Immigration laws have always been an ever-changing maze of enforcement and loopholes. Nowadays, as a result of the great number of illegal immigrants in America and the need for the immigration comprehensive reform bill, any smart business owner realizes that they need the help and guidance of an immigration attorney urgently. It is much less or a headache to seek legal counsel in regards to compliance with current immigration requirements and laws such as the Basic Pilot Program than to seek legal guidance upon receipt of notice that you are being investigated or arrested by the FBI or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The President Bush Administration has allocated millions of dollars to ICE to specifically crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants. ICE is not only sanctioning the suspected employers but also prosecuting them with criminal charges and forfeiture of millions of dollars from them. In 2006, ICE conducted the largest employer enforcement raid in the history of the United States.
As part of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) current focus of enforcing sanctions and prosecuting employers who hire illegal aliens, DHS recently proposed its “No-Match” regulation to clarify employer’s obligations in resolving questions regarding employment eligibility and to help the government crack down on those employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.
FACTS: Millions of social security numbers provided by employers do not match the information in the social security administration’s (SSA) databases. In some cases when an employer has ten or more employees with inaccurate information, the SSA sends the employer a “no-match” letter. DHS’s proposed “no-match” regulation outlines clear steps that employers can take in reaction to these letters. This regulation would also create a safe harbor for employers who undertake good faith efforts to verify their employees’ eligibility.
The original DHS “no‑match” regulation proposed under the Bush administration was never fully implemented and was formally rescinded in 2009, but U.S. employers still receive Social Security “no‑match” letters and remain under active ICE worksite enforcement in 2025, while Canadian employers face a parallel but differently structured compliance regime overseen by CBSA, IRCC and ESDC. There is no identical “no‑match” rule in Canada, yet mismatches in Social Insurance Numbers (SINs) or immigration status can still trigger serious consequences for employers under Canada’s employer compliance rules.
Because of space limits, this version is more concise than 2,000 words but keeps a structure you can expand into a longer article for your site.
What “no‑match” means today
In the United States, a “no‑match” situation generally refers to a case where an employee’s name and Social Security Number, as reported by an employer, do not match the records held by the Social Security Administration (SSA). These discrepancies can arise for many benign reasons—such as name changes, data‑entry errors or cultural naming conventions—and an SSA “Employer Correction Request” (no‑match letter) explicitly does not state that an employee lacks work authorization or has committed fraud.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President George W. Bush issued a 2007 “no‑match” regulation that would have imposed strict timelines and specific steps for employers receiving SSA or DHS mismatch letters, coupled with a “safe harbor” from allegations that the employer had “constructive knowledge” of unauthorized employment if those steps were followed. Litigation quickly blocked implementation of the rule, and in 2009 DHS announced and then finalized a rescission of the “no‑match” regulation, explaining that enforcement resources would be shifted toward tools like E‑Verify and the ICE Mutual Agreement Between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program instead of relying on SSA mismatch letters.
Although the formal DHS “no‑match” rule is gone, the underlying idea—that name/number discrepancies can be one indicator of unauthorized employment—still influences how ICE views an employer’s overall compliance posture during worksite audits, especially when no‑match issues coincide with other document or I‑9 problems. SSA has periodically paused and resumed sending employer correction notices, but when they are in circulation they remain a social security administration tool focused on wage reporting accuracy rather than an immigration enforcement notice.
United States: SSA letters, ICE and employer duties
In the current U.S. framework, SSA no‑match letters and DHS/ICE worksite enforcement operate in parallel but distinct lanes: SSA cares about accurate earnings records for benefit calculations, whereas ICE enforces the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on hiring individuals who are not authorized to work. An SSA no‑match letter alone does not prove that an employee lacks work authorization and is not, by itself, sufficient evidence that an employer knowingly hired an unauthorized worker, but ignoring such letters can be difficult to defend if ICE later audits the employer’s I‑9s and finds broader compliance problems.
Best practice in the United States is for employers to treat a no‑match letter as a payroll and record‑keeping issue that must be addressed promptly, while carefully avoiding any assumption that the employee is undocumented or any knee‑jerk adverse action based solely on the letter. Employers typically document the steps taken to correct the discrepancy (such as checking internal records, asking the employee to review their information and encouraging the employee to contact SSA), maintain complete and accurate Form I‑9 records for all staff, and consider supplementary participation in E‑Verify where appropriate to demonstrate good‑faith compliance in the event of an ICE audit.
ICE continues to use I‑9 inspections, notices of suspect documents and, in serious cases, criminal worksite investigations to target employers who systematically ignore verification duties or exploit unauthorized workers, and patterns of unresolved identity or number mismatches can be one of several risk flags in an enforcement action. Because penalties can include civil fines, criminal charges and, in extreme cases, forfeiture of assets, many U.S. employers integrate no‑match handling into a broader compliance program that includes regular I‑9 audits, clear internal procedures and access to qualified immigration counsel when complex cases arise.
Canada: CBSA, SIN issues and employer compliance
Canada does not have a direct analogue to the former U.S. DHS “no‑match” regulation, and Canadian employers generally do not receive immigration enforcement letters triggered solely by a mismatch between employee names and SINs in the way U.S. employers may receive SSA no‑match letters. Instead, Canada’s regime focuses on whether employers who hire foreign workers meet the conditions attached to work permits and Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and work permits issued under the International Mobility Program (IMP).
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) run an employer compliance regime where inspections can take place during the term of a foreign worker’s employment and for up to six years after the worker starts, requiring employers to keep detailed records demonstrating that wages, duties, location and other conditions match the approved offer of employment. When serious non‑compliance is found—such as paying below promised wages, assigning very different duties, or employing foreign nationals without valid authorization—sanctions can include monetary penalties, temporary or permanent bans on using the TFWP or IMP, and publication of the employer’s name on a federal list of non‑compliant employers.
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) plays the front‑line enforcement role at the border and inland in relation to admissibility and removals, and it can investigate employers where there is evidence that unauthorized work or broader immigration violations are taking place, although routine payroll‑data mismatches are more typically handled through Service Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency rather than through CBSA enforcement letters. For Canadian employers, the functional equivalent of “no‑match” risk is often discovered during an inspection or audit that reveals that an employee never had the correct authorization, or that employment conditions have drifted far from what IRCC or ESDC approved.
Practical compliance steps for US and Canadian employers
In both countries, employers reduce risk by assuming that name/number discrepancies or documentation gaps are warning signs that must be investigated and documented, without jumping to conclusions about an employee’s status based solely on a database mismatch. In the U.S., that usually means building a written protocol for handling SSA no‑match letters, ensuring every employee has a properly completed Form I‑9, periodically self‑auditing I‑9s, and training HR staff so that follow‑up steps are consistent, non‑discriminatory and carefully recorded in case ICE later reviews the employer’s files.
In Canada, prudent employers align hiring and HR practices with the conditions of any LMIA, employer portal offer or work permit, keep copies of contracts and proof of wages and working conditions for at least six years, and respond quickly and transparently to any IRCC, ESDC or CBSA inspection request, often with help from experienced immigration counsel. Across both jurisdictions, treating immigration and work‑authorization compliance as a continuous governance obligation—rather than a one‑time hiring formality—helps protect businesses from fines, reputational damage and, in the most serious cases, criminal investigation.