Yakubson v. Effective Sec.

6 OCAHO 858 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER April 30, 1996 ALEXSANDR YAKUBSON, Complainant, v. EFFECTIVE SECURITY, Respondent. 8 U.S.C. §1324b Proceeding ) Case No. 96B00020 ORDER The complaint in this case filed February 21, 1996 was served on Respondent on March 7, 1996. On April 26, 1996, Complainant filed a handwritten Notice of Intent to Cancel Charge. By that Notice, Complainant recites that with assistance of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) he has effected a full settlement of the dispute, in support of which he has filed a copy of an agreement signed on be- half of each party and OSC, and a copy each of a check and computa- tion of the agreed monetary settlement.

Until Complainant’s Notice was filed, the participation by OSC was unknown to the presiding administrative law judge. So far as I am aware, this is the first 8 U.S.C. §1324b private action before me in which the parties and OSC maintained a continuing dialogue out- side the record and unknown to the judge. While I commend OSC for its continued assistance to the parties, I am less sanguine concern- ing its failure to keep the forum informed of its participation pen- dente lite. Once a private action (sans OSC) is filed, at a minimum the better practice is for OSC to inform the judge of its contacts with the parties.

Adherence to the fundamental concept of separation of functions demands no less. See, Romo v. Todd, 1 OCAHO 25, 142 at 145 (1988) (Third Post-Hearing Order) (citing specifically, 5 U.S.C. §554(d . As to deference generally in context of §1324b, see also, 353 6 OCAHO 858 Cruz v. Able Service Contractors, Inc., 6 OCAHO 837 (1966); Romo v. Todd, 1 OCAHO 25, 115 at 133 (1988), aff’d, 900 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1990).

Because Complainant neglected to serve his Notice on Respondent and because OSC is otherwise a stranger to the proceeding before me, this Order transmits copies of the Notice (but not the enclo- sures) to Respondent and to OSC. Upon written or oral confirmation of settlement from OSC, I intend to dismiss this case, settled, unless not later than May 9, 1996, either Respondent or OSC advises in writing of a reason to the contrary.

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered this 30th day of April, 1996.

MARVIN H. MORSE

Administrative Law Judge 354