# UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aeoir%3A614a9344649119b8

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

22 OCAHO no. 1704
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Complainant,
v.
CHEETAH CLEAN
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8 U.S.C. § 1324a Proceeding
OCAHO Case No. 2026A00042

Appearances: Amery E. Abercrombie, Esq., for Complainant
Vinh Duong, Esq., for Respondent
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE,
SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OF PREHEARING STATEMENTS, AND
SCHEDULING INITIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 7, 2026, Complainant, the United States Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a complaint with the Office of
the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) alleging that Respondent,
Cheetah Clean Holding Company, LLC, violated the employer sanctions provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1968, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Complainant alleges that
Respondent failed to prepare and/or present the Employment Eligibility Verification
Form (Form I-9) for three individuals (Count I) and failed to ensure proper completion
of section 1 and/or failed to properly complete section 2 or 3 of the Form I-9 for fortyeight individuals (Count II), all in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B).
On April 13, 2026, 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 (hereinafter the “complaint package”). Through the NOCA,

22 OCAHO no. 1704
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 1 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. ¶ 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.
On May 11, 2026, Respondent filed Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time
to File Answer. Through that filing, Respondent acknowledged service of the
complaint on April 13, 2026, and moved the Court to grant “an extension of at least
sixty (60) days to file the Answer.” Mot. Extension Time Answer ¶¶ 2, 6. Respondent
represented that its motion was “made in good faith and not for purposes of delay,”
id. ¶ 7, and argued such an extension would “facilitate meaningful settlement
discussions, conserve adjudicatory and party resources, and will not prejudice the
Complainant.” Id. ¶ 6.
On May 13, 2026, the parties jointly filed an Agreed Order Extending Time to
File Answer, through which they requested a thirty-day extension of the answer
deadline. Respondent’s counsel again conceded service of the complaint on April 13,
2026, and acknowledged that the answer was due on May 13, 2026. Joint Mot. Extend
Answer Deadline ¶ 2; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(b), 68.9(a). 2 The parties represented
that, given their ongoing settlement negotiations, the agreed extension of time would
“facilitate meaningful settlement discussions, conserve adjudicatory and party
resources, and promote the just, orderly, and economical resolution of this proceeding
consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 68.1.” Id. ¶ 5. Although the filing was styled as an agreed
order, because counsel for both parties “jointly represent and stipulate” to the facts
and jointly signed the filing, id. at 1–2, the Court construes this filing to be a joint
motion to extend the answer deadline.

OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings, being the
provisions contained in 28 C.F.R. part 68 (2026), are available in the Electronic Code
of Federal Regulations. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-68.

1

The USPS website indicates that, on April 17, 2026, separate copies of the
complaint package were delivered to Respondent’s counsel, Respondent’s founder and
chief executive officer, and the Respondent business. Notice of Case Assignment 8;
Compl. Ex. B.

2

2

22 OCAHO no. 1704
II.

JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE

“OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings do not
provide specific standards for granting extensions, but the standard routinely applied
is good cause.” United States v. Space Expl. Techs., 18 OCAHO no. 1499, 5 (2023); 3
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (explaining that “[w]hen an act may or must be done
within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”).
Here, the parties represent that they “have engaged in good faith settlement
discussions aimed at resolving this matter efficiently and without the need for
contested litigation.” Joint Mot. Extend Answer Deadline ¶ 4. They believe
extending the deadline to June 12, 2026, “will facilitate meaningful settlement
discussions, conserve adjudicatory and party resources, and promote the just, orderly,
and economical resolution of this proceeding consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 68.1.” Id. ¶
5.
The Court finds that several factors counsel in favor of finding good cause to
extend the deadline for filing an answer. As both parties have agreed to this joint
motion, neither party will be prejudiced by a deadline extension. See Space Expl.
Techs., 18 OCAHO no. 1499, at 6–7 (considering prejudice as a factor in assessing
good cause). With both parties agreeing to a thirty-day extension, the Court also
finds that the length of the extension will not substantially impact the proceedings.
See id. at 7 (finding a thirty-day extension appropriate upon agreement by the
parties). For both parties, this is also the first requested extension, and they have
jointly sought it. See id. Additionally, “the Court finds an absence of bad faith here
where the parties filed their Motion to Extend before the … deadline for respondent’s
answer.” Id. OCAHO Administrative Law Judges have previously found good cause
to extend an answer deadline where parties were engaged in settlement negotiations.
See United States v. The Wall Co., LLC, 21 OCAHO no. 1633, 1 (2025). Having
considered the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the parties have shown

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 “FIMOCAHO,” 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.

3

3

22 OCAHO no. 1704
good cause for the extension of time. The Court now grants their joint motion and
extends the answer deadline to June 12, 2026. 4
III.

INITIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE

Should this case not settle beforehand, the Court will hold an initial telephonic
prehearing conference on July 7, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time 5 to develop a case
schedule, including dates for the completion of discovery, the filing of motions, and a
hearing in this matter. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.13. The Court also may schedule dates for
the submission of a proposed final pretrial order and final pretrial conference.
At the conference, the parties should be fully prepared and have authority to
discuss any questions regarding the case, including questions raised by the pleadings,
jurisdiction, pending motions, motions contemplated to be filed, the probable length
of time needed for discovery, and the possibility of settlement of the case. The parties
will have the opportunity to discuss any problems confronting them, including the
need for time in which to prepare for a hearing. The parties shall be prepared at the
conference to tell the Court their preferred location for a hearing, should one be
required in this matter. 6
IV.

ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH OCAHO PORTAL

OCAHO has implemented a web-based electronic filing system (OCAHO
Portal) for cases filed with OCAHO under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c. The
system is the result of a successful pilot program to test electronic filing by email,
4 Should the parties reach a settlement agreement before the June 12, 2026, deadline

for filing an answer, they may inform the Court through a written notice of settlement
and joint motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.14 signed by counsel for both
parties. The parties should specify whether they are seeking a dismissal with or
without prejudice.

If the parties need to reschedule the initial prehearing conference, at least five days
in advance of the date set for the prehearing conference, they shall provide the Court
with a joint written notice of a minimum of three proposed agreed dates and times in
Eastern Time for the rescheduled conference. The Court will confirm the date and
time for the rescheduled conference either telephonically or in writing as soon
thereafter as practicable.
5

Sections 274A(e)(3)(B) and 274C(d)(2)(B) of the INA dictate that hearings be held
“at the nearest practicable place to the place where the person or entity resides or to
the place where the alleged violation occurred.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.5(b).

6

4

22 OCAHO no. 1704
which launched in 2014 and was extended indefinitely in 2015. All litigants can use
the OCAHO Portal for their cases for filing and receipt of decisions and orders.
Use of the OCAHO Portal for all filings in OCAHO cases is mandatory for
attorneys and authorized representatives. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.6(b)(1). Registration
requires a valid email address for electronic service. See id. § 68.6(c)(3). A certificate
of service is required on filings made through the Portal. See id. § 68.6(c)(1). Parties
may register for the OCAHO Portal and log into their account to file by visiting the
OCAHO filing page on the United States Department of Justice’s website:
https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/. The parties should contact the help desk for the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) if they need assistance registering
for the OCAHO Portal. 7
If both parties are filing through the OCAHO Portal, the Portal will effectuate
service by providing notification of each filing to all parties via email. See 28 C.F.R.
§ 68.6(c)(1). The filing party must include a certificate of service stating that “all
parties are using OCAHO’s electronic filing application and, therefore, no separate
service was completed.” Id. If one party is not using the OCAHO Portal or if the
Portal is unavailable, the parties shall serve their filings by one of the means specified
in 28 C.F.R. § 68.6(c)(2).
Regardless of which filing method is used, the Court will accept courtesy copies
of the parties’ filings by email to OCAHO.
V.

RULES GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings in this case will generally be governed by OCAHO’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings, being the provisions contained
in 28 C.F.R. part 68 (2026). OCAHO’s Rules are available in the Electronic Code of
Federal Regulations. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-68.
The parties must familiarize themselves with these rules, including the
standards of conduct under 28 C.F.R. § 68.35. The parties also may avail themselves
of the OCAHO Practice Manual which outlines procedures and provides
recommendations regarding practice before OCAHO. 8
EOIR’s help desk can be reached by calling 1-877-388-3842 or emailing
ecas.techsupport@usdoj.gov. Should the parties encounter difficulties viewing the
Court’s orders and decisions through the OCAHO Portal, or need to confirm the
Court’s receipt of a filing, they may contact OCAHO directly.
7

The OCAHO Practice Manual, which is part of the EOIR Policy Manual, provides
an outline of the procedures and rules applicable to cases before OCAHO. It is

8

5

22 OCAHO no. 1704

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be used in situations not provided
for, or controlled by, OCAHO’s rules, by the Administrative Procedure Act, or other
applicable statutes, executive orders, and regulations. 28 C.F.R. § 68.1.
During the pendency of this case, the parties shall comply with the following
rules governing discovery, motions practice, and case filings:
1.
The Court authorizes the parties in this matter to begin their discovery
at any time and will set a discovery schedule at the initial prehearing conference.
2.
Except when the discovery is used as an exhibit to a filing or as evidence
during a hearing, the parties shall not file with the Court their discovery requests or
responses to discovery requests, including, but not limited to, interrogatories,
requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, deposition notices, and
transcripts. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.18(a).
3.
The parties must cooperate with each other in honoring discovery
requests and make good-faith efforts to coordinate deposition dates. One party’s
failure or inability to respond to discovery does not excuse another party from
promptly complying with discovery requests.
4.
The parties can, and should, work out most discovery disputes. Before
filing a discovery motion, the parties must confer, preferably in person or by
telephone, in a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without the Court’s
intervention. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.23(b)(4). Motions to compel, motions to quash, and
other discovery motions must be accompanied by the relevant discovery requests and
responses, along with a declaration stating with specificity when and how the movant
complied with 28 C.F.R. § 68.23(b)(4). Parties must immediately notify the Court if
they are withdrawing (or narrowing) any previously filed discovery motions.
5.
Before filing a motion, the filing party must ask opposing counsel or the
opposing party whether there is an objection to the motion, and the motion must state
that the conferral occurred, or if not, why not. If there is an objection, the movant
must note that fact on the first page of the motion and of any separate brief in support.
Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions must be so identified in both the title and the
body of the motion. Hearing dates and discovery deadlines generally will not be reset
except by written motion.
6.
The pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not
necessarily operate as a stay of discovery, although the parties may seek one from
the Court.
likewise available on the United States Department of Justice’s website.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-IV/ocaho.
6

See

22 OCAHO no. 1704

7.
Responses to motions, accompanied by such affidavits or other evidence
upon which the party desires to rely, are due ten days after service unless the Court
sets a different schedule, and the parties must seek leave before filing a reply or a
sur-reply under 28 C.F.R. § 68.11(b).
8.
During the initial prehearing conference, the Court may set limits on
the amount of discovery in this case and will set a discovery closing date. Except to
the extent specified by the Court on motion by either party, discovery must be
completed before the discovery closing date. Discovery requested, but not scheduled
for completion, before the closing date, does not comply with this rule. Any motion to
extend discovery must demonstrate good cause for the extension, state the other
party’s position on the motion, and be filed before the discovery closing date.
9.
All filings in this matter, including joint filings and filings submitted
through the OCAHO Portal, shall be accompanied by a certification indicating service
to all parties of record and identifying the date and manner of service. 28 C.F.R.
§ 68.6(c). Filings that fail to comply with this rule shall be subject to being stricken
or rejected by the Court.
10.
All multi-page filings and exhibits must be paginated. The parties must
identify exhibits and attachments by letter, name, or number. Briefs and motions
that exceed fifteen pages must have a table of contents with the pages noted and a
table of cases. Any filing that does not comply with this rule may be stricken by the
Court.
VI.

OCAHO SETTLEMENT OFFICER PROGRAM

OCAHO offers a voluntary mediation program through which the parties may
use a settlement officer to mediate settlement negotiations as a means of alternative
dispute resolution. 9 The program works as follows:
1.
Upon receipt of a joint motion by the parties, the Court may refer a case
for mediation before a settlement officer at any time while proceedings are pending,
up to thirty days before the date scheduled for a hearing in the matter. The
settlement officer may convene and oversee settlement conferences and negotiations,
may confer with the parties jointly and/or individually, and will seek voluntary
resolution of issues in the case.
EOIR Policy Memorandum 20-16 sets forth the OCAHO Settlement Officer
Program and has been incorporated into the OCAHO Practice Manual as Chapter
4.7. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-IV/ocaho/chapter-4-7.

9

7

22 OCAHO no. 1704
2.
With the consent of the parties, the settlement officer may, in his or her
discretion, seek to extend the time for negotiations for a reasonable amount of time,
not to exceed an additional thirty days. If an extension of the negotiation period is
sought, the settlement officer shall seek approval of the extension from the presiding
ALJ. If the presiding ALJ determines that an extension of the negotiation period is
appropriate, the presiding ALJ shall issue an order extending the period of settlement
negotiations and specifying whether and to what extent any procedural deadlines in
the case are stayed.
3.
The Court recommends that the parties undertake settlement
negotiations at the earliest practicable point in the litigation. The parties shall confer
before the initial prehearing conference regarding their interest in participating in
the OCAHO Settlement Officer Program. Additionally, before the prehearing
conference, the parties may file a joint motion for a referral to the program. Any such
motion should be signed by counsel for both parties and represent that the parties
have reviewed the program’s rules, consent to participate in the program, and agree
to engage in settlement negotiations in good faith. If the parties file a joint motion
for a referral to mediation in advance of the dates set in this Order, they may advise
the Court of their positions regarding a reasonable continuance of the filing dates for
prehearing statements and/or the initial prehearing conference.
VII.

INITIAL PREHEARING STATEMENTS

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.12, the parties shall file written prehearing
statements of position with this Court and, if both parties are not using the OCAHO
Portal, serve their statements on each other. The parties’ initial prehearing
statements shall contain the following sections:
1.

The Nature of the Case
a. Identify the representative(s) or attorney(s) of record for each party,
including the lead attorney. Confirm the best email address and
telephone number for OCAHO to use for scheduling issues.
b. State the basis for OCAHO jurisdiction.
c. Describe the nature of the claims asserted in the complaint and any
counterclaims.
d. State the major legal and factual issues in the case.
e. Describe the relief sought by the complainant(s).

2.

Pending Motions and Discovery Case Plan
a. Identify all pending motions.
b. Submit a proposal for a discovery plan, including the following
8

22 OCAHO no. 1704
information:
i. The general type of discovery needed. If no discovery is needed,
please state so.
ii. A proposed fact discovery completion date.
iii. If there will be expert discovery, a proposed expert discovery
completion date, including dates for the delivery of expert reports
(or summaries for non-retained expert testimony).
iv. A proposed date for the filing of dispositive motions.
3.

Pretrial Information
a. Proposed Stipulations and Uncontested Facts.
In numbered
paragraphs, list proposed stipulations and uncontested facts. Before
the deadline for filing dispositive motions, the parties should plan to
confer in good faith to arrive at as many stipulations and uncontested
facts as possible to eliminate the necessity of taking evidence with
respect to allegations as to which there are no genuine or substantial
disputes.
b. Preliminary Witness Description List. Provide a list of witnesses,
including expert witnesses, divided into (1) witnesses who will be
called and (2) witnesses who might be called. For each witness,
provide a concise (two or three sentences) description of the witness,
the witness’s role in the case, and a summary of the testimony
expected.
c. Preliminary Exhibit List. Include a list of your anticipated exhibits.
Identify each exhibit with the designation to be used at the hearing.
Complainant will identify its exhibits with the letter C and
sequential numbers, e.g., C-1, C-2, and C-3, while Respondent will
identify its exhibits as R-1, R-2, R-3, and so forth. Include
substantive and proposed demonstrative exhibits. For each exhibit,
provide a brief, neutral description of the exhibit and a concise
statement of the exhibit’s relevance. Do not file the exhibits
themselves.

4.

Status of Settlement Discussions and Settlement Officer
Program
a. State whether any settlement discussions have occurred.
b. Describe the status of any settlement discussions.
c. State whether the parties have conferred regarding the OCAHO
Settlement Officer Program and whether each party is interested in
a referral to the program.
9

22 OCAHO no. 1704

VIII. INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Simultaneously with the filing of the party’s prehearing statement, the filing
party will make its initial disclosure of its documentary evidence to the other party
without waiting for a formal discovery request to be made. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(ii). Copies of any exhibits listed in Section VII(3)(c) are to be disclosed to
the other party, not to this Court. If any exhibit on a party’s preliminary exhibit list
does not yet exist, the party must disclose that exhibit to the other party within two
weeks of its creation.
Mandatory initial disclosures include the names and contact information for
persons other than those individuals listed under Section VI(3)(b) who have
knowledge or discoverable information about the matters at issue unless the
information would be solely for impeachment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i).
Supplementation of initial disclosures is required in the same manner as would
be required pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.18(d).
IX.

CASE SCHEDULE

The Court directs the parties to EOIR’s Policy Memorandum 25-50 entitled
“OCAHO Case Completion Goals.” 10 In accordance with this memorandum, which
was released on September 15, 2025, the parties should expect the Court to set a
schedule in this matter that permits the completion of this case within 450 days of
the filing date of the complaint.
X.

NOTICE

The Court puts the parties on notice that failure to respond to the Court’s
orders, including by failing to make initial disclosures, file prehearing statements, or
appear at prehearing conferences, may lead to a finding of abandonment and
dismissal pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.37(b) or an entry of default pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
§ 68.9(b).

EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-50 is available through the EOIR Policy Manual
through the United States Department of Justice’s website.
See
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1414121/dl?inline.

10

10

22 OCAHO no. 1704
XI.

ORDERS

IT IS SO ORDERED that the joint motion to extend answer deadline (Agreed
Order Extending Time to File Answer) filed by Complainant, the United States
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
Respondent, Cheetah Clean Holding Company, LLC, is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file its answer to the
complaint on or before June 12, 2026;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time
to File Answer is DENIED as moot;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall make their initial
disclosures and file their prehearing statements with the Court on or before July 3,
2026; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an initial telephonic prehearing conference
in this matter will be held on July 7, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Both parties
shall attend the prehearing conference by calling telephone number [x-xxx-xxx-xxxx]
and entering the meeting number ([xxx xxx xxx]) and meeting password ([xxxx]).
SO ORDERED.
Dated May 20, 2026.

__________________________________________
Honorable Carol A. Bell
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge

11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aeoir%3A614a9344649119b8. Public record. Not legal advice.