U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a significant expansion of the E-Verify Status Change Report, creating new compliance obligations for E-Verify employers and substantially increasing the number of employees who may appear on the report. Employers should review their internal processes now to ensure they are prepared to identify affected employees and complete reverification where required.
What Has Changed?
Previously, the Status Change Report was limited to certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to Humanitarian Parolees under EAD Category Code C11. USCIS has now expanded the report to include invalidated EADs associated with several additional categories, including Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries (Category Codes A12 and C19), asylum applicants (Category Code C08), and adjustment of status applicants (Category Code C09).
From an employer compliance perspective, this development is noteworthy because an employee may continue to possess an EAD that appears facially valid even though the underlying employment authorization has been revoked or terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS does not collect revoked EADs. Under the revised reporting framework, employers may receive notice of these status changes through E-Verify and will be expected to respond appropriately.
The announcement reminds employers that DHS may exercise its authority to revoke or terminate employment authorization and invalidate aliens’ EADs at any time. It also reminds employers to continue monitoring the “What’s New” portion of the E-Verify webpage for information about extensions or terminations of TPS. Interestingly, it puts the onus on vendors serving as employer agents to notify their customers of any cases with invalidated EADs.
What’s Expected of an Employer?
Employers that identify an affected employee through the Status Change Report should reverify by completing Supplement B of the Form I-9. At the same time, employers should continue to adhere to established Form I-9 and anti-discrimination requirements. Employees must be permitted to choose which acceptable documentation to present, employers should not create a new E-Verify case, and reverification practices should be implemented in a consistent, nondiscriminatory manner. Specifically, the employee must provide unexpired documentation from List A or List C on the Lists of Acceptable Documents. Remember employers should not reverify identity documents (List B).
Consistency Is Critical
One notable challenge is that USCIS still has not provided guidance regarding how much time employers should give employees to present alternative documentation after appearing on the Status Change Report. At this point, employers should have already established a uniform and reasonable timeframe for employees to complete reverification and ensure that the timeframe is applied consistently across all affected workers. Employers may also wish to review and document their escalation, suspension, and termination protocols for situations in which an employee is unable to present acceptable documentation. Where an employee is unable to establish continuing employment authorization within the employer’s established timeframe, employers may need to suspend or terminate employment in accordance with their existing policies and practices. Employers should ensure that similarly situated employees are treated in the same manner to minimize discrimination risk and maintain compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The practical takeaway is straightforward: E-Verify employers should expect a broader population of employees to appear on the Status Change Report and should ensure that the report is actively monitored. Organizations that rely on E-Verify, particularly those with significant populations of TPS holders, asylum applicants, adjustment applicants, or other EAD-dependent workforces, should revisit their internal escalation procedures, reverification workflows, training protocols, and decision-making frameworks to ensure continued compliance. USCIS has made clear that employers and employer agents should incorporate the expanded reporting functionality into their Form I-9 compliance programs going forward.
What About Employers That Do Not Use E-Verify?
For employers that do not participate in E‑Verify, the implications are far less clear. Because these employers do not receive Status Change Report notifications, they may have no visibility into whether an EAD has been revoked or whether the underlying employment authorization has been terminated.
The expansion of the Status Change Report further underscores the growing distinction between E‑Verify and non‑E‑Verify employers. E‑Verify employers now receive direct notice from DHS when certain EADs have been invalidated and are expected to take appropriate reverification and compliance steps. By contrast, employers that do not participate in E‑Verify typically do not receive this information and may have no independent means of knowing that an employee’s underlying work authorization has ended despite the employee presenting an otherwise facially valid document. As a result, government expectations regarding employer knowledge, constructive notice, and compliance obligations may increasingly diverge based on whether an employer participates in E‑Verify.
Other Considerations
Employers should also exercise caution before drawing conclusions based solely on immigration enforcement activity. In recent weeks, we have received increasing reports of individuals holding valid EADs, particularly in the C08 category, being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While these situations naturally raise compliance concerns, an arrest, detention, release from custody, placement into removal proceedings, or enrollment in an alternative-to-detention program does not necessarily provide employers with clear information regarding an individual’s work authorization status.
Accordingly, employers should resist making assumptions based on immigration enforcement activity alone. Instead, employers should consult experienced immigration counsel and continue to rely on established Form I-9 and reverification procedures, including information received through E-Verify where applicable, when assessing an employee’s ongoing employment authorization.
Key Takeaway
Reasonable minds may differ on the broader implications of the EAD Status Change Report and the expansion, but from an employer compliance perspective, the change ultimately provides greater certainty regarding an individual’s employment authorization. That certainty supports accurate Form I-9 and E-Verify records, reduces ambiguity when making employment decisions, and helps employers maintain a more defensible compliance posture. On the other hand, it may further widen the divide between E-Verify and non-E-Verify employers by placing additional compliance obligations on E-Verify participants. At the same time, those obligations provide E-Verify employers with greater visibility into employment authorization status and the certainty that accompanies it. Ultimately, clearer work authorization information can help mitigate exposure and surprises tangential to government audits, inspections, and worksite enforcement actions, while giving employers greater confidence in their workforce compliance processes.
The group advises on Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance; ICE inspections and worksite enforcement matters; internal immigration assessments and I-9 audits; DOL immigration-related wage and hour investigations; H-1B compliance; DOJ IER and OCAHO anti-discrimination matters, including enforcement actions involving allegations that U.S. workers were disadvantaged in favor of foreign workers; and deemed export and ITAR compliance issues.The team combines deep immigration compliance and investigations experience with Seyfarth’s nationally recognized labor, employment, and litigation capabilities. For timely updates on immigration developments, subscribe to Seyfarth’s immigration blog, Through the Immigration Lens.