Latin American multinationals deploying talent to the US face a compliance environment where immigration workflows now require heightened scrutiny on petition content, documentary support and post-approval controls rather than transactional processing. DLA Piper attorneys Janine Guzmán and Xana Connelly examine how USCIS fraud detection conducts targeted site inspections while ICE worksite enforcement emphasizes employer accountability.
Latin American multinationals continue to rely on cross-border mobility to deploy critical talent to the US, but the compliance environment governing immigration and employment has shifted markedly, demanding a more rigorous, programmatic approach from HR, legal and compliance functions.
Corporate programs that previously treated immigration workflows as a transactional exercise now face heightened scrutiny on petition content, documentary support and post-approval controls, elevating the importance of integrated risk management practices for expatriate assignments.
The new regulatory environment
US agencies have increased oversight of employer filings, eligibility narratives and documentary evidence, resulting in more frequent requests for evidence by the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), refined adjudication standards and intensified reviews of underlying job duties and wage levels. USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) conducts targeted risk reviews and site inspections to detect fraud and safeguard the immigration system, increasing the likelihood of field validations for employment-based cases. In parallel, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) worksite enforcement program continues to emphasize employer accountability through audits and investigations, with forward-looking priorities that signal sustained attention to high-impact cases and compliance outcomes.
Simultaneously, employers face higher expectations for contemporaneous recordkeeping and the ability to demonstrate real-time compliance during site visits or audits, including alignment between petition content, actual work performed and wage obligations.
Emerging interagency policy signals, including White House directives on border and immigration enforcement and the US Department of Labor’s launch of Project Firewall aimed at protecting highly skilled workers-underscore the need for proactive governance and audit readiness. Given this context, executive leadership should treat immigration compliance as a forward-looking enterprise risk vector, integrated with internal controls, oversight and audit readiness-rather than a one-off transactional process.
Core challenges for Latin American employers
Selecting the correct visa classification is foundational, as eligibility hinges on precise job duties, educational credentials and country-specific frameworks; getting this wrong can cascade into delays, denials or downstream employment law exposure.
Additional pressure points include heightened scrutiny of certain adjudication categories, including TN visa applications adjudicated at the border for Canadians by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or at the consular sections for Mexican citizens, where vague job descriptions or poor alignment to the enumerated occupations can lead to refusals.
Employers must also maintain robust documentation and records, including role descriptions, wage evidence and business necessity justifications, all of which may be examined during audits or site visits. Balancing growth needs against these risks requires disciplined planning, cross-functional coordination and, in some cases, evaluation of alternative staffing models when direct sponsorship is not viable.
How Unannounced Workplace Visits Are Forcing Companies to Rethink Immigration Compliance
New DHS rules ending automatic EAD extensions mean recent training programs may no longer be accurate
Read moreDetailsProgram design: building durable internal controls
A durable expatriate program begins with clear policy ownership spanning HR, legal and compliance, with defined handoffs and documentation standards for each stage of the employee lifecycle. Proactive audits covering petition files, wage documentation and labor condition application (LCA) obligations allow organizations to identify variances early and remediate before government scrutiny.
Technology enablement is equally important: centralized trackers for expirations, status changes and document versions reduce the risk of missed deadlines or inconsistent filings. Finally, engaging specialist counsel to stress-test case strategies and monitor regulatory shifts helps leadership calibrate the risk appetite and resource allocation for the program.
Worksite enforcement, site visits and audit readiness
Employers should anticipate site visits and audits as normal features of the enforcement landscape and prepare playbooks that specify who meets with inspectors, how records are retrieved and how responses are documented. Maintaining alignment between filed job descriptions and actual duties is critical; discrepancies can trigger findings that affect both immigration status and wage compliance.
Periodic internal reviews mimicking the scope of external audits can validate that public access files, LCAs and payroll records are complete, current and consistent, reducing risk during government reviews.
As part of those internal reviews, follow ICE’s guidance for employer-initiated Form I-9 self-audits: Apply a neutral, consistent selection method; provide timely notice and an opportunity for employees to correct errors; make allowable corrections; and ensure the process does not create unlawful discrimination risks.
Risk mitigation in high-scrutiny categories
Where adjudication trends indicate tighter reviews for specific occupations or filing contexts, employers should reinforce eligibility narratives with precise duty breakdowns, clearly mapped to the relevant occupational frameworks. Avoid generalized or inflated titles, and ensure the petition evidences the specific body of knowledge required, supporting the professional classification with credible, contemporaneous documentation.
When handling adjudications at the border or consulate, front-load the packet with job-specific evidence and ensure the employee can articulate duties, reporting lines and worksite locations consistently with the filing.
Managing documentation and recordkeeping
Strong recordkeeping is the backbone of compliance. Employers should maintain complete petition files, wage evidence and assignment letters, together with change-management documentation when roles, duties or locations evolve.
Control frameworks should require periodic certifications from business managers that assigned work remains aligned to the petition, with any deviations promptly escalated for legal review and, if necessary, refiling. Consistent naming conventions and centralized repositories help teams locate records quickly during site visits or audits, limiting disruption and risk.
When to consider alternative staffing models
In scenarios where direct sponsorship poses heightened risk or timing is critical, employers may evaluate interim models, including engagement through an employer of record (EOR). Such models require careful legal analysis across immigration, tax and employment law to ensure they do not inadvertently create greater exposure, and they should be treated as tactical solutions within a broader, policy-driven workforce plan.
Operational playbook for leaders
Executive teams should insist on a written mobility compliance playbook that outlines workflows, roles and responsibilities, escalation paths and audit protocols; and establishing a protocol for responding to site visits, investigations, inspections or raids. Actions by US agencies may be carried out inter-agency or may start with an I-9 audit that becomes a broader investigation into employment practices including wage and hour violations or discrimination.
ICE has arrested thousands of individuals and proposed thousands in fines against employers, figures that have continued increasing over the past months. Adoption of protocol across global stakeholders while reinforcing consistency in messaging and execution is highly recommended.
Looking ahead
The enforcement and adjudication landscape will continue to evolve with ongoing digitization, data sharing and more robust oversight across immigration and labor compliance. Companies that invest now in resilient policy frameworks, technology-enabled tracking and disciplined documentation will be better positioned to withstand audits and sustain lawful operations as requirements tighten.
Alternative visa pathways can support business continuity when traditional options face timing or quota constraints. Employers should assess treaty-based classifications alongside professional and intra-company categories, selecting the path that most closely aligns with job duties, credentials, and country-specific eligibility.
For Chilean professionals, for example, the H-1B1 classification — created under bilateral free trade frameworks — offers a specialty-occupation pathway that mirrors many H-1B standards but operates under a separate annual allocation, uses a labor condition application (LCA) and can be processed directly at a US consulate with employer support. This option can be advantageous where H-1B cap timing is misaligned with hiring needs or where consular processing provides a faster path to work authorization. Employers should ensure the role qualifies as a specialty occupation, that wage levels are supportable and that duty narratives align to the offered position.
Treaty-based “E” classifications can also expand planning flexibility for eligible nationals and enterprises. E-1 (treaty trader) supports executives, managers and essential employees engaged in substantial trade principally between the US and the treaty country; E-2 (treaty investor) supports similar roles where there is a substantial investment in a real and operating US enterprise. Eligibility depends on qualifying nationality and ownership structures, the nature of the trade or investment and the employee’s role. Many, but not all, Latin American countries have qualifying treaties; employers should confirm eligibility against the US Department of State’s current treaty country list and validate ownership/nationality tracing early in diligence.
Organizations should also track enforcement posture signals, including ICE’s forward-looking worksite enforcement priorities (e.g., continued emphasis on impactful investigations and compliance outcomes) and interagency initiatives that may affect adjudications, audits and worksite practices. In all cases, align role design, documentation and worksite planning to the chosen classification’s eligibility contours and maintain audit-ready files to support site verifications and inspections.
Janine Guzmán
Xana Connelly
