EOIR OCAHO Decisions - July 29, 2025

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in In re Investigation of Adobe, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1669 (2025), an investigation arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petitioner’s request to revoke the subpoena requested by the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division but granted the petitioner’s request to modify the subpoena’s scope. Regarding the request for revocation, the ALJ observed that her role was limited to determining whether the subpoena was sufficiently definite and relevant, and whether the petitioner demonstrated that it was overbroad or overly burdensome. The ALJ therefore found that it was beyond her authority to determine whether IER has conducted a “sufficient investigation” or to resolve the merits of the underlying charge. The ALJ also found that the petitioner did not successfully show that the requested information was protected by legal privilege due to the absence of a privilege log, and found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the requests were unduly burdensome. However, the ALJ granted the petitioner’s request to modify the subpoena (1) to clarify that no reproduction of previously produced documents is necessary, and (2) to limit the production of the personnel files of employees hired for the disputed positions to those parts of the file pertaining to their performance and skills, as well as those relating to the petitioner’s decision to hire them.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Sharma v. Nvidia Corp., 17 OCAHO no. 1450r (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the respondent’s motion for extension of time to reply to the complainant’s motion for a jury trial, finding good cause because the respondent requested additional time to present a thorough response, the requested extension was reasonable, and the motion was unopposed.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers et al. v. Vivid Seats, LLC, 20 OCAHO no. 1593c (2025) a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the respondent’s request for an extension, construing it as a motion for leave to file a reply, as both the parties and the ALJ would benefit from additional briefing on the issue of advertising discrimination.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Saini v. Sheridan Community Hospital, 21 OCAHO no. 1644d (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the motion to dismiss in part and dismissed the complainant’s national origin discrimination claim with prejudice after finding that none of the named respondents met the statute’s numerosity requirement. The ALJ then denied the motion as to the complainant’s citizenship status discrimination, retaliation, and document abuse claims with respect to Sheridan Community Hospital after finding the complaint stated a claim for each. The ALJ dismissed all claims against the remaining respondents, however, after finding that the complaint did not allege that these were separate entities that could ultimately be held individually liable.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Kwesi v. Amazon Distribution Center, 21 OCAHO no. 1670 (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that OCAHO was unable to effectuate service of the complaint on the respondent at the address provided by the complainant in the complaint. As a result, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.3(c), the ALJ ordered the complainant to either (1) provide OCAHO with the name of an officer, director, or registered agent for the respondent, as well as a working mailing address for that person, (2) notify OCAHO of any alternative method of service permissible under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or (3) request that OCAHO permit the complainant to personally serve the respondent. The ALJ warned the complainant that failure to respond to the ALJ’s order could result in dismissal of the complaint.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Al Bayatti, 22 OCAHO no. 1671 (2025), a case arising under the document fraud provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered the respondent to file an answer to the complaint, as well as an explanation of good cause for his failure to file an answer by the regulatory deadline. The ALJ warned the respondent that failure to file an answer or demonstrate good cause could result in his request for hearing being deemed abandoned and a default judgment being entered against him.

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. 1667a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. After identifying issues with service of the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered the complainant to personally serve the respondent with the complaint in a manner that complied with 28 C.F.R. § 68.3(a)(1) and provide proof of service and a functional mailing address for the respondent. Should the complainant be unable to perfect service, the ALJ ordered it to describe its service efforts and, if desired, move to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Bandi v. Staff Up, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1672 (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explained that OCAHO had perfected service of the complaint and then ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to answer the complaint and to file an answer to the complaint that comported with 28 C.F.R. § 68.9. The ALJ cautioned the respondent that its failure to file an answer might result in an entry of default judgment pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b).

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. EFG Pacific Holdings, LLC, 20 OCAHO no. 1596e (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complainant’s unfair documentary practices claim because the complainant clarified that he had not intended to allege such a claim. The ALJ denied the respondent’s motion for a protective order for discovery requests where it was not clear from the record that the complainant had requested the documents, and granted the protective order where the complainant had not sufficiently explained the relevance of the discovery request.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Vasko v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1634b (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the complainant failed to respond to the ALJ’s order directing him to provide the court with an alternative method for serving the complaint on the respondent.

The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Talice v. Centria Autism, 20 OCAHO no. 1597b (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the complainant’s motion for summary decision as to the respondent’s liability for an unfair immigration-related employment practice, but denied the complainant’s motion as to damages. The ALJ found the record established that the respondent already provided the complainant the damages authorized by § 1324b(g), and that a civil penalty was unnecessary due to the respondent’s recognizing the violation and remedying it before the complaint was filed. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the respondent’s motion for summary decision, which related only to the issue of damages, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist from unfair immigration-related employment practices.

You have received this e-mail because you have asked to be notified of changes to the U.S. Department of Justice website. GovDelivery is providing this service on behalf of the Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW · Washington, DC 20530 · 202-514-2000 and may not use your subscription information for any other purposes.

Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy