced Permanent Resident Cards or Unrestricted Social Security cards. OSC then spoke to the staffing company’s corporate counsel and clarified proper Form I‐9 procedures, which involve not reverifying Permanent Resident Cards or unrestricted Social Security cards, and allowing individuals to present List C documents for reverification. The corporate counsel was grateful for the assistance and stated his interest in having all of the employer’s HR employees attend an OSC webinar.

Ogden, UT

On August 25, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The LPR was going to start work in September but was told that she could not begin until she presented her Permanent Resident Card. The LPR had already presented a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, and could not present a Permanent Resident Card because hers had expired. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer to explain that all individuals can present documents from the Form I‐9 List B and List C categories. The employer realized that it had made a mistake and stated that the worker would be back on track to begin work on time.

Dallas, TX

On August 26, 2015, an OSC attorney saved the job of a newly hired employee. The employer called OSC because the employee produced a receipt for his Social Security card. The receipt was on Social Security letterhead but did not contain the employee’s Social Security number only his full name. While the employee had a photo identification card, he lost his unrestricted Social Security card and therefore needed to show a receipt. The OSC attorney informed the employer that it should accept the valid receipt and then explained the “receipt rule.” The employer informed OSC that he will accept the receipt as a List C document.

Irmo, SC

On August 26, 2015, an OSC attorney’s effort allowed an LPR from India to start working for a national retailer. The retailer called OSC because it did not understand whether it could accept for I‐9 purposes a stamp on an Indian passport. The stamp, however, was an acceptable I‐9 document that showed the worker was an LPR. The employer informed OSC that he will accept the passport and allow the worker to start working.

Gastonia, NC

On September 1, 2015, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a U.S. citizen to return to work after a restaurant prevented him from working when he failed to provide a Social Security card. The worker has a U.S. birth certificate and a driver’s license, which are valid Form I‐9 documents, but the employer insisted that the worker present a Social Security card. When he failed to do so, the restaurant fired him on his first day of work. An OSC staffer contacted the restaurant and explained that the worker had until the third business day after hire to provide documents showing his identity and work authorization and that he could choose the document(s) he wished to show from the DHS Lists of Acceptable Documents. The restaurant reinstated the employee immediately.

San Antonio, TX

On September 3, 2015, a university official called OSC because it was uncertain whether it could accept a F‐1 student’s I‐94 along with a foreign passport for employment eligibility verification purposes. An OSC attorney informed the official that an F‐1 student’s unexpired foreign passport in combination with his/her Form I‐94 indicating F‐1 nonimmigration status would qualify as a List A for Form I‐9 purposes. The F‐1 student was hired.

Madison, WI

On September 4, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident. The worker was hired and presented a valid permanent resident card. However, the employer attempted to reverify the card when the card expired and asked the worker for a new permanent resident card. The worker had not renewed her card. The worker contacted OSC after learning about OSC during an outreach event by OSC staff. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I‐9, and that the permanent resident card is not to be reverified. OSC provided an electronic copy of the Employer’s Handbook to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work without further interruptions.

Chicago, IL

On September 22, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a new Permanent Resident Card from the employee because the Permanent Resident Card that the employee previously showed had expired. In the process of seeking to renew the card, the employee called USCIS to request a letter stating that she was work‐authorized. USCIS referred her to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The employer accepted OSC’s explanation and allowed the worker to remain on the job.

Brooklyn, NY

On September 23, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR whose Permanent Resident Card (PRC) expired. The employer informed the employee that she was not able to continue working until she brought in a new PRC. The employee explained that her right to work does not expire when her card expires. She further informed the company that at the time of hire she also provided her unrestricted Social Security card which demonstrates her continued right to work. Nonetheless, the employer removed the worker from the work schedule. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had presented a lawful PRC at the time of initial hire in order to satisfy the Form I‐9 process, and that a PRC that expires during the worker’s employment is not reverified because the employee continues to be employment authorized incident to her status. As a result of OSC’s intervention, the company reinstated the employee.

Orlando, FL

On September 24, 2015, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR from Honduras. The employer, an airport‐based restaurant chain, had informed the worker that she could not start her job until she received final clearance from the airport TSA. The TSA had initially rejected the worker’s valid PRC as insufficient to show proof of work authorization. The worker called OSC’s hotline. After OSC’s involvement, the worker was informed that she was eligible to immediately start work.

 

Fiscal Year 2014

Albuquerque, NM

On October 21, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a new Permanent Resident Card from the worker because the one on file had expired. The worker had not applied for a new card; consequently, the employer fired her. The worker began the process of requesting a new Permanent Resident Card, but in the meantime, she called USCIS to ask if she could obtain a letter from USCIS stating that she is work‐authorized. In turn, USCIS referred her to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident card should not be reverified. OSC made reference to the M-274, USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer accepted the explanation from OSC and allowed the worker to return to her job and paid her $1,735.15 in back pay.

Vineland, NJ

On October 22, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been employed with a healthcare provider for several years and had presented his Permanent Resident Card (I-551) upon filling out the Form I-9. When his Permanent Resident Card expired, his employer requested to see an unexpired card in order to reverify his employment authorization. The worker did not have a new Permanent Resident Card and had not even applied for a new one; consequently, the employer decided to fire the worker. After more than one month of not being able to find another job, the worker was advised by a friend to call OSC. OSC made immediate contact with the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. OSC made reference to the M-274, USCIS Handbook for Employers. After the HR director consulted with the company's legal counsel, the employer admitted its mistake and allowed the worker to return to his job and paid him $4,999.20 in back pay.

Katy, TX

On October 23, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The individual was hired several years ago when he was an LPR and presented his Permanent Resident Card (I-551) upon hire. The Permanent Resident Card on file was about to expire and the employer asked the worker to produce a new card. The worker told the employer that he had just become a U.S. citizen and that he did not renew his card for that reason. The employer insisted on getting proof that the worker was still work-authorized. The worker called USCIS, and in turn, USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC contacted the HR director and explained that the Permanent Resident Card on file should not be reverified. The employer stated that the worker will be allowed to remain on the job.

North Lauderdale, FL

On October 25, 2013, OSC saved the job of an immigrant whose employer incorrectly rejected the worker's valid work authorization documents. The worker had been hired at a major package delivery company and was told that he could not be put on the schedule until he provided the employer with a Permanent Resident Card. The worker had an I-551 stamp in his foreign passport, which proves both identity and work authorization, so the employer was incorrect in rejecting the document. The OSC attorney educated the employer on the documents that individuals can show for Form I-9 purposes, and directed the employer to the USCIS M-274, Handbook for Employers, for guidance. The employer put the worker on the schedule for the next day.

Houston, TX

On October 29, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen was hired and presented his driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. During an audit by ICE, the employer was informed that the driver's license number for the worker was not valid, leading the employer to terminate the worker. When the worker contacted ICE, the ICE agent referred the worker to OSC for assistance relating to the termination. OSC called the employer and found out that the employer had incorrectly transcribed the employee's driver's license number in Section 2 of the Form I-9. The employer decided to reinstate the worker and to pay lost wages for three days of missed work.

Riverside, CA

On October 30, 2013, an OSC attorney completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for a job, was hired and completed orientation. For I-9 purposes, the worker provided HR with a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card, but the HR specialist requested an expiration date for the worker's Permanent Resident Card because she claimed E-Verify required such information to complete the process. The worker did not have the expiration date for his card because he had lost it days earlier, but had provided sufficient I-9 documentation. Nevertheless, the worker was terminated. An OSC attorney contacted the employer's HR specialist directly and referenced the new USCIS webpage for contact information regarding E-Verify problems, and also provided guidance on the list of acceptable documents from the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The HR supervisor stated that she would allow the worker to return to work the following day.

Honolulu, HI

On November 5, 2013, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR. The individual had been hired for a job at a thrift shop but was told he could not continue with the hiring process until he presented his Permanent Resident Card. The individual had a valid driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card, but his Permanent Resident Card had expired. The worker called OSC, and OSC immediately spoke with the head of HR. The OSC attorney explained the law and the rules regarding proper hiring practices, and the worker was returned to work without further delay.

Charlotte, NC

On November 6, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR received a job offer and she presented her foreign passport with an I-551 stamp on it, indicating that she was authorized to work until the expiration on the stamp. The HR representative refused the document because she had never seen one like it and asked the worker to provide the Permanent Resident Card or a combination of one List B and one List C document. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 stamp on the worker's passport is a List A receipt and is valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issue if there is no expiration on the stamp. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin her job immediately.

New York, NY

On November 7, 2013, OSC saved the job of an LPR who was going to be terminated at the end of the week because her employer, a large temporary staffing company, was rejecting her valid Form I-9 documentation. The LPR presented her expired Permanent Resident Card along with her I-797 Notice of Action to prove her work authorization, but her employer was unfamiliar with the I-797 and rejected it. The worker called OSC and OSC spoke to corporate headquarters and educated the human resource manager on proper Form I-9 rules. The employer stated that it would allow the worker to continue to work.

New York, NY

On November 7, 2013, OSC intervened to get an LPR back to work. The worker had presented his Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes upon initial hire in 2001. The worker's Permanent Resident Card expired in 2011. In 2013, the worker's supervisor discovered that the worker's Permanent Resident Card was expired, and suspended him until he could show a new card. The worker applied for a new card but had not yet received it, and had been off the job for two weeks when his wife encouraged him to contact OSC. OSC made immediate contact with the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified, referencing the Form I-9 instructions and the M-274. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker and to provide back pay.

Modesto, CA

On November 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. The worker presented her Certificate of Naturalization (N-550) and her valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, a staffing agency, rejected the N-550 stating that it was not listed on the Form I-9 as an acceptable document. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the N-550 is an acceptable List C document. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS I-9 Central website explaining that this document is a valid List C document for I-9 purposes. The employer decided to place the worker in a job immediately.

Molina, GA

On November 19, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen who was born abroad. The worker, who returned to the United States as a child, was issued a restricted Social Security card upon her arrival in the United States, and failed to update SSA about her status, once she had completed all of the necessary citizenship paperwork with the U.S. Department of State. The worker completed a Form I-9 for her current employer, a manufacturing company, presenting her driver's license and restricted Social Security card. When her employer ran her through E-Verify, the worker received an SSA TNC. The employer notified the worker of the situation, and the worker was in the process of obtaining the necessary documentation from the U.S. State Department, when E-Verify issued an FNC. OSC explained to the employer that while the worker was in the process of updating her citizenship status with the SSA and the status in E-Verify remained a TNC, the employer had to allow the worker to work. Further, OSC explained to the employer that although an FNC had been issued, the employer should contact E-Verify for assistance regarding the FNC received for the work-authorized individual. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance.

Paris, TX

On November 20, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker provided his driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, which is enrolled in E-Verify, asked the worker to show his Permanent Resident Card in order for the employer to submit the worker's data through E-Verify. The employer advised the worker that it could not run an E-Verify query on him because his Permanent Resident card was expired; consequently, the worker was fired. The worker went to USCIS to inquire about renewing his Permanent Resident card and USCIS personnel referred him to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that an E-Verify query can still be submitted using the worker's Alien number even if the Permanent Resident card is expired, as long as the I-9 documentation requirements have been met. The employer decided to ask the worker to return to work immediately.

Rockville, MD

On November 20, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen was hired and submitted a government identification card and birth certificate for Form I-9 purposes. The HR personnel rejected her government identification card and asked for a driver's license; however, her driver's license was expired. The worker applied for a new driver's license and received a receipt, which she presented to her employer. The employer rejected the receipt because it was not for a lost, stolen, or damaged document. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC called the employer and explained that the government identification card should have been accepted as a List B document, and quoted the Handbook for Employers (M-274). The HR director decided to ask the worker to return to her job immediately.

San Antonio, TX

On November 26, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was offered a job with a major health care company. He presented his driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. However, the employer requested to see his Permanent Resident Card because the employer believed that if the worker attested to be an LPR in section 1 of the Form I-9, it had to see the Permanent Resident Card. The worker's card was expired and the employer requested an unexpired card. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and emailed a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274), identifying the section where it explains that an LPR is not required to show a Permanent Resident Card, and that the worker may chose which documents to present for Form I-9 purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with job orientation immediately.

Raleigh, NC

On November 26, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker provided her driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, an E-Verify user, ran the worker's information through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC. The employer advised the worker of the TNC but also stated that the worker would not be allowed to work while resolving her TNC. The worker called OSC, and after discussing the case with the worker, it was determined that the worker had recorded his date of birth incorrectly on the Form I-9. OSC spoke with the employer and directed the employer to the E-Verify user's manual, which states that an employer may not take any adverse action while the worker attempts to resolve the TNC. The employer decided to return the worker to work immediately, close the E-Verify case, and run another one with the correct date of birth.

Jacksonville, FL

On December 16, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker provided her driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, which is enrolled in E-Verify, ran the worker's information through E-Verify and received a DHS TNC. The employer advised the worker to resolve the TNC but also stated that she would not be allowed to work. The worker was also told to visit SSA, but the TNC was a DHS issue. OSC spoke with an employer representative and quoted the E-Verify User Manual that states that an employer may not take any adverse action while a worker attempts to resolve a TNC. The employer decided to bring the worker back to work immediately.

Lehi, UT

On December 17, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker provided her Permanent Resident card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, which uses E-Verify, ran the worker's information through E-Verify and received a DHS TNC. The employer advised the worker to go visit a USCIS office to resolve the TNC. The worker was referred to OSC by USCIS. After discussing the case with the worker, it was determined that the name was entered incorrectly into the E-Verify system, leading to the TNC. OSC talked to the employer and discussed proper E-Verify procedures, and assisted the worker in correcting the mistake.

Fayetteville, GA

On December 19, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had presented her Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes upon initial hire at a hospice. When the worker's Permanent Resident Card expired, the hospice asked her to provide a new one. When she could not do so, the hospice suspended her indefinitely. The worker called OSC to seek assistance. OSC made immediate contact with the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified, referencing the Form I-9 instructions and the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker.

New York, NY

On January 13, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a beneficiary of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The worker received a job offer from a major television network; however, upon filling out the Form I-9, the worker showed her restricted Social Security card and EAD. The employer was not sure how to handle the restricted Social Security card and had not heard of DACA. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC called the HR personnel and discussed the proper documentation to satisfy the Form I-9. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Grand Forks, ND

On January 14, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had presented an expired Permanent Resident Card and a I-797C (notice of action) indicating that the card was valid for an additional year. The employer accepted the document as a receipt and allowed the employee to work for 90 days from the date on the I-797C. Upon reverification, the worker had not received a new Permanent Resident Card. When the employer called OSC's hotline, OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, identifying the expired Permanent Resident Card with I-797C extension as acceptable for List C purposes. Because the worker also had a current List B document, the worker could show acceptable I-9 Form evidence that he was authorized to work for a year from the date on the I-797C, which is until late 2014. The employer decided to let the worker continue employment.

Richmond, CA

On January 17, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker had presented a driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card, but the employer demanded that the worker show a Permanent Resident Card. The worker then presented an expired Permanent Resident Card, which was rejected by the employer. The worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC contacted the employer and explained that a driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card are sufficient to satisfy the Form I-9. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer accepted the documentation from the worker and allowed the worker to resume his job.

Boston, MA

On January 23, 2014, OSC intervened to assist a hotline caller who was not allowed to work after showing an I-797 notice of action coupled with an expired Permanent Resident Card as a List C document for Form I-9 purposes. An OSC attorney called the employer and explained that the I-797 combined with expired Permanent Resident Card was valid until the date listed on the I-797, and she directed the employer to the M-274, USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer realized its error and rehired the worker immediately.

Houston, TX

On January 23, 2014, OSC completed a hotline intervention, assisting an LPR in getting back to work. The worker started a job at a bank and showed his receipt for the replacement of a lost Permanent Resident Card, however, the bank rejected the receipt and terminated the worker since he had no other I-9 documentation. By the time the worker contacted OSC, the bank had replaced him. OSC contacted the bank to explain proper I-9 procedures. The bank returned the worker to work at a different branch and stated that it would transfer the worker to his original branch as soon as a position opened up.

Denver, CO

On January 27, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker provided his Permanent Resident card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, an E-Verify user, ran the worker's information through E-Verify and received a DHS TNC instructing the worker to call DHS. The worker called OSC instead of calling DHS, and after discussing the case with the worker, the OSC staff member determined that the employer had mistyped the worker's Alien number leading to the TNC. OSC contacted the employer and quoted information from the E-Verify User Manual explaining that an employer may close the case due to incorrect data and re-run the query. The employer closed the case and reopened a new case, at which time the employer received a workauthorized result. The employer allowed the worker to continue with his employment uninterrupted.

Queens, NY

On January 28, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a tool die craftsman. The human resources head of a manufacturer called OSC because she believed that her company needed to terminate one of its craftsmen after his Permanent Resident Card expired. The OSC attorney informed the representative that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The manufacturer decided to retain the worker.

Springfield, NJ

On January 29, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a valid Permanent Resident Card from the worker because the one he presented was expired. The worker had presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card along with his Permanent Resident Card; however, the employer insisted on obtaining an unexpired card. The worker called OSC to inquire if he needed to renew his card for employment. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the valid List B document along with the List C document was sufficient for Form I-9 purposes. OSC made reference to the M-274, USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment.

Boston, MA

On January 29, 2014, OSC saved the job of an LPR who had been incorrectly terminated despite having shown sufficient documentation for the Form I-9. The worker presented documents the employer was not familiar with, and the employer incorrectly rejected the documents. The worker called OSC and OSC contacted the employer, explained that the documents were valid, and directed the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, M-274. The employer decided to rehire the worker and pay her back pay for the period of time that she missed.

Sioux Falls, SD

On February 2, 2014, OSC intervened, allowing a worker to be correctly paid for the work he already performed despite not having completed a Form I-9. The worker was never asked to complete a Form I-9 upon hire. When the worker inquired into his late pay check three weeks after he began working, the employer stated that the worker would not be paid until the worker furnished a Form I-9. An OSC attorney called the employer and explained that the Form I-9 should be completed within three days of hire, but that an individual's pay check should not be contingent upon the submission of the form. The employer stated that it did not know about the proper I-9 rules and stated that it would comply with the three-day Form I-9 completion rule and with applicable wage payment laws.

Brooklyn, NY

On February 3, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a major healthcare company for several years when the employer informed the worker that her Permanent Resident Card had just expired and advised her to produce a new card or she would be suspended. The worker contacted OSC, and an OSC staff member called the HR director's office. The OSC staff member reviewed the reverification process, explained that that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified, and referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to remain at her job without further interruptions.

Tempe, AZ

On February 3, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen worker. The worker, who is of Navajo (Native American) ancestry, presented a valid driver's license (List B) and a Certificate of Indian Blood (List C) for purposes of completing his Form I-9. The employer, a health care provider, rejected the Certificate of Indian Blood on the grounds that it was not an appropriate List C Document, and terminated the worker. The worker contacted OSC to explain the situation. OSC staff reached out to the employer to explain that tribal documents are acceptable List C documents that may be presented to complete Form I-9. The employer was grateful for the clarification, and immediately reinstated the worker.

Fayetteville, GA

On February 5, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had presented her Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes upon initial hire with her employer. When the worker's Permanent Resident Card expired, the employer asked her to provide a new one. When she could not do so, the employer told her she could not continue working. The worker contacted OSC the same day. OSC made immediate contact with the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified, referencing the Form I-9 instructions and the M-274. The employer immediately reinstated the worker.

Bakersfield, CA

On February 6, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was asked by her employer to produce a Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes. However, the worker's Permanent Resident Card had been stolen and therefore the worker was not able to produce it, so instead she presented a receipt for the replacement of a stolen Permanent Resident Card. The employer stated he would need to see the new Permanent Resident Card within 30 days or she would be terminated. On day 29 the worker still had not received her new Permanent Resident Card and contacted OSC's hotline. OSC contacted the employer and educated the employer about acceptable documents for Form I-9 purposes and explained that a receipt for the replacement of a stolen Permanent Resident Card is valid 90 days from the date of hire. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer allowed the worker to continue working.

Fort Morgan, CO

On February 10, 2014, OSC completed an intervention that resulted in the reinstatement of an individual who was granted asylum. The employee's Employment Authorization Document (EAD) had expired on February 1, 2014. The employer, a large beef processing plant, demanded that the employee produce a new EAD. The employee was not in procession of a new EAD, but was in procession of an unrestricted Social Security Card which is a valid document that demonstrates the employee's continued right to work. The employer refused to accept any documents other than the EAD. OSC contacted the employer's Director of Human Resources (HR) and explained the reverification process and acceptable documents for completion during the reverification of process of the Form I-9. OSC further provided the HR Director with the relevant pages in the Employer's Handbook/M-274. As a result, the employer reinstated the employee with back pay and promised to retrain its HR personnel on appropriate I-9 procedures.

Fort Worth, TX

On February 11, 2014, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The worker presented his unexpired conditional Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes; however, the employer asked for proof that he had applied for a new Permanent Resident Card. The worker called USCIS to inquire about obtaining a receipt, and USCIS referred the worker to OSC. An OSC staff member called the employer and explained that a conditional Permanent Resident Card is a List A document on the I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents. The OSC staff member also advised the employer that a conditional Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The OSC staff member referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with the hiring process.

Dallas, TX

On February 11, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker, an LPR who has applied for naturalization, presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card when she was initially hired by her employer. The worker's Permanent Resident Card had since expired. According to the worker, on several occasions in the past her employer has attempted to reverify her Permanent Resident Card. On each of these occasions, she reached out to OSC and OSC was able to successfully intervene on her behalf. The worker reported that her employer recently sent her a letter asking her to provide a new Permanent Resident Card. Because the worker is in the process of naturalizing, she does not have a new Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The employer stated that she would not reverify the Permanent Resident Card in the future.

Albany, NY

On February 18, 2014, OSC learned that it saved the job of a worker whose employer terminated him during the Form I-9 process. The worker presented a driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card. The last names on the two documents were similar, but not identical, so the employer terminated the worker. The worker called OSC's hotline and an OSC attorney called the employer to explain that an employer need not require an individual's documents to state all last names so long as the documents look genuine, they reasonably appear to be related to the individual, and the worker explained why the naming difference existed. The OSC attorney also directed the employer to guidance in the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer thanked OSC for its guidance and rehired the worker.

New York, NY

On February 25, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a work-authorized individual with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, who had been working for several years for the same employer. The worker called OSC because his employer would not change his information to reflect his new immigration status and record his EAD. OSC called the employer and the employer did not know how to proceed given that the worker had presented a new restricted Social Security card and EAD. Because of the restricted Social Security card, the employer believed that the worker was not authorized to work. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) to educate the employer and to identify the process for how to keep the worker on the job. The employer decided to follow the Form I-9 documentation process explained in the M-274 and allowed the worker to remain on the job.

Poughkeepsie, NY

On February 26, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a major healthcare company for several years when the employer advised the worker that her Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) had just expired and advised her to produce a new card or she would be suspended. The worker contacted OSC, and an OSC staff member called the HR director's office and discussed the reverification process. The OSC staff member explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified, and referred to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to remain at her job without further interruptions.

Manhattan, NY

On February 27, 2014, OSC assisted an LPR in returning to work, after his employer, a fast food restaurant, required him to show a new Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) when the card he had shown at hire expired. OSC contacted the restaurant and explained that an employer cannot require new documentation when a Form I-551 expires, and shared relevant pages from the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) on this topic. The restaurant returned the worker to work immediately.

El Paso, TX

On February 27, 2014, an OSC staff member intervened on behalf of an LPR. The worker called OSC's hotline after his employer, a call center, demanded that he provide proof of his legal permanent residency by producing his Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551). The worker explained to OSC that he filled out the Form I-9 and provided an unexpired driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card. The employer threatened the worker with termination if he could not provide an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. OSC staff called the employer and explained proper I-9 procedures. OSC staff followed up with the worker, and he was able to continue working.

Austin, TX

On March 3, 2014, the HR manager for a national retail chain called OSC to seek assistance regarding a new worker after learning about OSC's employer hotline through an OSC webinar. The new worker was a recent LPR from Nepal, but she did not know which box to check on the Form I-9 regarding her citizenship status. The worker showed an expired I-551 stamp, and the HR manager requested to see an unexpired document. The worker then showed the employer an unrestricted Social Security card and a Texas state identification card. The employer accepted those documents, but Section 1 was still not complete. OSC called the worker and spoke with her about her immigration status and the Form I-9 using a Nepali interpreter. Eventually the worker understood which box to check on the Form I-9. The employer called the worker back into the office to finish Section 1, and the worker continued as scheduled without losing any work time.

Hazle Township, PA

On March 4, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to allow an LPR to continue employment with a large retail business. The employer rejected the worker's I-797 Notice of Action as proof of work authorization because the worker's Permanent Resident Card had expired. The worker called USCIS, and in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. A staff member from OSC spoke with the employer and explained that the one-year extension on the I-797 Notice is acceptable for Form I-9 purposes as a List C document, and combined with the worker's unexpired driver's license, satisfied I-9 requirements. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with her employment without any interruptions.

Charlottesville, VA

On March 4, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker received a job offer and he presented his foreign passport with an I-551 stamp on it, indicating that he was authorized to work until the expiration on the stamp. The HR manager refused the document because he had never seen one like it and asked the worker to provide a Permanent Resident Card or a combination of List B and List C documents. The worker called the International Rescue Committee, and a staff member with that organization contacted OSC. OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 stamp on the worker's passport is a List A receipt and is valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issuance if there is no expiration on the stamp. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin his job immediately.

San Francisco, CA

On March 4, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a national retail chain, informed the worker that her Permanent Resident Card was about to expire, and she needed to renew it or she would be suspended from work. The worker had been with the company for 13 years, and had presented her Permanent Resident Card when she was hired. OSC contacted the employer and informed the employer that the reverification of employment eligibility of an LPR, who had originally presented a Permanent Resident Card to complete Form I-9, could violate the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance, and stated that it not aware of this legal requirement, but would fully comply with its I-9 obligations.

New York, NY

On March 11, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a bank worker. The bank called OSC because it believed that it may need to terminate a worker who is an LPR because his Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) expired and he had not yet received an unexpired card. The OSC attorney informed the bank that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The bank stated that it would retain the worker.

Tuscumbia, AL

On March 11, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to allow an LPR to continue with her employment for a national distribution companion. The employer requested to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card during the hiring process; however, her card had expired and the employer insisted on obtaining an unexpired card. The worker called USCIS to make an appointment to renew her card, and in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. A staff member from OSC spoke with employer and explained that the worker could choose which documents to present for Form I-9 purposes, and that the worker had chosen to show a valid List B document along with a List C document. OSC staff forwarded a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) to the employer. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with the hiring process.

Raleigh, NC

On March 12, 2014, OSC staff completed an intervention involving an LPR and a dry cleaning chain. The worker was hired and given improper instructions for the Form I-9 by the employer. After he tried to reconcile the instructions he was given with the instructions that he read on the Form I-9, the employer threatened to withhold the worker's pay until he complied with the request for additional and specific documentation. The worker then called OSC to obtain more information, and requested that OSC speak with the employer about this issue. OSC staff spoke with the site manager and the human resources manager. After explaining the instructions for the Form I-9 and clarifying several points about the employment eligibility verification process, the employer understood proper I-9 procedures, and withdrew its threats about payments. The worker eventually decided to seek employment elsewhere, and the employer requested additional information about possible training and guidance from OSC.

Oklahoma City, OK

On March 13, 2014, OSC completed an intervention to allow an LPR to return to work at a large manufacturing company. In the course of conducting an I-9 audit, the employer saw that it did not have a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) on file for the worker because the worker showed documents from Lists B and C when completing the Form I-9. The employer requested a Permanent Resident Card and suspended the worker when he could not present one. The worker called OSC, and OSC explained to the employer that an employer cannot require LPRs to show a Permanent Resident Card. The employer returned the worker to his job and stated that it will pay the worker back pay for the two weeks missed due to the employer's improper request.

Norcross, GA

On March 18, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status who had been working for several years for the same employer. The worker called OSC because his employer would not change his information to reflect his new immigration status and record his EAD. When OSC called the employer, the employer stated that it had never seen this before; the employer explained that it was not sure it could transfer the worker's information and raised the possibility of firing the employee. OSC referred the employer to the Employer's Handbook, M-274 and explained the process for how it could keep the worker on the job. The employer decided to follow the process set forth in the M-274 and allowed the worker to remain on the job.

Austin, TX

On March 24, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. The worker presented her Certificate of Naturalization (N-560) and her valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. However, the employer rejected the N-560 stating that it was not listed on the Form I-9 as an acceptable document. The worker contacted OSC and an OSC staff member contacted the employer. The OSC staff member explained that the N-560 is an acceptable List C document and referred the employer to the USCIS I-9 Central website, which states that a Certificate of Naturalization is an acceptable List C document. The employer decided to retain the worker.

Tucson, AZ

On April 7, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The individual received a job offer and he presented his foreign passport with an I-551 stamp on it, indicating that he was authorized to work until the expiration date on the stamp. The hiring staff refused the document and requested to see the worker's actual Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the company and explained that the I-551 stamp on the employee's unexpired passport was a List A item for Form I-9 purposes, and valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issue if there is no expiration date on the stamp. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Employer Manual (M-274). The employer decided to allow the worker to work.

Ronkonkoma, NY

On April 7, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. The worker presented her Certificate of Naturalization (N-560) and her valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. However, during an internal audit of the employer's Forms I-9 conducted by the employer, the person doing the audit believed that the N-560 was not a valid I-9 document, and asked the worker to produce a List C or a List A document. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the N-560 is an acceptable List C document and referred the employer to the I-9 Central website, which indicates the same. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working without any further interruptions.

Windsor Locks, CT

On April 7, 2014, OSC completed a telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was instructed by airport security that a Permanent Resident Card was required to obtain an airport security badge, which was needed in order to work at a restaurant within the airport. The worker's Permanent Resident Card was expired so she presented a valid temporary I-551 and a receipt for a new Permanent Resident Card, which were both rejected by the airport's security office. The employer told the employee that she would not be able to work unless she secured a security badge from the airport's security office. The worker contacted OSC's hotline for assistance. OSC contacted the airport security office and explained why a temporary I-551 should be accepted. Following a number of telephone contacts with the employee, employer, and the security office, the employee was issued a security badge enabling her to work within the airport.

Rupert, ID

On April 7, 2014, OSC completed an intervention that resulted in a tree-planting company hiring an individual who was granted permanent resident status in 1991. The employee's Permanent Resident Card is an older version of the card issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and does not have an expiration date. OSC contacted the employer and educated the employer on the various versions of the Permanent Resident Card and explained that the card produced by the individual is still in circulation. OSC further referenced the appropriate sections of the USCIS Employer Handbook (M-274). As a result, the employer hired the individual and agreed to pay back pay for the three days she would have worked, which was approximately $192.

Augusta, GA

On April 8, 2014, OSC successfully intervened and saved the job of an LPR. The worker advised OSC that his employer was not going to let him start working because his Form I-551 (commonly known as a resident alien or "green" card) had expired. However, he had presented his employer with a current state driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card. Upon being contacted by OSC, the employer decided to accept the worker's current state driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card.

New Bern, NC

On April 10, 2014, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a work-authorized immigrant to continue working after she lost her EAD. During the process of transitioning from a temporary to a permanent employee, the company asked the employee to complete a new Form I-9. The employee said that the company refused to accept the receipt for her application to replace her lost EAD, though the company claimed the employee did not present the receipt. An OSC staffer called the company and directed the human resources official to the Handbook for Employers which explains the permissible use of receipts for lost, stolen, or damaged documents. The company decided to accept the employee's receipt and the employee returned to work.

Fall River, MA

On April 11, 2014, OSC completed an intervention saving the job of an LPR who was terminated from his maintenance job at a shopping mall on April 9, 2014. The employee's Permanent Resident Card had an expiration date and the employer was under the impression it needed to be re-verified when it expired. OSC contacted and educated the employer on the requirement found in the Handbook for Employers (M-274) stating a Permanent Resident Card should not be re-verified and provided the employer information about OSC's webinars and Employer Hotline. As a result, the employer decided to reinstate the individual and provide back pay for the two days he would have worked.

Tampa, FL

On April 15, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to allow an LPR to begin employment with a major hospital. The employer refused an expired I-551 with an I-797 extension as proof of work authorization because the worker's Permanent Resident Card had expired. The worker's brother referred her to OSC, because OSC has assisted the brother in the past. A staff member from OSC spoke with the employer and explained that the expired card with the one year extension on the I-797 should be treated as a List C document and, combined with the worker's unexpired driver's license, rendered her work authorized. The employer decided to allow the worker to start her job immediately.

Carol Stream, IL

On April 16, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker received a job; however, upon filling out the Form I-9, the worker showed her restricted Social Security card and EAD. The employer was not sure how to handle the restricted Social Security card and had not heard of DACA. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC called the HR personnel and discussed the proper documentation to satisfy the Form I-9. OSC made reference to the Employer's Handbook, M-274. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with the hiring process.

Irvin, CA

On April 21, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker provided his driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, which is enrolled in E-Verify, ran the worker's information through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC. The employer advised the worker to take care of the TNC and provided the referral letter to the worker. The worker visited the SSA office and received a letter stating that he was assigned the Social Security number. The worker took the letter to the employer; however, a few days later, the employer received an FNC and fired the worker. The worker called OSC, and after discussing the case with the employer and with the case resolution department, the FNC was resolved. The employer decided to return the worker to work immediately.

Tauton, MA

On April 22, 2014, OSC completed a hotline intervention assisting an LPR in starting a new job for a hospital. The employer had requested proof of permanent residency; however the worker had lost her card and could only provide a copy of the card. The worker also provided the employer with her foreign passport, driver's license, Social Security card, and marriage certificate as the name on her Social Security card was her maiden name. OSC called the employer and explained that all workers have a choice of which documents to present for the employment eligibility process; however the employer insisted that the worker had brought in only copies of all of her documents. OSC further explained that a worker has three days after starting a job to produce documents for employment eligibility purposes and that completing Section 2 of the Form I-9 should not delay a start date. OSC also referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) for further reference. When the worker agreed to bring in her original documents, she was cleared to start her new job.

Bayamon, PR

On April 22, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a non-immigrant authorized to work with an L-1 visa. The employer, an international retail business, had initiated the process to hire the L-1 visa holder. However, the HR personnel was not sure if the L-1 visa alone was enough, or if the worker had to have a Social Security card as well. OSC reviewed the Form I-9 process with the HR personnel, referred the employer to the employer's manual and to the USCIS website where the worker could retrieve her electronic Form I-94. The employer decided to follow the process and allowed the worker to continue with the hiring process.

El Dorado, CA

On April 23, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented his unexpired EAD for initial employment eligibility verification purposes; however, after he was initially hired and by the time of reverification, the worker had become an LPR. The employer insisted on obtaining a new EAD from the worker and the worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC called the employer and educated the employer on proper reverification procedures, explaining that the worker had other options for the reverification process and was not limited to presenting an unexpired EAD only. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Employer handbook (M-274). The employer decided to allow the worker to continue his employment without any interruption.

Lihue, HI

On April 24, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a seventeen-year old U.S. citizen. The worker presented her Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, a dental office, would not let her work because she could not present a List B document. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that if a person under the age of 18 cannot present an identity document from List B, the worker can write "individual under age 18" in the employee signature block. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to place the worker in a job immediately.

Haltom City, TX

On April 29, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a major retail company for several years. Recently, the employer advised the worker that her Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) had just expired and advised her to produce a new Permanent Resident Card or she would be suspended. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC called the HR director's office. OSC discussed the reverification process, explaining that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified, and referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to remain at her job without further interruptions.

Fresno, CA

On April 30, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a work-authorized individual with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker had being working for over a year for the employer. When the worker received her new EAD, she turned it over to HR. However, the employer was not sure whether to accpet the restricted Social Security card and had not heard of DACA. The employer called OSC's hotline, the OSC staff member discussed the proper process to update the Form I-9 records in accordance with USCIS-issued guidance. OSC referred the employer to the appropriate guidance in the USCIS Employer Handbook. The employer decided to follow the process and to allow the worker to continue without interruptions.

Philadelphia, PA

On May 5, 2014, an OSC equal opportunity specialist completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of an LPR. The worker applied for a job and prior to being hired, was asked for proof that his Social Security number was valid (which he claimed was not asked of all applicants). The worker produced an unrestricted Social Security card and a driver's license. The employer said that it had no way of knowing whether those documents were valid, and asked the worker instead for a Permanent Resident Card, which the worker did not have at the time. The employer said it could not allow the worker to start work until he provided a document from the Form I-9's List A. The worker called OSC's hotline and the OSC staff member contacted the employer. The employer stated that the only reason it did not hire the worker was because he had not been able to show what the employer believed to be sufficient proof of his Social Security number. The OSC equal opportunity specialist explained that employers should not request employment eligibility documentation from a worker prior to hire. The OSC staff member stated that employment eligibility verification procedures should be the same for all new hires, regardless of their citizenship status or national origin, and that employers should not request extra "proof" of work authorization from certain applicants. The staff member also explained that employers are not allowed to request specific documentation from workers based on their citizenship status or national origin, and that doing so could violate the antidiscrimination provision of the INA. The employer decided to immediately hire the worker.

Portland, ME

On May 8, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR whose employer rejected his valid Form I-9 documentation. The worker, an immigrant from Cameroon, was hired with an I-551 stamp that was set to expire. The employer incorrectly believed that the worker could only present a Permanent Resident Card or I-797 Notice of Action for Form I-9 Section 3 reverification. The worker called OSC's hotline for assistance, and the OSC attorney immediately called the employer. The OSC attorney directed the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers and explained that the worker's unrestricted Social Security card was sufficient for reverification.

Lubbock, TX

On May 12, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested an unexpired Permanent Resident Card from the worker because the one he presented was expired. The worker had also presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card but the employer insisted on obtaining an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC to inquire if he needed to renew his card for employment, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the valid List B document (driver's license) combined with the valid List C document (unrestricted Social Security card) was sufficient for Form I-9 purposes. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue with his employment.

Tolleson, AZ

On May 12, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker had been working for a major retail company for several years when the employer advised the worker that he needed to resubmit his Form I‐9 because the employer was converting the paper Form I-9 into an electronic data base. The worker believed that he was being singled out because not everybody was being asked to do the same. The employer provided the worker with a letter stating that if the worker did not resubmit his Form I-9, he would be suspended. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC called the HR director's office, which led the employer to investigate further. After the employer investigated the matter, the HR director stated that the worker did not have to provide any Form I-9 documents or complete the form again.

Liberty Township, OH

On May 13, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a child care service for more than 13 years. The employer recently realized that it failed to reverify the worker's initial I-551 stamp indicating her status as an LPR a year after the worker had begun her employment. In order to rectify the issue, the employer asked the worker to update the Form I-9. The worker had not renewed her Permanent Resident Card, had failed to obtain an unrestricted Social Security card when she first became an LPR, and did not have a state-issued identification or driver's license. The employer put the worker on administrative leave, and the worker applied for a renewed Permanent Resident Card, and a state-issued identification. However, the employer wanted to see a "green card" or an unrestricted Social Security card in order to allow the worker to return to work. The worker called OSC, and after reviewing the documents, OSC explained to the employer's counsel that the worker had a valid List B document (state-issued identification card), and that the worker's I-797 Notice of Action, evidencing an extension of her Permanent Resident Card, in combination with her expired Permanent Resident Card would suffice as a List C document for one year in accordance with Form I-9 rules. The worker returned to work immediately.

Phoenix, AZ

On May 20, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented his state identification card and unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, an E-Verify user, requested to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card in order to process the E-Verify query. The worker's Permanent Resident Card was expired; consequently, the employer advised him to obtain an unexpired card. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC called the employer and explained that the E-Verify query could be run without the Permanent Resident Card, as long as the photo match requirement was accomplished and the Form I-9 had been satisfied. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS E-Verify User's Manual. The employer decided to run the E-Verify query immediately and allow the worker to begin employment.

Riviera Beach, FL

On May 21, 2014, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to be reinstated with back pay after the company suspended her without pay during the employment eligibility reverification process. The worker presented a foreign passport with a temporary I-551 notation printed on a machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) for Form I-9 purposes. Several company representatives misread the expiration date on the worker's MRIV and believed the worker's work authorization expired in March 2014, even though the temporary I-551 notation is still valid until October 2014. The company suspended the worker on May 13, 2014, believing that her work authorization had expired and requested that she present a Permanent Resident Card, which the worker had not yet received from DHS. An OSC staffer called the company and explained the one-year validity of the temporary I-551 notation and directed the company's representative to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The company immediately decided to reinstate the worker and pay back pay in the sum of approximately $630 for the week's suspension.

Huntington Beach, CA

On June 2, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR. The worker, who was hired as a nurse, called OSC because the HR head of the hospital she was hired to work at would not accept her receipt for a Permanent Resident Card and she believed that she would not be permitted to continue working at the hospital. The nurse also possessed an unrestricted Social Security card and driver's license. The OSC attorney educated the hospital about proper Form I-9 practices, including that an employer should accept a valid receipt for a Permanent Resident Card, or a combination of List B and List C documents, including an unrestricted Social Security card and driver's license. The hospital decided that it would retain the nurse.

Saint Helena, CA

On June 3, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card upon completing the Form I-9. However, the employer requested to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card. The worker showed his Permanent Resident Card but it was expired so the employer insisted on verifying the worker's current permanent resident status. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the employer and explained that the valid List B document together with a valid List C document were sufficient for Form I-9 purposes. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work immediately and to pay the worker back pay for the one day he was not allowed to work.

Rockville, MD

On June 4, 2014, OSC assisted an LPR in returning to work after his employer, a fast food restaurant, took him off the schedule for failing to present a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551). The worker showed a foreign passport with an I-551 stamp at hire, and the restaurant improperly reverified the worker before the stamp's expiration date, and then required the worker to show a Permanent Resident Card for reverification purposes instead of accepting his unrestricted Social Security card. OSC called the corporate headquarters and the restaurant agreed to bring the worker back immediately.

Media, PA

On June 6, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card upon completing the Form I-9. The worker also showed her expired Permanent Resident Card and the employer instructed her to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the employer and explained that a valid List B document combined with a valid List C document were sufficient for Form I-9 purposes. The employer then decided to continue its on-boarding process for the LPR without delay.

Whittier, CA

On June 9, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a construction worker. The worker called OSC because the HR representative would not accept the worker's unrestricted Social Security card and state identification card because she believed that the worker had to provide his Permanent Resident Card to demonstrate his legal permanent residency. The OSC attorney informed the representative that a valid unrestricted Social Security card combined with a state identification card are sufficient for employment verification purposes. The worker was allowed to work.

Norfolk, VA

On June 9, 2014, the human resources head of a retailer called OSC because she was uncertain whether to allow a worker whose only form of identification was an unexpired Virginia Corrections identification card to work. The worker also possessed an unrestricted Social Security card. The OSC attorney informed the HR representative that if the state-issued identification card was unexpired and related to that worker, then the card is acceptable as a List B document, and that combined with a List C document, the worker had sufficient documentation for Form I-9 purposes. The retailer accepted the documentation and allowed the worker to work.

Denver, CO

On June 9, 2014, OSC assisted a worker from Palau with indefinite work authorization to begin his job at the Denver airport. The airport badging office initially denied the worker a badge because he could not present an EAD. OSC reached out to the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), which contacted the badging office. After explaining the worker's status, the worker was able to undergo the necessary background checks and received his badge.

Salisbury, NC

On June 9, 2014, OSC assisted an LPR to continue working for her new employer. The worker showed her valid driver's license, Social Security card, and foreign passport with an expired I-551 stamp to complete the Form I-9. The employer asked for an unrestricted I-551 or Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that if a worker shows valid documents from Lists B and C, the worker is not also required to show a List A document. The employer decided to allow the worker to work without the additionally requested document.

Miami, FL

On June 10, 2014, OSC completed an intervention that resulted in a major employment service hiring a worker who recently naturalized. When the worker presented her driver's license and a restricted Social Security card for the Form I-9 process, the Social Security card was rightfully rejected by the employer. The employment services instructed the worker to obtain an updated Social Security Card. Instead, the worker produced her Certificate of Naturalization for her List C document. The employer refused the Certificate of Naturalization because it is not a document that is specifically listed on the I-9 List of Acceptable Documents. The worker saw OSC's poster posted in the employer's HR office and called OSC's worker hotline. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Certificate of Naturalization is acceptable as a List C employment authorization document issued by DHS. OSC further explained that the acceptance of a Certificate of Naturalization is discussed on the USCIS I-9 Central website in the question and answer section. As a result, the employer stated it would immediately reach out to the worker to complete the new hire process and to begin work.

Knoxville, TN

On June 10, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer told the worker her "green card" was needed in order to verify her Alien number and process her through E-Verify. The worker then presented an expired Permanent Resident Card, which was rejected by the employer. The worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC contacted the employer and explained that a worker's Alien number does not need to be verified with any documentation. OSC advised the employer that a noncitizen can be run through E-Verify after presenting a driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer accepted the documentation from the worker and allowed the worker to begin employment.

Tallahassee, FL

On June 17, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker, an LPR, presented a Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes upon being hired by his employer. His Permanent Resident Card is set to expire in July 2014. In June 2014, the employer told the worker that he would need to present a new Permanent Resident Card before his old card expired, or he would be terminated. The employer called OSC's hotline. OSC immediately contacted the employer and, citing to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) and the Form I-9 instructions, informed the employer that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. OSC also explained that employers may not ask workers for specific documents, and that doing so could represent unlawful document abuse. After this conversation, the employer stated that the worker would be able to continue working without interruption and would not be required to show any additional documentation. The employer also stated that its HR staff would attend an upcoming OSC employer webinar to ensure compliance with the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.

Bremerton, WA

On June 23, 2014, OSC assisted an LPR in keeping his job with a mental health services provider. The employer requested that the LPR show a new Permanent Resident Card by the expiration date on his current card. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that an employer should not reverify a Permanent Resident Card, and referred the employer to the relevant discussion in the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer stated that it was not going to require any further documentation. The worker did not miss any work.

San Diego, CA

On June 25, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a student J-1 visa holder. The employer questioned the documents presented by worker for Form I-9 purposes. The school's representative called OSC; in turn OSC educated the employer on the acceptable I-9 documents for J-1 visa holders, including explaining that the student and the employer had fulfilled all I-9 requirements. The employer decided to continue with the hiring process without further interruption.

Glen Ellyn, IL

On July 7, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker was hired at a college, and her employer rejected two documents that reasonably appeared to be genuine and related to her during the Form I-9 process. The documents, a state-issued driver's license and a Social Security card, had different versions of the workers' middle name and the employer refused to accept them despite the worker's explanation. The human resources representative asked the worker to obtain a new Social Security card with a matching name. The worker immediately called OSC's hotline, and OSC staff educated the employer on guidance issued by USCIS regarding mismatched names on documents. Upon receiving this information, the employer continued with the employment eligibility verification process, and the worker was allowed to begin work on time.

Anchorage, AK

On July 15, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a valid Permanent Resident Card from the worker because the one she had originally presented at the time of hire had expired. The employer advised the worker that she could not continue at work until she had renewed her card. When the worker applied for a renewal, she was advised to call OSC. After the worker contacted OSC, OSC spoke with the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work immediately and paid the worker approximately $1,080 in lost wages.

Greenfield, MA

On July 16, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon completing the Form I-9 several years ago. However, when the card was about to expire, the employer requested to see a new card. The worker was in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen and was not planning on renewing her Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the card should not be reverified. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work without interruptions.

San Juan, PR

On July 21, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for several years with the same employer; recently, the employer advised the worker that his Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) was about to expire and that he needed to present a new card. The worker contacted his attorney, who in turn called OSC for assistance. OSC called the HR director's office and discussed the reverification process, explaining that a Permanent Resident Card does should not be reverified. The HR personnel decided to allow the worker to continue employment without interruption.

Los Angeles, CA

On July 25, 2014, OSC saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been improperly terminated when he was unable to produce a Permanent Resident Card upon hire. The worker was to be employed by a company that required Transportation Security Administration (TSA) background checks, and was told that his driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card were insufficient for employment purposes. An OSC attorney contacted the employer, who in turn referred the OSC attorney to TSA officials. The attorney confirmed with TSA officials that lawful permanent residents are required to produce their Alien number for TSA background checks, but that the worker has the choice of which documents to present to prove identity and work authorization. The worker was hired within 24 hours of the OSC phone call.

Houston, TX

On July 29, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. The worker was hired at a hospital and brought her naturalization certificate and driver's license for employment eligibility verification. Her employer rejected the naturalization certificate and told the worker that she could not start work unless she produced other documents. The OSC attorney called the employer and directed it to information on USCIS' website I-9 Central, showing that a naturalization document is valid for proof of employment authorization. The employer was grateful for the guidance and for learning about USCIS's online resource, as well as OSC's employer hotline.

Houston, TX

On August 4, 2014, OSC learned that it saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer had incorrectly rejected her valid Form I-9 documents. The worker attempted to present her unexpired U.S. passport for employment eligibility verification, but her employer rejected the document when it saw that the worker's Social Security card (which was obtained for payroll purposes) included a second last name that was not on the passport. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer and wrote a detailed email explaining that names on a worker's documents need not be exactly the same, and the OSC attorney directed the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employee was able to resume orientation and did not miss any work.

Springfield, IL

On August 4, 2014, OSC saved the job of an LPR whose Form I-9 documentation was rejected. The worker had been hired at a hospital but was told she could not begin employee orientation because her Permanent Resident Card was issued in her maiden name. The worker had written her maiden name on the Form I-9 in the "other names used" field, and had other documentation showing both her married and her maiden names. OSC called the employer and directed it to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) guidance. The employer was happy to learn that it could hire the worker and stated the worker would not face any delay.

Las Vegas, NV

On August 5, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon completing the Form I-9 several years ago. However, the card was about to expire recently, and the employer requested to see a new card. The worker had not begun the process to renew her card; consequently, the worker was suspended until she could provide a valid card. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the employer and explained that the card should not be reverified. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work immediately and paid him $266.00 in back pay.

Silver Spring, MD

On August 6, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card upon completing the Form I-9. However, the employer asked to see a Permanent Resident Card since the worker had attested to being an LPR on section one of the Form I-9. The worker presented a card that was expired, and the employer requested to see a new card. The worker had not renewed his Permanent Resident Card; consequently, the worker was not allowed to start employment until he could provide an unrestricted Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker had satisfied the Form I-9 by providing an acceptable List B and List C document. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately and stated that the company will pay the worker approximately $300 in back pay.

Naples, FL

On August, 12, 2014, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was hired to be employed by a school system, and during her Form I-9 process her employer rejected two documents that reasonably appeared to be genuine and relate to her. The documents, a state-issued driver's license and a Social Security card, had different iterations of the worker's last names; one of the documents listed the worker's married name. The worker explained to the employer the reason for the difference in names, but while the employer believed the worker, the HR representative asked the worker to present different documents because she believed that the cards had to have the exact same wording of the worker's names. The worker was told not to show up on her first day of employment, and immediately called OSC's hotline. OSC staff educated the employer on guidance issued by USCIS regarding mismatched names on Form I-9 documents. Upon receiving this information, the employer continued with the employment eligibility verification process, and the worker was allowed to begin work.

Carrollton, GA

On August 20, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. The worker presented her Certificate of Naturalization (N-550) and her valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. However, the employer rejected the N-550 stating that it was not listed on the Form I-9 as an acceptable document. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC contacted the employer and explained that the N-550 is an acceptable List C document. The employer decided to continue the process of placing the worker in a job.

Dallas, TX

On August 20, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR whose Permanent Resident Card had expired. The worker was hired for a job, and presented his driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card for I-9 purposes. The employer told him he needed to provide an unexpired Permanent Resident Card or he would not be able to work. OSC immediately called the employer and explained that employers are not permitted to request more or different documents than are required for I-9 purposes, and to do so on the basis of citizenship status or national origin would represent unlawful discrimination. The employer decided to accept the worker's List B and C documents and put the worker to work immediately. The employer stated that in the future, it will not request more or different documents than are required for I-9 purposes.

New York, NY

On August 21, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been hired for a job, and presented a foreign passport with a Form I-94 containing a temporary I-551 stamp, along with a driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card. Her employer did not recognize that these were all valid for I-9 purposes, and instead demanded to see a permanent resident card. OSC called the employer and explained that either the driver's license and Social Security card or the foreign passport with the temporary I-551 stamp (as a receipt) would be valid for I-9 purposes, and furthermore, that employees have the right to choose which document(s) to present. The employer said it would put the worker to work immediately.

Orange County, CA

On August 26, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose valid Form I-9 document was rejected when he was hired at a telemarketing firm. The worker told his employer that he had a voter registration card and a birth certificate, but the employer rejected the voter registration card because even though the employer reviewed the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, it did not notice that the voter registration card was an option. The OSC attorney directed the employer back to the Lists of the Acceptable Documents, and the employer hired the worker without further delay.

Montclair, CA

On September 8, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a newly hired worker. The worker called OSC because the chief of HR would not accept her receipt for an unrestricted Social Security card. The worker possessed a driver's license but misplaced her unrestricted Social Security card. After completing Section 1 of the Form I-9, the worker visited SSA to obtain a new card. SSA gave her a document stating that the worker applied for the new card. An OSC attorney informed the HR head that it should accept a valid receipt and then explained the "receipt rule." The worker informed OSC that she would start work the next day.

Pasadena, CA

On September 13, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a recent LPR. The LPR had worked at a major nationwide retail store for five years prior to obtaining his LPR status. When the worker attempted to update his personal information with the employer, the employer initially refused to update the worker's information and suspended the worker with pay. After OSC spoke with the employer's general counsel and directed her to sections 1024.6 and 1019 of the California Labor Code and USCIS M-274 Handbook, the worker was allowed to return to work and update his information and the Form I-9.

Portland, OR

On September 15, 2014, the HR head of a parking company called OSC because she was uncertain whether she could accept a Form I-94 as proof of work authorization. The Form I-94 was produced by a Somalian refugee whose EAD is set to expire on October 2, 2014. The refugee produced an I-94 bearing the statement "admitted as refugee ….for an indefinite period pursuant to… the INA." The OSC attorney stated that such Forms are acceptable for Form I-9 purposes. The attorney also encouraged the HR head to inform the refugee that he is entitled to an unrestricted Social Security card, a List C document that can also be used for employment eligibility reverification purposes. The worker ultimately produced his unrestricted Social Security card and a valid List B document, and continued to work after October 2, 2014.

Houston, TX

On September 15, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of a newly-hired worker. The employer called OSC because the worker produced a receipt for his birth certificate as his List C document. The worker possessed a driver's license (List B document) but misplaced his certified copy of his birth certificate. The OSC attorney informed the employer that it should accept a valid receipt for a lost or misplaced document and then explained the Form I-9 "receipt rule." The employer informed OSC that he will accept the receipt as a valid receipt.

Anaheim, CA

On September 16, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented her foreign passport with an I-551 printed notation. The employer insisted on seeing the actual Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC, and an OSC staff member called the HR Director's office and discussed the validity of the I-551 printed notation on the worker's foreign passport. The OSC staff member explained that the combination serves as an acceptable List A document and that it must be reverified when the notation expires, making reference to the Employer's Handbook. The HR director decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Miami, FL

On September 16, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented her foreign passport with an I-551 stamp. The employer insisted on seeing the actual Permanent Resident Card. The worker contacted OSC, and an OSC attorney called the HR director's office and discussed the validity of the I-551 stamp on the worker's foreign passport. The HR director decided to allow the worker to begin work immediately.

Wichita, KS

On September 22, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an individual with DACA status. The worker was hired and showed her restricted Social Security card and State I.D for the Form I-9. The employer rejected the Social Security card and advised the worker that she could not continue her employment. The worker called OSC, and OSC determined that worker possessed an EAD but did not present it at the time of hire. The worker returned to the employer, showed her EAD, and was allowed to continue with her employment.

Houston, TX

On September 29, 2014, an OSC equal opportunity specialist saved the job of a Liberian worker with Deferred Enforcement Departure (DED) status whose EAD was subject to an automatic extension. The worker's EAD matched the criteria described in the Federal Register notice automatically extending Liberian DED recipients' EADs. After OSC contacted the employer and explained the automatic extension and the rights of the worker, the employer decided to accept the automatically extended EAD and to keep the worker employed.

Seattle, WA

On September 29, 2014, an OSC attorney saved the job of an information technologies (IT) worker. The IT worker's employer, at first, would not accept the worker's foreign passport with an I-551 stamp. The attorney forwarded information about the I-551 stamp and employment eligibility verification. The employer accepted the passport with the I-551 stamp and indicated that the worker would start work on October 13th.

Norco, CA

On September 29, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR who was discharged after her Permanent Resident Card expired. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards are not to be reverified. The employer then reinstated the LPR with back pay.

Boston, MA

On September 30, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. For Form I-9 purposes, the worker presented his foreign passport with an I-551 stamp on it, indicating that he was authorized to work until the expiration date on the stamp. The HR staff refused the document and requested to see the worker's actual LPR card. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC contacted the company and explained that the I-551 stamp on the employee's unexpired passport was a List A item for the Form I-9 purposes and valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issue if there's no expiration on the stamp. The OSC staff member referred the employer to the USCIS Employer's Manual (M-274). The employer decided to immediately allow the worker to begin employment.

Falls Church, VA

On September 30, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and when completing the Form I-9, she presented her Permanent Resident Card, which had no expiration date on it. Several days later, HR personnel advised the worker that they could not accept the card without an expiration date, and that she could not work until she updated it. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the HR department at company headquarters and explained that Permanent Resident Cards without expiration dates are still valid and should be accepted as a List A document. The employer accepted the explanation from OSC and allowed the worker to return to work immediately, paying approximately $612.00 in back pay.

Fiscal Year 2013

Orlando, FL

On October 3, 2012, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The employee presented an unexpired driver's license and a Social Security card upon completing the Form I-9. The employer retained copies of the worker's I-9 documents. After six months on the job, an HR Representative learned through another employee that the worker was born in Canada. This prompted the HR staff to ask the worker for proof that she is a U.S. citizen as indicated on the I-9 Form. The worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC called the HR Representative and explained proper I-9 procedures. The employer accepted the explanation and asked the worker to resume her duties immediately.

San Antonio, TX

On October 4, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker had completed an I-9 Form at the time of hire at which time he produced his valid driver's license and his original birth certificate. The employer requested that the worker complete a new I-9 Form six months after hire and that he also produce his Social Security Card. When the worker protested, the employer threatened to remove him from the work schedule until he produced the requested document. OSC called the employer and spoke with the vice president of the company, who explained he was new on the job and had decided that an I-9 audit should be completed. During the audit, he noticed that the worker provided his Social Security number in Section 1 of the I-9 Form, but that he did not actually produce the Social Security card to demonstrate that the number he provided belongs to him. OSC educated the vice president on the proper employment eligibility verification process, including explaining that additional documents were not needed in this case, and explained what constitutes document abuse. OSC also provided the employer with OSC's employer hotline number for future inquiries. The employer decided that no employee who successfully completed the I-9 would have to complete a new I-9 or produce additional documents.

Cleveland, OH

On October 16, 2012, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a manufacturing company for several years. The company changed ownership and asked all employees to complete new I-9 forms. The new employer asked to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) after he had presented an unexpired driver's license and Social Security card. The worker's I-551 had expired; as a result the employer told the worker that he could not continue his employment until he could present a document from DHS stating that he was eligible to work. The worker contacted OSC, which called the HR director's office and discussed proper I-9 procedures, including not requesting additional documents beyond those that satisfy I-9 requirements. The HR personnel accepted the explanation and stated that the worker will be reinstated immediately and paid lost wages.

Salt Lake City, UT

On October 16, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention assisting an LPR in starting her new job for a retail establishment. The new worker presented a driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes, but the employer also asked to see her Permanent Resident Card, which had expired. The employer stopped the Form I-9 and E-Verify process at this juncture. OSC intervened and explained to the employer that the two documents first presented by the worker were sufficient for the employment eligibility verification process and that a start date should not be delayed. The company brought back the worker and completed the Form I-9 process, resulting in the worker retaining her job.

Miami, FL

On October 22, 2012, OSC saved the job of a U.S. citizen worker. The employer, a county government, rejected the worker's driver's license and her Social Security card because the name on the Social Security card and driver's license did not match. The worker related that she had recently married and used her married name on her driver's license, but her Social Security card still showed her maiden name because she had not notified SSA of the change in her marital status. Although the employer could have accepted the worker's documents based on the explanation, OSC informed the worker that she could present another document from List B that showed her maiden name, as it appears on her Social Security card, if she had one. OSC also contacted the employer to discuss acceptable I-9 procedures. The worker presented a valid student identification card that matched the name on her Social Security card. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance and hired the worker.

Greenville, SC

On October 22, 2012, an OSC staffer successfully completed a telephone intervention which resulted in a U.S. citizen being rehired. When the individual was initially hired by a health care facility, she produced a driver's license and Social Security card for the employment eligibility verification process. The employer rejected the Social Security card because it did not have the worker's second last name on it. The individual subsequently offered a U.S. passport that contained both of her last names, but the employer rejected the passport and requested that the individual change the name on her Social Security card. The individual changed her Social Security card, but the health care facility decided to rescind the job offer. After the OSC staffer spoke to the company's counsel, the health care facility agreed to rehire the individual.

Tallahassee, FL

On November 27, 2012, OSC performed an intervention on behalf of an employee in a state legislature. The employee's supervisor called OSC because the employee was a lawful permanent resident whose green card expired and the legislature's general counsel was not allowing the employee to return from maternity leave until she could show a new green card. OSC called the general counsel and explained that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified and directed the general counsel to the M-274 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. The general counsel stated that the employee will be allowed to resume her position after maternity leave without presenting a new employment authorization document.

Baltimore, MD

On November 28, 2012, OSC performed an intervention with a state job placement agency regarding its impermissible request for List A Form I-9 documents with expiration dates less than two years from the date of the job application. OSC had received a complaint from a refugee service provider and called the state agency. The state agency official explained that he believed that List A documents indicated the expiring work authorization of non-U.S. citizens and that they would not be employable after the cards expired. OSC explained that employers cannot 1) require List A documents from individuals based on citizenship status, and 2) an individual's DHS document does not necessarily reflect the length of work authorization. OSC directed the agency to the M-274 Handbook for Employers published by USCIS and to the hotline. The state agency official assured OSC that he would immediately inform his staff to change its practices and that individuals would no longer be screened for certain documentation.

Arlington, TX

On December 4, 2012 OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker had applied for work at a staffing agency but was denied employment because of a problem she had with immigration in 1988. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the manager from the staffing agency and discussed the issue on the worker's background check. The manager realized that the issue with immigration back in 1988 was already resolved since the worker had since obtained her Permanent Resident Card and subsequently her citizenship. The manager stated that they will place her at a job as soon as the worker could begin work.

Dallas, TX

On December 6, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR. The LPR had been working for several years for the same retail company; however, recently the HR specialist requested an updated Permanent Resident Card (I-551) from the worker since the one on file had expired. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 should not be reverified, and directed the HR manager to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The LPR was allowed to continue working without showing a new Permanent Resident Card.

Charlotte, NC

On December 13, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR applied for a job but his Permanent Resident Card (I-551) had expired a few months before and he had received an I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card was valid for an additional year. The employer was not convinced that this was an acceptable work authorized document. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-797, Notice of Action indicating the one year extension in conjunction with the expired I-551 is an acceptable List C document evidencing employment for one year. The HR manager accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to begin employment.

Dallas, TX

On December 17, 2012, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The worker had an expired conditional Permanent Resident Card, but he had received a one-year extension document (I-797). The worker also has a restricted Social Security card. His employer, a large check cashing company, suspended him from work because he could not produce an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. OSC informed the worker that he could present his expired Permanent Resident Card and the I-797 document, as they constituted a List C document for Form I-9 purposes, but needed to also present a List B document. The worker reported not having any type of photo identification, apart from his Indian Passport. OSC suggested that he obtain a state identification card, which he did that same day. OSC contacted the employer's human resource manager, and explained that the worker's expired Permanent Resident Card and his I-797 document, coupled with his newly-issued state identification card, were valid List B and C documents for Form I-9 purposes. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance, and the employee returned to work that day.

Orlando, FL

On December 26, 2012, OSC intervened to save the job of a Registered Nurse with an F-1 visa. OSC received a call from the worker who had applied for a job and received the job offer at a major hospital. The worker presented her unexpired Employment Authorization Document (EAD) at the time that she filled out the I-9 form. The employer was not sure about the employment eligibility of the worker since she had already finished her college degree. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker was under a one year extension approved by USCIS; therefore, she was authorized to work until the expiration date on her EAD. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to begin her employment immediately.

Los Alamos, NM

On January 2, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker applied for a job and was offered the position. At the time of filling out the I-9, he presented his unexpired U.S. passport. However, the HR specialist insisted on seeing his Social Security card for I-9 purposes. The worker called OSC, and OSC in turn spoke with an HR specialist and the HR director, referencing the manual for employers (M-274). The HR director accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to begin work immediately.

Honolulu, HI

On January 11, 2013, OSC saved the job of an LPR. OSC fielded a call from an attorney representing a restaurant in Honolulu that had recently suspended an employee after re-verification of the employee's employment eligibility authorization. The attorney related that the employee was an LPR whose green card had recently expired. OSC informed the attorney that USCIS guidance directs employers to not re-verify Permanent Resident Cards. The attorney was thankful for the guidance and related that she would instruct her client to immediately re-instate the LPR and provide back pay.

Iselin, NJ

On January 29, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an L-2 visa holder. OSC received a call from the worker, who had just been hired but was told that there was a problem with her EAD. It appeared that USCIS had made an error on the EAD by misspelling her last name, thus the employer was skeptical about allowing her to remain on the job. In addition, when the employer processed her through E-Verify, it resulted in a TNC. OSC contacted the employer and discussed the worker's EAD. The employer stated that the EAD appeared on its face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it. OSC explained that the worker must be given the allowed time to resolve to the TNC. The employer stated that worker would remain on the job pending resolution of the TNC.

Brentwood, NY

On January 30, 2013, a worker called OSC for assistance when she attempted to be return to her employer after a month-long absence but was unable to be rehired because she had lost her EAD and had no other valid documentation to satisfy the requirements of the Form I-9. The OSC attorney informed the employer that when rehiring a recently employed employee, the company is permitted to rely on the employee's existing Form I-9 on file to the extent it indicates continued employment authorization. The employer agreed the employee's return to the company constituted a rehire and would not require additional documentation.

Honolulu, HI

On February 8, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an individual to return to work after being suspended for failing to provide his employer an Alien number. As a citizen of a Compact of Free Association country (in this case the Federated States of Micronesia), the employee is allowed by treaty to enter and work in the United States using the Admission number appearing on his DHS I-94 (Arrival/Departure Form), and thus did not have an Alien number to give his employee. The employer took the employee off its work schedule pending the submission of an Alien number. The Honolulu District Office of USCIS referred the employee's request for assistance to OSC for action. OSC contacted the employer, advised of the reason for the employee's inability to provide an Alien number, provided a summary of the right of COFA citizens to work in the United States, and identified the types of documents COFA citizens might provide to document their work authority. Based on OSC's contact, the employee was returned to work.

West Haven, CT

On February 13, 2013, OSC gave an employer guidance that saved the job of an LPR. The employee had presented a Permanent Resident Card upon hire. When it expired, the employer told the worker that she needed to present a new card or she would have to be terminated. The employer called OSC's hotline on the same day it notified the worker of the expired card to ask how the worker's I-9 Form should be updated to reflect a suspension. OSC informed the employer that the worker's Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The employer decided not to suspend or terminate the worker (who at this point had not lost any wages), and stated that it would download a copy of the M-274 Employer Handbook so that it could learn more about the Form I-9 and reverification.

Brooklyn, NY

On February 20, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The individual had been working for a few years when the employer's HR specialist requested an updated Permanent Resident Card (I-551) from the worker when the one he had originally presented expired. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 should not be reverified, referring the HR manager to the Handbook for Employers (M-274), page 13. The employer stated that worker will be allowed to remain on the job without the need for reverification.

St. Paul, MN

On February 25, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen presented his U.S. naturalization certificate and a valid driver's license for the Form I-9. However, an HR representative did not accept the naturalization certificate as it was not listed as part of the acceptable List C documents on Form I-9. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR representative and explained that the naturalization certificate is an acceptable List C document, referring the employer to the USCIS I-9 Central website. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that worker would be allowed to begin work immediately.

Longmont, CO

On February 26, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen was hired for a job and submitted an unexpired driver's license and a receipt for a replacement of a lost U.S. birth certificate during completion of the Form I-9. However, the HR specialist was not certain if the receipt was an acceptable document. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR specialist and explained that the receipt is an acceptable I-9 Form receipt, valid for 90 days. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that the worker would be allowed to begin work immediately.

Phoenix, AZ

On February 27, 2013, a hotline caller sought assistance from OSC regarding her Form I-9 documentation, when her employer removed her from the company's payroll due to the caller not being able to present a Social Security card. The caller had already presented state identification and a certified copy of her birth certificate, but the employer was unsure whether those documents were acceptable. An OSC attorney spoke with the employer to explain that these documents were sufficient for the Form I-9, and the employer decided to immediately place the caller back on the company's payroll.

Manchester, NH

On March 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen presented his U.S. passport for Form I-9 purposes. However, an HR staff member insisted that she still needed to see the worker's Social Security card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff member and explained that the unexpired U.S. passport is an acceptable document from List A establishing identify and work authorization, and the worker did not need to present any additional documents for Form I-9 purposes. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

Silver Spring, MD

On March 18, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR was asked by her employer to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file had expired. The worker explained that she had already applied for a new card but the employer insisted that he needed a new card or would have to take the worker off the work schedule until she could present the new card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card cannot be reverified. OSC directed the employer to the USCIS Employer Handbook as a reference. The HR director stated that the worker would be immediately reinstated and paid approximately $1,437 in lost wages.

Denver, CO

On March 19, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker showed a valid driver's license and his Social Security card for Form I-9 purpose. However, the employer asked for the worker's Permanent Resident Card, which was expired. Consequently, the employer told the worker that he could not continue working without a valid Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that an LPR does not have to present his/her Permanent Resident Card as long as long as the worker can present a valid List B document in conjunction with a List C document, which the worker in this case had provided. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that the worker would be returned to his job immediately and paid $126 in lost wages.

Seattle, WA

On March 20, 2013, OSC saved the job of a Liberian national whose work authorization was automatically extended. The worker's employer threatened that she would be terminated if she did not present a new EAD by March 21, 2013. The OSC attorney called the employer and explained that certain individuals from Liberia have been granted an automatic extension of their work authorization and that they should not be required to show a new EAD until September 30, 2013. The OSC attorney forwarded information from USCIS describing the automatic extension, and the employer stated that it would not terminate the worker.

Arlington, TX

On March 20, 2013, OSC saved the job of a Liberian national whose work authorization was automatically extended. The worker's employer threatened that he would be terminated if he did not present a new EAD by March 21, 2013. The OSC attorney called the employer and explained that certain individuals from Liberia have been granted an automatic extension of their work authorization and that they should not be required to show a new EAD until September 30, 2013. The OSC attorney forwarded information from USCIS describing the automatic extension, and the employer stated that it would not terminate the worker.

Waycross, GA

On March 21, 2013 an OSC attorney assisted a work-authorized individual in getting back his job after his employer, a manufacturer. The employer terminated the worker when he came forward to correct his employee information after obtaining work authorization. The employer did not believe it was permitted to continue to employ the worker. OSC contacted the employer and shared guidance from the revised M-274 on steps an employer can take when employee information changes under these circumstances and the employer reinstated the worker right away.

Brownsville, TX

On March 21, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR, who works for a public utility. The worker sent an email to OSC's website; OSC called the worker and asked if he would like OSC to intervene on his behalf. When OSC contacted the employer, the HR representative said that since the employee's permanent resident card was expiring that it needed to be renewed or the worker would be fired. OSC informed the employer that permanent resident cards should never be re-verified and provided information from the Handbook for Employers (M-274). After receiving this information, the employer agreed that the worker should be allowed to continue his employment.

Arlington, TX

On March 26, 2013 OSC saved the job of a Liberian national whose work authorization was automatically extended. The worker's employer threatened that he would be terminated if he did not present a new EAD by March 21, 2013. The OSC attorney called the employer and explained that certain individuals from Liberia have been granted an automatic extension of their work authorization and that they should not be required to show a new EAD until September 30, 2013. The OSC attorney forwarded information from USCIS describing the automatic extension, and the employer stated that it would not terminate the worker.

Covina, CA

On March 27, 2013 OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR applied for a job but his Permanent Resident Card (I-551) had expired a few months ago and she had received an I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card was valid for an additional year. The employer did not accept the I-797 as authorization for work. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-797, Notice of Action indicating the one year extension in conjunction with the expired I-551 was an acceptable List C document showing valid for one year. The HR manager accepted the explanation and allowed worker to begin employment.

Brooklyn, NY

On March 27, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR was asked by her employer to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file had expired. The employer advised the worker that she needed to put an unexpired card on file, otherwise she would have to be taken off the work schedule until she could present the new card, consequently the worker was taken off the work schedule. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need be reverified. OSC provided the M-274 as a reference. The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that employee would be immediately reinstated and paid approximately $710.00 in back pay.

Newark, NJ

On April 3, 2013, an OSC attorney saved the job of a construction worker. The worker called OSC after he was refused hire because his I-551 or green card had expired and his employer would not accept his unrestricted Social Security card and driver's license without additional documentation. Namely, the employer wanted proof that the worker applied for a new I-551 card or naturalization. The OSC attorney informed the employer that lawful permanent residents may present unrestricted Social Security cards in conjunction with a List B document, which is sufficient to establish employment eligibility. The worker called OSC and stated that he has started working.

San Francisco, CA

On April 3, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen submitted his U.S. naturalization certificate and a valid driver's license for the Form I-9. However, HR staff did not accept the naturalization certificate as it was not listed as part of the acceptable List C documents on the Form I-9. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the naturalization certificate is an acceptable List C document. The OSC staff member directed the HR staff to the USCIS I-9 Central website where it mentions that a U.S. naturalization certificate is an acceptable List C document. The employer stated that worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

Pasadena, TX

On April 4, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen submitted his unexpired driver's license and a laminated Social Security card for the Form I-9. However, HR staff did not accept the laminated card as an acceptable List C document for Form I-9 purposes. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the laminated card is an acceptable List C document as long as the card looks genuine and relates to the person presenting it. OSC also referred the HR staff to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274).The HR staff allowed the worker to begin his employment immediately.

Grand Prairie, TX

On April 4, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen submitted his driver's license and Social Security card when he began employment in 1987 for this particular company. However, recently the HR staff asked the worker to produce proof of his citizenship to coincide with the information on Section 1 of the Form I-9. The worker could not locate his naturalization certificate and told the HR staff that he would need to request another naturalization certificate. The HR staff insisted that the worker needed to provide the evidence as soon as possible. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the combination of an acceptable List B document along with an acceptable List C documents is sufficient for Form I-9 purposes and that the worker does not have to produce anything else for I-9 purposes. OSC also referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The HR staff accepted the explanation and stated that the worker will remain on the job uninterrupted.

Detroit, MI

On April 15, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a Permanent Resident. The Permanent Resident received a job offer and upon completing the Form I-9 he presented his foreign passport with a Form I-551 stamp on it, indicating that he was authorized to work until the expiration on the stamp. The employer refused the stamp on the passport because she had never seen one like it and asked the worker to provide the Permanent Resident card or a combination of a List B and C documents. The worker had lost his social security card and his Permanent Resident card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 stamp on the worker's passport is a List A receipt and is valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issue if there's no expiration on the stamp. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

Chicago, IL

On April 15, 2013, OSC saved the job of an alien authorized to work. OSC fielded a call from a worker who had presented an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in order to complete his Form I-9. The employer, a large furniture maker, refused to accept the valid EAD, and instead demanded a driver's license and social security card. OSC staff contacted the employer and explained that employers must allow new hires to choose which document or documents to present when completing Form I-9. The employer was thankful for the guidance and related that she would employ the worker.

Honolulu, HI

On April 29, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired and upon completing the Form I-9, she presented her I-94 with the I-551 stamp on it. The employer rejected the I-94 and asked the worker to provide another List A document or a combination of a List B and C document. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-94 with the I-551 stamp is an acceptable receipt for I-9 purposes. The employer stated that worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

Miami, FL

On May 21, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. For I-9 purposes, the LPR presented her foreign passport with a Form I‐551 stamp on it, indicating that she was authorized to work until the expiration on the stamp. The employer insisted on obtaining an actual Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR manager and explained that the I-551 stamp on the worker's passport is a List A receipt and is valid until the expiration date on the stamp or for one year from the date of issue if there is no expiration on the stamp. The employer stated that worker will be allowed to continue working.

Big Lake, TX

On May 22, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR was asked by her employer to produce a Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes upon hire. The worker had just applied for a new card but had a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security Card. However, the employer insisted on obtaining the Permanent Resident Card from the worker. Consequently, the worker was fired after a few days on the job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker may choose which acceptable documents to present for Form I-9 purposes, and that a valid driver's license and a Social Security card satisfied that requirement. OSC sent the employer a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274). The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that the worker would be returned to her job and paid about $3,780.00 in back pay.

Washington, DC

On June 3, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker presented his Certificate of Citizenship and his valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. The employer rejected the Certificate of Citizenship stating that it was no longer an acceptable document for I-9 purposes. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that although the Certificate of Citizenship is no longer an acceptable List A document, it is now an acceptable List C document. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS website where this certificate is clearly identified as an acceptable List C document. The employer stated that the worker will remain on the job uninterrupted.

Brooklyn, NY

On June 3, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen submitted her unexpired driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. However, the Social Security card had her maiden name and the driver's license had her married name. The HR staff did not accept the documents because of the different last names. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the different last names did not necessarily mean that the documents were not legitimate or could not be accepted for Form I-9 purposes. OSC explained that the employer may consider an explanation regarding the different names in determining whether the documents relate to the worker. OSC directed the HR staff to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9 (M-274). The HR staff allowed the worker to begin her employment immediately.

Maui, HI

On June 4, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a citizen of the Marshall Islands. The worker was hired and then presented his expired passport along with a current driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer rejected the passport and advised the worker that he must present a current passport. The worker contacted OSC's hotline; OSC in turn called the employer to educate the employer about acceptable documents for Form I-9 pertaining to citizens of the Marshall Islands. OSC also sent a copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers to the HR director, outlining the guidance applicable to workers who are citizens of the Marshall Islands and explaining that these workers are allowed to present documents from List B and List C for I-9 purposes. The HR director accepted the documentation from the worker and allowed the worker to begin employment.

Austin, TX

On June 4, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a work-authorized person with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. The worker presented her unexpired EAD and restricted Social Security card upon hire; however, the employer had never seen a restricted social security card and requested worker to provide a new Social Security card without restrictions. The worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC called the employer and explained that the valid EAD is a List A document and that the worker does not need to present any other document to satisfy Form I-9 requirements. The employer accepted the documentation from the worker and allowed the worker to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Tampa Bay, FL

On June 5, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797 Notice of Action stating that his status had been extended for 12 months along with a valid driver's license. The employer did not accept the Form I-797 and requested a List C document or a valid Permanent Resident Card. The worker had a restricted Social Security card; thus, it was not accepted by the employer. The worker called OSC, and OSC in turn called employer and educated the employer about acceptable document for Form I-9 purposes, explaining that Form I-797 along with an expired Permanent Resident Card constitutes a List C document and combined with a valid driver's license satisfied the Form I-9 requirements. The employer allowed the worker to return to work immediately.

Williamsport, PA

On June 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was asked by her employer to produce a Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes. However, the worker's Permanent Resident Card was expired so instead she presented a driver's license and Social Security card. The employer insisted on obtaining the Permanent Resident Card and advised the worker that without it she could not begin employment. The worker called OSC, and OSC in turn called employer and educated the employer about acceptable documents for Form I-9 purposes and the fact that LPRs have the option to present a List A document or a combination of one List B and one List C document. The employer allowed worker to begin work immediately.

Decatur, AL

On June 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was asked by her employer to produce a driver's license and Social Security card for completion of a Form I-9. The worker only had a state I.D. and Social Security card; however, the employer insisted on obtaining a driver's license from the worker. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a current state identification card is an acceptable List B document for Form I-9 purposes, and along with a Social Security card, satisfies the Form I-9 requirements. The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that the employee would be allowed to begin her employment immediately.

Riverhead, NY

On June 17, 2013, OSC received confirmation that a worker who had been impermissibly terminated from her employment was back on the job. The worker, an LPR employed in a prominent fast food restaurant, was terminated when her Permanent Resident Card expired in May 2013. Her employer incorrectly believed that she needed to present a new Permanent Resident Card, and the worker could not comply with the requirement because there was a delay in the processing of her document. The worker called OSC's hotline after receiving the number from a friend, and OSC performed an intervention on the worker's behalf. The worker was rehired within six days of calling OSC, and the employer stated that the worker will receive $870 in back pay for the month that she was out of work.

Brooklyn, NY

On June 18, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The company was recently purchased by another owner and the new employer asked all employees to fill out a new Form I-9. The worker was asked by his employer to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file had expired. The worker explained that he had already applied for a new card but the employer insisted that he needed to present a new one or he would be fired, despite the fact that the worker had a state I.D. and Social Security card. The worker called OSC, and in turn, OSC called the employer and explained that the worker had the option of presenting a combination of a List B document and List C document for Form I-9 purposes. The employer allowed the worker to remain on the job.

Oakland, CA

On June 18, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen submitted her U.S. passport for Form I-9; however, HR staff also requested a Social Security card from the worker. The worker did not have her Social Security card with her, and the employer told her that she could not begin employment until she presented her Social Security card. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the U.S. passport was sufficient for Form I‐9 purposes as a List A document and that there was no need to present anything else. The HR staff allowed the worker to begin her job immediately.

Palo Alto, CA

On June 20, 2013, an OSC attorney saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen whose employer, a major university hospital, rejected a valid employment eligibility verification document. The worker had attempted to use a receipt for a lost, damaged or stolen document, but the employer did not believe a receipt could be used in that circumstance. The worker contacted OSC, and the OSC attorney called the employer and directed the HR manager to guidance on USCIS' website, as well as to the M-274 Handbook for Employers. After speaking with OSC, the worker was hired without any delay in her start date.

Pueblo, CO

On June 20, 2013, a worker reported that she was given a job at a major supermarket after she was initially told that she would not be hired because her employer rejected a U.S. birth certificate as proof of work authorization for the Form I-9. The worker called OSC and an OSC attorney contacted the supermarket. The General Manager of the supermarket stated that he had not known that birth certificates were valid I-9 documents, and that he would hire the worker.

Brooklyn, NY

On June 26, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for a job and was asked to provide his Permanent Resident Card for I-9 purposes. The worker had lost his Permanent Resident Card and therefore was not able to produce it. The employer asked the worker to obtain proof from USCIS office showing that he was authorized to work. The worker presented his driver's license and Social Security card but the employer insisted on obtaining the Permanent Resident Card or a document from USCIS. The worker called OSC. OSC in turn called the employer and educated the employer that it cannot specify which document an employee may present for Form I-9 purposes. The employer allowed worker to begin work immediately.

Newport Beach, CA

On July 8, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a Permanent Resident Card for Form I-9 purposes; however, the employer rejected the card stating that she had not seen a similar one. The worker called OSC, OSC in turn called employer and explained that there are different versions of the Permanent Resident Card including one that does not have an expiration date, and the fact that employer had not seen this particular version of the Permanent Resident Card was not a basis by itself to reject it. OSC directed the employer to the Handbook for Employers (M-274), page 31, which states that an employer may not reject a document that reasonable appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee presenting it. The employer allowed worker to begin employment immediately.

Bronx, NY

On July 9, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was asked by her employer to produced a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file was about to expire. The worker called USCIS to inquire about her new card; in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need be reverified. OSC referred to the Employer's Handbook as a reference. The executive director stated that the worker would be allowed to return to work and paid $1,710 for lost wages.

Elyria, OH

On July 9, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker presented a valid driver's license from the state of Texas along with his Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer rejected the driver's license stating that it could not accept an out-of-state document for Form I-9 purposes. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer and explained that a current driver's license issued by a state is a valid List B document. OSC made reference to the Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer allowed the worker to begin employment immediately.

Orlando,FL

On July 18, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker was asked by her employer to produce a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file was expiring in a few days. The worker had not applied for a new card, in turn she called USCIS to inquire about how fast she could obtain a new card. USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Employer's Handbook as a reference. The HR Director stated that the employee would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Abbott Park, IL

On July 23, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen had just moved to the state of Illinois and upon filling out the Form I-9, she presented her unexpired driver's license from her previous state. The DMV personnel had punched a hole on the driver's license after the worker applied for a new license. The employer did not accept the hole-punched unexpired license as a List B document, stating that it was invalid. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that the hole in the driver's license did not render it invalid for I-9 identity purposes since it was still unexpired and the worker also had an unrestricted Social Security card. The employer was directed to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9 (M-274). The HR staff allowed the worker to begin her employment immediately.

Anaheim, CA

On July 25, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for a job; however, when he mentioned that his Permanent Resident Card was expired, he was asked to provide proof that he was eligible to work. The worker provided an e-file, showing that he had applied for the renewal of his I-551. The employer was not sure if this was acceptable and decided to call OSC. OSC staff explained to the employer that an LPR is eligible to work even if his/her I-551 is expired. Furthermore, OSC explained that the worker has the option to choose which acceptable documents to present for Form I-9 purposes and may choose to present documents other than a Permanent Resident Card. OSC directed the employer to the M-274, Handbook for Employers. The employer stated that worker would be allowed to begin employment immediately.

Myrtle Beach, SC

On July 30, 2013, a hotline caller sought assistance from OSC for her daughter, who was unable to begin work for an employer because the employer required a List C document despite the worker having produced a U.S. passport for the Form I-9. An OSC attorney spoke with the employer to explain that the passport was sufficient for the Form I-9 and that the company possessed all the necessary information from the Form I-9 to run an E-Verify query. The employer explained that there was an inadvertent oversight of the Form I-9 instructions and immediately placed the caller's daughter to work and compensated her for lost time on the job due to this delay.

Jacksonville, FL

On July 30, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was terminated after HR personnel found out that his Permanent Resident Card had no expiration date on it and believed that the card needed to be renewed. The worker called USCIS, and in turn USCIS referred him to OSC. OSC called the employer and explained that the worker's Permanent Resident Card is currently valid and need not be renewed. Furthermore, OSC explained to employer that a Permanent Resident Card is not to be reverified. The employer allowed the worker to return to his job immediately, paying $2,217 in back pay.

Houston, TX

On August 2, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention that saved the job of a visa worker of a contract company for a major oil and gas company. The contract company had sponsored the worker and obtained an extension of his work visa so that he could complete the work under the contract. The contractor provided the oil and gas company with a copy of the employee's I-797A (Notice of Action). Because this particular document was not listed on the Form I-9 as an acceptable employment authorization document, the company did not allow the worker to work on the project over the contractor's assertions that the worker continued to be employment authorized. The oil and gas company contacted OSC to find out about the document and whether it demonstrated the worker's legal right to work. OSC directed the company to DHS's Adjudication Field Manual, Section 248, Chapter 30 where it explained, under the legal authority of 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c), that the I-797-A (Notice of Action) is issued as a replacement I-94 when an application for petition to extend the validity date of employment authorization is approved. The oil and gas company was grateful to OSC for the information we provided and stated that it will pay the employee for about three weeks of lost wages.

Houston, TX

On August 5, 2013, OSC learned that a work-authorized immigrant was cleared to get a driver's license. The immigrant's authorization expired in 2015, yet she had been denied a driver's license by a Texas DMV office. After calling OSC's hotline, an OSC attorney contacted the Texas DMV and was able to resolve the issue after further consultation with the DMV attorney.

Stockton, CA

On August 5, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented an expired Permanent Resident Card and an I-797c Notice of Action, indicating that the card was valid for an additional year. The employer did not accept these documents; however, the employer called OSC, and in turn OSC educated the employer. OSC explained that the combination of these documents constituted a valid List C document along with a valid List B document, and was sufficient for Form I-9 purposes. The employer allowed the worker to continue with his employment.

Mystic, CT

On August 6, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented an EAD at the time of hire. Upon reverification when the EAD expired, the worker explained that she had become an LPR but she had misplaced her Permanent Resident Card. The employer insisted on seeing a new EAD or the Permanent Resident Card. The worker called OSC and it was determined that worker had obtained an unrestricted Social Security Card upon becoming an LPR. OSC called the employer and provided information about the reverification process, explaining that for reverification purposes, an unrestricted Social Security card is sufficient. The employer allowed the worker to continue with her employment.

Omaha, NE

On August 6, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employee had been working for several years with the same employer; recently, the employer advised the worker that her I-551 was about to expire and that she needed to present a new card. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC called the HR director's office and discussed the reverification process. The OSC staff member explained that a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. The HR personnel accepted the explanation and allowed the employee to continue employment without interruption.

Uniondale, NY

On August 12, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for a job with a staffing company and at the time of she completed the Form I-9, she presented her Permanent Resident Card, which had no expiration date on it. The HR personnel rejected the card stating that it needed to be updated. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC contacted the staffing company and explained that Permanent Resident Cards without expiration dates may still be valid and acceptable as a List A document. The employer allowed the worker to continue the hiring process.

Portland, OR

On August 14, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested a new Permanent Resident Card from the worker because the one on file had expired. The worker had not applied for a new card; consequently, the employer fired her. The worker contacted USCIS to initiate the process of renewing her card, in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. OSC referred the employer to the M-274, Handbook for Employers published by USCIS. The employer allowed the worker to return to her job and paid her $440 in back pay.

Farmingdale, NY

On August 14, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. The worker presented his Certificate of Naturalization (N-550) and his valid driver's license for Form I-9 purposes. The employer rejected the N-550 stating that it was not listed on the Form I-9 as an acceptable document. However, the employer contacted OSC to make sure it had acted properly. OSC explained that the N-550 is an acceptable List C document and referred the employer to the USCIS I-9 Central website indicating this. The employer stated that worker will remain on the job uninterrupted.

Salt Lake City, UT

On August 19, 2013, a work-authorized immigrant received a Utah commercial driver's license after an OSC intervention. The immigrant had obtained a Utah commercial learner's permit but was denied a license upon application because the DMV staff rejected his documents showing his lawful presence. The worker called OSC's hotline, and OSC in turn contacted the Utah DMV. After over a dozen calls to the worker and the DMV, the DMV recognized its erroneous rejection of the worker's valid documents and issued him a driver's license.

Phoenix, AZ

On August 19, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker received a job offer from a major hotel chain; however, upon completing the Form I-9, the worker showed her restricted Social Security card and EAD (List A document) and the employer rejected the documents, stating that it could not run an E-Verify query with those documents. The worker called USCIS to inquire about her status, and in turn, USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC called the HR director and discussed the proper documentation to satisfy the Form I-9 and explained that all I-9 List A documents are acceptable for the E-Verify process. The HR director stated that it was the first time that she had seen a restricted Social Security card and she wasn't sure if she could initiate the E-Verify process with it. OSC made reference to the USCIS Employer Handbook (M-274) and the E-Verify User Manual to educate the employer about documents acceptable for I-9 purposes. The employer called the worker to return to the hotel to continue with the process immediately.

Springdale, AK

On August 20, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The worker had been working for the same employer for a couple of years and recently received her EAD and restricted Social Security card on account of being granted DACA status. The worker requested that the employer update her employment documents but the employer was not sure if it could do that and could continue to employ the worker. The worker called a non‐profit organization that had helped her to file her DACA paperwork, which in turn called OSC. OSC spoke with the HR director and referred her to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, M-274, explaining that the employer could continue to employ the worker by following the process outlined in the manual. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to remain on the job.

Greensboro, NC

On August 27, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen was hired and submitted his Social Security card and a receipt for a replacement driver's license. However, the HR specialist was not certain if the receipt was an acceptable document. The worker called OSC. OSC contacted the HR specialist and explained that the receipt was good for 90 days. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

Panorama City, CA

On September 3, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to be reinstated to work after a hospital rescinded the individual's job offer during the employment eligibility verification process. The individual showed the employer his unexpired driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Both of these documents, in combination, are sufficient for any individual to work in the United States. The hospital later informed the individual that it needed one more I-9 document from the worker – his Permanent Resident Card. When the individual could not produce a new Permanent Resident Card, the hospital suspended him and rescinded the job offer. An OSC staffer contacted the hospital and it immediately reinstated the individual with back pay of approximately $306.

Plainfield, IN

On September 5, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to begin work after an employer rescinded his job offer during the employment eligibility verification process. The individual showed the employer his unexpired state I.D. and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Both of these documents, in combination, are sufficient for any individual to work in the United States. A human resources representative of the company later informed the individual that he needed to present his Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card ("green card"). The individual showed the human resources representative a temporary I-551 stamp in his passport, but the company rejected this document also. An OSC staffer contacted the company and the company immediately reinstated the individual with retroactive benefits and back pay in the amount of approximately $2,160.

Houston, TX

On September 6, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an asylee to begin work after a company delayed his start date during the employment eligibility verification process. The individual showed the employer his unexpired state I.D. and unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Both of these documents, in combination, are sufficient for any individual to work in the United States. The individual also showed an I-94 showing he was granted asylum. A human resources representative of the company later informed the individual that he needed to present an EAD, Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card ("green card"), or a letter from USCIS stating he is authorized to work. An OSC staffer contacted the company and the company immediately reinstated the individual.

San Mateo, CA

On September 10, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker applied for a job and had begun working. The worker was asked to complete an I-9 Form and hiring‐related paperwork sometime after he was hired. Before the worker was provided with the I-9 Form to complete, he was told that he "had to produce a Social Security card" in addition to other documents. The worker had an unexpired U.S. passport. However, the HR specialist insisted on seeing his Social Security card as a pre-requisite to obtaining the I-9 form. The worker called OSC, and OSC in turn spoke with an HR supervisor, referencing the USCIS Hadnbook for Employers (M-274). The HR supervisor allowed the worker to continue working and stated that it would have all HR staff members, including the supervisor, attend a DOJ webinar.

Manassas, VA

On September 10, 2013, OSC interceded to save the job of a Salvadoran TPS worker. The worker was placed on unpaid leave until he could produce an unexpired EAD after his originally presented EAD expired on September 9, 2013. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC in turn contacted the employer's HR department and discussed the automatic extension for TPS for El Salvadorians. The employer's HR Department stated that it would reinstate the worker immediately.

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

On September 10, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of work-authorized individual with a U-Visa. The worker presented his unexpired EAD upon hire; however, at the time of reverification, the employer requested a valid EAD and a List B document. The worked had renewed his EAD but had not obtained a driver's license or a state I.D. The employer insisted on obtaining both from the worker. The worker contacted OSC's hotline. OSC called the employer and educated the employer on the reverification process, explaining that the worker had satisfied the reverification process by presenting an unexpired EAD and there was no need to present any other document for I-9 purposes. OSC emailed a copy of the USCIS Employer Handbook (M-274) to the employer outlining the reverification process. The employer accepted OSC's explanation and the documentation from the worker and allowed the worker to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Santa Cruz, CA

On September 11, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The employer called OSC to inquire if it was legally possible to retain a worker who had presented new employment documents after being on the job for several months. The employer stated that it had never previously encountered a situation in which a worker presented a new restricted Social Security card and an EAD. Because of the restricted Social Security card, the employer believed that the worker was no longer authorized to work. The employer stated that the worker mentioned to her that he had obtained his new valid documents because of the DACA process. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Employer's Handbook, M-274 to educate the employer about the process for continuing to employ the worker. The employer stated that it would complete a new Form I-9 per USCIS guidance and allow the worker to remain on the job.

Billings, MT

On September 11, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to continue to work. The employer called OSC before taking any action against the employee. The healthcare agency assumed that the LPR had to provide another employment document because her card had expired and planned to suspend the worker. An OSC attorney explained that LPRs are never to be reverified. The employer stated that it would change its practice of reverifying LPRs.

Hurst, OR

On September 23, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had just arrived to the U.S. as an LPR and had obtained a driver's license and his unrestricted Social Security card. The employer requested to see his Permanent Resident Card at the time of completing the Form I-9; however, the worker had not received his card because he had moved to another address and had not notified USCIS about his change of address. The worker contacted USCIS to initiate the process of obtaining a new card, and USCIS referred the employee to OSC to assist with the Form I-9 issue. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card was not needed if the worker had presented a valid driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card. OSC made reference to the USCIS M-274, Handbook for Employers. The employer accepted the explanation from OSC and allowed the worker to begin employment immediately.

Springfield, VA

On September 24, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer requested to see the worker's Permanent Resident Card during the completion of Form I-9, but the worker had lost it, and thus showed his driver's license and Social Security card. The worker had called OSC in the past due to the same problem; thus, he called the worker hotline again. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the Permanent Resident Card was not needed since the worker had presented an acceptable List B and C document. OSC made reference to the USCIS M-274, Handbook for Employers. The employer allowed the worker to begin employment.

Satellite, FL

On September 25, 2013, OSC assisted a TPS recipient from El Salvador to obtain her driver's license. The immigrant had requested a renewal of her driver's license; however, DMV personnel rejected the EAD as proof of her immigration status as it was expired. The individual called OSC's hotline, and OSC contacted the Florida DMV. After discussing the six-month automatic extension for TPS El Salvador and emailing a copy of the Federal Register notice, the DMV issued the individual a driver's license.

 

Fiscal Year 2012

Charlotte, NC

On October 11, 2011, OSC ensured a naturalized U.S. citizen would be hired by a trucking company that was insisting that the worker present a Social Security card for the Form I-9. The employer told the worker that she was required to show a Social Security card for the Form I-9, and would not accept her U.S. passport instead. OSC contacted the employer and explained that it may not require a specific document for the Form I-9. The employer reached out to the particular recruiter who was insisting on the Social Security card to educate her and then reached out to the caller to let her know she was not required to show her Social Security card for the Form I-9 and that there would be no delay in starting her job. The worker ultimately chose to accept a position with a different company, based on the unfair document request.

Jacksonville, NC

On October 12, 2011, OSC completed a successful intervention and saved the job of a recent LPR from Canada. The employee was offered employment contingent on her passing a background check. The background report software was unable to confirm her Social Security number because it was newly issued. The employer automatically rejects employees whose numbers are not confirmed by the background report, even though the background report states "this number either has not been issued, or was issued after June, 2011". (SSA began a new method of issuing card numbers in June 2011). OSC contacted the background report provider and the employer to explain that a policy of rejecting employees with newly issued Social Security numbers could lead to the improper failure to hire noncitizens who are protected from citizenship status discrimination. The employer decided to hire the worker, and the background check provider decided to notify its clients that the new numbers cannot be verified. The background check provider is also considering paying for direct access to SSA records through the Social Security Number Verification Service.

Shelton, WA

On October 18, 2011, OSC completed a telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employee had been working as a security supervisor at a casino for several years, however, in May 2011, the employer advised the worker that his Permanent Resident Card was about to expire and fired him when he not could produce a new unexpired card. An OSC staff member called the HR director and discussed the reverification process, explaining that a Permanent Resident Card must not be reverified. The HR director accepted the explanation when directed to The Handbook for Employers (M-274). She allowed the employee to return to work in his previous position and agreed to pay him more than $7,500 in lost wages.

