E-Verify: Processes, Compliance, and Company Needs Report

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the E-Verify system, a U.S. government initiative managed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in collaboration with the Department of State (DOS) and Social Security Administration (SSA). The report details the operational aspects of E-Verify, including the process of verifying employee information against federal databases using Form I-9, and the associated deadlines and documentation requirements. It highlights the role of I-9 software in streamlining the verification process and ensuring compliance with state regulations. The report also addresses the challenges faced by organizations, such as the need to avoid fines imposed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the demand for verification services to manage the complexities of E-Verify. Finally, the report underscores the increasing importance of E-Verify in the current landscape of immigration and employment verification in the United States.

E-Verify
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................3
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................3
E-Verify operations...................................................................................................................................4
E-Verify and I-9 software.........................................................................................................................5
E-Verify process........................................................................................................................................6
Companies need for Verification services................................................................................................8
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................9
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................10

Executive Summary
E-Verify was introduced by USA government to help government give available vacancies to
authorized employees. It is usually run and maintained by Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) in collaboration with Department of State (DOS) and Social security Administration
(SSA). Several state governments have adopted use of E-Verify while others have had resistance.
E-Verify process is tedious and has strict deadlines which must be met by all stakeholders. All
required employee information should be captured in form I-9, which is handed over to DHS for
verification and authorization. Documentation of form I-9 should be error free, be made with
stipulated deadlines and be archived by employer to present as a proof of authorization. It has
been observed that organizations are in need of E-Verify services to help them avoid fines
imposed by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). Human resource department has found
it difficult to manage E-verify process due to its demanding attention.
Introduction
E-Verify is an online system being used by United States Homeland Security to
determine eligibility of all employees working in USA. According to Romero (2008, p. 605), the
program was first established in 1996 with aim of preventing illegal immigrants from working in
USA. In year 2007, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a rule that required
all vendors and contractors within USA to start using the program (Newman et al. 2012, p. 171).
The use of the system has been facing adoption resistance because some of the employers have
not been liaising with relevant government agencies to enforce use of the system. The idea
behind use of the system is to make sure few available job vacancies are given to authorized
employees. Its adoption has been facing resistance because algorithms behind data matching
have been giving high rate of information mismatch. Different states have varied opinion on use
of E-Verify as some have adopted its use while others have discouraged it. To qualify to be a

USA employees, records fetched from DHS should match with employers’ data in form I-9.
Form I-9 is used to satisfy that, the person bearing provided details is an employee in USA
(Orrenius & Zavodny 2015, p. 949). Most of the employers have been resisting E-verify
adoption on grounds of discrimination. It further denies organization an opportunity to hire some
of the employees who are qualified but they are yet to acquire relevant working documents due
to financial constraints. In some states, use of E-Verify program is a constitutional mandate and
organizations are being audited on its use. To enforce use of the program, state governments
have stated issuing E-Verify compliance certificates to organizations. The use of the program
have been gaining popularity over time and many of the organizations have complied with state
regulations on use of the program.
E-Verify operations
The program is managed and run by DHS to compare employee’s information captured
in form I-9 to Federal databases on viability of presented documentation. In some instances, use
of the program is voluntary but submission of form I-9 is a requirement by Federal regulations.
Form I-9 must be filled for submission to DHS by both employer and employee. Its capabilities
have been upgraded over time to incorporate facial images. Despite government enforcing use of
the E-Verify program, some exceptions have been provided (Bohn, Lofstrom & Raphael 2015, p.
963). First, Federal employees are required to be certified through use of the program. The
management and budget office require all government agencies to implement use of E-Verify in
order to ascertain authenticity of all government employees. The next exception is on Federal
contractors, regulations require all contractors to confirm their employees’ validity and

authorization. In this case, verification should be done on all employees’, whether outsourced
from other organizations or from other states. Contractors’ use of the program makes it difficult
for non-USA to get awarded tenders. The last exception is on employees working from one state.
There are about 16 states which enforces use of E-Verify program. In some states, use of E-
verify should be implemented in almost all business operations (Patel 2010, p. 453). As a result
of increased immigrants seeking jobs in USA, DHS decided to use technology to award few
available job vacancies to genuine employees.
The concept of E-Verify working is based on search algorithms on Federal databases
which returns positive results if presented information matches with Federal data. Otherwise, the
employee is given a grace period of 8 working days to identify the cause of the mismatch. A
disparity on I-9 form filled by both employers and employee is because of data mismatch from
either DHS, Department of State (DOS) or Social security Administration (SSA). If E-Verify
program detects a mismatch, an alert is immediately sent to the employer (Amuedo-Dorantes et
al. 2013, p. 1067). In such circumstances, employer is mandated by the law to inform affected
employee and give enough time to dispute the data mismatch. Failing to correct the discrepancy,
prompts DHS to send a final alert to the employer confirming inability to authorize work permit,
hence requesting for employment termination. Currently, organizations are taking E-Verification
seriously because state governments are imposing penalties and fines if organizations fail to
submit I-9 audit forms and verification compliance.
E-Verify and I-9 software
It is very important for an organization to verify all its workers for certainty and lookout
services should be used for this purpose. I-9 is an electronic form which is error free and has to
be used for proper identification and verification for all employees willing to work in USA. Use

of E-Verify and I-9 services helps organization to avoid instances of being caught up with
unauthorized employees (Ayon et al. 2012, p. 596). The consequences of having unauthorized
employees is definitely hefty fines as well as loosing workforce that organization might have
invested heavily on them. Since fines may cripple business operations, E-verify helps
organizations to be in compliance with state regulations. I-9 intelligence software is being used
by organizations to streamline documentation process as well as make required changes on
business process flow. The design of the I-9 has been coupled with state rules and regulations to
help its users be aware of regulations. During design and reviews, lawyers are part of the team to
make sure all state regulations are adhered to. These software are easy to use as they have user-
friendly interfaces, they are integrated with reporting tools which can track employee’s
document expiry and provides error free documentation (Apostolova‐Mihaylova et al. 2015, p.
990). There are notable differences between the two but they work concurrent to each other. Use
of I-9 software is meant to capture data which is submitted to DSH and other relevant
departments for authorization. The same I-9 has to be archived by employer as a proof document
that, the due process was followed during hiring. The collected data is then uploaded to E-Verify
to confirm authenticity of the employee.
E-Verify process
The following steps are followed during employees’ verification in USA workforce. The
first step involves both employer and employee competing form I-9. This is usually done
because employer is required to keep employees’ identification details as well as submit them to
DHS for verification. During I-9 filling, it is not a requirement for employee to provide social
security number (Wilson 2014, p. 47). Contrary, employee is required to provide social security
number if employer uses E-Verify to authorize employee details. To make verification a success,

employee is required to present at least two documents that can be used for authorization. These
documents would be used as the basis of E-verify in the department of DHS. The second step is
initiation of E-Verify case. Once an employee have all the required documents, employer is set
to start E-Verify case. This step must be done immediately, not later than 3rd day of employee’s
duty resumption for payment. This is a requirement which is clearly stated in form I-9 expecting
employer to make sure all documents are verified with three days of starting official duty. Form
I-9 documentation deadline is one of the major challenge that employers’ find it difficult to meet.
The third step involves matching of photos from available documents. Some of the documents
that are required to have prospective employee details are; permanent residence card form I-551,
Employment Authorization Document form I-766 and a passport card as it comes with a photo.
At instances where prospective employee has present any of the documents bearing a photo,
employer should be able to compare the same with photos held in Federal database (Youn et al.
2010, p. 258).
The fourth step is rendering results by DSH and SSA once verification case has been
presented by employer. As there are three agencies which take part in verification, all these
agencies will do some comparison of presented information to their databases. Once employee
details have no disparity from all relevant agencies, work authorization is confirmed by DHS
(Chand & Schreckhise 2015, p. 1631). If there is a partial mismatch, employer may be required
to provide additional information to DHS. On the same note, if total mismatch is observed,
employer has to be notified through a Tentative NonConfirmation (TNC) message. In return,
employee is notified in private by employer and employee has to be given enough time to
respond to the case. The fifth stage is employee TNC contest which has to be done within 8
working days. The TNC contest may include providing required documents for further

processing. To resolve all disparities, employees would be required to visit SSA offices.
Similarly, DHS and SSA renders final results on authorization or NonConfirmation (Harper
2012, p. 125). Finally, in cases where employee’s information cannot be confirmed, employer is
expected to terminate employment. Termination of employment means employer had not
followed the due process when hiring and fines may be imposed by the government.
Companies need for Verification services
State governments are taking employees’ verification as a major concern and
investigations are being done to ascertain compliance (Amuedo‐Dorantes, Bansak & Zebedee
2015, p. 936). Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) has been contacting investigations
and any organization found not in compliance is heavily penalized. Organizational partnering
with verification state agencies is very important as it makes sure they are in compliance with I-9
form which serves as basis of smooth authorization process. The rate of E-Verify audit by ICE
have been increasing over years as government rules becomes tougher by day. Since government
have realized non-compliance is generating huge sum of money to government, there is
possibility of having increased ICE audits. Due to inability to comply with ICE requirements,
organizations need an assistance to help align its operations with form I-9 requirements. Some of
the reasons why organizations require verification services are; taking in to effect the lengthy
procedures which involves presenting documents which are correctly filled with no errors and
strict deadlines makes these services demanding (Harper 2012, p. 135).
ICE audit have been considered to be very tough with heavy penalties to organizations
(Sanchez, G.E., 2017, p. 91). Every Error whether typo, process or failure to safe keep form I-9
is associated with its fine. Additionally, form I-9 errors are not correctable and once made it has
been made, this makes it difficult for organizational human resource department to make keep

these documents as required due to nature of the attention they need (Nawaz & Gomes 2012, p.
367). In this regard, it is reality that audit fines can make organization make loses due to non-
compliance. Besides, the need to archive form I-9 for a long periods for purpose of presenting
them to ICE is another issue to organizations. Since these procedures are non-business but very
essential, firms may be reluctant on safe keeping these documents for long. These factual
concepts and fines that comes with every ICE audit makes it demanding for organizations to
outsource services (Calvasina, Calvasina & Calvasina 2011, p. 30). Comparing the cost of
outsourcing the E-Verify services and possibility of higher fines makes them demanding.
Conclusion
The objective behind introduction and use of E-verify was to allow proper authorization
of employees by state governments. The need to use E-Verify was meant to offer employment to
genuine USA job seekers rather than illegal immigrants. Many immigrants were going to USA to
seek jobs with unauthorized documents leaving many natives jobless. This prompted government
introduction of E-Verify programs to secure and preserve jobs to its people. Employees’ are
required to present relevant documents such as passports, driving licenses and work
authorization document for verification. Once all documents are available, form I-9 is filled by
both employer and employee and sent to DHS for E-verification. Through use of E-Verify,
government has been able to control hiring employees and awarding of contracts. Employers are
prompted to keep safely form I-9 for audit purpose in case ICE requests such documents for
certification. Despite USA government requirements to have all states enforce use of E-Verify,
some have adopted while others are against the norm. The use of the program have been a
process of court battle for some time because some of the courts have been resisting its adoption.

Beside all regulations, state governments have introduced some exceptions on use of E-Verify as
it must be used by all state agencies to help government authorize its employees.
Bibliography
Amuedo‐Dorantes, C., Bansak, C. and Zebedee, A.A., 2015. The impact of mandated
employment verification systems on state
‐level employment by foreign affiliates. Southern
Economic Journal, 81(4), pp.928-946.
Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Puttitanun, T. and Martinez-Donate, A.P., 2013. How do tougher
immigration measures affect unauthorized immigrants? Demography, 50(3), pp.1067-1091.
Apostolova‐Mihaylova, M., Cooper, W., Hoyt, G. and Marshall, E.C., 2015. Heterogeneous
gender effects under loss aversion in the economics classroom: A field experiment. Southern
Economic Journal, 81(4), pp.980-994.
Ayon, C., Gurrola, M., Salas, L.M., Androff, D. and Krysik, J., 2012. Intended and unintended
consequences of the employer sanction law on Latino families. Qualitative Social Work, 11(6),
pp.587-603.
Bohn, S., Lofstrom, M. and Raphael, S., 2015. Do E
‐verify mandates improve labor market
outcomes of low
‐skilled native and legal immigrant workers? Southern Economic Journal,
81(4), pp.960-979.
Calvasina, G.E., Calvasina, R.V. and Calvasina, E.J., 2011. Changes in enforcement focus
coming to the US Department of Labor: Policy and practice issues for employers. Journal of
Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 14(1), p.91.
Chand, D.E. and Schreckhise, W.D., 2015. Secure communities and community values: Local
context and discretionary immigration law enforcement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 41(10), pp.1621-1643.
Harper, J., 2012. Internal enforcement, e-verify, and the road to a national ID. Cato J., 32,
p.125.
Nawaz, M.N. and Gomes, A.M., 2012. Automation of the HR functions enhance the professional
efficiency of the HR Professionals-A Review. International Journal of Managment, IT and
Engineering, 4(2), pp.364-373.
Newman, B.J., Johnston, C.D., Strickland, A.A. and Citrin, J., 2012. Immigration crackdown in
the American workplace: Explaining variation in E-Verify policy adoption across the US states.
State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12(2), pp.160-182.
Orrenius, P.M. and Zavodny, M., 2015. The impact of E
‐Verify mandates on labor market
outcomes. Southern Economic Journal, 81(4), pp.947-959.

Patel, S.C., 2010. E-Verify: An exceptionalist system embedded in the immigration reform battle
between federal and state governments. BC Third World LJ, 30, p.453.
Romero, L., 2008. E-Verify: Expansion and Recent Developments. ISJLP, 4, p.605.
Sanchez, G.E., 2017. The short-term response of the Hispanic noncitizen population to anti-
illegal immigration legislation: The case of Arizona SB 1070. Journal of Economics, Finance
and Administrative Science, 22(42), pp.25-36.
Wilson, S.C., 2014. E-Government legislation: Implementation issues for programs for low-
income people. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), pp.42-49.
Youn, H., Woods, R., Zhou, X. and Hardigree, C.E., 2010. The restaurant industry and illegal
immigrants: An Oklahoma case study. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism,
9(3), pp.256-269.