SOME FACTS EMPLOYERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND ABOUT ICE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND I-9 AUDITS

As immigration enforcement remains a key priority under the current administration, businesses are seeking clarity on what to expect and how to handle potential workplace inspections by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). With enforcement efforts intensifying, employers should take proactive measures to prepare for possible audits or site visits from ICE.

ICE’s primary role involves apprehending, detaining, and deporting certain non-citizens. Many employers are familiar with ICE’s routine I-9 audits, but under recent policy shifts, there is a greater possibility of worksite enforcement actions targeting individuals deemed removable from the U.S. These operations are often carried out under civil administrative warrants, though in some cases, they may involve criminal warrants issued by a court. The Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division of ICE is expected to prioritize non-citizens with significant criminal records or those who have ignored deportation orders.

In the near future, a rise in I-9 audits is also anticipated. However, given budget constraints and potential economic consequences, widespread raids seem unlikely. Some audits will be random, while others may stem from broader investigations into specific companies.

To help employers prepare for potential ICE interactions, the following recommendations may be useful.

Key ICE Enforcement Priorities

1. Focus of ICE’s Enforcement & Removal Operations (ERO)

ERO has indicated it will prioritize the apprehension of noncitizens who:

• Have been convicted of serious criminal offenses, or
• Have received a final deportation order from an immigration judge but remain in the U.S.

However, we have recently seen examples where this is not true. During the first 50 days of Trump’s administration, it arrested 8,718 immigrants with NO CRIMINAL HISTORY and is processing them to be deported.

For example, Nelson and Gladys Gonzalez, a couple from Laguna Niguel, lived in the United States illegally for decades. They worked hard, had not committed any non-immigration crimes, and raised three daughters, all while regularly checking in with ICE as part of an agreement to remain in the country. They were detained and deported when they went to their routine in-person appointment with ICE on February 21, 2025.

2. Civil Detentions Under ICE Administrative Warrants

Most immigration violations are civil rather than criminal offenses. ICE officers have the authority to issue administrative warrants—without judicial approval—to detain individuals when there is probable cause to believe they are deportable under U.S. immigration laws.

3. Criminal Arrests Under Federal Judicial Warrants

ICE may pursue criminal charges (rather than just civil removal) in cases involving:

• Unlawful presence after deportation – Individuals who ignored a removal order or reentered the U.S. after being deported.
• Document fraud – Using falsified work authorization or identity documents.
• Employer violations – Knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, especially as part of a repeated or systematic practice.
• Noncompliance with ICE notices – Continuing to employ someone after being formally notified of their ineligibility.
• Other federal crimes – Any offense falling under ICE’s investigative jurisdiction.

4. Expected Nature of ICE Enforcement Actions

Contrary to popular perception, widespread workplace raids appear unlikely under current enforcement strategies. ERO is expected to focus on precise, targeted operations rather than large-scale sweeps for several important reasons:

a. Operational Constraints

• Limited personnel and detention capacity restrict ICE’s ability to conduct mass arrests
• Budgetary considerations and transportation logistics present practical challenges
• Due process requirements (including immigration court hearings for detainees) necessitate more selective enforcement approaches

b. Property Access Limitations

ICE generally cannot enter:

• Private business areas without consent
• Residential properties without either:
  • A judicial criminal warrant, or
  • Permission from the property owner
    The sole exception involves rare emergency situations justifying warrantless entry

c. Sensitive Locations Policy

While policies have evolved, ICE typically avoids enforcement at:

• Medical facilities – Due to patient care concerns and HIPAA privacy restrictions
• Educational/religious institutions – Unless evidence suggests deliberate harboring of undocumented individuals
• Hospitals – Even with policy changes, arrests of patients remain extremely uncommon

d. Residential Enforcement Protocols

For home visits with administrative warrants:

• Agents must request entry (no forced entry without judicial warrant)
• Occupants have the right to refuse entry
• Non-compliance may lead ICE to:
  • Seek criminal warrants when justified
  • Expand enforcement to other undocumented individuals present

5. Constitutional Protections During Encounters

Under U.S. law, every individual present in the country – regardless of immigration status – maintains the fundamental right to refuse answering questions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. This constitutional protection means that any voluntary disclosures made during questioning could potentially become evidence in immigration proceedings.

For business owners facing ICE inquiries, there exists a strategic balance between protecting employee rights and maintaining cooperative relations with federal authorities. Many employers opt for measured cooperation to prevent escalating enforcement actions, though such decisions should always be made in consultation with experienced legal professionals.

No organization should acknowledge potential violations or provide substantive information to investigators without first obtaining qualified legal advice, as these actions could create unintended consequences in both civil and criminal contexts.

6. When ICE Requests Immigration Paperwork

Under U.S. immigration laws, non-citizens must carry valid documentation proving their lawful status at all times when in public. If an immigration officer requests these documents during an encounter, the individual is legally obligated to present them.

Refusing to provide proper paperwork when asked can result in civil or criminal penalties, including fines of up to $100 and potential imprisonment for as long as 30 days. While officers have the authority to make these requests, individuals still retain certain rights—including the right to remain silent beyond verifying their identity and immigration status. It is important for non-citizens to understand these requirements while also being aware of their legal protections during such interactions.

7. ICE Data

As part of its enforcement efforts, ICE utilizes advanced data analytics supported by access to numerous government databases. The agency can cross-reference multiple information sources, including criminal records from state and federal systems, employer payroll submissions to the IRS, Social Security Administration records, and immigration documentation systems. These comprehensive data resources include verification tools for passports, green cards, work permits (EADs), I-94 arrival/departure records, and even birth records from participating states.

By aggregating and analyzing this information, ICE can identify potential immigration violations and prioritize enforcement actions. This extensive data integration significantly enhances the agency’s investigative capabilities while raising important privacy considerations regarding information sharing between government entities.

Difference Between I-9 Notice of Inspection and an I-9 Raid

The majority of I-9 verification reviews are conducted by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a distinct branch of ICE separate from Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). These audits typically begin with service of a Notice of Inspection (NOI), after which employers must submit their I-9 forms for examination. Certain jurisdictions, including California, impose additional requirements mandating employers to publicly post the NOI and provide formal notification to labor unions.

Employers face potential penalties for incomplete I-9 forms or significant paperwork deficiencies, though they generally aren’t held responsible if an employee presented fraudulent documents that appeared authentic during the hiring process. Historically, ICE has concluded audits by issuing Notices of Suspect Documents, instructing employers to terminate listed workers.

However, enforcement patterns may shift—while the agency could potentially bypass this step and instead obtain civil arrest warrants for unauthorized employees, practical constraints including limited resources make this scenario unlikely to become standard practice.

Employer Considerations Regarding ICE Cooperation

Businesses face important decisions when responding to ICE administrative warrants, as non-cooperation carries potential consequences. Although employers aren’t legally obligated to comply with civil administrative warrants, refusing to assist immigration authorities may trigger additional enforcement actions. ICE could respond by initiating an I-9 compliance audit of the company’s employment records, particularly if agents perceive the lack of cooperation as obstruction of their enforcement duties.

In more serious cases where ICE believes an employer’s actions may constitute criminal behavior, the agency could pursue judicial criminal warrants through federal courts. These decisions require careful legal analysis, as the appropriate response depends on specific circumstances while balancing operational concerns with potential regulatory exposure. Many organizations choose to consult with immigration counsel when developing response protocols to navigate these complex situations effectively.

Best Practices for Non-Discriminatory Hiring

Employers must carefully navigate immigration-related inquiries during the hiring process to avoid potential discrimination claims. Federal law prohibits questioning job applicants about their citizenship status or immigration background. However, employers may legitimately inquire whether a candidate currently needs or may require future visa sponsorship to maintain work authorization.

The verification process should only begin after extending a conditional job offer, at which point the new hire completes the required I-9 employment eligibility form. If uncertainty arises regarding an individual’s work authorization status, employers should immediately seek legal guidance rather than making assumptions. Improperly denying employment to authorized workers can expose companies to significant legal and financial consequences, including discrimination lawsuits under federal anti-bias statutes.

A properly structured hiring protocol helps ensure compliance while protecting both employer and applicant rights.