Employers in the United States and Canada face tougher, faster-moving worksite compliance exposure than a decade ago, so having an immigration attorney on call is now a practical risk-control step—not a “nice to have.” The goal is not only avoiding fines, but also reducing the odds that a routine audit escalates into criminal allegations, contract debarment, or business-disrupting enforcement actions.
Why an immigration attorney matters
In the U.S., worksite enforcement is commonly driven through Form I‑9 inspections (paperwork audits), criminal investigations, and employer compliance/outreach programs, and these paths can overlap depending on what investigators find. Because technical mistakes can become costly violations if not corrected properly, legal guidance is often most valuable before a Notice of Inspection or subpoena arrives.
In Canada, the compliance landscape is split mainly across the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program, and consequences can include administrative monetary penalties, bans, and public ineligibility status—so counsel helps keep hiring programs usable, not just “defensible.”
U.S. employer enforcement
ICE worksite enforcement is still heavily centered on Form I‑9 inspections, and the government’s toolkit can include civil fines, referrals for debarment, and (in more serious cases) criminal enforcement against employers along with administrative arrests of unauthorized workers. In a typical I‑9 inspection workflow, the agency can identify technical or procedural failures and give employers a limited window to correct them; uncorrected issues may be treated more seriously.
Updated penalty schedules and fine matrices used in practice can make I‑9 paperwork violations expensive even when there is no allegation of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. Public reporting in recent years has also highlighted that large settlements can occur when the violation rate is high or when investigations broaden beyond paperwork issues.
Remote hires and I‑9 document review
Since August 1, 2023, certain E‑Verify employers in good standing may use a DHS-authorized alternative procedure to examine I‑9 documents remotely using a live video interaction instead of in‑person document inspection. That alternative approach generally involves reviewing document copies (including both sides where applicable), conducting the live video review, and retaining clear, legible copies so the employer can produce them if the government later audits the process.
Employers using the alternative procedure must still offer an in‑person document examination option if an employee cannot or will not use the remote method. Remote verification reduces logistics friction, but it does not reduce the need for consistent policies, training, and record retention.
Canada employer compliance (TFWP + IMP)
Canada has increased monitoring and enforcement under the TFWP, including inspections and monetary penalties, and government and industry reporting has described thousands of inspections across recent reporting periods with meaningful total fines assessed. Separate reporting on later periods also describes hundreds of employer inspections, millions of dollars in fines, and program bans issued to some employers, illustrating that documentation gaps can trigger significant consequences.
Under Canada’s employer compliance framework, potential outcomes can include warning letters, administrative monetary penalties, and bans from accessing the IMP or TFWP, and work permits can be affected when employers are found non‑compliant. Non‑payment of assessed penalties can also create longer-lasting eligibility problems across programs, which turns a compliance issue into a strategic workforce planning risk.
A practical compliance blueprint (U.S. + Canada)
A cross‑border compliance program should be built like an internal control system: clear ownership, repeatable steps, documented decisions, and fast access to counsel when a trigger event happens. The strongest programs treat immigration compliance as part of hiring operations (HR, legal, payroll, and operations), not as an occasional paperwork exercise.
Foundational controls
- Assign a single compliance owner and a backup, and keep an attorney escalation contact list that includes after‑hours numbers.
- Maintain a standardized onboarding workflow so every new hire is processed the same way, including remote-hire rules if used in the U.S.
- Run scheduled internal audits of U.S. I‑9 files so technical and procedural errors can be corrected before the government identifies them under a formal deadline.
U.S.-specific controls
- Train HR to treat a Notice of Inspection as a legal event: preserve records, follow deadlines, and avoid backdating or informal edits that can look deceptive in an audit.
- If using remote I‑9 verification, document eligibility and follow the required steps consistently across sites and managers.
- Keep written playbooks for how to handle suspect documents and re-verification so supervisors do not drift into discrimination or inconsistent treatment.
Canada-specific controls
- Build a conditions-tracking file for each foreign worker (job title, wages, location, duties, hours) so the business can show it met the terms that were offered and authorized.
- Keep documentation that supports wage compliance and working conditions, because enforcement often focuses on whether foreign workers received the pay and terms that were promised.
- Treat penalties and deadlines as business continuity risks, because ineligibility can extend beyond a single case and restrict future hiring pathways.
What to do when enforcement shows up
The priority in both countries is to protect employee rights, protect the company’s legal position, and prevent routine interactions from escalating into broader exposure. A prepared response plan also reduces operational chaos—especially in industries where a surprise enforcement event can shut down a shift or disrupt customer service.
U.S.: if an inspection starts
- If served with a Notice of Inspection, involve counsel immediately and organize production carefully, because I‑9 audits can lead to written findings and then potential fines.
- Use any available correction window promptly and document how corrections were made, following accepted compliance practices rather than “quiet fixes.”
- Do not allow access to non‑public areas or provide documents beyond what is required without counsel review, especially if anything suggests a shift from civil inspection to criminal investigation.
Canada: if a compliance inspection starts
- Treat record requests as a formal compliance event and respond through a controlled channel so the company provides complete, consistent documentation.
- If inspectors allege non‑compliance, counsel can help assess whether there is a defensible justification, what evidence is missing, and what outcome is most likely.
- Act quickly on penalties and deadlines, because unresolved amounts and adverse findings can affect future program eligibility.