United States v. Hyatt Regency Lake Tahoe

6 OCAHO 854 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER April 10, 1996 IN RE CHARGE OF JUAN CARLOS CUNI BARO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant, 8 U.S.C. §1324b Proceeding ) OCAHO Case No. 95B00118 HYATT REGENCY LAKE TAHOE, Respondent. v. NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION On April 8, 1996, Juan Carlos Cuni Baro (Baro) served the at- tached article upon the Court with the accompanying letter, which I have not read. These documents were not served on the other parties to this case and therefore they are ex parte communications. The Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that “[a] party or partici- pant who makes a prohibited ex parte communication . . . may be subject to any appropriate sanction or sanctions, including but not limited to, exclusion from the proceedings and adverse ruling on the issue which is the subject of the prohibited communication.” 28 C.F.R. §68.36(b). Baro, as the individual who filed a charge with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices which resulted in the filing of a complaint, is a party in this case.

See 28 C.F.R. §68.2(o). As a party, Baro is bound by the Rules of Practice and is prohibited from making ex parte communi- cations with the Court. Should Baro file any other materials with 283 6 OCAHO 854 the Court, he is ordered to serve copies on counsel for both the Complainant and Respondent as identified in the Certificate of Service. As previously stated, I am attaching a copy of the letter and article to this Notice.

Should any party engage in further ex parte communications, they will be subject to any sanction provided for by the Rules of Practice and Procedure. ROBERT L. BARTON, JR. Administrative Law Judge 284