The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) issued a precedent setting decision on August 21, 2020 in United States v. Rubio-Reyes, 14 OCAHO no. 1349a (2020). The Government and the Respondent both filed cross motions requesting summary decision. Complainant submitted a motion for summary decision arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Respondent filed a cross motion for summary decision alleging that the Government violated her Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search of her home and that the evidence should therefore be excluded, in line with the exclusionary rule. Respondent argued as well that the Government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated 8 § U.S.C 1324c.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted motions in favor of the Government, finding Respondent liable for one count of violating 8 § U.S.C 1324c(a)(4) for knowingly using a fraudulent Social Security card and a fraudulent Lawful Permanent Resident Card. The ALJ found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Respondent’s liability as the evidence that was submitted in the Government’s motion, and which was understood by the Court to have been obtained before the allegedly illegal search in the absence of any argument to the contrary by the Respondent, satisfied the Government’s burden of proving Respondent’s liability. Accordingly the ALJ held that the Court would not address whether the exclusionary rule applies to OCAHO proceedings in this case. The ALJ also found that as a matter of law an individual who is unauthorized to work in the United States and who knowingly supplies fraudulent documents in order to obtain employment at a private company does so with the purpose of satisfying a requirement of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Finally the Court imposed a $922 fine, twice the amount requested by the Government, on the grounds that the plain language of § 1324c(3) mandates an individual found in violation of § 1324c to pay a civil money penalty “for each document that is the subject of a violation.” Respondent was found to have knowingly used two fraudulent documents in violation of § 1324c and therefore was required to pay a penalty of $461 for each document.
