Gus Kirk, Candy Kirk, as Individuals, and D/B/A Kirk Enterprises v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service United States of America

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 2990·927 F.2d 1106·1991 WL 32413·19 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 221·56 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,608
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 14, 199189-70389California1,302 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

Gus Kirk and Candy Kirk appeal the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (“INS”) chief administrative hearing officer’s (“CAHO”) decision affirming the administrative law judge’s (“AU”) default judgment imposing employer sanctions on the Kirks under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(8), and we affirm.

FACTS

Following an inspection by the INS, Gus and Candy Kirk, the owners of Kirk Enterprises, were served with a notice of intent to fine (“NIF”) for alleged violations under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(B). The Kirks, through their attorney, requested a hearing by sending a letter to the INS. On April 28, 1989, a notice of hearing on complaint was served by mail upon the attorney, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.3 (a). The notice of hearing was accompanied by a copy of the complaint, which incorporated the charges contained in the NIF.

When the Kirks did not file a timely answer to the complaint, the INS moved for a default judgment. Before entering the default judgment, the AU issued an order to show cause why the INS’s motion for default judgment should not be granted. The order to show cause required the Kirks to respond by June 23, 1989, with a sworn…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.