Three Immigration Compliance Priorities for Construction Employers This Quarter
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced immigration attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed September 23, 2026
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
If we could only do three things this quarter to be better prepared, what should we prioritize?
Attorney Answer
Three things this quarter.
(1) (a) Inform the workers of their rights. Give every crew the bilingual rights card and a short explanation of what it does and does not do: the right to decline questions and to ask for a lawyer (Florida v. Bostick; United States v. Frazier), the duty to carry the registration document issued to them (8 U.S.C. § 1304(e)), and the rule that silence is not cost-free in immigration court (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza). Keep it general so it stays on the right side of Utah's practice-of-law line (SCRP 4-802(d)(2)). (b) Adopt a written site-response protocol - a designated contact and alternate, warrant review (judicial warrant versus ICE I-200/I-205), the 'I am not authorized to consent' script (Illinois v. Rodriguez; 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2)), record preservation, and family and legal referrals - and run a one-hour supervisor training on it. On shared sites, agree the roles with the general contractor in advance (Donovan v. A.A. Beiro Construction).
(2) Put subcontract compliance and continuity terms in place, sized to state anti-indemnity law: lawful-hiring and I-9 warranties, notice of enforcement events, cure and replacement rights, staffing continuity, and indemnity that survives Utah Code § 13-8-1 and A.R.S. § 32-1159 (Nevada has no general statute).
(3) Get a law firm on a small retainer, so that when ICE arrives or a worker is detained the call goes to someone who already knows the company, can appear for a detained worker at once (a G-28 on file is what stops an unreviewable transfer from separating the worker from counsel), and can structure any legal-fee help under Utah's third-party-payer rule (SCRP 3-1.08(f)).
Two dates to calendar: the Supreme Court's September 28, 2026 conference on the bond-hearing question that Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin decided for Utah, and July 1, 2027, when Utah's E-Verify statute is contingently repealed.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) — U.S. Supreme Court
Why the 'I am not authorized to consent' script matters: consent from someone who appears to have authority can validate an entry. - Donovan v. A.A. Beiro Construction Co., 746 F.2d 894 (1984) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
On shared sites, the owner and other contractors can consent to common areas, so roles should be agreed with the GC in advance. - Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (2026) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Interior arrestees who entered without inspection are entitled to a bond hearing in the Tenth Circuit.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Federal Immigration Resources
- Visit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to check case status, forms, and official immigration guidance.
- Visit Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to find immigration court information and hearing details.
- Visit ImmigrationLawHelp.org to find nonprofit immigration legal-service providers near you.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three priorities?
First, inform workers of their rights and adopt a written site-response protocol with a one-hour supervisor training. Second, put subcontract compliance and continuity terms in place, sized to state anti-indemnity law. Third, get a law firm on a small retainer.
Why put a law firm on retainer now?
So the call goes to someone who already knows the company when ICE arrives or a worker is detained, and who can file a G-28 at once, which is the main protection against a transfer that separates a worker from counsel.
What dates should employers watch?
The Supreme Court's September 28, 2026 conference on the bond-hearing question the Tenth Circuit decided for Utah, and July 1, 2027, when Utah's E-Verify statute is contingently repealed.