Elgin, IL

On October 18, 2011, a worker called OSC to complain that his employer had suspended him when his permanent resident card ("PRC") expired and forced him to use vacation time until he was able to present a renewed card. The employer had inappropriately re-verified the worker's previous PRC and also refused to accept his foreign passport with I-551 stamp as evidence of his work authorization. OSC called the employer and the HR director immediately agreed to reinstate the employee as well as reinstate his missed vacation days.

Indianapolis, IN

On October 20, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker presented an unexpired U.S. passport upon filling out the I-9 form and began working. The employer submitted a query to E-Verify for the worker, which resulted in a SSA TNC. The employer fired the worker upon receipt of the TNC, and told her that she needed to get the TNC resolved before she could be re-hired. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC then contacted the employer and reviewed proper E-Verify procedures. The worker was reinstated immediately and allowed to resolve the TNC.

Hayward, CA

On November 2, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that an LPR was rehired. The employee contacted OSC to report that the employer insisted that he present a Permanent Resident Card, which was expired, and would not accept his California driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card in the Form I-9 process. OSC explained to the employer, who believed a Permanent Resident Card was necessary because the company uses E-Verify, that the law requires him to accept valid Form I-9 documents and that E-Verify does not require him to request specific documents from new hires. The employer agreed to accept the worker's driver's license and unrestricted Social Security card, and rehired the worker after E-Verify confirmed the worker as employment authorized.

New York, NY

On November 4, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that an LPR was hired. The caller, a registered nurse, presented an expired temporary lawful permanent resident card with a letter from DHS extending the card's validity for an additional year. The worker called OSC because the hospital HR department rejected the letter. Following a call to the hospital HR department, it was determined that the hospital rejected the letter because it was a photocopy. Calls to the worker revealed that the original letter was in the possession of the worker's immigration attorney. With assurances from the employer that the original letter would be accepted, the worker secured the original letter from her attorney and successfully completed the employment eligibility verification process.

Dallas, TX

On November 8, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a conditional permanent resident, originally from Ethiopia. The worker has applied to remove the conditions on his residency, but has not yet received the notice stating that his Permanent Resident Card, which expired in August, has been extended for one year. When he began working at a gas station, the worker presented his expired card, along with his unrestricted Social Security card and Texas driver's license. The corporate human resources representative told the store manager to suspend the worker until he could produce a current document from USCIS. OSC called the employer to advise that it could constitute document abuse to require a non-citizen to present a current DHS document, when he or she has presented adequate proof of identity and employment authorization. The worker immediately returned to his job.

Durham, NC

On November 10, 2011, an OSC staffer successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a U.S. citizen to receive payment for services rendered as a security guard for Durham Public Schools. The U.S. citizen presented an unexpired U.S. passport during the employment eligibility verification (form I-9) process. This document alone is sufficient to prove both identity and employment eligibility for the I-9 form. The employer, however, rejected the U.S. passport and refused to complete the I-9 form or pay the worker until he presented a Social Security card and driver's license. The OSC staffer educated the employer, through its counsel, that the U.S. passport was sufficient documentation for the I-9 form and that an employer should not request more or different documents than required.

Bothell, WA

On November 16, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention, educated an employer on citizenship status discrimination, and obtained payment of wages for the caller. The caller, a registered nurse originally from China, has an EAD pursuant to her Optional Practical Training status. After she agreed to administer flu shots at an insurance company's seasonal flu clinic to be held on November 7, 2011, the RN staffing agency told her she could not work because she is not a U.S. citizen. The staffing agency, located in Rhode Island, stated the citizenship requirement was imposed by the insurance company, but the insurance company stated it had no such requirement. The staffing agency then discovered the person responsible for the error, agreed to remove the language from future job orders, and decided to pay the nurse for the five hours she would have worked.

Los Angeles, CA

On December 19, 2011, OSC learned that a previous hotline intervention resulted in an LPR receiving over $11,000 in back benefits. An advocate at a legal aid organization who attended an OSC outreach presentation a few months earlier contacted the OSC attorney on November 14, 2011. The advocate explained that one of his clients had been erroneously denied benefits from the state Employment Development Department (EDD). A subsequent hearing before an EDD Administrative Law Judge confirmed the erroneous denial of benefits. The OSC attorney exchanged numerous phone calls and e-mails with the EDD's general counsel and the worker, resulting in a reversal of the EDD decision. The back benefits were then awarded.

Erlanger, KY

On January 3, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who recently began working as a nurse in a pediatric medical day treatment facility. After working several days, the worker was told she needed to present a current document from DHS because her Social Security card has the legend "valid for work only with DHS authorization." When the worker offered to provide her U.S. passport, the human resources director told her a passport would not be valid in her case because the Social Security card states she needs DHS authorization. OSC explained to the employer that the worker has the right to choose which documents to present for completion of the I-9 form, and the employer decided to accept the U.S. passport.

Sacramento, CA

On January 4, 2012, OSC saved the job of a LPR whose employer terminated her. The worker possessed a Resident Alien Card (Form I-551 issued prior to the version in existence today) without an expiration date, and the employer refused to accept it for I-9 purposes. The worker was unable to provide other documentation and was terminated. After explaining to the employer that Resident Alien Cards without expiration dates are still valid, the employer rehired the worker and gave her full back pay ($306) for the week the worker was not allowed on the job.

New York, NY

On January 6, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a LPR originally from Montenegro. When his Permanent Resident Card expired, the worker was terminated because he was unable to produce a current Permanent Resident Card. OSC explained to the employer that LPRs do not lose their employment authorization when their cards expire and that reverifying Permanent Resident Cards could be considered document abuse. The employer immediately reinstated the worker.

Arlington, VA

On January 10, 2012, OSC saved the job of a conditional LPR whose employer terminated her because the employer was unfamiliar with the worker's conditional status. The worker possessed a Permanent Resident Card that expired in December, and the employer impermissibly reverified the worker's employment eligibility. The worker had not yet received her new card, but she did provide her employer with a Form I-797C, which is a valid List C employment authorization document. The employer terminated the worker despite the legitimacy of the documents, but after OSC's intervention, recognized its error and rehired the worker. The employer also decided to pay the worker full back pay, which totaled $1,100.

Boston, MA

On January 11, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a recently naturalized U.S. citizen of Mexican origin. The worker's employer, a hotel, attempted to reverify the Permanent Resident Card he presented when he began working at the hotel. When the worker presented his naturalization certificate, the employer rejected it because it is not on the I-9 List of Acceptable Documents. OSC contacted the employer and explained that LPRs do not lose their right to work when their Permanent Resident Cards expire, and that employers who reverify Permanent Resident Cards may be committing document abuse. The employer ceased asking the worker for documentation and the worker continues in his employment.

Brooklyn, NY

On January 11, 2012, OSC saved the job of a health care worker. A LPR who works at a large hospital called OSC. When the LPR started working for the hospital he presented his Permanent Resident Card for employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) purposes. Recently, the LPR's employer attempted to reverify his employment eligibility because his card expired. An OSC attorney contacted the hospital and informed the personnel division that Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified.

Alexandria, VA

On January 12, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a conditional LPR from Jamaica who presented a receipt from USCIS showing he had applied to remove the conditions on his permanent resident status. Although the notice stated that his employment authorization was extended for one year, the employer believed it could not accept the receipt for I-9 purposes. OSC provided the employer with a link to the USCIS Handbook for Employers, which explains that the document is a valid document proving work authorization for I-9 purposes. The worker began his employment immediately.

Snellville, GA

On January 13, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR from Guyana who works as a hospital nurse. The hospital HR director informed the worker she would not be able to continue working because her Permanent Resident Card had expired. OSC explained to the employer that, even though a Permanent Resident Card has an expiration date, the bearer is permanently authorized to work and should not be re-verified. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue in her employment.

Altanta, GA

On January 19, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a Salvadoran national with conditional permanent resident status and saved her job. For the employment verification (Form I-9) process the individual presented a current driver's license and an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer refused to accept the documents and requested that the worker present a current Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the combination of an expired Permanent resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action, which states that the card is valid for an additional year, is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year. At the end of the one year period, the worker should be re-verified. Furthermore, since the documents presented by the worker satisfy the requirements on the I-9 Form, rejecting them or requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the worker.

Arbordale, FL

On January 20, 2012, OSC saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen as the result of a successful intervention. The worker was going to be terminated from his job because his employer requested that he provide a naturalization certificate and a U.S. Passport, in addition to the documents that he had already provided for Form I-9 purposes to prove his work authorization. OSC explained to the employer that the worker's driver's license and Social Security card were sufficient to meet the requirements of Form I-9, and that requesting additional and/or specific documents from the worker might constitute unlawful document abuse. The employer was grateful for the guidance and the worker continued in his job.

Princeton, NJ

On January 24, 2012, OSC completed a telephone intervention by explaining the non-discriminatory hiring requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b to a non-profit organization. The organization was under the mistaken impression that it was required to restrict hiring to U.S. citizens and LPRs, at the exclusion of other "protected individuals" such as refugees, asylees, and U.S. nationals. After speaking with OSC, the organization decided to change its hiring practices.

Paramus, NJ

On January 24, 2012, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Dominican LPR. The employer, a cemetery, terminated the worker when his Permanent Resident Card expired. OSC called the employer and provided him with the current copy of the USCIS Handbook for Employers, which clearly states Permanent Resident Cards should not be reverified. The worker was reinstated and paid $2,752 in back pay.

Bryan, TX

On January 25, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a Mexican national with LPR status and saved her job. The worker called OSC because her employer refused to accept Form 1-94/I-94A containing an unexpired temporary I-551 stamp for Form I-9 purposes. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker is work-authorized incident to status. Furthermore, the combination of documents the worker presented constitute an acceptable List A receipt for the Permanent Resident Card. OSC also informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the worker.

Las Vegas, NV

On February, 13, 2012, an OSC investigator successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a Cuban parolee to receive a taxi permit. The taxi commission rejected the parolee's EAD and I-94, telling him that in addition he would need to provide a letter from DHS verifying his immigration status. OSC explained to the taxi commission representative that the parolee's EAD is valid proof of his status and that it was unlikely he would be able to receive other documents from DHS. The taxi commission does not participate in the USCIS SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program. The commission representative decided to accept the parolee's immigration documents and issue him a permit.

Salisbury, MD

On February 21, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR who presented a machine-readable immigrant visa with a temporary I-551 endorsement evidencing law permanent residence for one year from the date of issuance as his proof of employment eligibility. Though the visa had expired, the employer refused to accept the document despite the fact that the temporary I-551 stamp was proof of lawful permanent residency for one year from the date of issuance. The OSC attorney educated the employer and the employer decided to continue employing the worker.

Valley Stream, NY

On February 28, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR whose employer, a janitorial company, was impermissibly reverifying his expired Permanent Resident Card. The worker's Permanent Resident Card expired and his employer told him that he would not be allowed to continue to work until he provided an unexpired card. OSC called and explained that an employer may not reverify Permanent Resident Cards and the worker was allowed to return to work, before missing any of his scheduled days.

Richardson, TX

On March 1, 2012, an OSC attorney saved the job of an LPR. The LPR presented an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action. The employer was set to reject the documents. OSC informed the employer that this combination of documents is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797. The employer accepted the documents as proof of work authorization.

Minneapolis, MN

On March 12, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to return to work after being told he could not work until he produced an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. During orientation, the worker presented an unexpired driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for the Form I-9, which together are sufficient to establish an employee's identity and work eligibility. Despite this, the company demanded the worker bring an unexpired Permanent Resident Card before he was allowed to work. OSC explained to the company that the individual had produced sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 and that it should not request specific documents from employees during the employment eligibility verification process. The company reinstated the worker immediately.

Miami, FL

On March 16, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention, preventing an LPR from losing his job. The worker called because his employer, a hotel, had rejected his I-9 documentation and gave him until that day to provide alternative documentation. Specifically, the hotel rejected the worker's receipt for the replacement of his lost Form I-551. OSC called and explained that the receipt was good for 90 days, after which the worker would provide his original document, and directed the hotel to the M-274's discussion of receipts. The hotel agreed to accept the receipt.

The Dalles, OR

On March 16, 2012, OSC saved the job of an LPR who was re-verified by her employer. The employer demanded a new unexpired permanent resident card, which the worker did not have. OSC advised the employer that re-verifying an employee who presented a lawful permanent resident card during the hiring process is contrary to Form I-9 procedure. Although the employer insisted that company policy required a new work authorization document to be provided, OSC asked the employer to accept the worker's unrestricted social security card as proof of continued work eligibility. The employer decided to reinstate the employee.

Staten Island, NY

On March 22, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a Nigerian national with conditional permanent resident status and saved his job. For the I-9 Form employment eligibility verification process, the individual presented a current driver's license and an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer refused to accept the documents and requested that the employee present a current Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action, which states that the card is valid for an additional year, is sufficient proof of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797. At the end of the one-year period, the employee should be re-verified. The OSC staff member also explained to the exmployer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the employee.

Burbank, CA

On March 27, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a LPR who was told she would be terminated in April from her company if she did not provide the employer with a new Permanent Resident Card when her current card expired. The worker had applied for her new card but had not yet received it, and called OSC for assistance. OSC called the company and explained that Permanent Resident Cards are not to be reverified, and the company understood the error in its practice and agreed not to suspend or terminate the worker, or any future employees with the same issue.

Lone Tree, CO

On April 5, 2012, OSC saved the job of a worker whose employer had initially rejected valid documents establishing the worker's eligibility to work. OSC explained to the employer, a medical supplies manufacturer, that a driver's license and Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (N-560) were acceptable list B and C documents for I-9 purposes. The employer did not know that the N-560 was an acceptable list C document, and was grateful for the guidance.

Union City, NJ

On April 12, 2012, an OSC attorney saved the job of several nurses. A medical provider called OSC because it believed that it may need to terminate several of it is nurses who are LPRs because their green or I-551 cards expired. The OSC attorney informed the health care provider that green cards should not be reverified. The hospital decided that it will retain the nurses.

Alfreda, GA

On April 13, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a LPR to return to work after being suspended for not producing a green card during the employment eligibility verification process. The LPR provided an unexpired identification card and unrestricted Social Security card as documentation of her employment eligibility during the Form I-9 process. Those documents in combination are sufficient for the Form I-9 process, but the company suspended the employee until such time that she could produce a green card. OSC explained to the company that the employee had produced sufficient documentation for the Form I-9 and that it should not request specific documents from employees during the employment eligibility verification process. The company reinstated the worker immediately and paid back pay of approximately $160.

New Orleans, LA

On April 17, 2012, OSC successfully assisted a permanent resident who was trying to apply for a job. A contractor who processes applications, refused to accept an applicant's valid foreign passport with the endorsement "Temporary I-551 Evidencing Permanent Residence for 1 Year and Employment Authorized" as an identity and employment eligibility document which is listed on its webpage as an acceptable document. Once OSC contacted the contractor, they learned that its contractor's software program did not accept temporary documents issued to non-citizens. As a result, the contractor assured that this problem would be resolved and that it would ensure all non-citizen's producing temporary evidence of their legal status are timely processed. A agent also personally called OSC's hotline caller to inform him that his document was accepted and that his application would immediately be processed.

Severn, MD

On April 17, 2012, an OSC attorney intervened to preserve the job of a lawful permanent resident. The employer, a large retail discount store, told the employee that she needed to present a permanent resident card in order to verify her Alien number. When the employee presented the card, the employer told her the card was unacceptable because it was an old version with no expiration date. When the employee presented a driver's license and social security card, the employer told her those documents were not acceptable. OSC contacted the employer and explained that it is the employee's right to choose the documents for the I-9 form, and that a permanent resident can choose to present a driver's license and social security card as a valid combination. The employer agreed to let the employee work.

Fort Worth, TX

On April 20, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a Mexican national with conditional permanent resident status and saved her job. For the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process the individual presented a current driver's license and an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer refused to accept the documents and requested that the employee present a current Permanent Resident Card. OSC explained to the employer that an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action, which states that the card is valid for an additional year, is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797. At the end of the one-year period, the employee should be re-verified. OSC explained that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the employee.

Annapolis, MD

On April 30, 2012, and OSC attorney received confirmation that an individual who had called OSC's hotline the week before had been put back to work and received back pay for the days when he was erroneously suspended. The worker is a lawful permanent resident and was suspended after his Resident Alien Card expired, even though the individual was still work-authorized. The OSC attorney contacted the employer, a fish processing plant, and explained proper reverification practices to the human resources manager. The manager stated that the worker was the first person she had ever seen who presented a Resident Alien Card, and that she had been unaware of proper reverification procedures. The OSC attorney directed the manager to the USCIS M-274 Handbook for Employers and to the USCIS I-9 Central website. The HR manager immediately rehired the worker and paid him $88 for the days that he was suspended.

Auburn, WA

On May 2, 2012, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The employer, a manufacturing company, contacted OSC to inquire whether it was legal to terminate an employee who is an LPR whose employment authorization document had expired since he was first hired two years ago. OSC informed the employer that 1) employers should not re-verify the employment authorization of LPRs; and 2) LPRs' work authorization does not expire, even if their employment authorization document has an expiration date. The employer was glad to learn that it did not need to terminate the workers, and was grateful for the guidance.

Danville, PA

On May 4, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an employee with conditional permanent resident status and saved her job. For the I-9 Form employment eligibility verification process the individual presented a current driver license and an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer hesitated to accept the documents and contacted OSC for clarification. OSC explained to the employer that the expired Permanent resident Card along with the Form I-797, Notice of Action, is acceptable evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797. At the end of the one-year period, the employee should be re-verified. OSC also explained that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the employee. In addition OSC provided the employer a direct link to the Handbook for Employers M-274.

Newark, NJ

On May 24, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR of Mexican national origin and saved her job. The employee called OSC and informed it that the employer was requesting an updated document establishing her employment eligibility after the employee's Permanent Resident Card expired on April 2, 2012. For the initial employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process the employee presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the employee is work authorized incident to status and that the Permanent Resident Card originally presented by the employee is a List A document that should not be re‐verified. OSC also informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to allow the employee to continue working.

Charlotte, NC

On May 24, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR of Mexican national origin. The employee called OSC and informed it that a temporary staffing agency was refusing to accept her Resident Alien Card, Form I-551, (1977) for the I-9 Form employment eligibility verification process because the document is an old version and does not have an expiration date. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the employee is work-authorized incident to status and that the Resident Alien Card presented by the employee is a valid List A document and should be accepted. OSC also informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and to hire the employee.

Silver Spring, MD

On May 30, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR and saved the employee's job. The employer had requested that the employee provide a new Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and informed the employer that Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Alien Registration Receipt cards, Forms I-551, Resident Alien Cards, Permanent Resident Cards, or "green cards") are issued to LPRs and these individuals are work-authorized incident to their status. Therefore, they have the permanent right to work. The employer continued to allow the employee to work.

Garland, TX

On May 30, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to return to work after his employer suspended him. When the worker was hired, he produced a Permanent Resident Card for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. When it recently expired, the company suspended the employee. OSC referred the company's Human Resources representative to the USCIS Handbook for Employers which states that Permanent Residents Cards (with or without an expiration date) should not be reverified. The company reinstated the worker immediately and paid back pay of approximately $80.

Washington, DC

On May 30, 2012, as the result of a successful telephone intervention, OSC ensured the continued employment of a Salvadoran national residing and working in the United States as an LPR. The Salvadoran's Permanent Resident Card is set to expire in early June, 2012. She is in the process of naturalizing and will therefore not receive a new Permanent Resident Card. The Salvadoran attempted to obtain her Washington, DC driver's license renewed but was refused because her Permanent Resident Card was set to expire. OSC contacted DMV counsel, and the matter was resolved with the individual receiving her DC driver's license.

Washington, IA

On June 4, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a naturalized U.S. citizen could return to work. The caller was recently hired by a large manufacturing company and during the Form I-9 process showed a valid List B document and his naturalization certificate. The manufacturing company was not aware that a naturalization certificate is an acceptable document and rejected the document. The worker contacted OSC that same day, and OSC in turn called the company and pointed the company to USCIS guidance that a naturalization certificate is a valid List C document (OSC recently facilitated the posting of this guidance on USCIS's website). The worker returned to work immediately.

Los Angeles, CA

On June 4, 2012, OSC saved the job of a TPS recipient who was threatened with termination from his job due to the expiration of his EAD. OSC explained to the employer that the employee's work authorization was automatically extended by USCIS, and that the employer was not allowed to request other documents from the employee until the expiration of USCIS' automatic extension on September 9, 2012. The employer agreed to retain the employee.

Bull Head City, AZ

On June 11, 2012, OSC saved the job of a LPR whose employer had initially rejected valid documents establishing the worker's eligibility to work. OSC explained to the employer, an employment placement agency, that the employee could present documents of his choice from a list of acceptable documents included in the Form I-9. The employer had originally requested a specific List A document (the employee's Permanent Resident Card) from the employee, and refused to place him on a job assignment until the employee produced that document. The employer was grateful for the guidance that OSC provided on completion of the Form I-9. In addition to placing the employee on a work assignment, the employer agreed to provide four days' back pay ($320.00) to the employee.

Kenosha, WI

On June 12, 2012, OSC successfully saved the job of a LPR after his employer rejected his temporary Form I-551 receipt presented pending his petition for a replacement Form I-551. The OSC attorney explained to the employer that temporary Form I-551 is an acceptable Form I-9 List A document until the expiration date indicated. As a result, the individual was permitted to resume his scheduled work hours.

Millsboro, DE

On June 13, 2012, OSC enabled a Haitian asylee to be rehired as a result of a successful hotline intervention. As a result of outreach on the Eastern Shore of Maryland OSC received a called from a nonprofit agency requesting our assistance. The agency stated that the worker was terminated from his food processing job on April 26, 2012, because he could not present an unexpired EAD for Form I-9 reverification purposes. The worker had shown his Form I-94 with a stamp "asylum granted indefinitely." We contacted the employer to explain that asylees may present other documents, like a Form I-94, for reverification, because this document is considered a List C document. We referred the company's Human Resources representative to the USCIS Handbook for Employers for further clarification. The employee was reinstated with backpay.

Alpharetta, GA

On June 19, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a Russian national who is a conditional LPR and saved his job. For the I-9 Form the individual had presented a current driver's license and an expired Permanent Resident Card along with a Form I-797, Notice of Action indicating that the card is valid for an additional year. The employer initially accepted the documents but on a later date suspended the employee and requested that he present a current Permanent Resident Card. OSC explained to the employer that this combination of documents is acceptable List C evidence of employment authorization for one year as indicated on Form I-797. At the end of the one-year period, the employee should be re-verified. OSC also explained that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the documents, re-hire the employee and compensate him for the lost wages.

Newark, NJ

On June 19, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR who is a Mexican national and saved her job. The employee called OSC and informed it that the employer had requested an updated document establishing her employment eligibility after the employee's Permanent Resident Card expired on April 2, 2012. For the initial I-9 Form the employee had presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the employee is work-authorized incident to status and that the Permanent Resident Card presented by the employee is a List A document that should not be re-verified. Also, OSC informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to allow the employee to continue working.

Naples, FL

On June 22, 2012, OSC saved the job of a worker, who posseses an EAD and whose employer, a manufacturing company, had threatened to terminate her if she did not produce a Social Security card for purposes of completing Form I-9. The worker, whose EAD was about to expire, had produced a new, valid EAD. The employer, however, demanded to see the worker's Social Security card, and upon noticing that the name on the Social Security card did not match the name on the EAD, threatened to terminate her. The worker explained to the employer that she was recently divorced, and that her EAD reflected her single name, but that SSA had yet to provide her with a new Social Security card reflecting her name change. OSC explained to the employer that the worker had a choice to present her EAD for purposes of completing Form I-9, and did not need to also present her Social Security card. The employer was grateful for the guidance that OSC provided on completion of the Form I-9 and decided to retain the worker.

Saint Peter, MO

On June 22, 2012, OSC saved the job of a U.S. citizen, whose employer had initially rejected valid documents establishing the worker's eligibility to work. The worker had initially presented his Social Security card as a List C document in order to complete his Form I-9. The employer, an on-line educational institution, requested a different document from the worker and refused to place him on a job assignment until the employee produced a Social Security card that did not contain the following language: "not valid for identification purposes." Social Security cards containing the language "For Social Security and Tax Purposes - Not for Identification" were issued until 1970s according to SSA's website. OSC explained to the employer that the worker could present his Social Security card as a List C document for Form I-9 purposes, even though the Social Security card contained the "not valid for identification purposes" language. OSC related to the employer that new hires can present List C documents to establish their eligibility to work, not their identity. Thus, the restriction on the Social Security card did not invalidate its use as a List C (eligibility to work) document. The employer was grateful for the guidance that OSC provided on completion of the Form I-9. In addition to hiring the worker, the employer agreed to participate in a future employer webinar.

Dallas, TX

On June 26, 2012, OSC successfully intervened to inform an employer that USCIS's Self Check could not be used to ask a former employee under consideration for rehire to run a Self Check query to prove he was now authorized to work in the United States. Although the former employee was previously not work-authorized, OSC informed the employer that since he obtained proper documents, the employer must accept them as valid for the Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification process as long as each document appears genuine on its face and relates to the employee presenting it. The employer agreed to continue the process.

Pompano Beach, FL

On July 3, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR from Bolivia and saved her job. The employer called OSC and asked how to reverify the employee's Permanent Resident Card, which expired on June 14, 2012. OSC explained to the employer that the employee is work-authorized incident to status and that the Permanent Resident Card that the employee presented when initially completing an I-9 Form should not be reverified. Also, OSC informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to let the employee continue working.

Salem, OR

On July 6, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR who is a Mexican national saved his job. The employee called OSC and informed it that his employer is requesting a current Resident Alien Card because the one he presented for the I-9 Form Employment Eligibility Verification process at the initial hiring is about to expire on June 9, 2012, and threatened him with suspension. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the employee is work authorized incident to status and the Resident Alien Card presented by the employee is a valid List "A" document and should not be re-verified. OSC informed the employer that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. Also, OSC provided a link to the employer to the Handbook for Employers (M-274). The employer agreed to let the employee continue working.

Salt Lake City, UT

On July 13, 2012, an OSC attorney intervened to preserve the job of an LPR. The employer, a large hotel chain, rejected the employee's valid I-9 documentation on the first day of work. When the employee presented her expired Permanent Resident Card, driver's license, and I-797 notice extending her permanent resident status, the employer told her those documents were not acceptable. OSC contacted the employer and explained that it is the employee's right to choose the documents for the I-9 Form, and that the documents presented were acceptable to prove both identity and work authorization for the I-9 Form. The employer agreed to let the employee work.

Cincinnati, OH

On August 3, 2012, OSC saved the job of a worker, a U-Visa holder with work authorization. The employer, a national restaurant chain, rejected the employee's temporary work authorization card and her Social Security card, because the Social Security card was restricted. OSC informed the employer that the employee's temporary work authorization card was a List A document for I-9 Form purposes, and the employee did not need to show her Social Security card. In addition, OSC explained to the employer that despite the restriction on the Social Security card, the employee was workauthorized because she had a current, valid temporary work authorization card. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance, re‐instated the employee with three days, and paid her $216 owed in back pay.

Maui, HI

On September 10, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a native of Micronesia authorized to work under the Compact of Free Association. After the worker was offered a job with a major retail company and had already passed the background screening, she was told she could not begin working until she presented an EAD because she indicated that she is an "alien authorized to work" on her Form I-9 and provided an alien registration number (A number). Since the worker satisfied the Form I-9 documentation requirements by presenting her unrestricted Social Security card and current Hawaii driver's license, OSC called and explained to the employer that rejecting those documents based on citizenship status could be considered document abuse. The employer called the worker and invited her to begin orientation immediately.

New York, NY

On September 19, 2012, two OSC staff members assisted a work-authorized recipient of Withholding of Removal to keep her job with a nursing care facility. The worker called OSC's hotline because she had lost her unexpired EAD and was unsure of the documentation she could show her employer to satisfy the Form I-9. She was not working because the EAD on file had expired recently but she had obtained a receipt for a replacement unexpired EAD. OSC explained that the receipt for the application to replace the lost EAD was sufficient and called the employer to explain that this receipt would satisfy the Form I-9. The employer accepted the receipt and the worker returned to work.

 

Fiscal Year 2011

San Francisco, CA

On October 1, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and prevented an asylee from Russia from losing his unemployment benefits. When the California Employment Development Department (EDD) noticed that the individual's employment authorization document was issued before he gained asylee status, and that it had since expired, it canceled his unemployment benefits. OSC contacted EDD and encouraged it to verify the asylee's status with USCIS. EDD contacted USCIS and subsequently approved payment of unemployment benefits for nine weeks.

Stockton, CA

On October 4, 2010, as the result of a telephone intervention, OSC assisted a Salvadoran TPS recipient who had recently been laid off to establish his entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Office would not process the TPS recipient's claim for benefits because his EAD had expired. We provided the worker with a copy of the Federal Register notice announcing the automatic extension of TPS for Salvadorans, and the worker presented it to the Unemployment Office. After consulting the Federal Register notice, the Unemployment Office processed the worker's unemployment claim.

Sebree, KY

On October 4, 2010, OSC enabled an asylee to be rehired as the result of a successful hotline intervention. The worker, an asylee, was dismissed from her poultry factory job in July 2010 when she could not present an unexpired EAD for Form I-9 reverification purposes. The employer insisted that the worker produce a renewed EAD before her original document expired and terminated her because her new EAD did not arrive before the old EAD expired. After we contacted the employer to explain that asylees may present other documents, like an unrestricted Social Security card, for reverification, the employee was reinstated despite a corporate policy to the contrary.

Marietta, GA

On October 20, 2010, an intervention by OSC allowed a Salvadoran TPS beneficiary to receive a driver’s license from the State of Georgia. The state uses the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program to verify the legal status of non-citizens. When we called the attorney for the Georgia Department of Driver Services, she stated that the SAVE request was in “third level” verification, and had been in that status for several weeks, but she accessed SAVE through another means called “WEB-3.” Although WEB-3 also was not conclusive at first, by the next day the attorney called OSC to report the worker could now obtain a license. The worker drives a taxi for a living so he lost several weeks of income due to the delayed verification.

Conroe, TX

On October 21, 2010, an OSC attorney successfully intervened on behalf of a Salvadoran TPS recipient who had been denied a driver’s license. The immigrant showed the Federal Register notice announcing the automatic six-month extension of the work authorization for TPS recipients to a Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) worker, but was told it “looked fake” and that only an unexpired EAD would be sufficient for license renewal. We called the head of the DMV office, and the official confirmed that the DMV was aware of the TPS renewal and that there must have been a miscommunication with the line employees. The official promised to send out a reminder email to all staff, and then the TPS recipient was able to obtain his license.

Cartersville, GA

On October 22, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a TPS recipient from El Salvador was able to renew his driver’s license and return to work. The Georgia Department of Driver Service (GDDS) initially refused to renew the TPS recipient’s driver’s license because his EAD bears an expiration date of September 9, 2010. We contacted the GDDS, emailed the Federal Register notice, and informed it of DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries. Consequently, the Salvadoran was able to renew his driver’s license and return to work.

San Francisco, CA

On October 22, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a Nepalese asylee to return to his job as a lead security agent at an airport cargo services company in an international airport. The worker’s badge, which bore a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) seal for access to international flight areas, expired on the day the worker’s EAD expired. The badging office then refused to issue the worker a new badge based on his unrestricted Social Security card, driver’s license, and I-94 with an asylum stamp. The badging office stated that CBP would refuse to issue its seal to a non-citizen who did not have an EAD or Permanent Resident card. Without a badge to access his worksite, the worker could not perform his job, and was terminated. OSC consulted with an attorney for CBP, a city attorney that represents the airport, and badging office staff to explain asylee work authorization and the requirements of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport security directive, which does not require documentation in addition to that required for I-9 employment eligibility verification. Unfortunately, the worker will not be paid for the month’s worth of work that he missed, but he did resume work on October 22, 2010.

Arvin, CA

On October 27, 2010, OSC saved the job of a Salvadoran TPS recipient as the result of a successful telephone intervention. The worker attempted to get his California driver's license renewed by presenting his EAD, but the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CDMV) refused to renew his license, which prevented him from driving to work. OSC contacted the Chief Counsel of CDMV and explained DHS’s automatic extension of TPS for Salvadoran recipients, and the matter was resolved. The CDMV subsequently renewed the TPS recipient’s driver's license and is taking steps to ensure that all its offices are aware of the automatic work authorization extension for TPS recipients.

Bloomington, MN

On October 28, 2010, OSC interceded to save the job of a LPR. The worker’s presented an expired permanent resident card for I-9 purposes, and was asked to produce an unexpired card. The worker showed his unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card; however, he was told that these were not sufficient. We called the employer and advised that an unexpired document from List B in conjunction with an unexpired List C document are satisfactory proof of work authorization. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed employee to work.

Parlin, NJ

On November 1, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a TPS recipient from Honduras was able to renew his driver’s license. The New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) initially refused to renew the TPS recipient’s driver’s license because his EAD bears an expiration date of July 5, 2010. OSC contacted the New Jersey DMV, informed counsel of DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Hondurans with TPS, and faxed the applicable Federal Register notice. Consequently, the individual was able to renew his driver’s license and return to work.

Pasadena, TX

On November 5, 2010, OSC helped a Salvadoran TPS beneficiary to receive a driver’s license. He called OSC after the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) refused to issue him a license extension until March 9, 2011, the date to which his EAD has been automatically extended. We advised the individual to return to DPS with a copy of the Federal Register notice announcing the automatic extension of EADs for Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries. When the DPS representative still refused to extend the individual’s driver’s license, we contacted DPS’s counsel, who instructed the Pasadena DPS office to issue a license extension.

Dothan, AL

On November 8, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to arrange the re-employment of an LPR by a major U.S. retailer. The individual had originally been granted permanent resident status in 2005, but, USCIS did not issue her a Permanent Resident Card (I-551). In connection with her initial hire, the LPR presented her original 2005 notice of approval and her most recent replacement receipt (received in connection with her five-year quest for a Form I-551). The retailer rejected her replacement receipt and requested that the employee produce an additional document establishing her work authority. We contacted the legal office of the retailer to explain that a replacement receipt is acceptable temporary evidence of work authorization. While we were working with the employer, the LPR also contacted USCIS to determine the status of her application for a replacement I-551 and ultimately obtained a temporary I-551 stamp in her foreign passport. The worker called OSC to advise that she had been invited back to work.

New York, NY

On November 8, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved an LPR’s job as a security guard. The LPR, originally from St. Lucia, is scheduled to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen at an upcoming naturalization oath ceremony. However, when the worker’s permanent resident expired, his employer told him he would not be able to work until he either had a new card or had taken his oath. After we contacted the employer and explained that LPRs do not lose their status when their cards expire, the employer reinstated the worker and paid him $954 in back pay.

Dalton, GA

On November 8, 2010, OSC helped a Salvadoran TPS beneficiary obtain a driver’s license after the Georgia Motor Vehicle Division (GMVD) had refused for over 60 days to issue the license. A GMVD representative gave the worker three notices (one for 5 days and two for 30 days each) indicating that the agency was awaiting a response from the DHS SAVE program. When we called counsel for the GMVD, she indicated the case has now been resolved and the worker will now be issued a license.

Edinburg, TX

On November 9, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a work-authorized immigrant whose employer rejected her EAD and requested a letter from DHS proving her work authorization. The employer mistakenly believed that the employee’s restricted Social Security card required it to ask for a letter from DHS, and did not understand that an EAD is sufficient to prove work authorization. We explained the difference between List A, B, and C documents and referred the employer to USCIS’s M-274, Handbook for Employers. The employer’s representative stated she would accept the worker’s EAD, study the Handbook for Employers and call the OSC employer hotline should she have any questions in the future.

Escondido, CA

On November 10, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed an LPR from Mexico to begin his employment at an apartment management company. The employer’s HR functions are managed by an outsourcing firm. That firm refused to accept the worker’s California I.D. card and unrestricted Social Security card as proof of his identity and work authorization. The employer stated that an ICE agent informed her she would not be able to run non-citizen employees through E-Verify unless they had current DHS documents, because E-Verify requires a card number as well as an alien number. We explained that all workers have the right to choose which documents to present for I-9 purposes, and it could be an unfair documentary practice (document abuse) to reject the documents this worker presented. We also walked the employer through the initial E-Verify screens so she could see that E-Verify permits permanent residents to present documents other than permanent resident cards for the I-9 form. The employer ran the worker’s information in E-Verify and now he has begun his new job.

Bayside, NY

On November 10, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of an LPR and saved his job. For Form I-9 employment eligibility verification purposes, the individual presented a permanent resident (Form I-551) card. The LPR had worked for the employer years earlier and previously used an EAD to demonstrate work eligibility. The employer’s representative was unfamiliar with the I-551 card and called an OSC attorney who had conducted an outreach presentation months earlier. The attorney explained that the type of document presented by the worker is sufficient for form I-9 purposes, and that if the document appears on its face to be reasonably genuine and relate to the person presenting it, it should be accepted. The representative also asked whether the employer needed to reverify the LPR’s employment eligibility status after the card expires. We advised that employers should not reverify LPRs, who are work authorized incident to their status. The employer’s representative indicated that she would accept the document and permit the worker to work.

Birmingham, AL

On November 12, 2010, OSC successfully intervened with the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to ensure the issuance of a driver’s license to a Salvadoran TPS beneficiary. When the worker requested a license extension in September, the deputized 287G officer was unaware of the six-month automatic extension of employment eligibility for Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries and denied the extension request. Since the worker needed to drive to keep his job, he called USCIS several times before USCIS gave him the number for OSC. We reached out to a DMV attorney to explain the extension and provided a copy of the Federal Register notice, and the worker was issued a license the same day.

Dallas, TX

On November 12, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a Canadian nurse with a non-immigrant NAFTA (TN) visa. The nurse was offered employment at a medical staffing service and immediately began working. Prior to beginning the new position, she should have requested an offer letter to present to a Customs and Border Patrol official at a port of entry in order to receive a new I-94 (Record of Arrival and Departure) endorsed with the new employer’s name. Instead, she received the offer letter ten days after starting her job, and proceeded to travel to the U.S./Mexico border in order to obtain the new I-94. The employer then immediately terminated the worker based on her failure to explain her status prior to the three-day I-9 deadline. When we called counsel for the employer, he said that he advise his client to rehire the worker as soon as she received the new I-94.

Cartersville, GA

On November 12, 2010 an LPR was able to renew her driver’s license after having been initially denied. The LPR called OSC after being told that she could not renew her license because someone in a different state had a suspended license with the same name and birth date. Although it is common for people to have the same name, the OSC attorney was incredulous that the birthdates were identical and called the general counsel of the Georgia DMV to investigate. The General Counsel looked into the matter and instructed the local DMV to give the LPR her license.

Chicago, IL

On November 16, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention which enabled a LPR to begin working at a hospital as a part-time nurse. After the worker was interviewed, she was offered the job by telephone. The human resources representative told her she would need to go to the office with her permanent resident card. The worker replied that she had not yet received her card but she had an “I-551 stamp” in her passport indicating that she is a permanent resident. The employer refused to allow the worker to begin working without her permanent resident card. We called the employer and explained that refusal to accept a valid document for I-9 purposes may constitute unlawful document abuse. We further explained that the three-month validity of the I-551 stamp does not affect the worker’s employment-authorized status, and the employer may not refuse to employ her based on the expiration date of the stamp. The employer then permitted the worker to begin working, using her passport with I-551 stamp for employment eligibility verification purposes.

Oakland, CA

On November 17, 2010, OSC helped two Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries renew their driver’s licenses after the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CADMV) refused to renew their licenses, which expired on the same date as their EADs. OSC contacted counsel for the CADMV, explained the situation, and provided the Federal Register notice explaining DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Salvadoran TPS recipients. Within the week, counsel informed OSC that the license renewals were being processed.

Bethesda, MD

On November 18, 2010, OSC intervened and saved the job of an LPR. During the I-9 process, the employer asked to see the worker’s permanent resident card. The worker’s card was expired, but he was expecting to receive a new one soon. Because the worker also had an unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted social security card, we informed the employer that the worker had enough documentation to establish work authorization. The employer continued employment of the worker without interruption.

Washington, DC

On November 22, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The employer, a health care provider, insisted on reverifying the employee’s permanent resident card that had expired on November 3, 2010. The worker had been working for this employer for almost eight years and recently had become a naturalized citizen. When the employee presented his naturalization certificate, the HR representative maintained that he needed to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card because the naturalization certificate was not on the I-9 lists. The worker called the OSC hotline, and we called the company’s HR department to explain that LPRs may not be reverified when their permanent resident card expires. A brief review of the M-274 was completed with the HR representative. HR stated that they would reinstate worker immediately.

Mobile, AL

On November 22, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention allowing an LPR to continue through the hiring process for a large government contractor. The employer initially refused an unexpired Form I-797 as proof of work authorization during the I-9 process because the worker’s permanent resident card had expired. We spoke with the employer and explained that the one-year extension on the I-797 should be treated as a List C document demonstrating work authorization. The employer accepted the explanation and stated that the worker will be allowed to continue with the hiring process.

Salt Lake City, UT

On November 24, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to arrange the reinstatement of two LPRs who had been improperly discharged when their employer discovered that their resident alien cards (Forms I-551) had expired. After discharging the workers, the employer contacted OSC for guidance on the propriety of its action. We advised that a resident alien card is issued to permanent residents who are not subject to Form I-9 reverification upon the expiration of the document. Based on this information, the employer decided to reinstate the workers to their former positions.

San Diego, CA

On November 29, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an F-1 student visa holder. The employer, a counseling service center, questioned the documents presented by worker for Form I-9 purposes. The student’s supervisor called OSC’s hotline to learn about acceptable I-9 documents for F-1 students and decided to keep the student on the payroll.

Newark, NJ

On December 2, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The employer, a national entertainment agency, insisted on requesting a Social Security card for I-9 purposes, after the worker presented an unexpired U.S. passport. The worker had misplaced her Social Security card and had not applied for a replacement. The worker called OSC, who in turn contacted the employer. OSC educated the employer on the documentation process for the Form I-9, noting that the unexpired passport satisfies I-9 requirements. The employer checked with its legal counsel and then permitted the worker to remain on the job.

Brooklyn, NY

On December 8, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR from Jamaica. Her employer, a home health agency, advised her that she will not be able to continue working when her permanent resident card expires unless she obtains a new card. OSC explained to the employer that permanent resident cards do not need to be reverified when they expire. The employer agreed to allow the LPR to continue working.

San Antonio, TX

On December 16, 2010, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was offered a job with a major software company, only to get laid off a week later because his permanent resident card had been expired at the time he was hired. However, the worker had also presented a copy of his unexpired driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card when he was hired. We called the employer and explained that an unrestricted Social Security card and driver’s license are sufficient for I-9 purposes, regardless of the fact that the worker’s permanent resident card has expired. The employer reinstated the worker immediately.

San Diego, CA

On December 21, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a LPR will remain employed. The worker contacted OSC to report that she was asked by her employer to present an unexpired permanent resident card or face termination. We explained to the employer that the work eligibility of LPRs need not be re-verified during the course of employment provided that the card was unexpired at the time of hire. The employer agreed to withdraw its request and informed the worker that she faced no risk of termination.

Baton Rouge, LA

On December 20, 2010, an OSC successfully intervened on behalf of a Venezuelan national who is a graduate student with Optional Practical Training (OPT) work authorization. The student’s university offered him a job, but misread the OPT rules to require that the student be run through E-Verify in order to be hired. At the same time, the university was reluctant to run an E-Verify query for the student, since it does not submit E-Verify queries for anyone else in the department. We called the E-Verify hotline with the worker and received confirmation that OPT recipients have to work for employers who use E-Verify, but that the employer does not have to run those individuals through E-Verify if that is not a requirement for the particular position (i.e., if the position is not related to a federal contract). We then explained this to the university, which then agreed to allow the student to start work.

San Diego, CA

On December 21, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a LPR will remain employed. The worker contacted OSC to report that she was asked by her employer to present an unexpired permanent resident card or face termination. We explained to the employer that the work eligibility of LPRs need not be re-verified during the course of employment provided that the card was unexpired at the time of hire. The employer agreed to withdraw its request and informed the worker that she faced no risk of termination.

Norcross, GA

On December 22, 2010, an OSC completed a successful intervention, helping a TPS recipient to obtain a Georgia driver’s license. The Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) improperly ran the individual through SAVE and erroneously notified him that he was not work authorized. The worker called the OSC’s hotline, and after numerous telephone calls and e-mails to the USCIS and the Georgia DMV general counsel, the TPS recipient was finally properly verified and given his new driver’s license.

Ojai, CA

On December 27, 2010, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been employed for over eight years with the same company, but his permanent resident card had recently expired and his employer had laid him off for that reason. We called the employer, explained the reverification process, and clarified that a permanent resident card should not be reverified. The worker was reinstated immediately, and the employer stated that it will pay him $467.20 in lost wages.

Dayton, TN

On January 5, 2011, as a result of a successful OSC telephone intervention, a Mexican LPR was able to continue working for an appliance manufacturer.  The worker’s employer told her she would be terminated if she did not present a renewed permanent resident card when her current card expires on January 8, 2011.  OSC called the employer and explained that LPRs do not lose their work authorization when their permanent resident cards expire, and re-verifying the employment eligibility of an LPR may constitute an unfair documentary practice in violation of the INA.  OSC also provided the employer with the I-9 employer handbook.  The employer indicated that it would not reverify the worker and would allow her to continue working. 

Houston, TX

On January 6, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, saving the job of an LPR.   To comply with the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process, the worker presented a Form I-94 with an I-551 stamp that was issued by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office in Houston, Texas, when the worker entered the United States upon returning from vacation in October 2010.  The Form I-94 grants the worker employment authorization until April 6, 2011, when the worker has to appear in court.  OSC contacted the employer to explain that the worker is authorized to work until the I-94 expiration date, at which time the employer will need to reverify the worker’s employment eligibility.  The employer agreed to allow the worker to return to work. 

Columbia, SC

On January 7, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of a LPR.  The worker was offered a job with a major drugstore chain, but was later told that there was a problem with her Social Security card and that she would have to be laid off.  The worker had recently become an LPR and had obtained a new Social Security card.   OSC spoke with employer, and it was determined that the vendor who processes criminal background checks for this drugstore uses a system that automatically denies employment for those with brand new Social Security cards.  HR personnel rectified the situation and reinstated the employee immediately.  

Brooklyn, NY

On January 13, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a conditional permanent resident alien whose permanent resident card (Form I-551 or “green card”) expired.  The employer refused to allow the worker to continue working until she produced the new card, and told her that she would be terminated if she did not.  OSC contacted the employer and learned that it is the employer’s policy to reverify all documents that expire.  OSC educated the employer on the I-9 process and further explained that an expiration date on the Form I-551 reflects only that the card must be renewed, not that the bearer’s work authorization has expired.  OSC further explained that the Handbook for Employers (M-274) specifically states that lawful permanent residents, including conditional permanent residents, may not have their employment eligibility reverified, nor are these employees required to produce a renewed card.  After OSC contacted the employer, the employer allowed the employee to return to work and committed to follow proper Form I-9 procedures. 

Minneapolis, MN

On March 1, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to assist an LPR, originally from Liberia, begin working in an employment training program.  The worker had not renewed his permanent resident card when it expired.  The employer informed the LPR that he could not begin working until he received a new permanent resident card.  We called the employer and explained that LPRs do not lose their work authorization when their cards expire, and she agreed to accept the worker’s unrestricted Social Security card as proof of work authorization and his state identification card as proof of his identity.   The worker began working immediately. 

Cupertino, CA

On Friday February 25, 2011, OSC successfully resolved a telephone intervention saving the job of a work authorized immigrant who was fired after two weeks on the job.  At the time of hire, she presented her interim California driver’s license and her Social Security card.  The employer was under the impression that the interim driver’s license was to be treated as a receipt and that the employee would need to produce the actual license within 90 days.  Since California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is taking up to 120 days to issue driver’s licenses, the employer made the decision to fire the employee on the week of February 7, 2011.  We called the employer and explained that an interim driver’s license may be presented as a Form I-9 identity document.  The employer indicated that it would rehire the worker and provide her with back pay. 

Carrolton, TX

On March 14, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to assist a U.S. citizen who was born in South Korea and adopted by U.S. citizen parents.  During the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process, the employer was reluctant to accept a List C document, an original Texas birth certificate, produced by the worker.  The Texas birth certificate, while indicating the worker was born in Korea, also indicated that the adoptive parents are U.S. citizens.   After OSC explained that the original birth certificate was issued by a state government agency, and is the fourth document category listed on the Form I-9’s List C of Acceptable Documents sufficient to demonstrate employment eligibility, the employer accepted the documented and kept the worker employed. 

Wichita, KS

On March 21, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR.  For Form I-9 purposes, the LPR presented an unrestricted Social Security card.  However, her employer thought that it could not accept the card because she is not a U.S. citizen and her permanent resident card is expired.  OSC explained that LPRs, like a U.S. citizens, are work authorized incident to their status and may present an unrestricted Social Security card to establish their work authorization.  The employer accepted the worker’s Social Security card, and she began work. 

New Orleans, LA

On March 22, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was offered a job with a large refinery company; however, the worker failed to write down his Alien number when completing Section 1 of his I-9 Form, and was called back to complete the missing information on the form.  The worker had presented his unexpired driver's license and Social Security card as proof of his work authorization.  When the worker returned to fill in the missing number, he showed his I-551 (Permanent Resident card), which is expired.  HR personnel told the worker that he could not begin work because of his expired I-551.  OSC spoke with the employer and educated the employer about proper I-9 procedures.  The employer called the worker to allow him to start working. 

Monroe, NC

On April 1, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a U.S. citizen was reinstated to the position for which she was hired.  The worker contacted OSC to report that her receipt for a Social Security card was not accepted by the employer for the purpose of completing the Form I-9, and that by the time she returned to the employer with a Social Security card, the employer had filled her position.  We explained to the employer that it should have accepted the Social Security card receipt and permitted the worker to begin work.  The employer agreed to hire the worker at a different, but nearby, location and permit her to begin work immediately.  

San Marcos, CA

On April 1, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a US citizen.  The worker presented an unexpired driver’s license and a Social Security card for I-9 purposes, and the employer photocopied the worker’s documents.  A couple of months later, the employer could not locate the worker’s I-9 form, although it still had the photocopies of the documents.  The employer requested that the worker fill out another I-9 form and show proof of his work authorization documents.  By this time, the worker’s driver’s license had expired; consequently, the worker was taken off the schedule until he could present a new unexpired license. The worker spoke with an OSC staffer, who in turn contacted the employer’s HR department.  The OSC staffer spoke with the employer about the fact that the worker’s license was not expired at the time of hire when he presented proof of his identity.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to the job immediately.  

Jacksonville, FL

On April 6, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention that permitted a conditional permanent resident to continue in the hiring process at a supermarket.  The store uses a third party proprietary background check company to investigate applicants.  That company notified the employer that the applicant’s name and Social Security number did not match, and said the employee would need to have SSA fax a letter to the employer confirming the number belongs to the worker.  The SSA field office refused to fax such a letter and instead provided a form letter with instructions to use the SSNVS system.  OSC spoke to counsel for the supermarket and explained that the worker believes the background report is erroneous, and that her documentation shows that she is authorized to work.  The company immediately called the worker in to continue the hiring process. 

Las Vegas, NV

On April 7, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an asylee.  When the worker began employment he presented an unexpired EAD for Form I-9 purposes.  Upon reverification, the worker presented a valid Form I-94, stamped with indefinite asylum status, along with an unexpired driver’s license.  However, the employer insisted on obtaining a new EAD from the worker.  We contacted the employer’s HR office to provide guidance on the reverification process and the worker was reinstated immediately.  

Rye, NY 

On April 11, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR from St. Kitts and Nevis.  The worker worked last season at a county-owned amusement park, but was told she could not return to work this year because her permanent resident card had expired, even though she presented alternate documents to satisfy Form I-9 requirements.  We called the employer to explain that permanent residents do not lose their right to work when their permanent resident cards expire.  The employer called the worker and invited her to work.

Falls Church, VA

On April 11, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of an LPR whose permanent resident card (Form I-551) has expired.  The employer notified the worker that she would need to bring in an unexpired permanent resident card or she would be terminated.  We contacted the employer and learned that it is the employer’s policy to reverify permanent residents when their cards expire.  We educated the employer on the Form  I-9 reverification process and explained that an expiration date on the Form I-551 reflects only that the card must be renewed, not that the bearer’s work authorization has expired.  OSC further explained that the USCIS Handbook for Employers (Instructions for Completing the Form I-9) specifically states that permanent residents, including conditional permanent residents, may not have their employment eligibility reverified, nor are these workers required to produce a renewed card.  After OSC contacted the employer, the employer agreed to allow the worker to work and said that it would implement proper Form I-9 reverification procedures.

New York, NY

On April 12, 2011, OSC intervened on behalf of a worker with Conditional Legal Permanent Resident and saved her job.  For Form I-9 reverification, the individual presented a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) stating that her status has been extended for a period of one year.  The employer hesitated to accept the document and contacted OSC’s employer hotline seeking clarification.  We informed the employer that the type of document presented by the worker is a Form I-9 List C document that employers should accept, if it appears to relate to the person and to be reasonably genuine on its face.  The employer said that it would accept the document and allow the worker to continue in employment. 

Fayetteville, AR

On April 22, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a Micronesian citizen.  The worker was admitted as a non-immigrant under the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia.  He presented an EAD at the time of initial hiring, and then showed an unexpired driver's license and an unrestricted Social Security card for reverification purposes.  The employer rejected these documents, insisting that the worker present an unexpired EAD or a Form I-94, but the worker had lost his I-94 and had not renewed his EAD.  We contacted the employer and explained that the worker had the right to choose which combination of Form I-9 List B and C documents to present.  The employer then immediately reinstated the worker.  

Los Angeles, CA

On April 29, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a student from Peru holding an F-1 visa with curricular practical training (“CPT”).  Both the student and the employer, a Los Angeles-based hotel, were unsure about the documents that the student could present for I-9 purposes.  The employer had a cooperative agreement with the university the student attends, but the employer’s corporate office had failed to explain to the student that the internship required her to complete an I-9 form, despite the fact that the student was not receiving a salary.  OSC reached out to the employer’s counsel to learn more about the policy that required the student to complete an I-9 form, and discussed which documents (her unexpired foreign passport with a stamp along with her Form I-20) would be acceptable for F-1 students to present to comply with the policy.  With OSC’s assistance, the employer’s counsel explained to the student that her internship met the definition of CPT, she received remuneration in the form of free meals and parking for I-9 purposes, and therefore she was required by law to complete an I-9 form.  The employer’s counsel advised OSC that after explaining to the student why she needed to complete the I-9 form, the student presented all of the required documents, and she was able to begin her curricular practical training. 

Brooklyn, NY

On April 29, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a conditional permanent resident from St. Lucia.  After the worker accepted an offer of employment at a hospital, for I-9 purposes she presented her expired Permanent Resident Card along with a letter from USCIS that explained her employment authorization was extended for one year.  The employer would not accept this combination of documents.  The worker’s Social Security card is not acceptable for I-9 purposes because it includes the language “valid for work only with DHS authorization.”  OSC explained to the worker that she could have obtained an unrestricted Social Security card when she was issued her Permanent Resident Card, and this unrestricted card would have sufficed to prove work authorization.  OSC then explained to the employer that the combination of the expired Permanent Resident Card plus the letter from USCIS comprise valid documentation to prove employment authorization for one year.  The employer decided to allow the worker to begin her employment. 

Brambleton, VA

On May 12, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention which enabled a conditional permanent resident to begin working at a health club.  The HR representative at the club's corporate office told the club manager that the worker could not begin working until she received her ten-year permanent resident card, since her two-year conditional permanent resident card was expired.  The worker believed she could begin working immediately because her unrestricted Social Security card proves she is work authorized and because she has an unexpired Virginia driver's license.  USCIS told her that her permanent resident card would not arrive for another four to six months.  The worker called OSC for clarification. OSC contacted the club manager and HR representative to explain to them that the worker had provided sufficient documentation to satisfy the Form I-9 requirements, and the health club decided to allow her to begin working immediately. 

El Paso, TX

On May 16, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a student on an F-1 visa.  The employer, a major university, had initially made the job offer to the F-1 student under the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, but later rescinded the offer with no specific explanation to the student.  The individual called OSC to request assistance on how to resolve the issue.  OSC contacted the employer and discussed the OPT program. The employer's representative stated that the university had rescinded the job offer while it was making sure that it could legally employ and pay the student.  Upon its better understanding of the OPT program, the employer stated that it would offer the job back to the student.

Miami, FL

On May 18, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR.  The employee had just started working and had presented his Permanent Resident Card, driver's license, and unrestricted Social Security card as proof of his work authorization.  However, Human Resources personnel noticed that the Permanent Resident Card had expired and advised the worker that he had three days to provide an unexpired card or a document from USCIS stating that he is work authorized.  OSC called the employer's HR department and explained that a combination of unexpired List B and List C documents is sufficient proof of work authorization for I-9 purposes.  The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that the employer would rectify the situation immediately.

Phoenix, AZ

On May 27, 2011, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved a U.S. citizen’s job with a company that provides video transfer services.  The worker’s state identification card did not have an expiration date.  Since the I-9 form includes a blank line for “expiration date,” the employer told the worker it could not accept his card.  The worker tried to obtain a new card at the motor vehicle department, but was told his old card was valid and that in the past, Arizona state identification cards did not include expiration dates.  OSC called the employer to explain that the card was valid and should be accepted.  The employer decided to accept the card and allowed the worker to return to work.

Sealy, TX

On June 3, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, saving the job of an LPR whose green card was about to expire.  Having recently lost his green card, the worker  contacted the company's HR Department to  request a copy of his green card information on file, so that he could apply for a new card.  The HR representative who reviewed his file noticed that the employee's green card had an expiration date of June 12, 2011.  Based on this information, the HR representative informed him that he would be terminated on June 12.  Furthermore, the worker would not receive the severance package promised to him upon his imminent lay-off unless he produced evidence that he had renewed his green card.  OSC contacted the HR department as well as the company's legal counsel, who agreed that the employee did not need to produce a renewed green card to continue his employment with the company.  Additionally, the worker would still be entitled to a severance package when it was time for him to be laid off. 

Danielson, CT

On July 29, 2011, OSC successfully resolved a telephone intervention to ensure a retired U.S. Military veteran received accurate retirement benefits. SSA had denied the caller retirement benefits for a 6‐ month period (October 2010 through April 2011), because he did not have proof that he was a Legal Permanent Resident ("LPR") before naturalizing. The caller did not have a permanent resident card because he entered as a child and his mother never gave him one. He naturalized on April 1, 2011 and became eligible for SSA retirement benefits based on his age in October 2010. Through an intervention by the OSC Hotline, in cooperation with SSA and the USCIS Office of Public Engagement, his benefits for the 6‐month period in question were quickly restored.

Brentwood, NY

On July 29, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was told by her employer (a healthcare agency) that it would not accept her List B and C documents, driver's license and Social Security card, because one of the documents had her maiden name whereas the other document showed her married name. The worker provided additional documents to prove the name change, but the employer refused to accept the documents. The worker then called OSC. Our office called the employer and explained that if the documents appear to be genuine and to reasonably relate to the person the employer may accept them as valid I‐9 documents. OSC cited the M‐274, Employer Manual p.41, where one of the FAQs addresses the topic of married vs. maiden names. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue the hiring process.

Tucson, AZ

On August 8, 2011, OSC intervened on behalf of a U.S. Citizen who was hired to work in the accounting office of a commercial agriculture business. The worker presented an unexpired U.S. passport during the I‐9 process, and the employer insisted on seeing the worker's Social Security card. The worker explained that the passport was a valid List A document and that he should not have to show additional documentation. However, the employer insisted that the worker produce a Social Security card in order to verify the worker's Social Security number. The worker called OSC to explain the situation, and OSC reached out to the employer. The employer's representative explained that the employer has this policy because it had received letters in the past from the Social Security Administration notifying it that certain worker's Social Security numbers did not match their names. OSC educated the employer about document abuse, and referred the employer's representative to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M‐274). The employer decided to change it current policy, and OSC contacted the worker to assure him the issue had been resolved.

Colorado Spring, CO

On August 9, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. Citizen who was not allowed to continue the employment application process because she did not have a state‐issued ID. The worker is under the age of 18, and the employer (a national fast‐food chain) was not accepting any applicants who were unable to show a state issued‐ID as their List B document. The workers' mother called OSC and asked us to intervene because she found the USCIS Handbook for Employers and the guidance concerning workers under the age of 18. OSC called the manager of the restaurant, and he explained that he did not accept documents other than state‐issued IDs because in the past he has had issues with false documents. When OSC called the HR director in Colorado Springs, the HR director explained that the employer use E‐Verify, and that each restaurant manager is supposed to know which documents are acceptable as List B document for the E‐Verify process when a worker is under the age of 18 (for example: a report card). The director of Human Resources reached out to the restaurant's manager and to the worker, and notified OSC that the worker was offered a job and will be starting orientation this week. She also explained that the district manager will be personally training this restaurant manager on the proper way to handle applicants under the age of 18.

Goshen, NY

On August 23, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a worker who was granted U‐Visa status, and issued an EAD, because she cooperated in the investigation of a violent crime committed against her. The employer, a staffing agency, failed to provide the worker with a DHS referral letter after E‐Verify issued a TNC. Because the worker was not provided with instructions for contacting DHS, the nonconfirmation became final. The staffing agency told the worker it would not be able to assign her to any positions. OSC called and explained to the employer how to invalidate the first query and run a new one. The new query resulted in a TNC because the worker's EAD has the incorrect birth date, but the DHS status verifiers assisted in resolving the query as employment authorized. As a result, the staffing agency decided to place the worker on an assignment.

Chicago, IL

On August 23, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of a work‐authorized individual who had been suspended for a week by his employer, a major U.S. airline. The worker was suspended after the employer rejected the worker's unrestricted Social Security card for the worker's employment authorization reverification, and instead required that the worker provide a new EAD. OSC called the airline's corporate headquarters and discussed with HR personnel the applicable regulations as explained in the Handbook for Employers (M‐274). The worker was rehired.

Houston, TX

On August 25, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR originally from Mexico. The employer was unable to correctly enter data from the worker's Permanent Resident Card into the electronic I‐9 program it utilizes. The manager was attempting to enter the worker's nine‐digit alien registration number into the thirteen‐character card number field. When he received a message stating the card number was invalid, he instructed the worker to bring him proof from USCIS that he is authorized to work. OSC explained to the manager that rejecting valid documents could be an unfair employment practice (document abuse) and explained to him the difference between the alien registration number and the card number. The manager was then able to process the electronic I‐9 and E‐Verify query, and the worker was allowed to begin working. The manager stated that he planned to call in another worker whose I‐9 he was unable to process the week before, process her application and similarly allow her to begin working.

Des Moines, IA

On September 2, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR originally from Mexico. The tree services company where he had been employed as a contractor recently offered him a permanent position. The employer cited three erroneous reasons for rejected the worker's Permanent Resident Card (PRC) when he completed the I‐9 form: first, the photograph on the card was not a full frontal photo; second, the card color was different from the cards issued after 2004; third, a thin layer of plastic was coming apart from the card. The employer did not provide the worker with an opportunity to present other I‐9 documents; instead the employer instructed the worker to visit USCIS and bring back written notification from USCIS that he is an LPR. When OSC called counsel for the employer, counsel acknowledged that the worker should be able to present alternate documents for the Form I‐9, such as a receipt for a lost Social Security card. The following day, the worker visited both SSA and USCIS, and then presented to his employer two documents: a receipt for a Social Security card, and a handwritten note from USCIS stating his PRC was valid. However, the employer refused to accept these documents and insisted that the worker present either an original Social Security card or a new PRC. After OSC called counsel again, the employer accepted the worker's receipt from SSA as a temporary List C document proving his employment eligibility, and completed the hiring process.

Falls Church, VA

On September 14, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that an LPR kept his position. The worker contacted OSC to report that his employer, a non‐profit organization, had threatened to terminate him because his LPR card had expired. OSC contacted the employer and the employer decided to continue employing the worker and to stop reverifying LPRs.

Alexandria, VA

On September 20, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker had been working for a major retail store for several years. Recently, the employer advised the worker that his Permanent Resident Card had just expired and suspended him until he could produce a new unexpired card. An OSC staff member called the Human Resources Director's office and discussed the reverification process, explaining that a Permanent Resident Card must not be reverified. The Human Resources personnel accepted the explanation and allowed the employee to return to work immediately, and also decided to pay him one day's worth of lost wages.

Miami, FL

On September 28, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the jobs of an LPR. An employer called because a newly hired employee lost her permanent resident card and most other forms of identification when she was recently robbed. However, she received a receipt for a new permanent resident card and a temporary permanent card. OSC explained the "receipt rule" to the employer and stated that either document was acceptable for form I‐9 purposes.

Kissimmee, FL

On September 28, 2011, OSC completed a successful intervention, allowing an employee to return to her job at a dental office and receive her paycheck. The worker called OSC when her employer told her there was a problem with her Alien Registration Receipt Card, the version of the "green card" that was in effect from 1977 until 1997. Prior to 1989, this version of the card did not generally contain an expiration date. When OSC called the employer we learned that it was the company's new payroll processor, not the employer, that was rejecting the card. OSC explained to the payroll company that the card did not need an expiration date, and e‐mailed the payroll company the most recent version of the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The payroll processor representative continued to refuse to honor the card because it was faded and she could not make out the text on the back of the card. OSC explained that employers must accept documents that appear genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, and that even if an employer questioned a card's authenticity, the employer must give the worker the opportunity to present other Form I‐9 documents. The payroll company representative then insisted this individual would not be allowed to present a driver's license and Social Security card as proof of employment authorization, because she is not a U.S. citizen. OSC may initiate an investigation of the payroll company; meanwhile, the payroll company obtained a clearer copy of the card and agreed to pay the worker. The employer reinstated her immediately.

 

Fiscal Year 2010

Port Townsend, WA

On October 28, 2009, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer, a healthcare company, insisted that she present a Social Security Card for Form I-9 purposes and refused to accept her unexpired U.S. passport. We called the company’s corporate headquarters, which was able to trace the problem and re-educate the company’s human resources personnel. The employee was then notified by the company that it would accept her passport and allow her to continue working.

Dallas, TX

On November 4, 2009, an OSC attorney intervened on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and saved her job. The individual presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card for employment eligibility verification form I-9 purposes at the time of hire. The employer attempted to reverify the employee after the Permanent Resident Card expired, insisted that the worker produce an unexpired card, and threatened to suspend her when she was unable to do so. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained that Permanent Resident Cards (also known as alien registration receipt cards, Forms I-551, resident alien cards, or “green cards”), which are issued to lawful permanent residents and conditional residents, should not be re-verified upon expiration. The employer then permitted the LPR to continue working.

Berryville, AR

On November 10, 2009, OSC successfully intervened by telephone in order to allow a U.S. citizen, born in Puerto Rico, to continue to apply for a position at a chicken processing plant. According to the worker, the employer asked to see his employment eligibility documents prior to offering him a position. He produced his State I.D. card and Social Security card, and was allegedly informed that the documents did not appear to belong to him. The worker then brought additional proof of his identity to the company: his Puerto Rican birth certificate and a letter from Social Security verifying that his name and Social Security Number matched. The human resources representatives refused to consider these additional documents. OSC called the company’s compliance officer, who acknowledged the company previously employed a different person under this Social Security number. The company agreed to interview the worker and offer him a position once satisfied the documents belonged to the worker.

Yukon, OK

On November 16, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a LPR of Vietnamese origin. The worker suspended from her job at a manufacturing company because the alien registration number (A number) on her permanent resident card was different from the number on the EAD that she presented when she first began working for the company. When the EAD expired in 2004, the employer accepted the worker’s permanent resident card without noticing the discrepancy. Five years later, during an audit of its I-9 forms, the employer noticed that the A numbers were different and suspended the worker and asked her to explain why there were two different A-numbers on her documents. OSC called the employer to explain that employers are required to honor documents that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the person. The employer allowed the worker the return to work the following day.

Chicago, IL

On November 18, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a recent Azerbaijani immigrant to begin working at a home health agency. After she presented her unrestricted Social Security card and Illinois State I.D., documents sufficient to prove her identity and work authorization for the I-9 form, the employer requested her “green card.” The worker showed her passport, which includes a machine readable immigrant visa, with an endorsement by DHS Customs and Border Security indicating that the visa serves as evidence of an I-551 (Permanent Resident card, a.k.a. “green card”) for one year. The employer rejected this document, insisting only a green card would be acceptable. OSC called the employer to explain that workers may choose which documents to present for the I-9 and that employers may not specify which documents they will accept. OSC explained that the employer should have accepted the documents the employee originally presented, and that even if the employee had presented her passport and visa first, that document is also found in the List of Acceptable documents and would have been acceptable proof of identity and work authorization. The employer agreed to hire the worker.

Raleigh, NC

On December 22, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). For employment eligibility verification (form I-9) purposes, the LPR presented an unrestricted Social Security card and a North Carolina driver’s license. However, the employer would not accept the card because the worker had indicated that he is an LPR on Section 1 of the Form I-9. An OSC attorney explained that LPRs, like US citizens, are work authorized incident to their status. OSC also provided the employer with educational materials. The employer agreed to accept the worker’s Social Security card in combination with his North Carolina driver’s license, and allowed the worker to keep his job.

Kilauea, HI

On January 4, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a foreign student holding temporary work authorization. The student alleged that his employer rejected his employment documents – which appear on the list of acceptable documents on the Form I-9 – and demanded to see additional documents. After calling the student’s employment sponsor to clarify his status, OSC called his employer to explain the Form I-9 process for accepting documents from workers holding temporary employment authorization. The student was then able to begin working.

Tampa, FL

On January 21, 2010, OSC assisted a Cuban humanitarian parolee secure an airport security access credential allowing her to work within the Tampa airport. Initially, there was a misunderstanding whether a non-citizen is required to produce more or different documentation to the airport badging office than required by the Form I-9 under a security directive issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Following discussions with the regional TSA representative, we determined that only additional information, not additional documentation, is required for non-citizens in order to process the application for an airport access badge. The information was provided, and a security clearance was granted.

Birmingham, AL

On January 22, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. When originally hired, the worker presented her permanent resident card to demonstrate her employment eligibility. When that document expired, her employer requested that she present a new, unexpired document for reverification. We contacted the employer to explain that the work authorization of LPRs never expires, and that they should not be reverified when their permanent resident card expires. In response, the employer indicated that the worker would be permitted to keep her job.

Falls Church, VA

On January 28, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of a Hispanic worker with Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status and saved his job. For the Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification process, the individual presented a current Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551. The employer hesitated to accept the document and contacted OSC’s employer hotline seeking clarification. OSC informed the employer that the document presented by the employee satisfies the Lists of Acceptable Documents on the Form I-9 and that requesting more or different documents might constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the worker.

Los Angeles, CA

On February 16, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker presented a driver’s license and birth certificate for Form I-9 employment eligibility purposes during an I-9 audit by the employer. The employee contacted OSC because the employer refused to accept her birth certificate, and was told that she would be terminated if she failed to present a Social Security card. We explained to the employer that the Form I-9 lists an original or certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate as a valid employment eligibility (List C) document. OSC also explained that seeking more or different documents during the employment eligibility verification process may constitute unlawful document abuse. The employer accepted the documents and allowed the employee to continue working.

Dulles, VA

On February 18, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an asylee from Ethiopia who works at for an employer based in an airport. Her airport badge was set to expire at the end of January, and when she attempted to renew her badge, the badging office rejected the application. The badging office claimed that a DHS official had examined the documents that the worker presented and informed the badging office that neither her unrestricted Social Security nor her Form I-94 stamped “asylum granted” were acceptable as proof of employment authorization. The badging office was also told that the worker would need to obtain a new EAD or permanent resident card from DHS. OSC discussed the TSA security directive with the badging officer and explained that TSA’s requirements for badge issuance are identical to I-9 documentation requirements. The badging office director then accepted the worker’s unrestricted Social Security card, and she is back at work.

Fairbanks, AK

On February 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a lawful permanent resident to continue working in her position as a hospital nurse. When she first began working in the position more than ten years ago, she presented a temporary employment authorization document (EAD) that she had received as an applicant for adjustment of status to permanent residency. When the EAD expired, she presented her permanent resident card. During the course of an audit, the employer noticed that the permanent resident card expired and required the worker to obtain proof from DHS that she was still work authorized. The worker traveled to USCIS and received a temporary stamp in her passport, but she was concerned because her employer told her she would not be able to work after the temporary stamp expired. OSC explained to the employer that regardless of the attestation in Section I of the I-9 (the worker originally checked “alien authorized to work” and included an expiration date) permanent resident cards should not be re-verified. We explained that permanent residents never lose their employment authorization. The employer indicated that it would not re-verify the employee or require her to present additional documents, and she has continued to work.

Springfield, VA

On March 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who works for a contractor at a site run by a sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The contractor was allowing the employee to work, but the security at the job site was requiring additional proof of her citizenship status. She had misplaced her naturalization certificate and did not have a passport. A representative at the job site told OSC that if the worker did not present a passport or a naturalization certificate, she would not be able to work on the site. OSC explained that DHS has access to the worker’s naturalization records and should be able to confirm her status without requiring additional documents. The security representative at the site acquiesced and the worker has begun working at the site.

Phoenix, AZ

On March 11, 2010, OSC helped a Cuban refugee attain a driver’s license by communicating with the Arizona Motor Vehicles Division (MVD). When the refugee attempted to get a driver’s license at the MVD in Phoenix, he provided an Arizona Driver Instruction Permit, Social Security card, and passport. The refugee’s documentation indicated that he had become a political refugee from Cuba as of August 16, 2005. After OSC explained that a refugee has indefinite work authorization status, MVD issued a driver's license with an expiration date of August 16, 2010 and explained that a refugee is entitled to an unlimited number of one-year license renewals gaining permanent resident status. The complainant has also been given the phone number of a Spanish-speaking MVD employee in case he has any further questions or concerns.

New York, NY

On March 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a legal permanent resident. During the Form I-9 employment verification process the individual presented a current permanent resident card, DHS Form I-551. The employer hesitated to accept the document and contacted the OSC employer hotline seeking clarification. We explained to the employer that the document presented by the employee satisfies Form I-9 requirements and should be accepted. We also explained that requesting more or different documents could constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the worker.

Hialeah, FL

On March 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a legal permanent resident. For Form I-9 employment verification purposes the employee presented an unrestricted Social Security card and a current Florida driver’s license, but the employer insisted that the individual produce a permanent resident card. We contacted the employer and explained that the documents presented by the employee satisfy the Form I-9 work eligibility verification and should be accepted. Moreover, OSC informed the employer that requesting more or different documents could constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document presented by the worker and to hire her.

West Haven, CT

On March 22, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and ensured the employment of a legal permanent resident (LPR). When completing the Form I-9, the LPR provided the employer with a current driver’s license, an unrestricted Social Security card, and an expired permanent resident card (Form I-551). The employer called OSC’s hotline to determine whether it could continue the hiring process by relying only on the LPR’s unrestricted Social Security card and current driver’s license in completing the Form I-9, even though it had knowledge that the Form I-551 has expired. We explained to the employer that the presentation of an expired Form I-551 does not preclude the employer’s reliance on the other two acceptable documents to establish identity and work authorization. Based on this guidance, the employer continued the hiring process.

Memphis, TN

On April 7, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a Liberian recipient of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work. Tennessee initially refused to renew the DED recipient’s driver’s license because her employment authorization document (EAD) bears an expiration date of March 31, 2010, and she had not proven that she had registered for a new EAD. We contacted the Tennessee Department of Safety and informed it of DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Liberian DED recipients until September 30, 2010. Consequently, the Liberian was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work.

Issaquah, WA

On April 9, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to prevent the termination of a temporarily work authorized person from India whose EAD expired this month. She applied for a renewal last December and received a notice showing that application was approved. However, the card never arrived, and she was required by USCIS to re-apply for a replacement of that card in March. For Form I-9 reverification purposes, the employer refused the receipt from the application to replace the card that had been lost because it did not bear the notation “replacement,” as it should. When we learned of the problem, we contacted USCIS to request that a duplicate receipt be issued including the word “replacement.” Meanwhile, the employer agreed to accept the first receipt and the worker will return to work shortly.

Phoenix, AZ

On April 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a naturalized U.S. citizen to return to her employment with an electronics retailer. When the worker first arrived in the United States from Mexico, she was not yet an LPR and was issued a restricted Social Security card with the inscription “valid for work only with DHS authorization.” Upon becoming a LPR, she did not obtain an unrestricted card from the Social Security Administration (SSA), nor did she visit SSA to tell it that she had naturalized. Thus, the employer properly rejected the restricted card for Form I-9 purposes since it does not prove work authorization. When the worker called OSC, we suggested that she visit SSA and obtain a receipt for a replacement card, since receipts for replacement documents are valid for Form I-9 purposes for 90 days. The employer also rejected the worker’s receipt. We explained to the employer that workers are permitted to present receipts for a lost, stolen or damaged document under the rules governing the I-9 process. OSC also explained that the employer should not request more or additional documents than those required by the Form I-9. The employer agreed to reinstate the worker.

Brooklyn, NY

On April 13, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). A human resources supervisor was unsure whether to terminate the LPR because his “Resident Alien” card had expired, and he did not have an unexpired card. The supervisor believed that DHS required termination of the worker because he held an expired card. We explained to the employer that LPRs authorized to work incident to their status and should not be re-verified when their resident alien cards expire. An OSC attorney faxed outreach materials regarding LPRs to the supervisor. As a result, the worker was not terminated.

Springfield, VA

On April 14, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved a naturalized citizen’s job for the second time in two months. OSC intervened last month, enabling the employee to continue working for a contractor on a site run by a sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The contractor’s site security required proof of U.S. citizenship in order for the employee to remain employed, and OSC facilitated in getting the employer to issue the employee a badge for 30 days, allowing her time to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. The employee had documents that satisfy the Form I-9 requirements (i.e., an unrestricted Social Security card and a driver’s license), but had misplaced her naturalization certificate and did not yet have a passport. The employee called OSC when the 30 days were about to expire because she had applied for, but not received, a U.S. passport, and we again asked the employer’s site security to allow her to continue working. The site security office agreed and the employee continues to work.

Troy, MI

On April 19, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and helped a U.S. citizen become eligible for work through a temporary staffing agency. At the time of hire, the employee presented a State ID along with a receipt for a replacement Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer would not accept the Social Security card receipt although the receipt rule requires an employer to accept a receipt for a replacement document when the document has been lost, stolen, or damaged, and that receipt is valid for 90 days. We called the employer and explained that the Social Security card receipt is a valid List C document for Form I-9 purposes. The employer subsequently placed the worker on the list of eligible hires.

New York, NY

On April 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The human resources manager at a nursing home contacted OSC for guidance because she was unsure whether to terminate the LPR when her conditional Permanent Resident Card had expired. OSC explained that conditional LPRs are authorized to work incident to their status and should not be re-verified when their PRCs expire, including in instances in which they possess a conditional PRC. As a result, the worker was allowed to keep her job.

Newark, NJ

On April 28, 2010, OSC completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a lawful permanent resident who had held the same job for 28 years, could return to work. The worker was suspended by his employer, a hospital, because the permanent resident card on file for the worker expired, and the worker was unable to provide an unexpired card. OSC explained that employees who provide a permanent resident card to complete a Form I-9 should not be reverified when the card expires. The employer indicated that it would return the employee to work right away and pay the worker for the week and a half he missed due to the improper document request.

Monroe, NC

On April 26, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention ensuring that a U.S. citizen who recently changed her legal name could continue to work. The employee recently married and informed her employer of her new name. The employer required that the employee complete a new Form I-9 and provide documents with her new name, even after the employee voluntarily showed her marriage certificate. The employee also stated that her employer told her that her request to update her direct deposit account would not take effect until she provided her new documents (the employer denied this). OSC contacted the employer and explained that an employer must accept I-9 documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, and must not reject documents that satisfy this standard. The employer then contacted the employee and told her that she was no longer required to provide additional documentation and that her Form I-9 was complete.

Allendale, NJ

On April 28, 2010, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, preventing an employer from taking an adverse employment action against a lawful permanent resident. The employer, a nursing home, conducted an audit of its Employment Eligibility Verification Forms (Forms I-9). After completing the audit, the nursing home requested that an employee, who presented an Alien Registration Card when she was hired three years ago, produce a Social Security card. The employee went to the Social Security office and obtained a receipt for the Social Security card application and then contacted OSC to determine if the receipt was sufficient. OSC contacted the employer and explained to the human resources representative that an employer should not re-verify lawful permanent residents after hire, and that the employee provided sufficient documentation at the time of hire and should not be asked to produce a Social Security card. OSC also sent the employer a copy of the Handbook for Employers and provided it with OSC’s hotline telephone numbers.

Northridge, CA

On May 5, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR), who was terminated from employment. The LPR’s employer conducted an internal audit of its I-9 forms and determined that some of its current employees had expired work authorization. In seeking to reverify those workers, it mistakenly concluded that because the Resident Alien Card that the worker had initially presented at the time of hire bore no expiration date, the worker’s employment authorization needed to be reverified. The worker contacted OSC when she was asked to bring in a new card and told that she could not work until she did. OSC contacted the president of the company and learned that indeed the employer had inappropriately asked to see a new card. The OSC attorney explained that lawful permanent residents may not be reverified. The employer agreed to invite the employee back to work immediately and to pay her back pay for the day of work that she had missed. The employer’s president also agreed to familiarize her staff with the information contained in the Handbook for Employers published by USCIS.

Sun Prairie, WI

On May 14, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an employment authorized individual to begin work. The employer, a national retail store, rejected the employee’s EAD and asked her to produce additional documents before she could begin working. We contacted the store and explained that the employee had already produced sufficient documentation for Form I-9 purposes, and that to demand more or different documents may constitute a violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. The employer allowed the worker to begin work that day.

Taunton, MA

On May 17, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a lawful conditional permanent resident. During the initial I-9 employment eligibility verification process, the employee presented an expired resident alien card. The employer rejected the expired card and demanded a new resident alien card before the employee could begin to work. The employee then presented Form I-797C, which is a Receipt Notice documenting the employee’s application for a new resident alien card. The notice states that the employee’s status is extended for a period of one year and that the extension authorizes employment. OSC informed the employer that this particular Receipt Notice is an acceptable Form I-9 document and can be presented for employment eligibility purposes when provided in conjunction with an identity document. OSC also directed the employer to the specific page of USCIS’s Handbook for Employers that discusses the acceptability of this document. The employer then accepted the employee’s Receipt Notice and an identity document and allowed him to begin work the next day.

El Paso, TX

On May 27, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention and allowed a U.S. citizen to begin her employment at an automobile dealership. For Form I-9 purposes, the citizen presented her unexpired U.S. passport as proof of both her identity and work authorization. The employer told her that she would not be able to start working until she also produced her Social Security card, pointing to “U.S. Social Security account number card” on the I-9 Lists of acceptable documents. OSC called the employer to explain that it may not require this additional document as part of the Form I-9 process. The employer then permitted the worker to begin work.

New York, NY

On June 15, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of a Guyanese national with lawful permanent resident status and saved her job. During the employment eligibility verification (form I-9) process, the individual presented a newly redesigned “Permanent Resident Card,” Form I-551. The employer hesitated to accept the document and contacted OSC’s employer hotline seeking clarification. OSC informed the employer both that the new Form I-551 satisfies the I-9 form requirements if it relates to the person and appears genuine on its face, and that requesting more or different documents may constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer then accepted the document and allowed the worker to continue to work.

Houston, TX

On June 17, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a worker with a TN NAFTA visa. The worker arrived in the U.S. legally to accompany her spouse, who works here as an inter-company transferee. She completed a course to become certified as a Clinical Laboratory Technician, a position that qualifies under the NAFTA regulations. Once she received a written job offer from a laboratory, she received a TN-visa, which authorized her to work. When she presented the document as part of the I-9 employment eligibility process, the employer did not believe the document allowed her to work in the U.S. OSC explained to the employer’s counsel that such visas authorize the holders to work. The employer agreed to allow the worker to begin her employment.

Kearney, NE

On June 28, 2010, OSC saved the job of a lawful permanent resident as a result of a successfully completed telephone intervention. When the worker’s Resident Alien Card (RAC) expired, the employer requested the employee to provide a new, unexpired RAC to verify her continued employment eligibility. When the worker explained that it would take several months to receive a new card, the employer called OSC for guidance. We explained to the employer that permanent residents who present valid RACs at the time of initial hire should never be reverified since their right to work never expires. We further explained that re verifying a permanent resident and then firing her because she cannot present a new RAC may constitute document abuse under the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. The employer agreed to continue to employ the permanent resident and promised not to reverify permanent residents in the future.

Troy, MI

On June 28, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of a U.S. citizen who had been offered employment. During the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process, the individual presented his driver’s license and Social Security card. However, his name on the Social Security card was hyphenated with his mother’s last name. The employer refused to accept the documents and demanded to see a birth certificate. OSC informed counsel for the employer that if the documents reasonably related to the applicant and appeared to be genuine, the employer is obligated to accept the documents. As a result, the worker was permitted to start work.

Lewiston, ME

On June 28, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen who had been offered employment. During the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process, the individual presented her driver’s license and birth certificate. The employer refused to accept these documents, demanded to see a Social Security card, and told her she could not be hired without that card. The employee called OSC for help. OSC informed the employer that refusing to accept documents from the List of Acceptable Documents that appear on the back of the I-9 form—or demanding that the applicant present specific documents—might constitute illegal document abuse. The employer agreed to accept the driver’s license and birth certificate and the employee was allowed to start work.

New York, NY

On June 30, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and assisted a lawful permanent resident to begin working in New York City’s summer youth employment program. The program (a non-profit recipient of city, state and federal funds) refused to allow the youth to register because her permanent resident card had expired. The program told OSC that the city’s documentation requirements were more stringent than the Form I-9 requirements, and that the youth’s documents (an unrestricted Social Security card and student I.D.) would be rejected by the City. OSC consulted with counsel for the city and the city informed the program that the youth should be allowed to work. The city is also revising its documentation requirements so that the employment eligibility verification documents will be in line with Form I-9 requirements by summer of 2011.

Chicago, IL

On July 6, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that allowed a lawful permanent resident to continue working. The employee’s Permanent Resident Card expired, and he presented an I-797 Notice of Action letter, extending his card until January 11, 2011. However, the worker’s employer told him that he would not be able to work until he presented a new card. We called the employer to inform the employer that an expired Permanent Resident Card and an I-797 stating that the card had been extended for a year was sufficient temporary employment authorization. We also directed the employer to the Employer Handbook, which corroborated the information that was given to the employer. The employer subsequently informed the employee that he could come back to work.

New York, NY

On July 7, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that allowed a lawful permanent resident to continue working. When the newly hired worker presented his documents to his employer during the employment eligibility verification process, there was some confusion as to what documents he could present. He eventually presented an unrestricted Social Security card and a NY State ID card. However, based on Department of Homeland Security guidance, his employer insisted that the worker present a new Permanent Resident Card or the worker would not be allowed to continue working. OSC informed the employer that a state ID and an unrestricted Social Security card are acceptable (List B and List C) documents that satisfy the Form I-9 requirements. The employer subsequently allowed the employee to come back to work.

Lebanon, PA

On July 14, 2010, OSC succeeded in assisting a Honduran TPS recipient renew his driver’s license. The individual, who drives to his job, attempted to renew his Pennsylvania driver's license by presenting his EAD, which has been automatically extended by the Department of Homeland Security by virtue of a notice in the Federal Register pertaining to all Hondurans with TPS. However, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PDOT) refused to renew the worker’s license, so the worker contacted OSC’s worker hotline. We contacted PDOT to explain the automatic extension of EADs for Honduran TPS recipients. The PDOT subsequently renewed the worker’s driver's license.

New York, NY

On July 15, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a F-1 visa holder. The visa holder contacted OSC when she was terminated on July 14, 2010, because she did not possess a Social Security number. When the visa holder started working on July 7, 2010, she informed her employer that she did not yet have a Social Security number. Accordingly, the visa holder had left blank the portion of the Form I-9 requesting her Social Security number. After several days on the job, the worker’s supervisor demanded that she travel to the SSA office to obtain a Social Security number. The worker visited SSA and received a receipt from the SSA showing that she applied for a Social Security card and that the card would be mailed to her home in approximately two weeks. Nonetheless, the employer was unwilling to accept this receipt and terminated her. OSC contacted the employer and explained that recording a Social Security number on the I-9 Form is optional for an employer that does not use E-Verify, and that an employer cannot request specific employment eligibility documents for Form I-9 purposes. The employer allowed the worker to return to work and paid her lost wages.

Los Angeles, CA

On July 15, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a Honduran TPS recipient to return to work after being fired. The employer terminated the employee when his EAD expired on July 5, 2010. We spoke to the employer and faxed a copy of the Federal Register notice stating that the EADs of TPS beneficiaries from Honduras and Nicaragua are automatically extended until January 5, 2011. OSC explained, per the Federal Register, that no other documentation was needed from the employee at this time. The company reinstated the employee with full back pay for the week the employee did not work.

Fort Worth, TX

On July 16, 2010, OSC completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a TPS beneficiary could remain employed. The worker, a Salvadoran national, contacted OSC because his employer, a manufacturing company, demanded that he present a new EAD even though his current EAD contains a future expiration date of September 9, 2010. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the DHS extended the validity of EADs held by Salvadorans with TPS until March 9, 2011, and provided the employer a copy of the Federal Register notice announcing the automatic extension. The employer agreed to not request further documentation from the worker.

Falls Church, VA

On July 16, 2010, OSC successfully intervened via telephone on behalf of a Nicaraguan TPS beneficiary whose EAD expired on July 5, 2010, and who was laid off by her employer, a retail store. The worker stated she had the same problem 18 months ago, the last time DHS extended the TPS program. She stated that at that time she had to wait two months before returning to work, because the store would not allow her to return until USCIS issued her a renewal card. She was concerned she would once again lose pay and seniority. OSC contacted corporate counsel, who ensured that the worker was reinstated and put back on the schedule.

Broward, FL

On July 19, 2010, OSC successfully intervened and saved the job of a Nicaraguan TPS beneficiary who lost her job when her EAD expired on July 5, 2010. We shared the Federal Register notice and USCIS Fact Sheet on TPS documentation requirements with the employer, a temporary employment agency, and the employer agreed to reinstate the worker.

Boca Raton, FL

On July 19, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a Honduran TPS recipient. The employer fired the worker when it realized that his EAD bore a July 5, 2010, expiration date. The employee attempted to give the employer a letter that he had received from the DHS explaining that his work authorization has been automatically extended. However, the employer refused to accept anything other than a document listed on the Form I-9. We contacted the employer and explained that DHS has authorized the letter, or a copy of the Federal Register announcing the automatic extension, to be used to re-verify the employee’s employment eligibility. As a result, the employer accepted DHS’s letter and a copy of the Federal Register notice, and agreed to immediately reinstate the employee.

Los Angeles, CA

On July 30, 2010, as a result of a successful telephone intervention, OSC ensured the continued receipt of unemployment benefits for a Honduran TPS recipient. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (CLWDA) terminated the worker’s unemployment benefits after his EAD expired on July 5, 2010. The state agency believed that the Honduran was no longer eligible to work in the U.S. OSC explained to the general counsel of the CLWDA that DHS has automatically extended the work authorization of Honduran TPS recipients for six months. As a result of the intervention, California will continue to provide unemployment benefits to this worker and all other unemployment benefits recipients who are Honduran TPS holders.

Fairfax, VA

On August 4, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of an authorized worker. As an applicant for permanent residence, the worker had an EAD. The individual had made a timely application for a new EAD in advance of the EAD’s expiration date, but that document had been lost in the mail. The employer terminated the worker upon expiration of the EAD, and his wife contacted OSC for guidance. OSC guided the individual through the on-line application process for seeking a replacement EAD, and then contacted the employer to provide oral and written information on the acceptability of a USCIS Notice of Action (i.e., Form I-766, or receipt) for a replacement EAD as temporary 90-day evidence of work authorization. Based on OSC’s guidance, the employer re-hired the individual upon his presentation of his receipt for a replacement EAD.

Chicago, IL

On August 9, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Burmese refugee employed for an employer located within an airport. The refugee received an EAD when he first arrived in the U.S. and presented it to his employer as proof of his employment eligibility when completing his I-9 Form. The worker also presented the EAD as proof of his work-authorized status in order to obtain a Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) airport badge from the airport badging office. When the worker’s EAD expired, he attempted to present his unrestricted Social Security card as proof that he was still eligible for employment, both for I-9 and badging purposes. Although his employer accepted the Social Security card for reverification of his employment eligibility, the airport badging office refused to issue him a new badge, even though the badging requirements permit a refugee to present an unrestricted Social Security card as proof of continued employment eligibility. OSC consulted with counsel for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the airport badging office, and they agreed to issue the worker a new badge.

Burbank, CA

On August 11, 2010, OSC completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that an LPR could begin work with a casting agency. The casting agency rejected the worker’s valid I-9 documentation – a driver’s license, a Form I-551 that had expired on its face, and a Notice of Action extending the validity of the Form I-551 for an additional year. Instead, the agency requested that the employee provide a new Form I-551. OSC contacted the agency and explained that the expired Form I-551 with the Notice of Action is a valid List C document, and the employer agreed to accept the employee’s documents immediately.

Pagosa Springs, CO

On August 20, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of an American Indian who was refused employment. During the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process, the individual presented his driver’s license and Native American Tribal document. However, the employer refused to accept the documents and demanded to see a Social Security card. OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Native American tribal document is a List C document sufficient to establish employment authorization. The employer agreed to allow the individual to work.

East Orange, NJ

On August 20, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a LPR, whose employer insisted on seeing a new, unexpired permanent resident care when hers expired. The employer contacted OSC at the insistence of the worker and we explained to the employer that permanent resident cards (also known as green cards) indicate permanent work authorization. The employer allowed the worker to keep her job.

Chicago, IL

On August 20, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, educating an employer about proper Form I-9 procedures and saving the job of an immigrant worker. The employer had planned to terminate an employee with an EAD that was going to expire in the very near future. OSC informed the employer that she must allow the worker to present any document on List A or List C document of the Form I-9 to established continued work authorization. The employer indicated that it would allow the worker to choose what document to present.

Puget Sound, WA

On August 27, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention to ensure that a U.S. citizen be interviewed for employment at a military base. The citizen responded to an advertisement for “Fire Watch and General Labor “ at a naval base through a military contractor. During the Form I-9 process, she elected to produce a certified copy of her birth certificate, which was rejected by the employer because it was not an original birth certificate. OSC personnel called the employer explained that that a certified copy of a birth certificate is acceptable proof of work authorization for the Form I-9, and the employer indicated that it would immediately complete the hiring process.

Buena Park, CA

On September 9, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of a Hispanic LPR and saved his job. For the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process, the individual presented a current Permanent Resident Card, Form I-551. The employer failed to accept the document because it contained no expiration date. We explained to the the employer that not all LPR cards contain expiration dates and that the document presented by the worker appears on the List of Acceptable Documents on the Form I-9. We also informed the employer that requesting more or different documents may constitute unlawful document abuse discrimination. The employer agreed to accept the document and hire the worker.

Columbus, GA

On September 10, 2010, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR from Ghana who works as a jet engine mechanic contract worker. His employer notified him that he would not be able to continue working because the contractor would not accept a Form I-797 “Notice of Action” from USCIS extending his permanent resident status for one year, requiring instead that he present a new permanent resident card. We contacted the employer’s human resources officer in Columbus, Georgia, its legal office in East Hartford, Connecticut, and the worker’s supervisor in Atlanta, Georgia, to advise them that a Form I-797 is acceptable for Form I-9 purposes to establish continued employment eligibility. As a result of OSC’s actions, the matter was mutually resolved and the employee had no lapse in employment.

Nashville, TN

On September 13, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a Salvadoran TPS recipient was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work. Tennessee initially refused to renew the worker’s driver’s license because her EAD bears an expiration date of September 9, 2010, and she had not proven that she had registered for a new EAD. We contacted the Tennessee Department of Safety and informed it of DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Salvadoran TPS recipients until March 9, 2011. Consequently, the Salvadoran was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work.

Van Nuys, CA

On September 14, 2010, an OSC staffer successfully completed a telephone intervention saving the job of an LPR working for a medical company. The LPR contacted OSC when her employer threatened to suspend on the date that her permanent resident card (green card) was set to expire, unless she could provide a new card. We called the employer to explain that employers may not reverify the employment authorization of LPRs whose permanent resident card expires, and directed the employer to the page in the USCIS Handbook for Employers that explains this. The employer indicated that it would not suspend the worker.

Nashville, TN

On September 17, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention by OSC, a TPS recipient from El Salvador was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work. Tennessee initially refused to renew worker’s driver’s license because her EAD contained an expiration date of September 9, 2010. OSC contacted the Tennessee Department of Safety and faxed the Federal Register notice explaining DHS’s automatic extension of work authorization for Salvadoran TPS recipients. Consequently, the worker was able to renew her driver’s license and return to work.

Long Beach, CA

On September 20, 2010, OSC educated an Unemployment Office (UO) on the use of expired EADs for TPS recipients from El Salvador. During the course of a hotline call, a worker mentioned that the Long Beach, California, UO office was not accepting expired EADs as valid documents, and was therefore denying the unemployment claims of TPS recipients. The OSC attorney called the UO manager to notify her that EADs bearing a September 9, 2010, expiration date for Salvadoran TPS recipients sufficiently establishes work authorization until March 9, 2011. The OSC attorney also e-mailed the Federal Register notice explaining DHS’s automatic extension of the EADs. The manager had been unaware of any TPS extension and stated she would inform her office of the issue in order to prevent further erroneous denial of benefits.

Burbank, CA

On September 24, 2010, as the result of a successful telephone intervention, OSC ensured that unemployment benefits for a Salvadoran TPS recipient were reinstated. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (CLWDA) terminated unemployment benefits for the worker after her EAD expired on September 9, 2010. The state agency believed that the TPS recipient was no longer eligible to work in the U.S. OSC explained to the general counsel of the CLWDA that DHS had automatically extended the work authorization of Salvadoran recipients of TPS. As a result of the intervention, California will continue to provide this and all Salvadoran TPS recipients with unemployment benefits.

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY

On September 23, 2010, OSC intervened on behalf of a Jamaican lawful permanent resident. The worker contacted OSC to ask for assistance because her Permanent Resident Card (also known as an Alien Registration Receipt card, Form I-551, Resident Alien Card, and “green card”) had expired, and her employer had taken her off the work schedule after requesting that she provide a new card. OSC informed the employer that Permanent Resident Cards are issued to permanent residents, who are work-authorized incident to their status and regardless of whether the card expires. In addition, employers may not reverify expired Permanent Resident Cards. The employer reinstated the worker.

>