EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Nazarenko v. Meta Platforms, Inc., TaskUs, Inc., TaskUs Greece, 22 OCAHO no. 1677a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The complainant in the matter submitted a deluge of filings that were seemingly meant to be additions to one of his previous filings, leading to a breakdown in the orderly process of the case and causing confusion and a strain on the court’s resources. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the parties to abide by certain requirements related to motion practice, noting that a failure to comply with the requirements could result in rejection of the offending filings.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Kwesi v. Amazon Distribution Center, 21 OCAHO no. 1670a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge granted the parties’ agreed motion for extension of time, finding good cause for an extension of the answer deadline to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Al Bayatti, 22 OCAHO no. 1671b (2025), a case arising under the immigration-related document fraud provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) deemed the respondent’s request for hearing abandoned based on the respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint or respond to a previous order to show cause. Accordingly, the ALJ found the respondent liable for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(5) and adopted the Notice of Intent to Fine as the final order.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Granuband Macon, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1679 (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explained that OCAHO had perfected service of the complaint, ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to answer the complaint, and ordered the respondent to file an answer that comported with 28 C.F.R § 68.9. The ALJ cautioned the respondent that its failure to respond to the ALJ’s orders might result in entry of default judgment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b) or dismissal due to abandonment pursuant to 28 C.F.R.§ 68.37(b).
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Cabello Enterprises, 21 OCAHO no. 1640a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explained that OCAHO had perfected service of the complaint, ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to answer the complaint, and ordered the respondent to file an answer that comported with 28 C.F.R § 68.9. The ALJ cautioned the respondent that its failure to respond to the ALJ’s orders might result in entry of default judgment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b) or dismissal due to abandonment pursuant to 28 C.F.R.§ 68.37(b).
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. MPCI, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1680 (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explained that OCAHO had perfected service of the complaint, ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to answer the complaint, and ordered the respondent to file an answer that comported with 28 C.F.R § 68.9. The ALJ cautioned the respondent that its failure to respond to the ALJ’s orders might result in entry of default judgment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b) or dismissal due to abandonment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.37(b).
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy