Executive Office for Immigration Review Stakeholder Update : Immigration Law Blog

The Justice Division’s Govt Workplace for Immigration Assessment (EOIR) Workplace of the Chief Administrative Listening to Officer (OCAHO) has printed a precedential choice in A.S. v. Amazon WebServices Inc., 14 OCAHO no. 1381b (2021). On February 11, 2021, the Hon. Andrea R. Carroll-Tipton, Administrative Regulation Choose (ALJ), entered an order denying Complainant’s Movement to Rethink the ALJ’s December 23, 2020 order, through which she denied Complainant’s Movement to Compel Discovery Responses.

Govt Workplace for Immigration Assessment Replace

This case arose underneath the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Management Act of 1986 (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. §1324b. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not adjust to provisions precluding sure employers from participating in discrimination based mostly on citizenship or immigration standing.

The ALJ thought of Complainant’s Movement to Rethink and Respondent’s opposition. OCAHO’s Guidelines of Follow and Process don’t ponder motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. Due to this fact, the ALJ relied upon Federal Rule of Civil Process 54(b) and relevant circuit court docket case legislation, which set the usual of assessment for reconsideration of interlocutory orders to be “as justice required.”

She didn’t take into account a counter-response subsequently filed by Complainant, discovering it to contravene 28 C.F.R. §68.11(b). That regulation makes clear that “no reply to a response, counter-response to a reply, or any additional responsive doc shall be filed” except the ALJ has supplied in any other case.

Movement to Rethink Denied

In his Movement to Rethink, Complainant requested the Courtroom to compel Respondent to offer discovery responses, however supplied no proof or argument asserting the ALJ had incorrectly utilized the regulation to the information. The Courtroom has the discretion to reverse a call even with out further proof or argument; nonetheless, the Movement didn’t argue that justice required a distinct choice. Due to this fact, the Movement to Rethink was denied.

With out affecting that call, the ALJ supplied data and evaluation to help the professional se defendant. She famous that in his December 24, 2020 submitting, very similar to in his preliminary Movement to Compel, Complainant was not particular with respect to his questions or requests. The submitting additionally lacked specificity as to the objections made by Respondent. In different phrases, a movement to compel ought to embody a selected discovery query and the opposing celebration’s response to that particular query.

Lastly, the ALJ famous that the December 24 submitting was unclear as as to if Complainant had met and conferred with Respondent concerning the particular discovery queries. Respondent’s Opposition had asserted there had been no such assembly however indicated a willingness to “meet and seek advice from Complainant regarding his discovery demand.” Additional, the ALJ inspired the events to fulfill and confer concerning the particular objects at subject, and work collectively to resolve discovery points at any time when doable.

To study extra about this weblog submit or when you have some other immigration considerations, please be happy to contact me at rglahoud@norris-law.com or (484) 544-0022.