Comment Submitted by Makita Thatcher

Re: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2007-0023 OMB Control No. 1615-0092 E-Verify Program Information Collection My comment addresses the E-Verify Program information collection and the collection instruments used to create, process, contest, and resolve employment-authorization cases. E-Verify can serve an important compliance function. My concern is that when employment authorization is affected by data matching, employer action, agency records, or system outputs, the affected worker must receive clear notice, meaningful correction procedures, and records sufficient to show what happened. A data match can become a judgment. When that judgment affects work, income, immigration status, or family stability, the process must be traceable. 1. Mismatch correction and worker notice. USCIS should ensure that any tentative nonconfirmation, final nonconfirmation, case closure, referral, duplicate case, photo mismatch, document mismatch, or data mismatch is accompanied by clear worker notice in plain language. The notice should explain the specific issue, the record or agency source involved, the worker's deadline, the steps required to contest or correct the result, and what the employer may and may not do while the case is pending. 2. Employer obligations. The collection instruments, memoranda of understanding, training materials, and user screens should clearly instruct employers that they may not terminate, suspend, reduce hours, delay training, withhold pay, or otherwise penalize a worker solely because of a tentative or unresolved E-Verify result. USCIS should require employers to preserve proof that required notices were provided and that workers were given a meaningful opportunity to contest a mismatch. 3. Audit logs and preservation of the record. USCIS should preserve records sufficient to reconstruct each case, including information entered by the employer, system responses, timestamps, notices generated, referral dates, worker decisions to contest or not contest, employer actions, case closures, final determinations, and any later correction or reopening. If an E-Verify result later affects employment, immigration eligibility, benefits, enforcement, or adjudication, the worker and reviewing authorities should be able to trace the record. 4. Correction before consequence. USCIS should provide clear correction procedures for mistaken, incomplete, outdated, or mismatched records before an E-Verify result becomes a final employment consequence. The process should address errors involving name changes, transliteration, document numbers, Social Security records, DHS records, citizenship or immigration status records, expired or renewed documents, employer data-entry mistakes, and duplicate or prematurely closed cases. 5. Language access and digital access. E-Verify notices and instructions should be available in languages commonly used by affected workers, and the process should not depend on digital access alone. A worker should not lose employment because the correction pathway was linguistically inaccessible, technically inaccessible, or unclear. 6. Burden and cost. USCIS should include the time and burden placed on workers, not only employers or agency users. A worker may need to read notices, contact an agency, gather records, travel, take time away from work, obtain assistance, or correct records held by more than one system. The burden estimate should reflect the practical burden on workers who must resolve mismatches. 7. Aggregate auditability. USCIS should maintain aggregate data on tentative nonconfirmations, final nonconfirmations, contests, corrections, case closures, employer compliance findings, appeals or reopened cases, known error patterns, language-access needs, and average resolution times. This data should be available for appropriate oversight by Congress, Inspectors General, courts, and the public so that the program can be evaluated for accuracy, fairness, and burden. Conclusion The E-Verify information collection should not only collect data efficiently. It should preserve the safeguards necessary to prevent inaccurate, inaccessible, or misunderstood data from becoming an employment consequence. Where E-Verify affects a person's ability to work, the notice must be specific, the correction process must be meaningful, employer obligations must be clear, and the record must be preserved. Respectfully submitted, Makita Thatcher Georgia