A Final Nonconfirmation and the Decision It Forces
A final nonconfirmation is the end of the verification process, not a finding about a person. It narrows the employer to two lawful closure choices, and the more permissive of them carries a knowledge risk that grows the longer it is relied on.
The rule in short
A final nonconfirmation means the system could not confirm work authorization after the contest period ran or the worker's efforts did not resolve the discrepancy. The employer must close the case, and may close it either by terminating the employment or by continuing to employ the worker and recording that choice. Continuing employment removes the statutory presumption of good faith and is reported to the administering agencies.
A final nonconfirmation is the last case result the system produces. It arrives when the contest period has run without resolution, when the worker did not take the steps required to resolve the discrepancy, or when an agency closed the case without reaching a confirmation. Whatever the route, the employer is left with a case that must be closed and a decision that must be recorded.
What the result establishes, and what it does not
The result is a statement about the verification process, not an adjudication of anyone's immigration status. No agency has decided that the worker is unauthorized. What has happened is that a discrepancy between the submitted information and the government records was not resolved within the process. Discrepancies of that kind arise from unamended records after a change of name, from clerical transposition, from a document number entered incorrectly, and from a worker who never received the notice.
That distinction is not academic. It is the reason the operating rules leave the employer a choice rather than commanding dismissal, and it is the reason an employer that treats the result as conclusive is on weaker ground than it assumes. The result narrows the options; it does not decide the question.
The two closure options
Every case must be closed, and closure requires selecting a reason. One route is to end the employment and close the case on that basis. The other is to continue employing the worker and to record that the employment continues after a final nonconfirmation. There is no third option: leaving the case open indefinitely is itself a compliance failure, and it shows in the account record as an aging case.
Termination on this basis is lawful under the operating rules, and an employer that follows the process through to the final result and then acts is doing what the system contemplates. The employer should nonetheless apply the decision consistently. An employer that terminates on a final nonconfirmation in some instances and not others, with the pattern tracking apparent national origin, has created a discrimination question that the verification rules do not answer.
Consistency is best achieved by writing the rule down before any case reaches this stage. A policy that states what the employer does on a final nonconfirmation, applied without exception, is far easier to defend than a series of individual judgments made under pressure. It also removes the decision from the supervisor who knows the worker and places it with whoever administers the policy, which is where it belongs.
| Closure choice | Reported to the agencies | Effect on the good faith presumption | Principal risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment ended after the final result | Recorded as the closure reason | Not engaged; no continued employment | Discrimination claim if the practice is applied unevenly |
| Employment continues after the final result | Yes, and the agencies are notified | Presumption unavailable for that worker | Constructive knowledge if enforcement later reviews the file |
| Case left open | Visible as an aging unresolved case | No result to rely on | Account compliance review and a finding of misuse |
| Employment ended before the final result | Case closed prematurely | No protection; the process was not completed | Adverse action claim regardless of the eventual result |
The risk in continuing to employ
The permissive option carries a cost that is easy to underestimate. The statute prohibits knowingly continuing to employ an unauthorized worker, and the regulation defines knowledge to include constructive knowledge inferred from the facts and circumstances. A final nonconfirmation is a fact in the employer's possession. It is not proof of anything, but it is the sort of information from which a constructive knowledge argument is constructed.
The exposure is also cumulative. An employer that continues the employment while the worker actively pursues correction of a government record occupies a defensible position, particularly where the effort is documented. An employer that continues the employment for a long period with no record of any further step, and no explanation, occupies a much weaker one. The difference is entirely in what the file shows about the interval.
There is also a reporting consequence. Continued employment after a final nonconfirmation is notified to the administering agencies as part of closing the case. The employer is therefore not making a private decision that stays inside the business. It is making a recorded one, and the record exists independently of anything the employer retains, which is worth understanding before the option is chosen on the assumption that it is the quiet course.
The instinct after a final nonconfirmation is to try again, on the theory that the first attempt contained an error. Creating a duplicate case for the same hire is a misuse of the system and appears in the account record as exactly that. Where the employer believes the submitted data was wrong, the route is a request for further review through the support channel, not a fresh case.
Further review and record correction
After a final nonconfirmation, either the worker or the employer may request further review through the system's support channel, and the review can result in a status update letter. That route is narrow and does not function as an appeal, but it is the mechanism available where the employer has reason to think the result reflects a processing error rather than a genuine discrepancy.
The more durable fix is at the level of the underlying government record. A worker whose record is inaccurate can pursue correction with the agency holding it, and once corrected, the discrepancy that produced the result no longer exists. Cases at this stage often involve status changes that the employer has no visibility into, and a final nonconfirmation attorney can assess whether the record problem is one that can be corrected before the employer commits to a closure choice.
The file that follows the decision
Whichever option is taken, the file should show the sequence: when the mismatch issued, that the worker was notified, that the standstill was observed, what the final result was, when the case was closed, and on what basis. The rules governing conduct during the open period are set out in what an employer may not do while a case is contested, and a file that documents compliance with those rules is the employer's principal defense if the closure is later challenged.
Because verification records can be requested alongside the forms in an inspection, the same file should sit within the employer's ordinary retention system rather than in an ad hoc location. The retention measures are described in retaining and destroying records, and the knowledge standards that a continued-employment decision engages are set out in knowing employment of an unauthorized worker.
Points to carry away
- A final nonconfirmation ends the verification process but is not an adjudication that the worker lacks authorization.
- The employer must close the case, choosing between termination and continued employment.
- Continued employment after a final nonconfirmation is reported and removes the protection that participation otherwise supplies.
- Further review may be requested by either the worker or the employer through the system's support channel.
- Acting before the case reaches a final result exposes the employer to a claim regardless of the eventual outcome.
Questions readers ask
Does a final nonconfirmation prove that the worker is not authorized to work?
No. It records that the system could not confirm authorization within the process. The reasons vary: an unresolved record discrepancy, a name or number that never matched, a visit to a field office that did not happen, or a period that simply expired. A worker with genuine authorization can receive the result through an administrative failure that has nothing to do with status. That is why the employer's decision at closure is described as a choice rather than as a required dismissal.
What does the employer lose by continuing to employ the worker?
Two things. The statutory presumption that arises from having verified through the system falls away for that worker, because the verification did not produce a confirmation. And the employer now holds information suggesting a problem, which is the raw material of a constructive knowledge argument if enforcement later examines the file. Neither consequence is automatic liability. Both change the posture of any later proceeding, and both grow more significant the longer the employment continues without any further step.
Can a case be reopened after it has been closed?
The case itself is closed, but further review may be requested through the system's support channel after a final nonconfirmation, and that review can produce a status update. Separately, a worker who believes an underlying government record is wrong can pursue correction with the agency that holds it. If the record is corrected, the practical route is usually a fresh verification arising from a new hire rather than reopening the old case. The employer should not create a duplicate case for the same hire.
Sources
- E-Verify — Verification ProcessDefines the case results, including final nonconfirmation, and the requirement that the employer close every case.
- E-Verify — Tentative Nonconfirmations (Mismatches)Sets out when a mismatch becomes final and what the employer may do at that point.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1324a — Unlawful employment of aliensProhibits knowingly hiring or continuing to employ an unauthorized worker and sets the resulting penalty tiers.
- 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1 — DefinitionsDefines knowing to include constructive knowledge inferred from the facts and circumstances.
- ICE — Form I-9 InspectionStates that an employer found to have continued to employ an unauthorized worker must cease immediately, with no reprieve.
- Justice Department — Form I-9 and E-VerifyAddresses the discrimination exposure that arises from how verification results are acted on.
Pinnacle Law Review is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in Workplace Immigration
What an Employer May Not Do While a Case Is Contested
While a verification mismatch is being contested, an employer may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold or lower pay, or take any other adverse action against the worker because of the mismatch. The standstill lasts until the case reaches a final result. Ordinary personnel decisions unconnected to the mismatch remain available, but the employer carries the burden of showing that the decision had an independent basis.
Technical Failures You Are Given Time to Correct
A technical or procedural failure is treated as compliance where the employer made a good faith attempt, unless the agency explained the basis for the failure, allowed at least ten business days to correct it, and the employer did not correct it voluntarily within that period. Uncorrected defects become substantive violations. The rule is unavailable to an employer engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment.
Recruitment Advertising That Excludes Lawful Workers
The statute prohibits discrimination with respect to recruitment or referral for a fee, so a job advertisement that excludes lawful workers on the basis of citizenship status is within its reach without any hiring decision being made. Exceptions exist where the restriction is required by law, regulation, executive order or a government contract, or is determined essential to doing business with a government body. A commercial preference is not among them.