UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

22 OCAHO no. 1690

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Complainant,

v.

LA TROJE BAR AND GRILL, LLC,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

8 U.S.C. § 1324a Proceeding

OCAHO Case No. 2026A00009

Appearances: Oscar J. Montemayor, Esq., for Complainant

Ignacio G. Martinez, Esq., for Respondent

NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended

by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Complainant,

the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, filed a complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative

Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on December 16, 2025. Complainant alleges that

Respondent, La Troje Bar and Grill, LLC, failed to ensure the employee properly

completed section 1 and/or failed to properly complete section 2 or 3 of the

Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) for sixteen individuals in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). Compl. ¶ 6.

Complainant attached to the complaint the Notice of Intent to Fine Pursuant

to Section 274A of the INA (NIF) that it personally served on Respondent through

Mr. Luis Gonzalez, who identified himself as the owner of the Respondent-business,

in Brownsville, Texas, on July 17, 2024, seeking a fine of $35,258.80 for the alleged

violations. Compl. Ex. A. The NIF put Respondent on notice of its right to contest

the fine by submitting a written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) to DHS “within 30 days from the service of this [NIF].” Id.

22 OCAHO no. 1690

Also attached to the complaint was a letter dated August 19, 2024, signed by

Mr. Ignacio G. Martinez, Esq., on behalf of the Respondent-business, through which

Mr. Martinez requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

(“request for hearing”). 1 Compl. Ex. B. Mr. Martinez’s letterhead included an

address for his law firm in Brownsville, Texas. Id.

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(b)(5), 2 Complainant asked OCAHO to serve the

complaint both on Respondent at its business address, through owner Mr. Gonzalez,

and Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Martinez, at his law office in Brownsville, Texas.

Compl. 6.

On January 5, 2025, using the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) certified

mail service, OCAHO mailed Respondent a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint

Alleging Unlawful Employment (NOCA), the complaint, the NIF, and Respondent’s

request for hearing (together, the “Complaint package”). Through the NOCA,

OCAHO’s Deputy Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (Deputy CAHO) informed

Respondent that these proceedings would be governed by OCAHO’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure for Administrative Hearings and applicable case law. Notice of Case

Assignment ¶ 2. The NOCA included links to OCAHO’s Rules and its Practice

Manual, along with contact information for OCAHO. Id. The Deputy CAHO directed

Respondent to answer the complaint within thirty days in accordance with 28 C.F.R.

§ 68.9(a). Id. at 4. The Deputy CAHO cautioned Respondent that its failure to file

an answer could lead the Court to enter a judgment by default and all appropriate

relief pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b). Id.

Per its standard practice, OCAHO requested a tracking number for the

Complaint package and proof of service through a USPS Domestic Return Receipt

Form (PS Form 3811) (“return receipt”). The USPS certified mail tracking

information for the Complaint package mailed to the Respondent-business indicated

OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings, being the

provisions contained in 28 C.F.R. part 68 (2025), provide that “[a] request for a

hearing signed by an attorney and filed with [DHS] pursuant to section 274A(e)(3)(A)

or 274C(d)(2)(A) of the INA, and containing the same information as required by this

section, shall be considered a notice of appearance on behalf of the respondent for

whom the request was made.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(f). Therefore, the Court considers

this signed request for hearing to be a notice of appearance by Ignacio G. Martinez,

Esq., on behalf of Respondent.

1

OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings generally

govern these proceedings and are available on the United States Department of

Justice’s website. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrativehearing-officer-regulations.

2

2

22 OCAHO no. 1690

that it was “delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room” of the

Respondent-business on January 9, 2026. OCAHO also received a signed and dated

USPS return receipt for the delivery. The receipt included a handwritten delivery

date of January 9, 2026, and the name and signature of the individual who received

the Complaint package. 3 The USPS certified mail tracking information for the

Complaint package mailed to Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Martinez, indicated that it

was “delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room” of his law office on

January 9, 2026. OCAHO also received a signed and dated USPS return receipt for

the delivery. The receipt included a handwritten delivery date of January 9, 2026,

and the name and signature of the individual who received the Complaint package. 4

To date, Respondent has not filed an answer or communicated with OCAHO.

II.

REGULATORY AND LEGAL STANDARDS

OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings

generally govern these proceedings. OCAHO’s Rules explain that the filing of a

complaint commences an adjudicatory proceeding before OCAHO. 28 C.F.R. § 68.2.

However, “the formal stage of a case actually does not begin (the time deadlines do

not start) until the OCAHO serves the original complaint on the respondent

employer.” United States v. Arnold, 1 OCAHO no. 119, 781, 785 (1989) (internal

citations omitted). 5

OCAHO’s Rules require the complainant to identify “the party or parties to be

served by the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer with notice of the

complaint pursuant to [28 C.F.R.] § 68.3.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(b)(5). Complainant must

3 The signature consisted of the initials “V” and “R,” while the printed name appeared

to read, “Valeria Rdz.”

4

The name and signature were identical and consisted of a single initial.

Citations to OCAHO precedents reprinted in bound Volumes 1 through 8 reflect the

volume number and the case number of the particular decision followed by the specific

page in that volume where the decision begins; the pinpoint citations which follow

are thus to the pages, seriatim, of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to

OCAHO precedents after Volume 8, where the decision has not yet been reprinted in

a bound volume, are to pages within the original issuances; the beginning page

number of an unbound case will always be 1 and is accordingly omitted from the

citation. Published decisions may be accessed in the Westlaw database “FIM–

OCAHO,” the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” or on OCAHO’s homepage on the

United States Department of Justice’s website at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/officeof-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-decisions.

5

3

22 OCAHO no. 1690

include this information in a statement accompanying the complaint. Id. After

receiving this information, OCAHO will serve the complaint through one of the

following methods:

(1) By delivering a copy to the individual party, partner of

a party, officer of a corporate party, registered agent for

service of process of a corporate party, or attorney or

representative of record of a party;

(2) By leaving a copy at the principal office, place of

business, or residence of a party; or

(3) By mailing to the last known address of such individual,

partner, officer, or attorney or representative of record.

Id. § 68.3(a)(1–3). Whichever method is chosen, “[s]ervice of [the] complaint . . . is

complete upon receipt by [the] addressee.” Id. § 68.3(b).

III.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Using the addresses provided by Complainant and the USPS certified mail,

OCAHO sent copies of the Complaint package to Respondent at its business address,

to the attention of its owner Mr. Gonzalez, and to Respondent’s counsel, Mr.

Martinez, at his law office in Brownsville, Texas. The USPS tracking information

reflected that the Complaint package was delivered on January 9, 2026, both to

Respondent at its business address—the address at which DHS personally served the

NIF on Respondent—and its counsel at the address listed on the letterhead of

Respondent’s request for hearing. See Compl. Exs. A, B. Further, OCAHO received

signed and dated USPS return receipts confirming receipt of the Complaint package

by individuals at both addresses on January 9, 2026. The Court therefore finds that

OCAHO has perfected service of the Complaint package on Respondent and its

counsel on January 9, 2026, in accordance with 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(a)(3), 68.3(b).

OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings afford

a respondent thirty days to file an answer following service of the complaint. See

28 C.F.R. § 68.9(a). Through the NOCA, the Deputy CAHO explained this

requirement to Respondent. See Notice of Case Assignment ¶ 4. Given that service

of the complaint was perfected on January 9, 2026, the Court finds that Respondent’s

answer was due no later than February 9, 2026. 6 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(b), 68.9(a).

Respondent, however, failed to file an answer to the complaint.

In accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 68.8(a), because the last day of the time period fell

on a Sunday, namely, February 8, 2026, the thirty-day time period for filing an

6

4

22 OCAHO no. 1690

In the NOCA, the Deputy CAHO warned Respondent that if it failed to file a

timely answer, the Court might deem it to have waived its right to appear and contest

the allegations of the complaint and that a judgment by default and other appropriate

relief might follow. Notice of Case Assignment ¶ 4 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b)). “If a

default judgment is entered, the request for hearing is dismissed, AND judgment is

entered for the complainant without a hearing.” Nickman v. Mesa Air Grp.,

9 OCAHO no. 1106, 1 (2004).

OCAHO’s long-established practice has been to issue an order to show cause

before entering a default. See United States v. Shine Auto Serv., 1 OCAHO no. 70,

444 (1989). In Shine Auto Service, the acting CAHO explained:

Respondent must justify [in its response to the order to

show cause] its failure to respond in a timely manner.

Based on the Respondent’s reply, the [ALJ] shall determine

whether the respondent has met the threshold for good

cause. If the [ALJ] determines that the Respondent

possessed the requisite good cause for failing to file a timely

answer, then the [ALJ] may allow the Respondent to file a

late answer.

Id. at 445–46. This Court follows the same practice here and now issues this Notice

and Order to Show Cause. 7

The Court orders Respondent to file a response to this Order in which it must

proffer facts sufficient to show good cause for its failure to file a timely answer to the

complaint. Additionally, the Court orders Respondent to file an answer to the

complaint simultaneously with the filing of its response showing good cause.

Respondent’s answer must comport with 28 C.F.R. § 68.9. Upon receipt of

Respondent’s filings, the Court will determine if Respondent has demonstrated the

requisite good cause for failing to file a timely answer to the complaint and will decide

whether to allow its untimely answer.

answer was extended to include the next business day, being Monday, February 9,

2026.

OCAHO shall serve this Notice and Order to Show Cause on Respondent at both

addresses in the complaint, namely, its business address, to the attention of Mr.

Gonzalez, and on Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Martinez, at his law office in Brownsville,

Texas. See Compl. 6.

7

5

22 OCAHO no. 1690

If Respondent fails to file an answer and a response, the Court may find that

Respondent has waived its right to appear and contest the allegations of the

complaint. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b). The Court may then enter a default judgment. Id.

If Respondent fails to respond to the Court’s orders, the Court will find that it

has abandoned its request for hearing and dismiss its request pursuant to 28 C.F.R.

§ 68.37(b)(1).

See, e.g., United States v. Steidle Lawn & Landscape, LLC,

17 OCAHO no. 1457c, 2 (2023) (finding that the respondent abandoned its request for

a hearing when it failed to respond to the ALJ’s orders). “A final order of dismissal

based on abandonment is analogous to entry of a default judgment under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.” United States v. Vilardo Vineyards, 11 OCAHO no. 1248,

4 (2015). “Abandonment will result in DHS’s NIF becoming the final order.” United

States v. DJ’s Trans., 18 OCAHO no. 1488a, 5 (2024).

IV.

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order,

Respondent, La Troje Bar and Grill, LLC, shall file a response with the Court in which

it must provide facts sufficient to show good cause for its failure to timely answer the

complaint in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this

Order, Respondent shall file with the Court an answer to the complaint that comports

with 28 C.F.R. § 68.9.

The Court puts Respondent on notice that its failure to file an answer and a

response to this Notice and Order to Show Cause “may be deemed to constitute a

waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint” and

the Court may enter a default judgment against Respondent as to both liability and

penalties. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b). If Respondent fails to respond to the Court’s orders,

the Court shall conclude that Respondent has abandoned its request for a hearing

and issue an order of dismissal. Id. § 68.37(b). The NIF will be rendered the final

agency order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated February 10, 2026.

_____________________________________

Honorable Carol A. Bell

Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge

6