United States Department of Justice
United States Department of Justice sent this email to their subscribers on August 6, 2024.
EOIR OCAHO Decisions
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in Sharma v. Lattice Semiconductor, 14 OCAHO no. 1362h (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) lifted a prior stay of proceedings as to the complainant’s claim of discrimination in hiring for a first position, and granted the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to this first position for the reasons explained in a prior order. The ALJ then denied the complainant’s request to reconsider the issuance of a stay of proceedings as moot. Next, the ALJ denied the complainant’s requests to strike declarations submitted by the respondent from the record, and granted the complainant’s request to submit additional evidence in response to the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to the complainant’s claim of discrimination in hiring for a second position. Analyzing the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to the complainant’s claim regarding the second position under the burden shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973), and its progeny, the ALJ granted the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision. The ALJ found that the complainant had established a prima facie case of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, but found that the respondent had established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the complainant’s non-selection, and the complainant had not established that this proffered reason was pretextual.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in United States v. Duncan Family Farms, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1519c (2024), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) summarized the events of a telephonic prehearing conference with the parties to discuss the role of, and evidence held by, a third party. During the conference, the ALJ previewed for the parties that it was not inclined to permit the respondent to assert a third-party complaint against the third party, but given that the third party may have relevant evidence and information, the ALJ noted that it expects entities with evidence or information relevant to the proceedings to work with a party requesting discovery to ensure a thorough and complete evidentiary record. The ALJ scheduled a subsequent prehearing conference to receive an update from the parties on the respondent’s engagement with the third party and stayed all pending case deadlines.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in US Tech Workers v. Cast 21, 19 OCAHO no. 1571b (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discharged the order to show cause, finding that the complainant’s explanation (that he had in fact submitted the revised address, but the filing was not received by OCAHO) demonstrated good cause. The complainant’s filing contained a new address for the respondent and the respondent’s registered agent. OCAHO therefore served the Complaint and Notice of Case Assignment on the respondent at the new addresses.
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in Contreras v. Cavco Indus., Inc., 16 OCAHO no. 1440c (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complainant’s discrimination claim based on citizenship status, finding that the complainant had failed to state a claim for discrimination under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1), as she did not allege that she was a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(3) at the time of the alleged discrimination. The ALJ came to this determination because the complainant alleges that at the time of the complaint, she was a lawful permanent resident who had not applied for naturalization within six months of eligibility. The ALJ informed the parties that the complainant’s remaining document abuse and retaliation claims would be addressed in subsequent orders.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division
[emailprotected]
703-305-0289
You have received this e-mail because you have asked to be notified of changes to the U.S. Department of Justicewebsite.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.
Text-only version of this email
U.S. Department of Justice @ U T partment of JUSTICEEOIR OCAHO DecisionsThe Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in Sharma v. Lattice Semiconductor,14 OCAHO no. 1362h (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.The Administrative LawJudge (ALJ) lifted a prior stay of proceedings as to the complainant’s claim of discrimination in hiring for a first position, andgranted the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to this first position for the reasons explained in a prior order. The ALJthen denied the complainant’s request to reconsider the issuance of a stay of proceedings as moot. Next, the ALJ denied thecomplainant’s requests to strike declarations submitted by the respondent from the record, and granted the complainant’s requestto submit additional evidence in response to the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to the complainant’s claim ofdiscrimination in hiring for a second position. Analyzing the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision as to the complainant’sclaim regarding the second position under the burden shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05(1973), and its progeny, the ALJ granted the respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision. The ALJ found that the complainant hadestablished a prima facie case of citizenship status discrimination in hiring, but found that the respondent had established alegitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the complainant’s non-selection, and the complainant had not established that thisproffered reason was pretextual.The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in United States v. Duncan FamilyFarms, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1519c (2024), a case arising under the employer sanctions provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. TheAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) summarized the events of a telephonic prehearing conference with the parties to discuss the roleof, and evidence held by, a third party. During the conference, the ALJ previewed for the parties that it was not inclined topermit the respondent to assert a third-party complaint against the third party, but given that the third party may have relevantevidence and information, the ALJ noted that it expects entities with evidence or information relevant to the proceedings to workwith a party requesting discovery to ensure a thorough and complete evidentiary record. The ALJ scheduled a subsequent prehearingconference to receive an update from the parties on the respondent’s engagement with the third party and stayed all pending casedeadlines.The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in US Tech Workers v. Cast 21, 19OCAHO no. 1571b (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) discharged the order to show cause, finding that the complainant’s explanation (that he had in fact submitted the revisedaddress, but the filing was not received by OCAHO) demonstrated good cause. The complainant’s filing contained a new address forthe respondent and the respondent’s registered agent. OCAHO therefore served the Complaint and Notice of Case Assignment on therespondent at the new addresses.The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) published a precedent decision in Contreras v. Cavco Indus., Inc.,16 OCAHO no. 1440c (2024), a case arising under the antidiscrimination provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative LawJudge (ALJ) dismissed the complainant’s discrimination claim based on citizenship status, finding that the complainant had failedto state a claim for discrimination under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1), as she did not allege that she was a protected individual asdefined by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(3) at the time of the alleged discrimination. The ALJ came to this determination because thecomplainant alleges that at the time of the complaint, she was a lawful permanent resident who had not applied for naturalizationwithin six months of eligibility. The ALJ informed the parties that the complainant’s remaining document abuse and retaliationclaims would be addressed in subsequent orders.Executive Office for Immigration ReviewCommunications and Legislative Affairs Division[emailprotected]703-305-0289 -Instagram icon FaceBook icon YouTube Twitter icon-You have received this e-mail because you have asked to be notified of changes to the U.S. Department ofJusticewebsite.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.
Show all