# UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aeoir%3Aef51cc6216923415

## Record

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

## Text

22 OCAHO no. 1692
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Complainant,
v.
SAI EL PASO, LLC, D/B/A DAYS INN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8 U.S.C. § 1324a Proceeding
OCAHO Case No. 2026A00012

Appearances: Hazel L. Gauthier, Esq., for Complainant
Sai El Paso, 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 23, 2025. Complainant alleges that
Respondent, Sai El Paso, LLC, doing business as Days Inn, failed to prepare and/or
present the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) for fourteen
individuals (Count I) and failed to ensure that the employee properly completed
section 1 and/or failed to properly complete section 2 or 3 of the Form I-9 for nine
individuals (Count II), all in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). Compl. ¶ 3.
Complainant included in the complaint an “alternative” Count III, alleging that
Respondent failed to timely prepare the Form I-9 for two employees, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). Id.

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

22 OCAHO no. 1692
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 at the
business in El Paso, Texas, through Mr. Jineshkumar Ahir, who was identified as the
“manager” of the Respondent-business, on September 27, 2024, seeking a fine of
$54,510 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.
Also attached to the complaint was a letter dated October 27, 2024, signed by
Mr. Jineshkumar Ahir on behalf of the Respondent-business, through which Mr. Ahir
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (“request for
hearing”). Compl. Ex. B. The letter was stamped “received” on October 28, 2024. Id.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.7(b)(5), 2 Complainant asked OCAHO to serve the
complaint on Respondent at its business address in El Paso, Texas, through Mr. Ahir.
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
that it was “delivered to an individual at the address” of the Respondent-business on
OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings, being the
provisions contained in 28 C.F.R. part 68 (2025), 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-administrative-hearing-officerregulations.
2

2

22 OCAHO no. 1692
January 9, 2026. OCAHO also received a signed USPS return receipt for the delivery;
the signature was illegible. 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). 3
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
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
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. 1692
(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 address provided by Complainant, OCAHO sent—via the USPS
certified mail—the Complaint package to Respondent at its business address, to the
attention of its manager Mr. Ahir. The USPS tracking information reflected that the
Complaint package was delivered to Respondent at its business address on January
9, 2026. Further, OCAHO received a signed USPS return receipt reflecting delivery
of the Complaint package to the address of the Respondent-business. The Court
therefore finds that OCAHO has perfected service of the Complaint package on
Respondent 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. 4 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 68.3(b), 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. 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).

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
answer was extended to include the next business day, being Monday, February 9,
2026.
4

4

22 OCAHO no. 1692
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. 5
The Court orders Respondent to file a response to this Notice and Order to
Show Cause 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).

OCAHO shall serve this Notice and Order to Show Cause on Respondent at the
address Complainant provided in the complaint. See Compl. 6.

5

5

22 OCAHO no. 1692
IV.

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order,
Respondent, Sai El Paso, LLC, doing business as Days Inn, 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 11, 2026.

_____________________________________
Honorable Carol A. Bell
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge

6

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aeoir%3Aef51cc6216923415. Public record. Not legal advice.