Think Immigration: How the Trump Administration Is Monetizing Immigration Enforcement on the Back End

For years, immigration enforcement in the United States was measured largely by arrests, detention, and deportations. Today, however, another enforcement strategy has emerged—one that can have devastating financial consequences for immigrants and employers alike.

Federal immigration agencies are increasingly relying on civil monetary penalties as a powerful enforcement tool. Through Notices of Intent to Fine (NIFs) and, more recently, Notices of Violation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are seeking to impose significant financial penalties on individuals and businesses for alleged immigration violations.

For many recipients, these fines come as a surprise. Even more concerning, some notices seek penalties totaling more than a million dollars for an individual.

The good news is that receiving one of these notices does not mean the government automatically wins. Many fines can be challenged, reduced, or even rescinded if addressed promptly.

What Is a Notice of Intent to Fine?

A Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) is a formal notice issued by DHS or ICE advising an individual or employer that the government intends to assess civil monetary penalties for alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Historically, these notices were relatively uncommon. Recently, the Trump Administration has begun sending them widely, part of its efforts to drive people out of the country.

More recently, ICE has also begun issuing Notices of Violation in certain cases. Unlike a Notice of Intent to Fine, which provides advance notice before a penalty is imposed, a Notice of Violation immediately assesses the civil penalty and generally provides only a limited period in which to contest it.

Who Can Receive Immigration Fines?

Immigration fines are authorized under several different provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Individuals can receive notices based on:

• Failure to Depart After a Final Removal Order: Willfully failing to depart after a final removal order, with fines potentially accruing daily
• Failure to Comply with Voluntary Departure failing to leave after agreeing to voluntary departure
• Improper Entry entering or attempting to enter the United States at locations other than a designated port of entry

Employers are increasingly targeted through Notices of Intent to Fine following Form I-9 inspections. ICE is seeking civil penalties against businesses, and those fines can escalate quickly depending on the number of alleged violations and whether ICE believes the violations were repeated or intentional.

How Do These Fines Become So Large?

I know, the term “more than a million dollars” was thrown around earlier, which can sound shocking but this is really what people are experiencing. While some immigration fines begin at relatively modest amounts—such as civil penalties for improper entry—the most financially devastating assessments generally involve alleged failures to comply with removal orders, nearly a thousand dollars a day in certain failure-to-depart cases.

Because these penalties may accrue daily and be calculated retroactively, the total amount can increase rapidly. Using the applicable statute of limitations, the government has sought penalties approaching $1.9 million in some cases.

Adding to the concern, many recipients report that the notices provide little explanation of how the government calculated the total amount demanded, making it difficult to verify whether the assessment complies with the law.

If This Seems to Be Happening Really Fast, You’re Right

Recent regulatory changes have significantly altered how immigration fines are issued and collected. Among the most important developments are:

• shorter advance notice periods before penalties become final
• authorization for service of notices by regular mail rather than requiring personal service in some circumstances
• expanded use of Notices of Violation that immediately impose penalties rather than merely announcing the government's intent to fine
• compressed deadlines for filing administrative challenges

Because these deadlines may be very short, recipients should never ignore a notice or assume there will be additional opportunities to respond later. Acting promptly can be essential to protecting the recipient's rights and ensuring a meaningful opportunity to challenge the government's claims before significant financial penalties become final.

Don’t Panic: Legal Defenses May Be Available

Every case is different, but immigration fines are often subject to legal and factual challenges. This is where I encourage you to speak to qualified legal counsel as each case is different.

Possible defenses include challenging the alleged willfulness of failing to depart, such as if a person was detained by immigration authorities, incarcerated, hospitalized, or otherwise unable to depart, the government may be unable to establish the required element of willfulness.

Attorneys may also be able to challenge whether a voluntary departure agreement was valid, whether the individual remained eligible for relief, or whether equitable circumstances warrant reducing or eliminating the penalty.

In certain circumstances, individuals may qualify for statutory protections or exceptions, including protections available under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It may also be worth looking into whether the government has complied with applicable statutes of limitation and other procedural requirements.

Broader Constitutional Challenges

Beyond individual defenses, immigration advocates are challenging the expanded use of immigration fines in federal court.

Among the issues being raised are:

• Due Process: Whether notices that fail to explain how penalties were calculated violate the Fifth Amendment.
• Excessive Fines: Whether penalties reaching hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars violate the Eighth Amendment.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Whether recent procedural changes were lawfully adopted.
• Institutional Fairness: Whether allowing DHS both to impose fines and adjudicate administrative appeals provides meaningful due process.

These challenges could significantly influence how immigration fines are imposed in the future.

The Importance of Acting Quickly

Perhaps the most important thing recipients should understand is this: an immigration fine is not necessarily final.

Failing to respond, however, can have serious consequences. Missing the applicable deadline may result in the assessment becoming a final order with limited or no opportunity for further administrative review.

Attorneys across the country have successfully challenged immigration fines through timely administrative responses and legal advocacy. In many cases, fines have been reduced substantially or withdrawn altogether.

And, please keep in mind that contesting an immigration fine doesn’t by itself determine a person's underlying immigration status or eligibility for immigration benefits.

Ongoing Federal Litigation

The legality of these expanded enforcement practices is currently being challenged in Maria L. v. Noem, a class action brought by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) and Public Justice. The lawsuit challenges both the legality of the government's civil fine program and the procedural rules governing how those penalties are imposed and reviewed. Because the litigation remains ongoing, practitioners should monitor developments that may affect pending and future cases.

Final Thoughts

Civil immigration fines have become one of the federal government's most aggressive immigration enforcement tools. Whether directed at noncitizens accused of failing to depart, individuals alleged to have entered improperly, or employers facing Form I-9 penalties, these assessments can carry enormous financial consequences.

It is vital that anyone (individual or business) receiving this type of notice recognizes that essentially these notices are legal proceedings—not simply bills. You need to respond in a timely manner or important rights could be lost.