UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Complainant,

v.

CABELLO ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

8 U.S.C. § 1324a Proceeding

OCAHO Case No. 2025A00027

Appearances: Ariel Chino, Esq., for Complainant

Cabello Enterprises, LLC, Respondent 1

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 26, 2024. Complainant alleges that

Respondent, Cabello Enterprises, LLC, failed to timely prepare and/or present the

Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) for one individual (Count I) and

failed to ensure the employee properly completed section 1 and/or failed to properly

complete section 2 or 3 of the Form I-9 for twenty-five individuals (Count II), all 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. Cesar Cabello in Laredo, Texas, on May 1, 2024, seeking a fine of $59,696 for the

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

Should Respondent retain counsel in this matter, its counsel shall file a notice of

appearance in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 68.33(f).

1

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

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.

Also attached to the complaint was a letter dated May 25, 2024, signed by

Cesar Cabello on behalf of “Roger Cabello Towing & Storage,” through which Mr.

Cabello wrote that he “would like at this time [to] appeal to you the decision being

that, we fully cooperate[d]” with DHS. Compl. Ex. B. He asserted that “their finding

is not knowing” and asked DHS to review the “file and findings, and assist us in this

matter.” Id. The letter was stamped as being received by DHS on May 30, 2024. Id.

DHS characterized the May 25, 2024, letter as being a request for a hearing before

an ALJ by the Respondent-business (“request for hearing”). See Compl. ¶ 4.

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

complaint on Respondent through Mr. Cabello at an address in Laredo, Texas.

Compl. 7.

On January 29, 2025, using the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) certified

mail service, OCAHO’s Deputy Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (Deputy CAHO)

sent Respondent an Order by the Deputy CAHO and Notice of Case Assignment for

Complaint Alleging Unlawful Employment (NOCA), the complaint, the NIF, and

Respondent’s request for hearing (together, the “Complaint package”). 3 The 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. ¶ 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

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

provisions contained in 28 C.F.R. part 68 (2024), are available on the United States

Department of Justice’s website. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chiefadministrative-hearing-officer-regulations.

2

OCAHO corrected what appeared to be a typographical error in the street number

provided by Complainant and mailed the Complaint package to the Laredo, Texas,

address at which DHS personally served Respondent with the NIF. This was also

the address Respondent provided in its May 25, 2024, letter to DHS.

3

2

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

information for the Complaint package mailed to Respondent indicated that it was

“delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room” of the Respondent-business

on February 7, 2025. As such, Respondent’s answer was due by March 10, 2025. 4

OCAHO did not receive a signed and dated USPS return receipt identifying who

received the Complaint package. 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

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

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

on a Sunday, namely, March 9, 2025, the thirty-day time period for filing an answer

was extended to include the next business day, being Monday, March 10, 2025.

4

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

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

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

On January 29, 2025, OCAHO sent—via the USPS certified mail—the

Complaint package to Respondent in Laredo, Texas. Although OCAHO did not

receive a signed and dated USPS return receipt for the delivery, the USPS tracking

information reflected that the Complaint package was delivered to Respondent on

February 7, 2025. The Court therefore finds that OCAHO perfected service of the

Complaint package on Respondent on February 7, 2025, in accordance with 28 C.F.R.

§§ 68.3(a)(3), 68.3(b). The Court also notes that the service address was the address

at which DHS personally served the NIF on Respondent, and it was the address

Respondent listed in its May 25, 2024, letter to DHS. See Compl. Exs. A, 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 February 7, 2025, Respondent’s answer was due no

later than March 10, 2025. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(b), 68.8(a), 68.9(a). Respondent,

however, failed to file an answer to the complaint.

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. Id. (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:

4

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

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.

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.

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 days of the date of this Order,

Respondent, Cabello Enterprises, 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.

5

21 OCAHO no. 1640a

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

Respondent, Cabello Enterprises, LLC, 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 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 and entered on September 11, 2025.

__________________________________

Honorable Carol A. Bell

Administrative Law Judge

6