EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Olarte-Estrellado, 21 OCAHO no. 1622d (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 requiring the respondent to file an answer and demonstrate good cause for why it had not timely filed its answer within the time provided by the ALJ in a prior order.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers v. Ulta, Inc., 20 OCAHO no. 1595c (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the complainant’s motion to amend the complaint, finding that the amended complaint would survive a motion to dismiss as the pleading was sufficient to state a claim for discrimination in hiring. The ALJ denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss as to US Tech Workers and the named complainant who applied for a position with the respondent. However, the ALJ granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining named complainants to the extent they were filing as individual complainants because they did not allege that they applied to (or were discouraged from applying to) the respondent company. In addition, the ALJ found that the doctrine of in-concert liability cannot be used to assert a separate cause of action, and the concept of joint and several liability does not allow the complainant to transfer liability from a wholly separate entity to the respondent.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Talebinejad v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 17 OCAHO no. 1464j (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the respondent’s motion to supplement the briefing on its motion for a protective order. The ALJ found that there was good cause to grant the motion because the supplemental filing would assist the ALJ in determining the necessity of a protective order, and there was no prejudice to the other party. The ALJ also directed the respondent to provide exemplars of the allegations in the respondent’s motion that the complainant engaged in inappropriate conduct during prior depositions.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Usifo v. Truveta, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1642a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted in part and denied in part the respondent’s motion to dismiss. The ALJ granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the complainant’s citizenship status discrimination claim, finding that the complainant failed to plead that she was a “protected individual” under § 1324b(a)(3). However, the ALJ found that the complainant did plead a plausible claim for retaliation under the statute and therefore denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss the retaliation claim. Finally, the ALJ permitted the parties to engage in limited discovery concerning the complainant’s national origin discrimination claim and ordered the complainant to submit a filing clarifying the nature of her unfair documentary practices and termination claims. The ALJ also warned the complainant that failing to respond to the ALJ’s orders may lead to a finding that she had abandoned her complaint.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. PJ’s of Texas, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1524d (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order memorializing her decision granting the respondent’s motion to extend the deadline to respond to the complainant’s interrogatories. The ALJ found that good cause supported the requested extension because it was brief, unopposed, and timely sought, and there was no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to the complainant.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Jin Joo Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1554i (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an errata order to fix a previously issued order with an inaccurate title and included the body of the original order in its entirety. In the underlying order, the ALJ denied the complainant’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of the complainant’s national origin discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that none of the traditional grounds for reconsideration existed.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Jin Joo Corp., 19 OCAHO no. 1554j (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 the ALJ to reconsider a prior order in which the ALJ declined to reconsider the dismissal of the complainant’s national origin discrimination and retaliation claims. The ALJ pointed to the law and analysis provided by the ALJ’s previous order denying reconsideration and observed that motions to reconsider orders denying motions to reconsider were procedurally illogical and were an obstacle to finality in the matter. The ALJ put the complainant on notice that any future motions to reconsider orders denying motions for reconsideration would be rejected.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Droisys, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1675d (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 final order of dismissal with prejudice, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration was appropriate. Furthermore, the ALJ observed that the complainant continued to provide inaccurate citations to caselaw and regulations in her motion for reconsideration, despite previous notices she received about her misrepresentations and aboutthe use of generative artificial intelligence before OCAHO.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Zajradhara v. Jin Joo Corporation, 19 OCAHO no. 1554k (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the complainant’s latest motion for reconsideration, noting that this rejection was consistent with guidance in a prior order. The ALJ further noted that the complainant’s attempts to amend his complaint were untimely, as the ALJ had previously set a deadline of October 15, 2024, to amend the complaint.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Sharma v. Nvidia Corp., 17 OCAHO no. 1450u (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the complainant’s request that certain exhibits be excluded at hearing but ultimately concluded that Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) did not require exclusion of the exhibits because the ALJ did not require initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the FRCP in this case. While the exhibits would not be excluded, the ALJ informed the complainant it could file a motion seeking additional time to review the exhibits. Separately, the ALJ concluded the complainant could have an opportunity to examine underlying material used to construct certain exhibits.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1653b (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the case met the eligibility requirements for the OCAHO Settlement Officer Program and that a referral to the program was appropriate. The ALJ therefore granted the parties’ joint motion for referral to the Settlement Officer Program, referred the case to mediation for sixty days, designated a Settlement Officer, and stayed the underlying proceedings during the referral period. Should the parties reach a settlement, the ALJ ordered them to proceed in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 68.14.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Wangperawong v. Meta Platforms, Inc, 18 OCAHO no. 1510o (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order summarizing a prehearing conference held to discuss discovery issues. At the conference, the ALJ explained the regulatory prerequisites for filing a motion to compel and ordered the complainant to submit a filing outlining what he is seeking in damages, as the information is necessary for the parties to engage in productive discovery. The ALJ then confirmed and memorialized the discovery schedule for the parties.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Talebinejad v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 17 OCAHO no. 1464k (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order summarizing a prehearing conference and memorializing the ALJ’s rulings on the parties’ discovery motions. After reviewing the parties’ filings and hearing oral argument on the pending motions, the ALJ granted the respondent’s motion for a protective order and denied the complainant’s motion to compel with respect to the deposition of one individual. However, with respect to the deposition of another individual, the ALJ denied the respondent’s motion for protective order and granted in part the complainant’s motion to compel, permitting the complainant to propound 25 written questions to the individual.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Williams v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1628d (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The complainant in the matter submitted a status report that functionally appeared to be a response to the respondent’s motion to dismiss. Because such a response was untimely under OCAHO’s regulations and previous orders of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the ALJ permitted the complainant to file a motion presenting argument or documentation as to why the ALJ should consider the untimely filed response to the motion to dismiss.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Singh v. Hannaford Bros., Co., LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1664b (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement. Because the parties did not file a copy of their settlement agreement, the ALJ held a status conference with the parties to inquire about the general terms of the agreement and to confirm that the complainant (who was not represented by counsel) understood the effect of a dismissal with prejudice. Having been satisfied with the parties’ representations at the status conference, the ALJ granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Mendoza Maintenance Group, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1516c (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. After finding that the notice of appearance filed by an attorney for the complainant comported with 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(f), the Administrative Law Judge entered his appearance and granted the complainant’s motion to substitute counsel pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(g).
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Mendoza Maintenance Group, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1516d (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the case met the eligibility requirements for the OCAHO Settlement Officer Program and that a referral to the program was appropriate. The ALJ therefore granted the parties’ joint motion for referral to the Settlement Officer Program, referred the case to mediation for sixty days, and designated a Settlement Officer. Should the parties reach a settlement, the ALJ ordered them to proceed in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 68.14.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. JLG Business Ventures, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1515c (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. After finding that the notice of appearance filed by an attorney for the complainant comported with 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(f), the Administrative Law Judge entered his appearance and granted the complainant’s motion to substitute counsel pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(g).
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Super Good Movers, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1674a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the respondent had abandoned its request for a hearing before OCAHO by failing to respond to the ALJ’s orders and not filing an answer to the complaint. The ALJ therefore dismissed the complaint and ordered that the Notice of Intent to Fine served on the respondent was rendered the final agency order.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Alcocer, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1678a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the respondent had abandoned its request for a hearing before OCAHO by failing to respond to the ALJ’s orders and not filing an answer to the complaint. The ALJ therefore dismissed the complaint and ordered that the Notice of Intent to Fine served on the respondent was rendered the final agency order.
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy