For payroll departments accustomed to reconciling tax filings, wage records and employee populations, another reconciliation may deserve a place on the compliance calendar: making sure the people being paid line up with the employer’s Form I-9 records.
That connection can become particularly important if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement comes calling. An ICE Form I-9 inspection begins with a Notice of Inspection, and employers generally have at least three business days to produce the requested forms. Homeland Security Investigations also generally requests supporting documentation that may include payroll records and lists of active and terminated employees, according to ICE guidance updated in August 2026.
Those requirements help illustrate the broader conclusion of a recent OutSolve study, “I-9 Enforcement and Workforce Compliance: The New Reality for Employers,” which argues that employment verification can no longer be regarded primarily as a form-completion exercise at the beginning of employment. Instead, the study says employers face an ongoing compliance responsibility involving monitoring, auditing and coordination among functions that can include HR, legal, payroll, finance and technology.
“The biggest change is that employers have historically focused on getting the I-9 completed, but not always on getting it completed correctly,” said Desiree Throckmorton, OutSolve’s Vice President of I-9 Operations. “Having a form on file does not necessarily mean you are compliant.”
The underlying I-9 obligation is longstanding. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 added the employer-sanctions provisions of Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, requiring employers to verify the identity and employment authorization of employees. USCIS says employers must complete and retain Form I-9 for each employee covered by the requirement while refraining from discrimination based on national origin, citizenship or immigration status.
What has changed, according to Throckmorton, is the compliance environment around that obligation.
Enforcement puts greater emphasis on getting I-9s right
OutSolve’s report points to an increase in worksite enforcement as one reason employers should reconsider a process that may have been treated as largely complete after onboarding.
The report cites an April 2026 article by immigration attorney Hector Chichoni of Greenspoon Marder estimating that ICE issued Notices of Inspection during the first half of 2025 at a rate at least 10 times higher than in 2024.
Throckmorton cautioned, however, that the figure should be understood as an industry estimate rather than an official ICE statistic.
“The reported increase in DHS Notices of Inspection comes from the April 6, 2026 article ‘U.S. Immigration Compliance Statistics for 2025-2026,'” Throckmorton said. “Because this is an industry report rather than published ICE inspection data, I would characterize the figure as a reported industry estimate.”
That distinction matters. ICE’s current public inspection guidance explains how an audit is conducted and what employers may be asked to produce, but it does not provide that comparative 10-fold statistic. The guidance says ICE auditors inspect Forms I-9 after an employer responds to an NOI. Employers can be fined for substantive violations as well as technical or procedural failures that are not corrected following the correction period provided by law.
Throckmorton said employers should consequently focus on the accuracy of their records before receiving an inspection notice.
“The requirement to complete I-9s correctly is not new,” she said. “What has changed is the level of scrutiny.”
In practice, she said the weaknesses employers encounter frequently involve some of the fundamentals: late or missing I-9s, incorrect or missed reverifications, overdocumentation and inconsistent procedures.
“These are exactly the types of issues employers can identify through stronger internal controls and proactive auditing,” Throckmorton said.
Payroll records can provide a compliance cross-check
Payroll’s role becomes clearer when the government’s inspection process is viewed as a reconciliation exercise.
ICE says HSI generally requests supporting documentation during an I-9 inspection that can include an employer’s payroll as well as lists of active and terminated employees.
That makes payroll data valuable for determining whether the employer’s I-9 population aligns with its actual workforce, said Neil Dickinson, OutSolve’s Vice President of Compensation Services.
“Payroll holds the most reliable list of who actually works for you, and that’s where an inspection effectively starts,” Dickinson said. “Hire, rehire, and termination dates typically live in payroll.”
Employers should periodically reconcile payroll and I-9 records, he said, to uncover missing forms or discrepancies between systems before they emerge in an inspection.
“Payroll teams don’t need to become I-9 experts,” Dickinson said. “They need to collaborate and ensure the list of people being paid and the list of people with an I-9 are the same population.”
He also recommended comparing Social Security numbers in payroll against those reflected in I-9 records to identify discrepancies that require research. Employers should be careful, however, not to turn that reconciliation into an improper document-demand process. DOJ guidance notes that the Social Security number field on Form I-9 is optional unless the employer participates in E-Verify, and workers who are awaiting Social Security numbers may satisfy Form I-9 requirements if they otherwise present sufficient documentation.
That illustrates a recurring theme in employment verification compliance: finding a discrepancy can call for investigation, but it does not automatically dictate how an employer should respond.
Three business days can expose disconnected systems
The number three appears in two different stages of the I-9 compliance process.
For newly hired employees, Section 2 generally must be completed within three business days of the employee’s first day of work for pay. A worker starting on Monday, for example, generally must have Section 2 completed by Thursday. Section 1 may be completed after the employee accepts a job offer and before the employee starts work.
Separately, an employer served with an ICE Notice of Inspection generally receives at least three business days to produce its requested Forms I-9.
That second deadline can become especially significant when an organization’s I-9s, HR records and payroll data reside in separate systems.
“Three business days is not the time to figure out who owns the data, who pulls the records, and how the populations will be reconciled,” Dickinson said.
Throckmorton said technology can help employers build controls into the hiring process rather than relying on someone to identify new hires manually and track completion deadlines.
The growth of remote hiring has also changed how some employers can examine documents. Employers participating in E-Verify in good standing may qualify to use a DHS-authorized alternative procedure to examine I-9 documentation remotely at their E-Verify hiring sites. That procedure carries specific requirements, including examining document copies, conducting a live video interaction, retaining clear and legible copies and indicating use of the alternative procedure on Form I-9.
Throckmorton said misuse of the procedure is among the compliance problems she encounters.
“We also see employers using remote document verification when they are not enrolled in E-Verify, a crucial requirement, and therefore are not eligible to use the DHS alternative procedure,” she said.
Work authorization can make compliance an ongoing process
One of the strongest arguments for treating I-9 compliance as more than an onboarding exercise involves workers whose employment authorization is temporary.
DHS made a significant change in that area in 2025. Effective Oct. 30, 2025, most workers filing to renew an Employment Authorization Document on or after that date no longer receive an automatic extension solely by timely filing the renewal application, unless an extension is otherwise authorized by law or a Federal Register notice. Eligible workers who timely filed certain renewal applications before Oct. 30, 2025, may still qualify for an automatic extension of up to 540 days.
The change makes it particularly important for employers to distinguish among different authorization categories and filing dates rather than assume an expiring EAD has automatically been extended.
Temporary Protected Status has created another moving compliance target. For example, DHS terminated Venezuela’s 2021 TPS designation effective Nov. 7, 2025, following a series of earlier actions involving Venezuela’s TPS designations.
“Changes affecting employment authorization or Temporary Protected Status mean an employee who was authorized to work when hired may require attention again later,” Throckmorton said.
That puts more emphasis on knowing when reverification is required, monitoring applicable government announcements and maintaining clear ownership for the process, she said.
“With all the changes with TPS, EADs, parole and other temporary work authorizations, employers need clear ownership of that process,” Throckmorton said. “Technology can help with tracking and reminders, but employers also need a process for monitoring government changes and understanding who actually needs to be reverified and when.”
USCIS’ employer handbook advises employers to check its online guidance periodically for updates, underscoring the problem with treating I-9 instructions as static.
Multistate employers face an E-Verify patchwork
OutSolve’s study also identifies state E-Verify mandates as a complicating factor, particularly for employers with operations spanning multiple jurisdictions.
“E-Verify is similar to other areas of HR compliance, where multi-state employers have to manage a patchwork of state-specific requirements, and the rules don’t just vary by state,” Throckmorton said. “They can depend on employer size, where the employee works, whether the employer has a public contract, or even the industry.”
Those variables can create problems when an employer assumes the same policy can be applied to every location, she said.
Employers also must distinguish between Form I-9 and E-Verify. Form I-9 documents the verification of identity and employment authorization for covered hires. E-Verify electronically compares information from Form I-9 with government data. DOJ notes that while Form I-9 applies broadly, E-Verify applies to participating employers and is also required in some circumstances, including for certain federal contractors and under some state laws.
For employers seeking to use DHS’ remote document examination procedure, E-Verify participation is especially important: USCIS says only employers participating in E-Verify in good standing can qualify to use that procedure at applicable hiring sites.
More enforcement does not mean demanding more documents
Employers seeking to reduce I-9 exposure also face a potential trap: becoming so cautious that the compliance response itself creates another legal problem.
“Employers should respond to heightened enforcement by strengthening the process, not increasing the burden on the employee,” Throckmorton said.
Federal anti-discrimination requirements provide an important guardrail. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, employers must apply Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements consistently without regard to citizenship, immigration status or national origin. DOJ says an employer may not request more or different documents than required, demand a particular document or reject documents that reasonably appear genuine and relate to the worker based on citizenship status or national origin.
The current Form I-9 instructions similarly tell employers to allow workers to choose acceptable documentation and warn employers against rejecting otherwise acceptable documentation merely because it has a future expiration date.
The same restraint matters during reverification.
“Employers should reverify only when reverification is required,” Throckmorton said.
USCIS’ guidance similarly says employers must allow employees to choose the documentation they present from the allowable lists rather than specifying which documents must be provided.
“So, the goal is more disciplined compliance, not more aggressive verification,” Throckmorton said. “Enforcement risk is best managed through consistent procedures, training, and internal audits, rather than asking certain employees for additional proof.”
Finance and payroll have different roles
The expanding operational footprint of I-9 compliance does not mean payroll should assume responsibility for immigration compliance, Dickinson said.
Instead, payroll can function as a checkpoint.
In addition to maintaining accurate employment data, payroll leaders should be part of an organization’s inspection-response planning because of the payroll records ICE may request, he said. ICE’s current guidance expressly lists payroll and active and terminated employee lists among the supporting information HSI may seek during an inspection.
Finance has a different role, Dickinson said, centered on understanding financial exposure and making investments in compliance before an inspection identifies problems.
“A planned, periodic self-audit is predictable and manageable,” Dickinson said. “An inspection that uncovers substantive violations or technical/procedural failures can result in monetary penalties.”
ICE confirms that substantive violations and uncorrected technical or procedural failures can result in monetary fines. Technical or procedural failures generally carry at least a 10-business-day correction period after ICE identifies them during an inspection.
“Ultimately, payroll provides an important compliance checkpoint, while finance helps ensure the organization is investing proactively in compliance rather than paying reactively for noncompliance,” Dickinson said.
Moving from reactive to continuous compliance
For employers evaluating their programs, Throckmorton identified three priorities: establish and test an inspection-response plan, conduct an internal audit that looks at both forms and processes, and develop clearer controls around reverification.
An internal review, she said, should go beyond finding mistakes on individual forms.
“Employers need to understand how I-9s are being completed today, who is responsible, whether the process is consistent across locations, how reverification is being tracked, and where breakdowns are occurring,” Throckmorton said. “Fixing individual forms is important, but if you don’t understand what caused the errors, you’re likely going to keep creating them.”
The inspection plan is equally important because an employer that waits for a Notice of Inspection may be trying simultaneously to locate I-9s, obtain payroll data, identify terminated employees and reconcile different record systems within a short production window.
ICE’s three-business-day rule makes that preparedness more than theoretical.
“You don’t want to be figuring out at that point who needs to be involved, where the records are, or how you’re going to reconcile I-9, HR and payroll data,” Throckmorton said. “That process should already be established and tested.”
Ultimately, she said, the shift involves changing the employer’s understanding of when I-9 compliance ends.
“It’s about moving from reactive compliance to continuous compliance,” Throckmorton said. “You don’t want an inspection to be the first time you discover that either your I-9s or the process behind them has a problem.”
Five key takeaways
- I-9 compliance may extend well beyond onboarding. Temporary employment authorization, reverification requirements and changing DHS policies can require employers to revisit employee records after hire. USCIS, for example, says most EAD renewal applications filed on or after Oct. 30, 2025, no longer generate the automatic extension previously available solely from timely filing, subject to exceptions.
- Payroll can serve as an important compliance checkpoint. ICE says an inspection may include requests for payroll records and lists of active and terminated employees in addition to Forms I-9, making reconciliation between workforce and I-9 records particularly relevant.
- Inspection readiness matters before the notice arrives. Employers generally receive at least three business days after an NOI to produce requested I-9s. Organizations with records housed across multiple systems can reduce the need to establish ownership and reconciliation procedures after an inspection begins.
- Remote verification comes with conditions. DHS’ alternative procedure is available to qualifying employers participating in E-Verify in good standing, and USCIS imposes specific document-review, live-video and record-retention requirements.
- Stronger compliance should not become more aggressive document demands. Employers must allow employees to choose among acceptable I-9 documents and must comply with federal protections against citizenship-status and national-origin discrimination and unfair documentary practices.
