EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. KLJ Leasing, LLC, 16 OCAHO no. 1446c (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross motions for summary decision related to Counts VII through XII of the complaint. The ALJ granted the complainant’s motion for summary decision with respect to Counts VIII, XI, and XII of the complaint, and granted the respondent’s motion for summary decision with respect to certain employees in Count IX of the complaint. However, the ALJ determined that issues of material fact remained regarding Counts VII, IX, and X, and ordered that those Counts proceed toward a hearing on liability. The ALJ informed the parties that the issue of liability for Counts I through VI, as well as the penalty assessment, would be addressed in a separate order.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent decision in United States v. Alcocer, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1678 (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 and 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 judgment 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) issues a precedent decision in United States v. A-1 Roofing & Construction, Co., 21 OCAHO no. 1657a (2025), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) first exercised her discretion to accept the complainant’s untimely filed notification of service and found that the complainant had effectuated personal service of the complaint on the respondent. The ALJ ordered the respondent to show good cause for its failure to timely 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 judgment 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 Bandi v. Staff Up, LLC, 22 OCAHO no. 1672a (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 again ordered the pro se respondent to show good cause for its failure to timely 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 constitute a waiver of its right to appear and contest the complaint’s allegations, resulting in entry of a default judgment against it pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b).
Manage your Subscriptions | Department of Justice Privacy Policy | GovDelivery Privacy Policy