On December 27, 2023, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a premium processing press release. According to the release, the Application for a Change or Extension of Stay (Form I-539) for H-4 and L-2 dependents will no longer qualify for premium processing. However, this announcement has left many applicants confused.

The confusion comes with how submissions interact with other forms. For example, premium processing could apply when submitting Form I-539 with a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) for H-1B or L-1 beneficiaries. The USCIS will review Form I-539 after reviewing Form I-129s, which underwent premium processing. This process means Form I-539’s adjudication may happen within the premium processing timeframe.

The USCIS announced a final rule increasing the fees for Premium Processing to adjust for inflation. These fee increases will take effect on February 26, 2024. Premium processing fees first appeared as part of the USCIS Stabilization Act, which also gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to adjust them periodically. The fees have remained the same for the past three years. The USCIS now adjusts them for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers using the period between June 2021 and June 2023.

Employers should consult whether to attempt submitting applications before the upcoming fees take effect. Here is a list of the price changes for some of the forms:

• Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, classifications (H-2B or R-1 nonimmigrant status): increase from $1,500 to $1,685.
• Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129 classifications (E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, LZ, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-1S, P-2, P-2S, P-3, P-3S, Q-1, TN-1, and TN-2): increase from $2,500 to $2,805.
• Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, classifications (Employment-based (EB) classifications E11, E12, E21 (non-NIW), E31, E32, EW3, E13 and E21 (NIW)): increase from $2,500 to $2,805.
• Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, (Form I-539 classifications F-1, F-2, M-1, M-2, J-1, J-2, E-1, E-2, E-3, L-2, H-4, O-3, P-4, and R-2): increase from $1,750 to $1,965.
• Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Certain F-1 students with categories C03A, C03B, C03C): increase from $1,500 to $1,685.

Employers that hire foreign nationals must remember to complete employment eligibility verification (Form I-9). However, this can be more confusing for these workers due to the many different forms of documentation they may present. One way to ensure compliance is by working with a trustworthy background check company offering an I-9 management system with the option of E-Verify integration.

Ready to discover more about how Pre-employ benefits you? Contact a sales rep today.

Source

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with a nationwide staffing agency to resolve allegations that the employer violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). According to the DOJ’s determination, the employer had denied employment opportunities to non-U.S. citizens in violation of the INA’s requirements based on their citizenship status.

Assistant Attorney Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stated, “Companies cannot unlawfully exclude people with permission to work in the United States from job opportunities because of their citizenship status. The Justice Department will continue to hold those accountable who engage in behavior that runs afoul of our nation’s federal civil rights laws.”

The Investigation

From roughly March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, the staffing agency placed advertisements for jobs with illegal restrictions. For example, the company included hiring restrictions or screened out candidates based on citizenship status. This discrimination hurts applicants or employees who are asylees, refugees, and lawful permanent residents. It illegally discourages them from applying for jobs or leads hiring managers to ignore the applications.

The settlement will require the staffing agency to pay the government $690,000 in civil penalties. The agency must also set aside $230,000 to compensate workers affected by the illegal practices. In addition to these penalties, the staffing agency must train its workers to the requirements of the INA, change its employment policies, be subject to monitoring by the DOJ, and meet certain reporting requirements.

The INA Provision

The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division enforces the INA’s anti-discrimination provision. This statute prohibits employers from discriminating against U.S. citizens and other individuals with authorization to work in the United States. According to the INA, 

“Generally, employers are not allowed to treat individuals differently in hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee because of their citizenship status. 8 USC. § 1324b(a)(1)(B). Citizenship status includes a person’s current or prior immigration status. U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, asylees, refugees, and recent lawful permanent residents are protected from citizenship status discrimination.”

This case exemplifies the importance of complying with the INA during the hiring process. Failure to comply with the INA’s provisions can result in costly fines and penalties. One crucial step your company can take to help comply with the INA and other employment regulations is to partner with a trusted background check company. The right partner will use their experience to deliver accurate, timely, and compliant reports.

Keep your business compliant with all laws and regulations with JDP’s reliable background checks. Contact a sales rep today.

Source

Multnomah County, Oregon, is having difficulty processing applications for expungement on time, thus leading to a backlog. Part of the problem is the county’s use of manual processes when processing the expungements. The issues stem from Senate Bill 397, which took effect on January 1, 2022. 

It allowed those with eligible criminal records to apply for expungement. However, the bill made many individuals qualified to expunge their records. This change significantly increased the number of applications the county had to process. According to the county, it went from approximately 50 a month to over 800. This increase led to a 15,000-case backlog.

In the past, when someone applied for an expungement, the district attorney’s office would review the paperwork. The office would verify the individual’s identity, whether the person completed the sentence, and whether they qualified for relief. The office would also check whether the person had other charges eligible for expungement. However, reviewing all the information required considerable time, creating a backlog.

Now, the circuit court performs more of this work. The district attorney’s office sends a list detailing which charges have no objections to expungement. As such, the circuit court typically processes 300 to 400 expungement orders each week. One judge can review roughly 50 cases daily, though only because they must process them manually. The judge must thoroughly review the entire case to ensure they can legally sign off on the expungement.

The court will add a judge and begin emailing electronically certified copies of expungement orders to some agencies. The court would also email the law enforcement agency that initiated the charges and corrections departments as needed. This process ensures that all appropriate parties have the necessary information to expunge charges from records. 

Other areas in the country are also struggling to deal with expunging cases, such as Jackson County in Michigan. This county accepted a $64,000 grant from the State Court Administrator’s Office. The office and county hoped it would help clear a backlog of expungement cases caused by the Automatic Clean Slate law that passed in 2020. 

New Jersey has also had problems processing expungements. New Jersey struggled with a backlog of 50,000 cases. As a result, many people had to wait years for the expungement process to seal their records.

Expungements improve individuals’ ability to acquire better jobs and housing. As described above, the process can take years due to various reasons. Employers can help mitigate the struggle by considering the relevance of certain offenses to available positions. One way to establish a second chance hiring process is by working with a trusted background screening partner. The right provider will use their experience to ensure companies can make informed decisions.

Background checks are made easy with JDP. Ask any questions you may have and learn more by contacting a sales rep today.

Source

The police in Salt Lake City have struggled to expunge the thousands of criminal records they must seal. This struggle has caused a significant backlog, making it difficult for those waiting on the expungements. Those still waiting are hopeful for improved employment and housing opportunities that come with sealed records.

In August, auditors informed the Salt Lake City Police Chief of the progress. However, the 16,000 expungements that had yet to begin increased to 62,000. This number could take many years to complete, upsetting many people still waiting to seal their records. 

It is unknown how many expungements the city’s police have completed; Salt Lake City does not have a process to notify people about the expunged records. Despite this, state law requires the police to inform someone who has served an expungement order of a successfully sealed record. Utah had two options for people who wanted to obtain an expungement before 2019. 

An individual could request the state board of pardons or a judge to expunge an offense. Additionally, people with prosecutions or arrests that did not result in a conviction could have them sealed. However, the Clean Slate Law passed in 2019 invited several changes. This law required the automatic expungement of qualifying low-level offenses committed several years ago.

This process has not been easy. According to a spokesman for the Salt Lake City police, lack of information has slowed the automatic expungement process. One problem concerns the state’s Bureau of Criminal Identification. The Bureau must notify the police of expungement orders. However, it has proven inconsistent when forwarding information, such as case numbers. 

The spokesman said they have become more efficient and shortened the process from 25 steps to four. He also stated that they had addressed expungement orders approved by the board of pardons or a judge. Furthermore, the spokesman explained that the police department prioritized in-person requests. As such, there is no backlog for these cases.

The spokesman also addressed whether Salt Lake City would implement a system to track expungements. The idea stems from similar systems, such as those tracking package deliveries or mail-in ballots. He acknowledged the idea as reasonable and said they could explore it if such a system did not exist.

Auditors suggested the state hire more police to process the expungements. One Salt Lake City Council member said he would support this idea. Regardless, how long it will take to process the expungements remains uncertain.

Employers can help by considering which offenses should disqualify an applicant from being considered for a job. The best way to start a second chance hiring program is to partner with a background check company experienced in this area.

Keep your business up to date on new laws and regulations with JDP’s free news resources. Keep your business compliant with new laws and regulations with Pre-employ’s reliable background checks. Contact a sales rep today.

Source

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with a Texas-based restaurant operator. This agreement addressed claims that the employer violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). According to the case, the organization discriminated against an employee while completing the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process.

According to the Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, “Employers that discriminate against workers by rejecting their valid documents or requiring that they show unnecessary documents to prove they can continue to work violates federal law. The Justice Department will continue to hold employers accountable for unlawfully discriminating against workers because of citizenship, immigration status or national origin.”

The Investigation

The DOJ’s investigation began in response to a complaint by a lawful permanent resident. Based on its investigation, the DOJ confirmed that the employer had discriminated against the employee. The Department revealed that the company rejected valid documentation the worker provided to prove their citizenship status. Furthermore, the company requested additional and unnecessary documentation containing an expiration date.

When the candidate failed to provide the requested documentation, the organization terminated his employment. The DOJ alleged that the employer committed “citizenship status discrimination and unfair documentary practices in violation of the unfair immigration-related employment practices provisions of USC § 1324b.” 

Under federal law, workers may choose the documentation they wish to present to prove their identity and work authorization. Employers cannot restrict what documentation an employee can present. They also cannot request additional documentation regardless of citizenship, immigration status, or national origin. The DOJ reminded the company to accept facially valid documentation completing the Form I-9 requirements.

As a Result

Once the DOJ began this investigation, the organization rehired the worker and compensated him with lost wages of $7,687.94. The settlement between the DOJ and the employer also included stipulations. For example, the employer must pay a civil penalty of $7,122. Furthermore, the employer must train relevant staff on the INA’s requirements. They must also alter their process for completing the Form I-9 to ensure it complies with the INA’s anti-discrimination regulations.

Finally, the agreement stipulates that the employer must supply written reports concerning INA compliance. They must provide these reports upon request. The company must also allow the DOJ to investigate further. This case shows the importance of complying with the INA to avoid fines and penalties. One way is by partnering with a trustworthy background screening company. The right partner will deliver accurate and compliant reports to ensure your company can make informed decisions.

Learn more about staying in compliance with background checking practices with JDP. Keep your business compliant with new laws and regulations with Pre-employ’s reliable background checks. Contact a sales rep today.

Source

Federal Auditors recently informed lawmakers about how they discovered a breakdown in background checks conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). They made this announcement during a House hearing, explaining how the screenings allowed some applicants with criminal drug records to obtain healthcare jobs. 

The Inspector General’s Office began these investigations in 2017. It occurred because the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) discovered the inconsistencies in the VA’s background check process. According to the Departments, employees working in direct care positions at Veteran Health Administration facilities did not undergo proper screening.

Comments On the Process

The House Committee heard several testimonies on the VA sub-panel’s oversight and investigations. These recounts revealed that the required background checks did not happen, went incomplete, or ran incorrectly. The chairwoman of the sub-panel, Representative Jen Kiggans, R-VA., also spoke on the matter.

According to Rep. Kiggans, evidence indicated that the VA did not follow the law and common-sense policy. This negligence caused significant deficiencies in the background checks. She also commented on the lack of progress in fixing the discovered flaws to improve the background check process.

The Investigation

In February, the GAO discovered that 12,569 VHA employees had criminal records linked to controlled substances. According to the director of forensic audits and investigative service, 1,800 of these workers had felony drug convictions. These numbers are despite the VHA facilities claiming to perform the mandated pre-employment background screenings on healthcare workers.

These screenings have three steps and require the applicant to report any criminal violations they have on their application. After sharing their background, the applicant must submit a fingerprint background check run by the FBI. Finally, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency will investigate the applicant’s criminal history.

The Findings

The Drug Enforcement Agency requires VHA medical centers to obtain a waiver for some healthcare workers to access controlled substances. For example, someone with felony drug convictions would need this waiver. However, Rep. Kiggans revealed that the VHA never acquired one.

Furthermore, they did not have established policies determining which employees may access controlled substances. This reveal caused the head of the VA’s Office of Identity, Credential, and Access Management to speak on the matter. According to the head, they would have a waiver by March 2024. He also assured all involved parties that they would perform background checks according to regulations.

Employers must ensure they adhere to all relevant regulations when hiring applicants. However, it has proven challenging to stay updated on all matters and comply as laws change. One way to maintain compliance is by working with a trustworthy screening company. The right partner will deliver accurate, timely, and compliant records.

Discover the benefits of JDP’s seamless background checks for your business. Contact a Sales representative today.

Source

The U.S. Supreme Court has received the task to consider whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) can hold public agencies liable for violations. According to the case, the question will focus on defining a “person.” The determination will clarify whether the federal law explicitly waiving the government’s sovereign immunity applies.

This case began as a typical consumer dispute. In it, the aggrieved alleged that the lender provided erroneous information. The lender in question was the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The plaintiff explained that the problem concerned a loan he received from the Rural Housing Service, an agency under the USDA.

The Complaint

The plaintiff claimed that he repaid this loan in full. However, his credit report continued showing outstanding past-due payments. The plaintiff disputed this error with a consumer reporting agency, which forwarded the dispute to the lender. When the information did not change, he filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA.

The USDA promptly filed a motion to dismiss. According to the USDA, the agency did not qualify as a “person” under the FCRA. Thus, the USDA claimed immunity from liability. The district court found that the FCRA did not explicitly waive this right and granted the motion for dismissal. However, the plaintiff appealed this ruling, which the Third Circuit reversed.

The Results

According to the Third Circuit, the government “unambiguously” waived its right to immunity in the text, which defines a “person” to include a “government or governmental subdivision or agency.” Congress amended the FCRA in 1996, expanding it to include “any person” who furnished information to consumer reporting agencies instead of only the agencies themselves. However, it did not change the definition of a person. It has been the same since 1970 and includes government agencies.

Though the language in the statute is clear, there is case history favoring the argument that the government holds sovereign immunity. This history also reveals a circuit split on the issue. The USDA requested the Supreme Court to overrule the Third Circuit’s decision to resolve this split. 

As such, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case and review the arguments. However, businesses and many other organizations do not have immunity. They must comply with the FCRA and other applicable laws when handling credit and background check reports. As such, companies should consider working with a trustworthy background-check company. The right partner will ensure they comply with all relative regulations while delivering accurate and timely reports.

JDP makes background checks easy and reliable. Speak with a sales representative today.

Source