False background check nightmare

[Neonred 3,444]

6 hours ago, randomstairs said:

 

But because of this unfortunate coincidence he may want to consider doing the criminal clearance in Kansas (DoJ in Kansas perhaps?) or FBI clearance if a similar issue with employers arises again.

I hadn't thought of it, but I think this is a great idea.

[Ortolan 381]

Hey...try not to worry overmuch; it was a jarring clerical mistake by a company that's obviously not doing their job very well!  Keep all your paperwork, all your correspondence about this; keep the case number, if they gave you one.  Then if there's ever any question about it, you can present your paper trail, documenting the stupid mistake the background check company made.

 

In a few years it will be a funny story you can tell. Good luck on his job! :-)

[Loren Y 2,731]

I run a FBI background check on myself every year. Only costs about 15 bucks and you get the same thing USCIS will get. Takes about 3 months to receive, unless you expedite it thru a authorized processor, send in the form , fingerprint card, and 15 dollar money order and you will get the whole shabang. They use finger prints so there is no messing your identity up with someone else's. I know those cheesy name checks most employment verification companies use are useless. I deliver to military bases, area 51warehouse, and all sorts of secure locations and one time I couldn't get on Nellis air Force Base because someone with the same first middle and last name as me had a traffic warrant. Took me a week to straighten that out. All they told me at the base check point is go talk to Las Vegas metropolitan police. Had to go to the records division and they fixed it, so I wouldn't worry about it messing up USCIS, they use a little more reliable sources than most places. I thought the military base would have used something more reliable myself, but my name triggered a hit, so they turned me around.

[Highmystic 234]

23 hours ago, corvusheart said:

. When the background check came back it came back with a charge in Kansas with possession of meth in August 2012.

Maybe this company should spend money an a more accurate "back ground check" company.  I would be willing to bet that the company used something like Spokeo for their "investigations.  I can look myself up and find all kinds of out and outdated info, missing info, etc.  They just look on the web and would not call them an investigator.  they could pay me half the price and I can give them the same info in 10 minutes or less! LOL

[corvusheart 163]

It was First Advantage. If it's on his background check does that mean its on his record somehow? When he first moved in with me they ran a background check and it cleared fine. Every job in the past that ran one on him went through fine.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

20 hours ago, corvusheart said:

It was First Advantage. If it's on his background check does that mean its on his record somehow? When he first moved in with me they ran a background check and it cleared fine. Every job in the past that ran one on him went through fine.

They just got it wrong. USCIS doesn't care what a private company may find. They have access to better background checks. 

[nightingalejules 678]

On 5/12/2018 at 5:34 PM, corvusheart said:

If it's on his background check does that mean its on his record somehow? 

No. I know this must be stressful for you, but try to relax about it.

[CarlHamilton 252]

Your question has been answered several times (it's a unanimous no).  Make like Frozen and just let it go.

[ilyak 79]

On 5/11/2018 at 3:57 PM, Highmystic said:

Maybe this company should spend money an a more accurate "back ground check" company.  I would be willing to bet that the company used something like Spokeo for their "investigations.  I can look myself up and find all kinds of out and outdated info, missing info, etc.  They just look on the web and would not call them an investigator.  they could pay me half the price and I can give them the same info in 10 minutes or less! LOL

HR person here. Most of these pre-employemnt screens are indeed just basic record searches done through a few consolidated providers. FirstData is one of these providers and runs their own records database, but the data quality is extremely variable. At lower price tiers, FirstData will not guarantee the results and will frequently will report partial matches without verifying even the basics such as the SSN; a hit on just the name and the DOB is enough to trigger an alert. Unscrupulous business owners and HR departments who rely on these kinds of checks to make hiring decisions subject themselves to significant potential liability.

 

In contrast, USCIS uses a national law enforcement agency, the FBI, to conduct their checks. While far from perfect, FBI-ran checks rely on many more data points, including fingerprints, to establish the subject's identity. 

[mindthegap 2,521]

On 5/10/2018 at 10:08 PM, corvusheart said:

I literally found the guy on the Kansas department of corrections website. He looks nothing like my husband but has same name and birth date.

How common is his name..... identity theft alarm bells ringing

[deepfineleg 13]

employer conducted background check isn't used for immigration.

 

if it is the case of person with same name and birth date, then your spouse should be able to continue with the job. if the employer is no letting them work then there is something to investigate....there may be some background story to that charge and validity to it.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

6 minutes ago, deepfineleg said:

employer conducted background check isn't used for immigration.

 

if it is the case of person with same name and birth date, then your spouse should be able to continue with the job. if the employer is no letting them work then there is something to investigate....there may be some background story to that charge and validity to it.

No, if the employer doesn't let him work because of this without giving him a pre-adverse notice first and time to dispute the results, then it's time for legal action.