List Of Acceptable Documents For Form I 9Edit
The List of Acceptable Documents for Form I-9 is the framework employers use to verify that new hires are legally eligible to work in the United States and that their identity is properly established. Administered as part of the Form I-9 process, the system splits acceptable documents into three categories: List A (documents that prove both identity and employment authorization), List B (documents that prove identity only), and List C (documents that prove employment authorization only). When new hires complete Form I-9, employers must review one document from List A or two documents (one from List B and one from List C) within the required time frame, and then record the verification in the form. See Form I-9 and Employment Eligibility Verification for broader context and procedures.
In contemporary practice, the lists are designed to accommodate a wide range of workers, from citizens to lawful permanent residents to nonimmigrant workers, while maintaining a standard that identity and work authorization are verifiable through credible government-issued materials. The system is designed to minimize fraud, support orderly labor markets, and provide employers with a straightforward method to comply with federal law. For readers who want a broad overview of the agencies involved in maintaining and interpreting these rules, see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Department of Homeland Security guidance, as well as the federal partner Social Security Administration for certain identity documents.
Overview of the Lists
List A documents (identify and authorize to work in one document)
List A contains documents that, by themselves, establish both identity and employment authorization. Common examples include: - U.S. passport or U.S. passport card - Permanent resident card or alien registration receipt card (Form I-551) - Employment Authorization Document (Card) with a photograph (Form I-766) - Foreign passport with a valid Form I-94 indicating work authorization (often seen with a visa that permits employment) - Refugee travel document accompanied by a photo - Other DHS-issued documentation that confirms both identity and work eligibility
Because a single List A document covers both requirements, it streamlines the verification process for many workers. See List A documents for a more general primer on the category and its typical items.
List B documents (establish identity)
List B includes documents that establish identity but do not prove work authorization. Employers must ensure that the document is issued by a credible authority and includes the employee’s name and a photo where possible. Representative examples include: - Driver’s license or state identification card - U.S. government or state government ID - U.S. military ID or draft record - School ID with a photo - Voter registration card - Native American tribal documents
In cases where List B documents do not include a photograph, an additional List B or List A document may be needed to satisfy verification. See List B documents for more detail and common examples.
List C documents (establish work authorization)
List C contains documents that demonstrate an individual’s work authorization, without necessarily proving identity. Common examples include: - Social Security card (subject to certain limitations in how the card is issued or presented) - Birth certificates (issued by a U.S. state or territory) and certain other citizenship-related documents - Certification of naturalization or citizenship - Other government-issued documents that demonstrate eligibility to work in the United States
Because List C documents focus on work authorization, employees with List B documents that establish identity may present List C items to complete the I‑9 verification. See List C documents for more examples and nuances.
Practical considerations and debates
Proponents of the current framework argue that it provides a balanced approach: it requires concrete, verifiable documentation while allowing employers to verify work eligibility without imposing excessive burdens on the hiring process. Supporters often advocate for expanding or encouraging the use of electronic verification tools like E-Verify to improve accuracy and speed, reduce the risk of employment of unauthorized workers, and provide a uniform standard across the economy. See E-Verify for details on that program and its implementation.
Critics in the broader policy debate raise concerns about compliance costs for small businesses, especially those engaging in seasonal or high-turnover operations. They argue that excessive documentation requirements can slow hiring or create friction for legitimate workers who possess valid credentials but face practical barriers to proving identity. Others express concern about the potential for disparate impact if certain documents are more difficult for some populations to obtain or renew. These concerns are often weighed against the objective of safeguarding American workers and ensuring an orderly labor market.
Another axis of debate centers on how robust verification should be in practice. Some observers contend that the I-9 system should be complemented by stronger, technology-driven verification to prevent document fraud and reduce the risk of identity misrepresentation. Others caution that overly aggressive verification or persistent privacy concerns could chill legitimate hiring or threaten civil liberties. See discussions around Form I-9 compliance, E-Verify, and related enforcement considerations for a fuller view of these debates.
In the policy conversation, the balance between protecting American workers and facilitating lawful employment is central. Advocates for strict verification emphasize the need to deter illegal labor and protect wage floors, while opponents emphasize the risk of unintended consequences for employers and workers who rely on lawful channels to work and participate in the economy. The practical implementation of these principles—how employers select documents, how they train staff to verify them, and how Government guidance evolves—shapes both compliance outcomes and the lived experiences of workers and employers alike.