The immigration system is a complex web of policies, procedures, and roadblocks, but the results of a successful journey are well worth the challenges.
At The Fleischer Law Firm LLC, we have counseled and represented individuals, families, and businesses since 1973, helping to:
Because we have spent the last four decades exclusively practicing immigration, we provide comprehensive solutions for a wide range of matters.
No matter what challenge you face, we are ready to stand by your side. Call (513) 880-9969 or reach out to us online to get started on your case with a free consultation*.
Employer I-9 Compliance
Employers are faced with the often contradictory goals of avoiding:
Civil rights action stemming from illegal discrimination against foreign-born or foreign-looking employees; and
Criminal sanctions for using undocumented workers either as employees or employees of subcontractors.
Therefore, an employer must have a comprehensive policy on fulfilling verification requirements for workers on its job sites. Our attorneys at The Fleischer Law Firm LLC can help you devise a failsafe policy and protect yourself from future issues.
Here are just a few tips for employer I-9 compliance:
Perform quarterly or annual self-audits.
Supervisors and management must be trained in the law of documenting workers and the responsibility of completing the I-9’s. Every employer should have an explicit policy prohibiting the use of undocumented workers, and such notices should be prominently placed on every job site.
Subcontractors must be put on notice and sign off on a policy that requires properly documented workers. Following the highly publicized case of Wal-Mart when the company settled an $11 million fine in 2005 with ICE, Wal-Mart not only requires a signed agreement with subcontractors, but also requires the certification of an immigration practitioner as to the subcontractors’ I-9 practices. While this may be more than what smaller employers typically do, it obviously provides an extra layer of protection for the employer. In extreme cases, a prospective subcontractor should provide your company with a letter from an attorney who has recently audited that subcontractor’s files.
The employer must train management and supervisors to use common sense and, according to the circumstances, attend to the suspected use of undocumented workers by a subcontractor. This does not mean an employer must interrogate every subcontractor employee. However, the subcontractor’s failure to address the employment authorization of its workers when suspicious circumstances arise can result in the subcontractor’s termination. This duty may also extend to situations involving highly skilled contractors when an employer has reason to believe that the contractor’s employees are not in the United States on the correct visa.
Employers should consult with immigration counsel if they have any questions or need clarification. The stakes are now much higher than they used to be. These times call for the highest standards of conduct, and employers should use particular caution in subcontractor settings.
*Given the volume of inquiries the Firm receives, the Firm cannot guaranty it will consult with every possible client or evaluate every potential client’s matter. Moreover, a case evaluation or case consultation does not mean the Firm will provide a potential client with actual legal advice on a matter and does not create an attorney-client relationship. A free consultation or free evaluation is intended to enable the Firm to understand the nature of a potential client’s matter and to inform the potential client if the Firm will consider representing the potential client in connection with the matter. Before the Firm can provide legal advice to any person or entity, and before an attorney-client relationship is formed, the Firm must have a signed fee agreement with a client setting forth the Firm’s scope of representation and the fees that will be charged.
This is Dorcas from Ghana. We love to get photos and feedback from our clients! She is now a US citizen based on her hard work and good moral character.
"Today was awesome. I am finally a citizen thanks to you!"
Any individual who is physically present in the United States, irrespective of status, may receive asylum in the exercise of discretion, provided that they timely file an application and qualify as a refugee (INA §101(a)(42)(A) and INA §208). The applicant has the burden of proving that they are statutorily eligible for asylum under 8 CFR §208.13(207).
The applicant meets the definition of a refugee if they prove that they are unable or unwilling to return to (or avail themselves of the protection of) their country of origin because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
This persecution must be country-wide and on account of:
Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in any particular social group
Political opinion
The applicant must establish a “reasonable possibility” of persecution in their country of nationality. If they demonstrate past persecution, they create a formidable presumption that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. They also must demonstrate the following eligibility factors.
Section I. – Timeliness
The applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that they filed their asylum application within one year of arrival in the United States, 8 CFR §208.4(a)(2)(2007). The applicant is considered ‘filed’ on the date it is received.
Section II. – Credibility
When assessing an applicant’s asylum credibility, the Immigration Court attaches significant weight to the applicant’s credibility, Matter of O-D, 21 I&N Dec. 1079, 1081 (BIA 1998). The court determines an applicant’s credibility by considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.
These factors include:
The applicant’s demeanor
Responsiveness
Consistency on direct and cross-examination
Consistency with the written application
The absence of embellishment
Plausibility
The court generally does not consider testimony credible when it is inconsistent and contradictory with the current country conditions, or it is inherently improbable or implausible, Matter of S-M-J, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 728-29 (BIA 1997).
An asylum applicant’s testimony can satisfy the burden of proof without additional corroboration if the testimony is “believable, consistent and sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible and coherent account on the basis of his (or her) alleged fear,” Matter of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120, 124 (BIA 1989).
However, an adverse credibility finding alone may suffice to support the court’s denial of an applicant’s asylum claim, especially if the applicant failed to produce corroborating evidence.
Section III. – Past Persecution
To establish asylum based on past persecution, the applicant must show that they were persecuted on account of a protected ground. Persecution is the “infliction of suffering or harm upon an individual to punish him or her for possessing a belief or characteristic a persecutor seeks to overcome.” Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 223 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987).
Persecution is an extreme concept that requires “more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” However, harassment or intimidation accompanied by physical punishment, infliction of harm, or serious depravation of liberty could rise to the level of persecution, Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F3d 385, 390 (6th Cir. 1998).
In determining whether or not the applicant suffered persecution, the court must consider the cumulative effect of the allegedly persecutory incidents.
Once they establish that they suffered persecution, the applicant must then show that the persecution was on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, INA § 101, 8 CFR §1208.13(b).
In Matter of Acosta, the board interpreted membership in a “particular social group” as follows:
An individual is a member of a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic. A shared characteristic might be an innate one such as sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership. A particular kind of group characteristic that will qualify under this construction remains to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, whatever the common characteristic that defines the group, it must be one that members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.
In addition to establishing membership in a particular social group, an asylum applicant must provide “specific detailed facts” that provide an applicant has a good reason to fear that they will be singled out for persecution on account of the protective ground.
The applicant’s proof may be in the form of direct or circumstantial evidence. The applicant need not show that persecution was solely motivated by the protective ground. Instead, the applicant can establish asylum eligibility so long as the persecution was motivated “at least in part” by the protective ground.
Section IV. – State Action Required
To establish eligibility for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that the persecution they experience or fear was/would be inflicted by the government or by an entity the government is unable or unwilling to control. See Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 222.
In examining whether a government is unwilling or unable to protect an applicant, the court generally considers it fatal to the asylum claim if the applicant has failed to report persecution to the local authorities.
However, the board has excused an applicant’s failure to report where the applicant convincingly establishes that the authorities would have been unable or unwilling to protect they, and, for that reason, they could not rely on the authorities, Matter of S-A, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1335 (BIA 2000). This can be shown sometimes by U.S. State Department Country Reports and reports from other agencies.
Section V. – Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
Once an asylum applicant establishes past persecution on account of a protected ground, the burden shifts to DHS to provide, with a preponderance of evidence, that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution because of a fundamental change in circumstances, or that the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the country, 8 CFR § 208.13(p)(1)(i)-(ii).
If DHS cannot prove either factor, it should approve the applicant for asylum status.
The Level of Support You Deserve
At The Fleischer Law Firm LLC, we have spent decades developing the knowledge and skills needed to help countless individuals, families, and businesses navigate the immigration system. No matter what issue you face, we have likely handled an identical situation, and we will know exactly how to help you overcome your challenge. As a result of our personal and professional dedication to our field, we have positively impacted clients from all around the world, and we look forward to doing the same for you.
Do you have questions about our immigration support services? Call (513) 880-9969 or contact us online today. We offer services in English and Spanish.
