EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Sharma v. Nvidia Corp., 17 OCAHO no. 1450t (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order resolving several prehearing issues. First, the ALJ declined to issue subpoenas as requested by the complainant, noting subpoenas for hearing are issued only when that witness has relevant information that is not otherwise available via other witnesses or record evidence. The ALJ noted that the complainant could revisit this issue should it be able to articulate the need for subpoenas as the hearing progressed. The ALJ clarified that parties should make witnesses available before hearing, and if they decline to do so, the opposing party may get wide latitude in any examination. Furthermore, the ALJ denied the respondent’s renewed motion for summary decision, concluding that fairness required her to hold the parties to one meaningful attempt at such a motion. As a result, the ALJ denied as moot the complainant’s motion for extension of time to respond to the renewed motion for summary decision. Finally, the ALJ indicated that the liability and damages portions of the hearing would be bifurcated.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Blossom Corporation, 18 OCAHO no. 1523f (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the respondent’s motion seeking to declare the complainant a “vexatious litigant” and restrict his ability to file future complaints with OCAHO. The ALJ noted that neither 8 U.S.C. § 1324b nor the implementing regulations permitted OCAHO to apply such a designation or issue pre-filing injunctions like the one requested by the respondent.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Droisys, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1675b (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order to show cause to the complainant because the complainant continued to submit filings with inaccurate or non-existent law and facts after being placed on notice that such conduct could give rise to sanctions. The ALJ identified each inaccurate portion of the complainant’s most recent filing and characterized the complainant’s conduct as egregious because of the type of misrepresentations, the volume, and the temporal proximity to the ALJ’s previous warning. The order provided the complainant an opportunity to explain why her complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice based on her conduct.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Walmart Inc. (Bethlehem), 17 OCAHO no. 1475h (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reset the deadline for the parties to provide a list of alleged violations subject to the court’s prior dismissal order in light of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Walmart, Inc. v. Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer , 144 F. 4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2025), which vacated an injunction that had previously barred OCAHO’s continued adjudication of the matter.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Wangperawong v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1510n (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) received an update from the parties on discovery and informed the pro se complainant that secure file sharing applications are acceptable ways to exchange discoverable information. The ALJ also revised the discovery schedule based on the parties’ updates and provided the parties with a list of cases discussing damages for the parties’ consideration.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Jin Joo Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1554h (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied complainant’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such relief is only available following a final order, which has not been issued in this case. The ALJ noted that this motion followed several motions seeking reconsideration of the same decision, and cautioned the complainant that future filings referencing Rule 60(b) when no final order has been issued may be rejected outright.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Al Bayatti, 22 OCAHO no. 1671a (2025), a case arising under the document fraud provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order granting the withdrawal of counsel, as the respondent’s counsel had been unable to reach the respondent despite diligent efforts to do so. The ALJ then provided the respondent with additional time to respond to the previously issued order to show cause, reminding the respondent that failing to respond could lead to the ALJ deeming his request for hearing abandoned or entering a default judgment against him.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Costa World Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1546j (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge denied the complainant’s motion for “judicial notice” (i.e., official notice) because the matters at issue were not proper subjects of official notice.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Costa World Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1546k (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the complainant’s request for sanctions (specifically, his request to disqualify opposing counsel for representing multiple respondent businesses in the forum), concluding that the respondent’s counsel did not violate any professional rules. The ALJ also ordered the complainant to follow certain requirements related to motion practice, including addressing only one request in any motion, conforming the title of motions to the request in the body of the motion, and refraining from filing amendments or addenda to motions.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Droisys, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1675c (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint with prejudice following an order to show cause identifying such a prospect and providing the complainant an opportunity to be heard. The complainant revealed that she relied on generative artificial intelligence (AI) to formulate the contents of her filings. The ALJ noted that the complainant was placed on notice via the Notice of Case Assignment of her responsibility to use such tools ethically and responsibly, and noted the complainant was informed of the free, public-facing resources on OCAHO’s website for caselaw research. The ALJ concluded that reliance on generative AI was not good cause for misrepresenting information to the court. The complainant also cited medical issues; however, the ALJ found that medical issues are not good cause for misrepresenting information either. The ALJ concluded that the complainant did not provide good cause, and thus the ALJ dismissed the case based on the complainant’s egregious misrepresentations to the court.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Wholesale Custom Tires and Wheels, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1652a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement. After reviewing the parties’ settlement agreement and notice of settlement, the ALJ found the parties had complied with the regulatory requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.14(a)(2) and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Wholesale Tire and Wheel Distributors, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1654a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement. After reviewing the parties’ settlement agreement and notice of settlement, the ALJ found the parties had complied with the regulatory requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.14(a)(2) and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Costa World Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1546l (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied a motion wherein the complainant sought reconsideration of a previous order. The motion was titled as seeking clarification or an amendment, but the substance was a request for reconsideration. The ALJ denied this motion to reconsider because the complainant did not identify any proper grounds for reconsideration (like new material facts or a change in law), nor did the complainant make a showing that the ALJ failed to consider material facts.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Hussain v. Developlus, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1649c (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered but ultimately rejected an application to appear filed by a non-attorney. The applicant stated he is an accredited representative and an authorized legal preparer according to a state code; however, his application did not satisfy the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(c). The applicant sought to appear unsupervised by a licensed attorney, and through his application provided no concrete descriptions of actual technical expertise and/or prior litigation experience, particularly experience in proceedings covered by the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the denial of the application, the ALJ extended the complainant’s deadline to respond to the pending motion to dismiss and informed the complainant that he could file a motion seeking additional time if he so desired.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Benabides v. MP West, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1676a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge granted the complainant’s motion for no-cost Spanish language interpreting at all future prehearing conferences. The ALJ also granted the complainant’s motion to permit her family member to attend future prehearing conferences. The ALJ distinguished between attendance and representation, and noted that family members may assist in filing future motions and serving filings on opposing party (and memorializing such in a Certificate of Service).
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy