[notatoad]

>Obviously, it was a genuine human error

i'm not sure what about that is obvious.

And even if we accept that this was human error, when the form you're signing says in big print multiple times that you can go to jail for filling it out wrong, maybe don't just skip that section? I understand that this is a hard situation for this guy, but simplifying this as "one checkmark" is pretty silly. His argument that he didn't check that box is beside the point - he signed his name to an inaccurate form, which still puts him in the situation of misrepresenting his identity.

The guy wasn't some refugee fleeing a country under exceptional circumstances, he was a well-off professional moving for work. there's no excuse for not hiring an immigration lawyer to make sure all the paperwork is absolutely perfect in addition to taking a huge amount of care and double checking everything.

[philipkiely]

Please consider the situation with empathy. A real person, who by all appearances would make a good citizen, is unable to live in the country of his choice because of a single clerical error. Perfection is too high a bar to hold anyone to.

[bagacrap]

If "by all appearances" you mean "according to one autobiographical blog post". My default is empathy because it feels good and costs me nothing, but I don't think authorities have the same luxury when considering the claims of arbitrary individuals who could easily be pathological liars. The Bay Area tech ethos of "disruption" often boils down to bending or flaunting the rules to achieve what you think is a worthy goal, and this guy obviously felt the calling of San Francisco quite strongly. Now you're telling me there's no way a person who spent all those years single-mindedly focused on long term residence in SF would ever check the wrong box on a form if he thought it would somehow improve his chances of achieving a lifelong goal?

[notatoad]

being able to live in your country of choice is a privilege denied to a huge number of people who have never made a clerical error that looks identical to lying about their citizenship.

I understand this guy's problem, and i'm sad for him. but looking at it from the perspective of everybody else who's ever gone through the immigration process, or the people working on the immigration process, i can also understand why this situation couldn't really have any other end result.

[jariel]

"i can also understand why this situation couldn't really have any other end result"

No, this is not true. Mistakes happen all the time, everywhere. This guy had no motivation to lie on a simple form.

If you want to see how this works, check with your bank. Mistakes are made all the time processing money, and usually things can be fixed.

[LorenPechtel]

This has nothing to do with the immigration process. My wife is an immigrant, all our headaches with those idiots didn't involve a single I-9 form.

[redis_mlc]

Please read my comment above and stop being an argumentative pedant.

Form I-9 is primarily an employment document, not an immigration document.

[rumanator]

> Form I-9 is primarily an employment document

The form is a requirement to be able to immigrate to the US. No form, no imigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-9

[sveiss]

You can immigrate to the US without ever filling out an I-9, if you never work as an employee while in the US.

On the other hand, a US citizen who never leaves the country might fill out dozens over the course of a career, depending on how often they switch jobs.

[rumanator]

> is unable to live in the country of his choice

That's not how things work. You don't have a right to pick and choose which countries you enter, let alone live. Emigrating is a privilege that's granted by the host nation. If a nation asks a prospective imigrant to not commit fraud or misrepresent himself while applying for a privilege, no one should be surprised if they reject your application when you are caught providing false information.

[netsharc]

Since he presumably meets the qualifications for many countries (he's a capable manager, who would benefit his employer and improve the host country's tax earnings), there are probably many countries which would welcome him, and in that sense he does have a choice where he can live, does he not.

And is it his fault some idiot ticked the wrong box?

[notatoad]

"some idiot ticked the box wrong" is reading the blog post uncritically. that's obviously the author's perspective here, but it doesn't really make sense.

he signed his name to a blank section of the form. that signature is an attestation that the blank section immediately above it was filled in truthfully. it can't be both blank and filled in truthfully. that somebody ticked off a box in that section later on is beside the point (all the other options appear to require additional information, which was also not provided, so whoever ticked off that box made a decent assumption).

it's a mistake in the same way as signing a blank check is a mistake

[wbl]

And now the US loses another talented individual. Is this really the best system?

[rumanator]

> Since he presumably meets the qualifications for many countries

Actually he doesn't, because one of the very basic requirements is to not commit perjury in the application by providing a document claiming he was an US citizen when he was not.

And I find it highly unlikely that an employee not only forgets to fill in the box attesting his legal status in the US but also an anonymous third party happens to fill it, and fills it the wrongest (and most convenient) way possible.

[redis_mlc]

> there's no excuse for not hiring an immigration lawyer

1) You're quite the zero-tolerance guy, aren't you?

Except it's not that simple. Form I-9 page 1 is to be filled out by the worker within one day of starting a new job, and page 2 afterward by the employer within 2-3 days.

So you don't have time to have your immigration lawyer actually look at it, unless you got some pre-filled form, which doesn't normally happen. In fact, you fill in page one and return it to the employer for the next step.

2) Having said that, I appreciate the original blog post bringing this to my attention, and plan to be more careful with this form than the last dozen times I've signed it.

I'm pretty sharp with US employment, tax and passport forms, yet that's the first time that I've heard somebody being banned for an I-9 mistake.

[sveiss]

> I'm pretty sharp with US employment, tax and passport forms, yet that's the first time that I've heard somebody being banned for an I-9 mistake.

Accidental false claims to citizenship are a "whoops, game over" situation which crops up on immigration advice forums from time to time. The USCIS policy manual [1] specifically mentions the I-9 citizenship question as grounds to make an inadmissibility decision, and cites relevant immigration appeals cases.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-k-chapter-...

[wiseleo]

Interesting. It requires willful intent (this person had none) and proof of timely retraction (this person made numerous good faith attempts), both of these tests should clearly not be met.

[maximente]

something seems off though. IIRC with an I-9 you need to also provide artifacts supporting your ability to work in the US. it's curious that the article doesn't mention what documents he used and if they were appropriate for a different category.

since he didn't have a green card at that point nor US passport obviously, what documents were used to supply that evidence? e.g. "i used X and Y, which US immigration should plainly see does not support a claim of being a US citizen"

[pandaman]

Indeed.

1. The form has been faxed in March of 2012 judging by the text on top.

2. According to his linkedin profile he was going to a business school in 2012 and 2013.

3. His article states that he has taken OPT to work for a year after graduation and at the end he got job offer at MuleSoft, which was in 2014.

So what was his work authorization in or before March 2012? It could not be OPT since he just started his degree in 2012 and OPT requires a year of study ( https://www.uscis.gov/opt ). He does not seem to have any work authorization other than OPT in 2014, when he has taken the job in MuleSoft so he has not started his GC application at the time (otherwise he'd had an EAD and would not need to go to Argentina for a year to get an L1 visa in the first place). So, given only the information from Linkedin I cannot see how he could possibly be authorized to work at the time. The fact he has not filled I-9 correctly just corroborates this.

[LorenPechtel]

I don't know the current situation, 30 years ago there was a period where my wife was working on her foreign passport + a letter from immigration. (Which was a total joke as the letter had no anti-tamper measures whatsoever, nor was any verification done against their data. I do not recall the state of technology back then to know how high end a setup you would need to forge it--with modern tech I could easily forge it with the stuff within 3' of me as I write this.)

[overlordalex]

> Except it's not that simple. Form I-9 page 1 is to be filled out by the worker within one day of starting a new job

Looks like its any time up to the first day of work, however the wording is a little confusing. How can you start work without accepting a job offer?

>> Employees must complete and sign Section 1 of Form I-9 no later than the first day of employment, but not before accepting a job offer.

> I'm pretty sharp with US employment, tax and passport forms, yet that's the first time that I've heard somebody being banned for an I-9 mistake.

The form clearly states some severe penalties for not answering honestly. Seems like the author got off lucky!

>> I am aware that federal law provides for imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents in connection with the completion of this form.

>> I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am (check one of the following boxes):

[smileybarry]

>> Employees must complete and sign Section 1 of Form I-9 no later than the first day of employment, but not before accepting a job offer.

> Looks like its any time up to the first day of work, however the wording is a little confusing. How can you start work without accepting a job offer?

It doesn't sound that confusing to me. You accept the job on date X and agree to start work on date Y; between X and Y+1, you must fill in this part of the form.

It's not uncommon to have a gap between accepting a job and starting it (in tech, at least), that's what I did as I wanted to take some time off between jobs.

[rumanator]

> Except it's not that simple.

The case presented so far is actually quite simple. The prospective immigrant is required to state if he is a citizen, permanent resident, or alien authorized to work. That's the employee's job, not the employer. If the employee forgets he is an alien and claims he is a US citizen then that's a problem.