EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. SUMAJ, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1648c (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Settlement Officer’s request to extend the case’s referral to the OCAHO Settlement Officer Program. The ALJ found that the requested thirty‑day extension was reasonable and appropriate given the parties’ consent to it and the Settlement Officer’s representation that the parties continued to engage in mediation. The ALJ advised the parties that they should proceed in accordance with 28 C.F.R § 68.14 should they reach a settlement.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. JLG Business Ventures, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1515a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge ordered the complainant to satisfy 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(c) by filing a complete copy of the Notice of Intent to Fine detailing the factual allegations against the respondent and the provisions of law it alleges were violated.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. JLG Business Ventures, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1515b (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accepted the respondent’s untimely answer and response to the Order to Show Cause given its pro se status, the short filing delay, and the fact that the filings were initially timely filed but then rejected for deficiencies. The ALJ then exercised her discretion and discharged the Order to Show Cause, finding that the respondent had shown sufficient good cause, especially considering OCAHO’s strong preference for resolving cases on their merits. Finally, the ALJ denied the complainant’s motion for default judgment because it rested entirely on the respondent’s failure to file a timely answer and did not identify any prejudice the complainant would suffer.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Olarte-Estrellado, 21 OCAHO no. 1622c (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discharged the ALJ’s previous order to show cause regarding substitution of parties, finding that the relevant factors weighed in favor of accepting the respondent’s untimely response to the order. The ALJ then identified Alia Delos Santos Olarte-Estrellado as the only proper party for substitution in this matter, and as a result the ALJ denied the complainant’s motions seeking to add other individuals as respondents. Finally, with a proper respondent identified, the ALJ lifted the stay of proceedings in the matter and ordered the respondent to file an answer.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Texas Excel Property Management Services Corp., 21 OCAHO no. 1667 (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(c), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered the complainant to file a copy of the respondent’s request for a hearing and permitted the respondent to do the same. The ALJ also granted the complainant leave to file an amended complaint to satisfy the pleading requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(b)(3).
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Costa World Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1546i (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the complainant’s motion to reconsider the ALJ’s previous order rejecting certain filings from the complainant, finding that none of the traditional grounds for reconsideration existed.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Wang v. Dropbox, Inc., 20 OCAHO no. 1605d (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the parties’ joint motion for an extension of deadlines, finding good cause for the request as the parties were attempting to resolve scheduling issues regarding discovery. The ALJ amended the case deadlines to reflect the extension.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Williams v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1628c (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge granted the parties’ request for an extension of the stay of proceedings while their settlement negotiations are ongoing.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1668 (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The address the complainant provided for service of the complaint did not allow OCAHO to properly effectuate service of the complaint on the respondent. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) outlined several methods for the complainant to attempt to effect service on the respondent and advance the litigation. The ALJ also advised that if the complainant takes no action within 60 days of the order, the ALJ may dismiss the complaint.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Maya del Sol, LLC, 20 OCAHO no. 1607d (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge granted the parties’ request to extend their period of referral to the Settlement Officer Program for an additional thirty days.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Mendoza Maintenance Group, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1516a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accepted the pro se respondent’s untimely answer and response to the Order to Show Cause given the serious medical issues of the respondent’s representative and because the untimeliness arose from the respondent’s need to correct its deficient, timely filings. The ALJ then exercised her discretion and discharged the Order to Show Cause, finding that the respondent had shown sufficient good cause for its failure to timely file an answer to the complaint, particularly in light of OCAHO’s strong preference for resolving cases on their merits.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Mendoza Maintenance Group, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1516b (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge ordered the complainant to satisfy 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(c) by filing a complete copy of the Notice of Intent to Fine detailing the factual allegations against the respondent and the provisions of law it alleges were violated.
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy