Michael Browne v. Walmart, Inc.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER 22 OCAHO no. 1689 MICHAEL BROWNE, Complainant, v. WALMART, INC., Respondent. February 10, 2026 8 U.S.C. § 1324B Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2026B00008 Appearances: Daniel T. Low, Esq., and Lindsey M. Grunert, Esq., for Complainant NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE – FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER This case arises under the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. On December 10, 2025 Complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO). On December 15, 2025, this office served Respondent via Untied States certified mail with the complaint, a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint Alleging Unlawful Employment (NOCA) and the Complaint.

The NOCA directed that an answer was to be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Complaint, that failure could lead to entry of default, and that proceedings would be governed by OCAHO’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.1 NOCA 1-4. 1 OCAHO Rules of Practice and Procedure, 28 C.F.R. pt. 68 (2024). The rules are also available through OCAHO’s webpage on the United States Department of Justice’s website. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-regulations.

22 OCAHO no. 1689 The U.S. Postal Service Return Receipt Form 3811 indicates service of the complaint package on Respondent; however the Respondent Agent2 did not date the Form. That Form was received by this Court on December 20, 2025. At a minimum, then, the Respondent’s answer was due no later than January 20, 2026. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(a); United States v. TX Pollo Feliz, 18 OCAHO no. 1503, 3 (2023).3 To date, Respondent has not filed an answer.

To contest a material fact alleged in the complaint, a respondent must file an answer. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(c). Failure to file an answer “within the time provided may be deemed to constitute a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge may enter a judgment by default.” 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b).

Respondent is ORDERED to file both its answer, and a submission explaining its good cause for its failure to timely file an answer.4 Both must be received by the Court within 30 days of the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered on February 10, 2026. __________________________________ Honorable Andrea R. Carroll-Tipton Administrative Law Judge 2 Contrast with Wang v. Dropbox, Inc., 20 OCAHO no. 1605, 1 (2024) (“The U.S. Postal Service website indicated that the Complaint package was delivered to a “front desk/reception/mail room” on June 17, 2024. The Court did not receive a return receipt confirming service upon Respondent.”). 3 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 subsequent to 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,” or in the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” or on the website at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-decisions. 4 Complainant has filed a motion seeking an entry of default judgment. Any submission filed by Respondent in Response to this Order shall be considered a response or opposition to Complainant’s Motion. 2