Quick Links
- Detention & Removal
- Detention & Removal
- Detention Facilities
- Detention Management
- 2008 Detention Standards
- 2000 Detention Standards
- Fugitive Operations
- Federal Protective Service
- Hazardous Response
- K-9 Explosive Detection
- Mega Centers
- Mission
- Mobile Command Posts
- Protective Investigations
- IMAGE
- Benefits
- FAQs
- Program
- International Affairs
- Attaché Offices
- Foreign Operations
- Foreign Programs Division
- Mission
- Investigations
- Child Exploitation
- Community Shield
- Compliance Enforcement
- Contraband Smuggling
- Cyber Crimes Center
- Financial Crimes
- Human Rights Violators
- Human Trafficking
- Identity/Benefit Fraud
- Intellectual Property Rights
- Trade Transparency
- Worksite Enforcement
- Secure Communities
- Fact Sheet
- Students/Exchange Visitors
- International Students
- SEVP FAQ
- SEVP I-901
- SEVP Outreach
- SEVP Schools
- SEVP Students
- State/Local Coordination
- ACCESS
- Section 287g
- Section 287g FAQ
- Training Request Form
Programs
Safe Harbor
Important Information:
On October 10, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in AFL-CIO, et al. v. Chertoff, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 07-CV-4472 CRB). The preliminary injunction enjoins and restrains the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration from implementing the Final Rule entitled "Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter."
Employers Who Receive a SSA No-Match Letter
Every year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) informs thousands of employers via a "no-match" letter that certain employees’ names and corresponding Social Security numbers provided on Forms W-2 do not match SSA’s records.
Through regulation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reiterating that employers remain accountable for the workers they hire and clarifying the steps employers should take to resolve mismatches identified in letters issued by SSA.
No-Match Links:
Worksite Enforcement Fact Sheet
Worksite Enforcement Case Example