EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Jin’s Farm, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1623b (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered counsel for both parties to demonstrate good cause for failing to follow the ALJ’s order to appear at a scheduled prehearing conference.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers et al. v. UL Solutions, Inc., 20 OCAHO no. 1601d (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 referral to the OCAHO Settlement Officer Program and referred the matter to a settlement officer for an initial period of sixty days. The ALJ also stayed the underlying proceedings during the referral period.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Sharma v. Nvidia Corp., 17 OCAHO no. 1450s (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 a jury trial because § 1324b designates the ALJ as the fact-finder, not a jury.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers et al. v. Reveal Data Corp., 20 OCAHO no. 1600b (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge asked the complainant to submit a filing clarifying whether it intends to file a motion to recaption the complaint like those submitted in the complainant’s other matters pending before OCAHO.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in US Tech Workers et al. v. CohesionIB, Inc., 21 OCAHO no. 1661a (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, finding good cause for the extension because the respondent appeared to be seeking additional time to provide potentially novel legal argument that was based on information unavailable to it when it filed its original motion to dismiss.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Obembe v. Droisys, Inc., 22 OCAHO no. 1675a (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) first denied the complainant’s motion to extend the discovery period so she could serve interrogatories because she did not articulate good cause for the extension. Because the interrogatories did not enter the record, the ALJ denied as moot the respondent’s motion to strike the interrogatories. Next, the ALJ denied the complainant’s motion to admit evidence uncovered during discovery, as such evidence is properly admitted by way of a motion for summary decision or as an exhibit at hearing. The ALJ then noted that the respondent’s motion to compel discovery and the complainant’s motion for protective order were still pending, and as a result stayed the deadline for submitting dispositive motions. Finally, the ALJ pointed out several citations in the complainant’s filings that were either non-existent or misrepresented and warned her that future filings containing such misrepresentations could result in sanctions.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in Benabides v. MP West, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1676 (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held an initial prehearing conference in the matter, during which she informed the complainant (who identified Spanish as the language that she speaks and understands best) that she could file a written request for an interpreter to be present at any future prehearing conferences. The ALJ also informed the complainant’s family member (who was present during the conference) that if she wished to be the complainant’s representative during these proceedings, she must file an application meeting the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(c). Finally, the ALJ discussed other preliminary matters with the parties and set a case schedule.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Jin’s Farm, LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1623c (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the parties joint motion to dismiss pursuant to a settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The ALJ also discharged the previously issued order to show cause.
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. 1677 (2025), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the respondents’ motion to stay the answer deadline pending resolution of their motion to dismiss the complaint. Noting the complainant’s pro se status and residence abroad, the ALJ gave the complainant additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy