United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 21-1151 September Term, 2022 FILED ON: MARCH 24, 2023 TEMITOPE OGUNRINU, PETITIONER v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Department of Justice Before: MILLETT, PILLARD, and RAO, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT This case was considered on the record from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and on the briefs of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See FED. R. APP. P. 36; D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review of the decision of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer be DENIED. I The anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, forbid employers from discriminating against American citizens on the basis of citizenship status when making hiring decisions. See id. § 1324b(a)(1)(B). Employers are also forbidden from requesting unnecessary proof of immigration status, which is known as document abuse, and from retaliating against employees asserting their right to be free from discrimination. See id. § 1324b(a)(5)–(6). Petitioner Temitope Ogunrinu is a dual citizen of the United States and Nigeria and a practicing attorney who appears pro se. In 2010, she contacted Law Resources—a legal staffing 1 agency—for employment, and she began receiving communications from them about available projects through an email list. Law Resources relies on attorneys communicating their availability and interest in advertised projects before it staffs them. On September 20, 2018, Ogunrinu emailed Law Resources asking to be staffed on a document review project. That same day, the law firm Arnold & Porter requested contract attorneys from Law Resources to work on a document review project. Arnold & Porter required that the attorneys be sole United States citizens, due to a mistaken belief that dual citizens could not handle documents related to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). After informing Ogunrinu of the ITAR project, Law Resources included her on a list of candidates it sent to Arnold & Porter. Arnold & Porter asked Law Resources to confirm that all candidates had exclusively United States citizenship, and Law Resources asked Ogunrinu whether she was solely a United States citizen. LRA–98, 102. When Ogunrinu asked why Law Resources needed that information, Law Resources responded that the question came from Arnold & Porter. LRA 102. Ogunrinu refused to confirm her citizenship, and so Law Resources removed her name from consideration for employment on that project. Ultimately, five attorneys worked on the ITAR project; the highest-paid received $2,208.75. LRA–36; Amended Order on Motions for Summary Decision (“Order”) at 6, J.A. 487. During that same period, Ogunrinu worked on a pre-existing project that she had received from another employment agency, and to which she had already committed before applying for the ITAR project. There, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals