EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers v. BMO Bank, 21 OCAHO no. 1662a (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 an extension of time to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The ALJ found good cause supported the extension where the requested extension was brief, unopposed, and would provide potentially novel legal argument for the ALJ’s consideration when ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Zarco Hotels Incorporated, 18 OCAHO no. 1518k (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the respondent’s motion for a protective order as moot where the respondent had already filed a motion for summary decision, foreclosing any need for further discovery. The ALJ then denied the respondent’s motion for a status conference regarding settlement, as the complainant did not consent to referral to OCAHO’s Settlement Officer Program. Finally, the ALJ granted the respondent’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion for summary decision.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Bella Vista Custom Homes, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1673 (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 ALJ further advised that if service was not perfected, the ALJ could consider dismissal sua sponte.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Jin Joo Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1554g (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the complainant’s motion for reconsideration of an order denying the complainant’s previous request for sanctions. The ALJ found nothing in the complainant’s motion to conclude that the ALJ misapplied Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 in her initial order.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Super Good Movers, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1674 (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, but the respondent had not timely filed an answer to the complaint or otherwise communicated with OCAHO. The ALJ therefore ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to answer the complaint and 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 an entry of default 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 Zajradhara v. Blossom Corporation, 18 OCAHO no. 1523e (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge denied the respondent’s motion for summary decision and ordered the case to proceed to a hearing on the merits, as the evidence in the record neither refuted nor supported the respondent’s liability for the allegations in the complaint.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Droisys, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1675 (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 of several “facts” because they were either conclusory statements subject to reasonable dispute or statements regarding the existence or content of regulations related to statutes other than 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Wang v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1656a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss after finding the complaint stated a claim for citizenship status discrimination.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. ABS Staffing Solutions, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1632b (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) first granted the complainant’s motion to substitute counsel and ordered the complainant’s new counsel to submit a notice of appearance. Next, the ALJ found, based on mail tracking information, that the respondent was served with the complaint and had failed to timely file an answer. The ALJ ordered the respondent to submit an answer and a filing demonstrating good cause for its failure to timely file an answer. The ALJ also put the respondent on notice that failure to file an answer might lead to an entry of default or finding of abandonment, resulting in dismissal of the request for a hearing.
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy