Employers relying on their current Form I-9 practices should take note. In March 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revised its Form I-9 Inspection Fact Sheet, breaking from nearly thirty years of established practice.
A Narrower Path to Correcting Errors
Since 1997, the Virtue Memorandum has given employers a clear, two-tier way to think about I-9 mistakes. Technical violations, things like a missing field or an incomplete entry, came with a built-in grace period: fix it within 10 business days of notice and avoid a penalty. Substantive violations didn't get that courtesy. They were sanctionable immediately.
That grace period was the cushion most HR departments relied on. The new Fact Sheet narrows it considerably by reclassifying a long list of formerly "technical" errors as substantive, removing both the cure period and any advance warning.
The penalties are substantial. Fines for substantive violations now run from $288 to $2,861 per deficient form, and the total exposure can grow quickly across a workforce with recurring documentation gaps. ICE issued no formal rulemaking and no transition guidance to accompany this shift, so many employers are still operating under assumptions that no longer hold.
What Now Counts as Substantive
The list of errors that can now trigger an immediate fine has grown considerably. It includes missing a date of birth or USCIS number in Section 1, leaving Section 1 unsigned without a date, omitting an expiration date in Box 4 even when it's documented elsewhere, and using a Spanish-language form outside Puerto Rico. It also covers an absent employer representative name or title, incomplete or inaccurate List A, B, or C details in Section 2 even when supporting documents are on file, a missing first day of employment in the certification, and gaps in preparer or translator information under Supplement A.
Employers relying on remote verification face new exposure too: failing to check the alternative procedure box, or using that procedure without active E-Verify enrollment, now lands in this category. The same goes for electronic I-9 systems that fall short of DHS standards for audit trails, electronic signatures, or security documentation.
Errors That Are Still Fixable, For Now
ICE also clarified a set of issues that remain technical and therefore correctable. These include an inaccurate or missing Social Security number for E-Verify enrolled employers, an incomplete name at the top of page two or its supplements, missing prior names used by the employee, an unrecorded name change during Supplement B reverification, use of an outdated form version, a missing employee address, and an absent employer business address.
These errors will not trigger an immediate penalty, but they still require prompt correction once identified. Treating them as a lower priority carries its own risk.
E-Verify Does Not Guarantee Compliance
A common misconception is that enrolling in E-Verify or another electronic system satisfies an employer's compliance obligations. It does not. E-Verify confirms employment eligibility; it does not assess whether the underlying Form I-9 was completed correctly. Employers remain responsible for every I-9 error regardless of E-Verify status, and any electronic I-9 platform must independently meet DHS technical requirements. The updated guidance signals closer scrutiny of this gap going forward.
What Employers Should Do Right Now
Waiting for an inspection notice is no longer a reasonable strategy. Employers should consider having Reynolds + Rowella run an internal I-9 audit now, to catch errors early rather than create a paper trail of known violations. Errors found should be corrected the right way, following established I-9 correction procedures rather than improvised fixes.
It's also worth revisiting onboarding workflows to catch errors before they happen, retraining the staff who complete and maintain these forms, and bringing audit practices in line across every office or department so nothing slips through inconsistently.
There is a meaningful legal benefit to acting early. Correcting an I-9 error proactively stops what is known as a "continuing violation" and starts the five-year statute of limitations for paperwork violations. That benefit is available only if correction occurs before ICE issues a Notice of Inspection, which makes early action essential.
The Bottom Line
ICE has moved decisively toward a stricter, penalty-first enforcement model. The technical versus substantive distinction that employers have relied on for decades is far narrower than it used to be, and outdated assumptions about what's "just a technical error" can now carry real financial consequences. A proactive audit now is a far better investment than scrambling to respond to a federal inspection later.
