FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 9, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court AURELIO GALINDO, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9601 (Petition for Review) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; SMITHFIELD FOODS; YUMA COUNTY, Respondents. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Aurelio Galindo, a foreign national from Mexico proceeding pro se, 1 seeks review of an order from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”). The order granted two motions to dismiss Galindo’s claims of citizenship-status * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Galindo appears pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings but will not act as his advocate. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). discrimination, which he asserted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. For the following reasons, we deny his petition. BACKGROUND Galindo is a Mexican foreign national authorized to work in the United States under a TN visa. 2 On May 10, 2019, Galindo filed a charge with the Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Sections (“IER”) against Respondents Smithfield Food (“Smithfield”) and Yuma County. Galindo filed this charge under the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. In his charge, he alleged that Respondents had discriminated against him based on his citizenship and national-origin status, had retaliated against him for asserting his § 1324b rights, and had committed unfair documentary practices. On October 15, 2019, the IER sent Galindo a letter of determination informing him that it was dismissing his charge for four reasons. First, the IER concluded that Galindo is an “Alien Authorized to Work” and thus is not a protected individual for citizenship status discrimination. R. at 13. Specifically, it explained that “individuals protected against citizenship status discrimination are limited to only U.S. citizens, nationals, certain lawful permanent residents, aliens lawfully admitted for temporary residence under [8 U.S.C. §§] 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1) . . . and persons admitted as asylees This type of visa is available to temporary professionals from Mexico and 2 Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Workers, https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary- nonimmigrant-workers (last visited Apr. 8, 2021). 2 or refugees.” Id. Second, it determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the national-origin claim against Smithfield. Third, it stated that Galindo hadn’t provided facts supporting his claims for unfair documentary practices and retaliation. And fourth, it explained that Galindo hadn’t provided details identifying how Yuma County had been involved in the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts. It also advised Galindo that he could challenge the decision by presenting his claims …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals