20-1273 Visiontron Corp. v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of October, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, COLLEEN MCMAHON, District Judge. * _____________________________________ VISIONTRON CORP., Petitioner, v. No. 20-1273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. _____________________________________ *Judge Colleen McMahon, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR PETITIONER: David P. Fallon, Law Offices of David P. Fallon, PLLC, Sayville, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey C. Bossert, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Justin R. Markel, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsels, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Petition for review of a decision of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer for the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“OCAHO”). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review of the decision of the OCAHO is DENIED. Appellant Visiontron Corp. (“Visiontron”) petitions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(8) for review of a final order issued by OCAHO, in which an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) concluded that Visiontron had committed substantive violations of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, and imposed a fine of $47,850. Specifically, in a March 17, 2020 written order, the ALJ found, based on a 2018 inspection of Visiontron’s employment eligibility forms by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), that Visiontron had “failed to prepare and/or present I-9[] [employment eligibility verification forms] for nine employees,” “failed to timely prepare and/or present I-9s for three employees,” and “failed to ensure proper completion of section 1 and/or failed to properly complete sections 2 or 3 for twenty-five employees.” J. App’x at 238. Based on these findings, the ALJ determined that Visiontron was “liable for thirty-seven violations of [8 U.S.C.] § 1324a(a)(1)(b).” Id. ICE sought $101,703.50 in penalties for these violations. After reviewing the record and the relevant statutory factors set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(5), the ALJ rejected ICE’s proposed penalty and instead imposed a fine of $47,850. Visiontron now petitions for review of that decision. “We review an order of the OCAHO issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324a under the arbitrary[-]and[-]capricious standard.” Buffalo Transp., Inc. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals