IER Interventions:  Citizenship Status

Fiscal year covers the period of October 1 thru September 30

Fiscal Year 2022

Phoenix, AZ

On January 20, 2022, IER learned that it helped a U.S. citizen begin his job at a farm. The caller interviewed for a job at a farm hundreds of miles from where he lived, so he sought housing on the farm similar to what the farm gave its workers with H-2A visas. However, the farm told the U.S. citizen that it lacked sufficient housing for him, and the farm did not want to displace any H-2A workers. IER contacted the farm and provided information about the H-2A program and the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.  The farm decided to offer the caller a job and with housing, and the caller started his job.

 

Fiscal Year 2021

Durand, MI

On November 20, 2020, IER assisted a worker at a fast food restaurant whose employer fired her because she was not a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen.  IER reached out to the employer and provided information on the validity of EADs (Form I-766), the document that the worker wanted to show for the Form I-9, and the prohibition on citizenship status discrimination in hiring under the INA.  The employer volunteered to continue the worker’s onboarding and have her begin working for the company. 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ

On December 14, 2020, an IER staff member successfully completed an intervention on behalf of an asylee that had not been considered for a job based on his citizenship status. The asylee called IER after a staffing agency informed him that the position he applied for required that candidates be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. IER contacted the staffing agency and explained that section 1324b prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status in hiring unless required by law, regulation, executive order, or government contract.  The staffing agency contacted the asylee and placed the individual back into consideration for the position. 

Houston, TX

On March 7, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of an individual authorized to work in the United States.  The employer asked the individual’s specific citizenship status, and threaten to revoke the offer if the worker did not provide the information.  IER provided the employer with information from IER’s website and I-9 Central regarding citizenship status discrimination and the onboarding process.  The employer informed the worker that he could continue with the onboarding process without providing his specific visa status.

Unknown

On August 19, 2021, IER received a call regarding a job advertisement that stated the position required U.S. citizenship and provided informal assistance to the recruiter that posted the job.  Based on the hotline call, IER reached out to the recruiter and explained that a requirement for U.S. citizenship could be unlawful if there is no law, regulation, government contract or executive order requiring the employer to limit consideration to U.S. citizens.  Other work-authorized individuals protected from citizenship status include U.S. nationals, recent lawful permanent residents, asylees, and refugees.  The recruiter worked with the employer in question and determined there was no legal requirement for the citizenship requirement and removed the citizenship requirement from the advertisements in question. 

Nationwide

On August 24, 2021, IER provided information to a company through the IER hotline and the employer decided to no longer ask in its application whether job applicants are U.S. citizens. IER received a call from an individual who noticed the question on online job applications. IER contacted the company and the company decided to no longer include this question because it had no legal requirement to limit jobs to U.S. citizens. 

 

Fiscal Year 2020

Boise, ID

On November 25, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident in re-securing his job offer after his employer indicated it would suspend his offer as he was not a U.S. citizen, which the employer believed was necessary under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  IER contacted the company and clarified that while ITAR does place restrictions on non-U.S. persons, lawful permanent residents qualify as U.S. persons.  IER ensured that the employer was aware of IER’s resources on ITAR/EAR and citizenship status discrimination.  The individual’s job offer was re-extended the following day.

Florida

On January 9, 2020, IER assisted an Alien Authorized to Work who was fired by his employer after learning his citizenship status.  The worker was hired to work at an airport and the employer, believing that he did not qualify for a SIDA badge – a prerequisite for the position, discharged him.  The worker, however, have the necessary documents to qualify for a SIDA badge.  IER contacted the employer and with the assistance of the local CBP office, provided the employer with badging information.  The employer voluntarily rehired the worker and sponsored him for a SIDA badge.  After he was issued a badge, it paid him $1,600 in backpay. 

New York

On April 29, 2020, IER learned that an unemployment insurance claimant received her benefits after an extended delay.  The worker is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and her spouse contacted IER for assistance after she had supplied the state with evidence of her citizenship status but the state still had not released her funds.  IER reached out to USCIS’s SAVE and the state’s unemployment agency to assist in the caller in getting an update on the status of her claim.  Following IER’s contact, New York State contacted the claimant and released her funds.

Fremont, CA

On July 16, 2020, IER educated a recruiter at a technology company about citizenship status discrimination issues so it could avoid potential problems. IER received a hotline call from a U.S. citizen who went in for an interview and the company’s recruiter asked several questions about the caller’s citizenship status. The interviewer told the caller that it did not require U.S. citizenship for any jobs, but that it liked to know more about people’s background regardless of their citizenship status. The worker felt uncomfortable about answering these questions and asked that IER contact the interviewer to inform him about citizenship status discrimination. IER called the employer. The interviewer said he was not aware that citizenship status was a protected class and he asked citizenship status questions of all workers as “ice breaker” questions. The interviewer asked IER for information about citizenship status discrimination so that he could avoid potential problems, and IER sent him educational material. 

 

Fiscal Year 2019

Chapel Hill, NC

On October 30, 2018, IER learned that an employer removed advertisements that included a preference for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents without legal authorization.  IER was contacted about the job advertisements and reached out to the employer and explained that 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.  Other work-authorized individuals protected from citizenship status include U.S. nationals, asylees, and refugees.  The employer decided to remove the preference from its hiring for this position. 

Portland, OR

On November 7, 2018, IER learned that an employer stopped restricting hiring for an open position to only green card holders and U.S. citizens.  IER was contacted about the job advertisements and reached out to the employer and explained that 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.  Other work-authorized individuals protected from citizenship status include U.S. nationals, asylees, and refugees.  The employer decided to remove the preference from its hiring for this position.  The employer also moved the hotline caller who brought the job advertisement to IER’s attention forward in the hiring process.

Littleton, CO

On December 14, 2018, IER intervened regarding a job posting that stated a preference for U.S. citizens.  IER reached out to the employer and explained that section 1324b prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status in hiring unless required by law, regulation, executive order, or government contract.  The employer decided to correct its job postings. 

New York, NY

On March 12, 2019, an IER staff member successfully completed an intervention on behalf of an Alien Authorized to Work whose potential employer had mistakenly believed she required sponsorship.  In an interview for a position, the employer had asked the worker, an adjustment applicant, whether she was a lawful permanent resident.  When the worker replied no, the employer immediately halted the interview, stating that the position did not allow for visa sponsorship.  The IER staff member directed the employer to the information on USCIS’s website explaining that an adjustment applicant with the worker’s category code and other EAD information is authorized to work without sponsorship by the employer.  The employer decided to reconsider the worker for the position.

Los Angeles, CA

On March 20, 2019, IER learned that it saved the job of a non-U.S. citizen.  The worker applied for a job at an accounting firm and the company’s recruiter asked her for her immigration documentation.  The worker sent the recruiter a copy of her Employment Authorization Document (EAD).  After viewing the EAD, the recruiter told the worker that the company could not move forward with her candidacy unless she indicated on her application that she required employment visa sponsorship but the worker is employment authorized without the need for sponsorship.  The worker explained that she did not require sponsorship and also expressed concern that the recruiter was requesting employment eligibility documentation prior to offering her a job.  The worker called IER, and IER called the company.  IER explained that many categories of non-U.S. citizens have EADs that do not require employer sponsorship.  The company looked into the matter and determined that the recruiter violated company policy by: 1) requesting employment eligibility documentation prior to offering the worker a job, and 2) requiring the worker to state that she required sponsorship when that was not the case.  The company apologized to the worker and offered her a job.

San Francisco, CA

On April 5, 2019, IER saved the job of a work-authorized non-U.S. citizen. The worker showed her employer a receipt for the replacement of an Employment Authorization Document that was lost in the mail.  This is an acceptable receipt for a List A document, but the employer did not believe it could accept the receipt.  The worker called IER, and IER called the employer to explain that an employer should accept the receipt for a lost EAD for 90 days.  The employer decided to accept the receipt.

Louisville, KY

On August 6, 2019, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who complained that he could not start his new position because of his citizenship status.  An IER attorney called the LPR’s manager who believed that the position required U.S. citizenship.  The manager called a human resources representative who told the manager that he was mistaken and the position is not limited to U.S. citizens.  IER further confirmed that the manager accepted the caller’s Form I-9 documentation, a Social Security card and driver’s license.

Santa Barbara County, CA

On September 13, 2019, IER helped resolve a miscommunication between a technology company and its employees.  The company told its employees that they needed to provide information to comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Among other information, the company requested documentation showing the employees’ citizenship/immigration status, and the company limited the types of documentation the employees could show. The company requested the information because the ITAR and EAR require companies to get authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Commerce prior to transferring covered technology to certain non-U.S. citizens.  A worker called IER because the worker’s documentation establishing his citizenship status was not on the company’s list of documentation it would accept, and the worker was concerned he would lose his job.  IER called the company and provided information on types of documentation that individuals might have to show their citizenship/immigration authorization.  The company was grateful to learn that there were more government issued documents that reflect a person’s citizenship/immigration status.

 

Fiscal Year 2018

Edison, NJ

On October 10, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a work-authorized non-citizen who had been told that the company only hired U.S. citizens and greencard holders. The IER attorney contacted the hiring manager and counsel for the employer and explained that employers may not impose such restrictive hiring practices unless a law, regulation, executive order, or government contract allowed for it. The employer then reinstated the worker’s job. The worker stated, “thanks for the effort and time in resolving the issue on my behalf.  At this point, I'm beyond excited and I'm very appreciative. Thanks once again for intervening.”

Jolliet, IL

On November 21, 2017, IER learned that an apprenticeship program associated with a trade union stopped requiring applicants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship with their applications. A refugee service provider contacted IER after the service provider learned that the apprenticeship application required U.S. citizenship and related documents. IER contacted the apprenticeship program, the related union, and another federal agency and shared information about the law that IER enforces, which generally prohibits employers from limiting positions to U.S. citizens. The apprenticeship program decided to remove its citizenship requirement and is no longer requesting any employment eligibility verification documents because it does not employ the apprentices.

Cary, NC

On July 17, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an adjustment applicant to continue in the interview process for a new job. The adjustment applicant called IER’s hotline to report that he was not allowed to proceed with his application after he indicated his immigration status during his initial interview. IER contacted his potential employer and explained that citizenship status requirements, unless authorized by law, regulation, executive order, or government contract, are prohibited under the law that IER enforces. The employer decided to allow the job applicant to continue in the interview process, including a second interview.

 

Fiscal Year 2016

Nashville, TN

On January 7, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an employment‐authorized worker. The employer, a national health care provider, had inquired about the worker’s immigration status during his interview, and when the worker revealed that he had a valid EAD, the HR representative conducting the interview informed him that the employer did not hire workers who had “that type of visa.” The worker contacted OSC’s hotline, and after a series of communications among OSC, the HR representative, and corporate legal counsel, the worker was permitted to complete his interview and was offered a job. The employer stated that the HR representative had acted contrary to existing company policy, and expressed gratitude for OSC’s guidance.

Calhoun, GA

On July 12, 2016, two OSC staff members assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen whose employer was requesting documentation showing the worker’s U.S. citizenship. The worker called OSC because his employer asked to see the worker’s U.S. passport to prove the worker’s citizenship in connection with the processing of a temporary unemployment benefits claim for a recent lay‐off. Further, the worker said that an HR representative refused to accept the U.S. passport because it showed that the worker was born outside of the U.S. and then requested additional documentation. OSC contacted the employer and the HR representative’s supervisor confirmed that no documentation was required from the worker. The HR representative stated that the employer would not request any further documentation and would process the benefit claim with no further delay.

Houston, TX

On July 18, 2016, 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 of a lost driver’s license. 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 acceptable for 90 days. The employer stated that the worker will be allowed to begin work immediately.

 

Fiscal Year 2015

Odessa, TX

On July 1, 2015, an OSC attorney completed a successful intervention on behalf of a work‐authorized non‐citizen employee. The worker had contacted OSC’s employee hotline saying that her employer did not allow her to begin work as a nurse because she was not a citizen and required her to show a U.S. birth certificate to be hired. The OSC staff member contacted the employer’s HR representative at the worker’s request and informed the HR representative about the anti‐discrimination provision of the INA and its prohibition against document abuse, as well as the prohibition against citizenship status discrimination against protected individuals. The HR representative confirmed that the employee would be allowed to start work that same day.

 

Fiscal Year 2014

Baltimore, MD

On January 23, 2014, OSC intervened to assist a hotline caller who was told she would not be able to join the military unless she provided her stepfather's naturalization certificate even though she had already provided his U.S. passport. The OSC attorney called the Army recruiter to explain that U.S. passports, like naturalization certificates, are proof of U.S. citizenship. The Army recruiter had been unaware that U.S. passports could be used for his purposes. However, he checked and confirmed that he could rely on a U.S. passport for proof of U.S. citizenship. The hotline caller was informed that she would be able to join the military and was extremely grateful for OSC's assistance.

Fairfax, VA

On May 28, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was offered a job; however, when she presented her Permanent Resident Card for I-9 purposes, she was told that the job was for U.S. citizens only. The worker contacted OSC, and OSC called the employer and inquired about the U.S. citizen-only hiring requirement. After some research, the HR director explained that they had made a mistake and the job did not require U.S. citizenship. The employer decided to allow the worker to begin working immediately.

Galveston, TX

On July 10, 2014, OSC intervened on behalf of a work-authorized individual whose employer had neglected to hire him as a paid employee based on his citizenship status. The worker called OSC's hotline and explained that he had been doing research for the employer for several years. All the other individuals conducting the same research were paid for their work, but the worker was not. In November 2012, the worker obtained an EAD. He showed his document to his supervisor for Form I-9 purposes and his supervisor informed the worker that she could not accept the document and he could not be paid because he did not have the "proper visa." The worker continued to do research for the employer through July 2014 without pay. OSC then contacted the employer and asked whether there was a law, regulation, executive order or government contract requiring that its employees have a particular citizenship status, and the employer stated that there was not. OSC explained an employer's obligations under the anti-discrimination provision and the employer decided to bring the worker on as a paid employee going forward, and provided him with approximately $50,000 in back pay.

 

Fiscal Year 2013

St. Cloud, MN

On October 4, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to allow an LPR to continue the hiring process for a retail store. The employer had rejected the worker's driver's license and Social Security card as proof of work authorization and insisted on seeing the worker's Permanent Resident Card because she had marked her status in Section 1 of the I-9 form as an LPR. OSC spoke with an HR representative and explained that a combination of an unexpired List B document with a List C document was sufficient documentation for the I-9 process. The employer stated that worker would be allowed to continue with the hiring process.

Indianapolis, IN

On November 14, 2012, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The worker had recently arrived from the Dominican Republic, and had a I-551 stamp on his passport, indicating that he is an LPR and allowing him to work for one year until he receives his Permanent Resident Card. The employer, a food processor, demanded that the worker present his Permanent Resident Card and his unrestricted Social Security card in order to verify his eligibility for employment authorization. OSC contacted the employer's human resource manager, and explained that the worker's I-551 stamp on his Dominican passport was a valid List A document for I-9 purposes. The employer further agreed that the worker should not have been required to provide his Social Security card as the I-551 stamp was sufficient for I-9 purposes. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance, and hired the employee.

San Diego, CA

On December 7, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and allowed a U.S. citizen to continue with the job application process. The applicant, a dual citizen, applied for a job with a subcontractor of the U.S. Navy. Due to some background check guidelines from the Navy for individuals with dual citizenship, the employer told the applicant that she could not continue with the application process because of her dual citizenship. The applicant called OSC; in turn OSC contacted the subcontractor, and the subcontractor determined that it was misinterpreting the guidelines. Consequently, the subcontractor revised its hiring process for dual citizens and allowed the applicant to continue the application process.

Phoenix, AZ

On December 11, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker, a recently naturalized citizen from Kenya applied for work at a staffing agency but was denied employment because of a problem with his background check. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the manager at the staffing agency's headquarters to inquire about the issue related to the worker's background check. The manager realized that the issue had been resolved but the information had not been sent to the hiring site. The manager stated that the worker could return to the hiring site for job placement.

Washington, DC

On April 4, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR presented his Permanent Resident Card that he received from Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1985, which does not have an expiration date; thus, the employer did not accept it and requested the worker to obtain proof from USCIS that he is work-authorized. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that this version of a Permanent Resident Card is still acceptable for Form I-9 purposes. OSC referred to the USCIS Handbook for Employers (M-274) as a reference. The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that the employee would be allowed to begin work immediately.

Kent, WA

On April 24, 2013, an OSC attorney assisted an individual in getting his unemployment benefits restored. While the individual's claim was initially approved, it was later denied when the unemployment benefits agency could not verify the individual's citizenship status. OSC received guidance from USCIS's SAVE program and the agency was then able to confirm citizenship status information using SAVE's guidance, once again approving the individual's claim.

Buffalo, NY

On April 30, 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 in a few days. The worker explained that she had already applied for a new card but the employer insisted that he needed to see a new unexpired card by the date of expiration or the worker would have to be taken 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 does not need be reverified. OSC referred the employer to the USCIS Handbook for Employers. The HR director stated that worker would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

LaPunta, CA

On May 8, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR was asked by her employer to produced a new Permanent Resident Card because the one on file was about to expire. The worker explained that she had not applied for a new Permanent Resident Card. The employer dismissed the worker and advised that she could return once she had received her new card. The worker called OSC; OSC in turn called employer and educated the employer about proper reverification procedures and the fact that LPRs do not need to be reverified. OSC also sent the employer a copy of the M-274 (Handbook for Employers), identifying the guidance about reverification. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to return to work immediately, paying the worker $3,238.40 in back pay.

Kearney, NJ

On May 13, 2013, an OSC attorney learned that her phone call to an employer, a major national retail chain, resulted in a worker keeping her job. The worker, a lawful permanent resident, presented her foreign passport with unexpired I-551 stamp in it for verification purposes. The employer's representative insisted on seeing the worker's Permanent Resident Card, claiming she needed to inspect the card to obtain a number from the back of the card. As the worker had lost her Permanent Resident Card and was waiting for a replacement, she was unable to provide it and was told that she could not work until she did. The worker called OSC and as a result of OSC contacting the store manager and leaving a message with the legal department seeking to discuss the matter, the store manager invited the worker to return to work and stopped insisting that the worker present additional documentation.

Miami, FL

On May 14, 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 had expired. The worker had not applied for a new card so she called USCIS and they referred her to OSC. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. OSC referred to the USCIS Handbook for Employers as a reference. The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that employee would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Worzalla, MA

On May 22, 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 had expired. The worker had applied for a new card so he called USCIS and was referred to OSC. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. OSC provided the USCIS Handbook for Employers as a reference. HR staff stated that the worker would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Jackson Heights, NY

On May 28, 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 OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card should not be reverified. OSC provided the USCIS Employer Handbook as a reference. The HR director accepted the explanation and stated that the worker would be allowed to remain on the job uninterrupted.

Chicago, IL

On August 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen was hired and submitted an unexpired driver's license and a receipt for a replacement of a lost Social Security card. 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 was good for 90 days pursuant to I-9 receipt rules. The employer stated that worker would be allowed to begin work immediately.

 

Fiscal Year 2012

Baltimore, MD

On September 5, 2012, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employee had been working for a major healthcare company for several years when the employer advised the worker that his I-551 (Permanent Resident Card) had just expired. The employer then suspended the worker until he could present a new unexpired Permanent Resident Card. The employee contacted OSC, and an OSC staff member called the Human Resources Director's office. The OSC staff member discussed the reverification process, and explained that a Permanent Resident Card does not need to be reverified. Human Resources representative allowed the employee to return to work immediately and paid him $1,106.49 in lost wages.

Fremont, CA

On September 7, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and helped an LPR to be classified as a California resident eligible to pay in-state tuition. The admissions office advised the LPR that he would be charged out-of-state fees because, as the bearer of an expired Permanent Resident Card, he was "basically undocumented." OSC called the dean of admissions and explained that LPRs are authorized to live and work in the United States indefinitely, and that they do not lose their legal status when their Permanent Resident Cards expire. The dean of students decided to classify the student as a California resident eligible to pay in-state tuition, which costs approximately half of the costs of out-of-state tuition.

Austin, TX

On September 21, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The employer, a manufacturing company, insisted on reverifying the worker's Permanent Resident Card which had expired recently. The worker had been working for the employer for several years and was recently naturalized. When the worker presented his naturalization certificate, the HR representative maintained that he needed to present an unexpired Permanent Resident Card because the naturalization certificate was not part of the I-9 List of Acceptable Documents. The worker called OSC's hotline. OSC called the HR department, explained that an expired Permanent Resident Card must not be reverified and that a naturalization certificate is an acceptable document under List C; however it was not needed for this case. The HR representative stated that the employer would take no further action against the worker.

 

Fiscal Year 2011

Austin, TX

On May 27, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines.  The worker had accepted a part-time job as a registered nurse with the Sheriff’s office, but during the I-9 employment eligibility verification process she was told she could not be hired because she is not a U.S. citizen.  OSC called the Sheriff’s office and requested that it provide OSC with the reference to any law or ordinance that would require nurses working for the Sheriff’s office to be U.S. citizens. (Such a law would exempt the Sheriff’s office from the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, and allow it to have a citizen-only hiring policy).  The Sheriff’s office realized that although Sheriff’s deputies and some other officers must be U.S. citizens, there is not a citizenship requirement for nursing positions.  The Sheriff’s office then decided to continue the hiring process.

>