GOLF INTERNATIONAL, DBA Desert Canyon Golf v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOLF INTERNATIONAL,
DBA Desert Canyon Golf,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
No. 14-72234
Agency No. 13A00074
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Golf International petitions for review of an order of the Office of
the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
imposing an employer sanction of $57,650 against Golf for 129 violations of the
FILED
NOV 30 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). We deny the
petition.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision to impose a fine of $57,650
against Golf was not arbitrary and capricious. An ALJ’s order for civil money
penalties for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B) is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324a(e)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(5),
consideration must “be given to the size of the business of the employer being
charged, the good faith of the employer, the seriousness of the violation, whether
or not the individual was an unauthorized alien, and the history of previous
violations.”
The ALJ properly considered these factors and found that Golf was a small
business with no history of previous violations, that only three of the employees
were unauthorized aliens, and that there was no bad faith on Golf’s part, but that all
129 of Golf’s violations were serious. The ALJ concluded that, “[a]part from the
seriousness of the violations . . . the statutory factors otherwise incline in Golf’s
favor,” thus, the ALJ rejected the penalty amounts proposed by ICE, which were
“near the maximum permissible,” and instead made a downward adjustment for
each proposed fine, for a total penalty of $57,650. We conclude that the ALJ
properly considered the relevant statutory factors and did not make a clear error of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

judgment in imposing the fine she did against Golf. We therefore deny Golf’s
petition because the ALJ’s fine was not arbitrary and capricious.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --