What Changed
USCIS has widened a tool inside E-Verify that flags employees whose work authorization has been pulled, and the change means a lot more employees could now show up on it. E-Verify first rolled out the Status Change Report back in June 2025 as a narrow tool built around one situation: parolees under category code C11 whose parole had been terminated, with the government’s early focus centered on the CHNV parole processes for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. As of August 11, 2026, that scope has expanded considerably. USCIS has added TPS beneficiaries (A12 and C19), asylum applicants (C08), and adjustment of status applicants (C09), and the agency says it will keep refreshing the underlying data on a biweekly basis.
Why a C09 Flag Isn’t Always Bad News
The C09 category deserves its own explanation, since a flag there doesn’t always mean what employers might assume. USCIS can invalidate a C09 EAD, which is issued based on a pending green card application, for more than one reason. Sometimes it signals the application was denied or withdrawn. But it can also mean the opposite: the green card application was approved, the person became a permanent resident, and the pending-application EAD is no longer needed because their new status now provides work authorization on its own. Seeing a C09 EAD on the Status Change Report is not automatically bad news, and employers shouldn’t treat it as one without digging deeper first.
Before You Reverify: Steps to Take First
That uncertainty is exactly why appearing on the report shouldn’t trigger an automatic HR decision. A few checks should come before anything else. Start by looking at what document the employee actually used on their Form I-9; if it wasn’t the flagged EAD, or if the employee has a separate basis for work authorization, the flag may not be relevant at all. For A12 and C19 TPS flags specifically, confirm the current legal status of that country’s TPS designation before assuming the EAD is invalid, since several designations remain tied up in litigation and haven’t been finally resolved. Only once those questions are answered does it make sense to move to reverification.
How to Handle Reverification
When an employer sees an affected employee on the report, the response is reverification through Supplement B of Form I-9, not a new E-Verify case. The employee gets to choose which acceptable document to present from List A or List C, and List B identity documents are off the table for this kind of reverification. Everything here still runs through the normal Form I-9 anti-discrimination rules, so employers can’t single out certain employees for extra scrutiny or demand a specific document over another valid one.
Setting a Consistent Response Timeline
One open question employers are left to sort out on their own: USCIS hasn’t said how much time an employee should get to produce alternative documentation once they appear on the report. Without that guidance, the safest path is picking a specific, reasonable timeframe and applying it the same way to every employee who shows up on the report, rather than deciding case by case. It’s also worth thinking through, before it comes up in practice, what happens if someone can’t produce anything acceptable within that window. Employers should have a documented plan for that scenario, whether it involves suspension or termination, and that plan should be applied consistently to avoid discrimination exposure.
The Widening Gap Between E-Verify and Non-E-Verify Employers
This expansion also sharpens a divide that’s been building for a while. Employers enrolled in E-Verify will now get direct notice through this report when certain EADs are invalidated. Employers who aren’t enrolled have no equivalent channel and generally won’t know an employee’s authorization has ended unless something else brings it to light. That gap in visibility is likely to matter more over time, since expectations about what an employer should have known may end up differing based on E-Verify participation alone.
Building This Into Your Compliance Routine
Two more practical points are worth building into a compliance routine. First, USCIS is directing employers to keep an eye on the “What’s New” section of the E-Verify webpage, since TPS extensions and terminations shift over time and directly affect whether A12 and C19 EADs remain valid. Second, employers that use a third-party vendor to run E-Verify on their behalf shouldn’t assume that arrangement removes them from the loop. USCIS has placed the responsibility on those vendors, acting as employer agents, to notify their client employers when a case with an invalidated EAD turns up. Employers relying on an agent should confirm that notification process actually exists and works, rather than assuming it’s happening automatically in the background.
Don’t Read Too Much Into Enforcement Activity
One more point worth flagging separately from the reporting tool itself: an ICE encounter doesn’t automatically tell an employer anything definitive about work authorization. Someone can be detained, released, or placed in removal proceedings and still be authorized to work, and the reverse is also true. Employers shouldn’t treat news of an arrest or detention as confirmation that authorization has ended. The Status Change Report, current EAD documentation, and established I-9 procedures remain the more reliable sources for that determination, not enforcement activity on its own.
There’s also a legal reason not to sit on a Status Change Report flag once the verification questions above have been resolved. Federal regulations recognize both actual and constructive knowledge, meaning knowledge a reasonable employer could be expected to have inferred from the facts in front of them. Continuing to employ someone after the facts point clearly to lost work authorization can expose an employer to liability for knowingly employing an unauthorized worker. That’s a strong argument for working through a flagged case promptly rather than letting it sit unresolved.
FAQs
Which categories were added to the Status Change Report?
TPS beneficiaries under category codes A12 and C19, asylum applicants under C08, and adjustment of status applicants under C09, on top of the original C11 humanitarian parolee category.
Does a C09 EAD showing up on the report always mean the employee lost work authorization?
No. A C09 EAD can be invalidated because the green card application was denied or withdrawn, but it can also be invalidated because the application was approved and the employee is now a permanent resident with a new basis for work authorization.
Do we need to open a new E-Verify case for an affected employee?
No. The correct step is reverification using Supplement B of Form I-9, not creating a new case.
Can we ask for identity documents again during this reverification?
No. This reverification is limited to List A or List C documentation establishing continued work authorization; List B identity documents should not be reverified.
How long should we give an employee to respond after they appear on the report?
USCIS hasn’t set a specific timeframe, so employers should adopt a clear, reasonable window and apply it uniformly to every affected employee.
If we don’t use E-Verify, does this change affect us?
Not directly, since non-E-Verify employers don’t receive these notifications. That’s exactly the gap that’s widening between E-Verify and non-E-Verify employers going forward.
We use a third-party vendor for E-Verify. Do they have to tell us about a flagged case?
Yes. USCIS has placed that notification responsibility on vendors acting as employer agents, so it’s worth confirming with the vendor that this process is actually in place.
If you or your family members have questions about how this or other immigration and nationality matters may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact the immigration and nationality lawyers at NPZ Law Group. You can reach us by emailing info@visaserve.com or by visiting our website at www.visaserve.com for more information.