AI Generated Image (not the actual document)
ICE’s complaint over 108 employees’ Forms I-9 at Chili’s payroll company is still pending, while staffing firm Randstad has settled its own I-9 case with the agency.
Form I-9 penalties are moving through the Justice Department’s employer hearing office at a steady clip, and the latest orders show how those cases end. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pursuing Brinker International Payroll Company, which does business as Chili’s Grill & Bar, for over 108 employees’ forms, while staffing company Randstad US and two other employers have settled and had their cases dismissed. The orders come from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), the office within the Executive Office for Immigration Review whose administrative law judges hear contested ICE fines.
The timing matters because more audits may be coming. White House border czar Tom Homan told Fox News on Oct. 19 that a worksite enforcement plan built on mass Form I-9 audits had cleared ICE’s investigative arm and was headed to the Homeland Security secretary, according to Breitbart News and Latin Times. DHS has not released it. If the plan takes effect, the cases now on OCAHO’s docket are the clearest preview of where contested audits end up.
What the Form I-9 penalty docket looks like this fall
The Brinker complaint, filed Feb. 23, has two counts: failure to prepare or present Forms I-9 for six people, and failure to properly complete them for 102 more. The posted order, which granted a short continuance, does not say what fine ICE proposed.
The fine range still sets the stakes. For penalties assessed after July 3, 2025, a paperwork violation costs $288 to $2,861 per employee under the Justice Department’s inflation-adjusted penalty table. The range is wide by design, so that a minor error at a small business isn’t punished the same as widespread violations at a large one. Applied to 108 forms, that is a range of about $31,000 to $309,000, a calculation from that table. Where a case lands depends on five statutory factors: business size, good faith, seriousness, whether unauthorized workers were involved, and past violations.
| Employer | ICE complaint filed | Latest order |
|---|---|---|
| Brinker International Payroll Co. (Chili’s) | Feb. 23, 2026 | Continuance granted; 108 forms at issue |
| Randstad US | Sept. 18, 2025 | Settled; dismissed Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Ranch Grill (The Ranch Bar and Grill) | Sept. 24, 2025 | Settled; dismissed Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Tucson Rubberized Coatings | Not stated in order | Resolved; dismissed Sept. 2, 2026 |
| Americas Welders Corp. | July 23, 2026 | Sent to settlement officer through Dec. 6 |
| Minnesota Halal Market | Aug. 11, 2026 | One-day-late filing excused Oct. 5 |
| Job Solutions TX | July 20, 2026 | Assigned; jurisdiction question flagged Sept. 29 |
Settlement is the usual exit. Randstad, Ranch Grill and Tucson Rubberized Coatings each filed a joint notice of full settlement and won dismissal without prejudice. No judge required the agreements to be filed, so no amounts are public. Americas Welders is trying OCAHO’s settlement officer program, a 60-day mediation run by a second judge. The same office also hears hiring bias claims, where employers have likewise settled citizenship status discrimination complaints early.
Cases that do not settle can grow expensive. In United States v. Summit Industrial Construction, LLC, the government is seeking $1.63 million from the construction company over 637 Forms I-9 with what it calls a noncompliant audit trail, meaning problems with the electronic records behind the forms rather than the forms themselves. In an Oct. 2 order, the judge found that charge too vague to answer and ordered the government to explain what it means.
The hearing request trap in the Job Solutions TX case
The most practical lesson sits in the thinnest document. After an inspection that finds violations, ICE serves a Notice of Intent to Fine. ICE’s own Form I-9 inspection fact sheet says the employer must ask for a hearing before an OCAHO judge “within 30 calendar days of receipt of the NIF.” If no written request arrives in time, ICE issues a final order, and “there is no appeal from a Final Order.”
Job Solutions TX’s reply to its notice asked for a lower penalty but did not explicitly request a hearing. When ICE filed a complaint anyway, OCAHO staff asked for proof of a hearing request, and DHS produced an email from the company’s chief operating officer. The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s notice says a hearing request is “a prerequisite for OCAHO exercising jurisdiction,” and leaves the assigned judge to decide whether the company’s messages count as one.
If the judge finds no valid request, the employer loses its chance to argue the fine down before a neutral judge. A timely request also keeps talks open: ICE’s fact sheet says that if the two sides then agree, ICE files no complaint at all. The practical lesson for any employer holding a fine notice is a plainly worded written hearing request inside the 30 days, whatever else the response says.
OCAHO is based in Falls Church, Virginia, but employers are not required to travel there. By law, a hearing must be held at the nearest practicable place to where the employer is located or where the alleged violations occurred. In practice, most of a case happens remotely: early conferences, like the one scheduled in the Brinker case, are typically held by phone or video. Many cases never reach a live hearing at all, because they settle or the judge decides them on written filings.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- OCAHO, Volume 23 decisions listing (Justice Department)
- United States v. Brinker International Payroll Co., 23 OCAHO no. 1723
- United States v. Randstad US, LLC, 23 OCAHO no. 1730 (Sept. 30, 2026)
- United States v. Ranch Grill LLC, 23 OCAHO no. 1731 (Sept. 30, 2026)
- United States v. Tucson Rubberized Coatings, Inc., 23 OCAHO no. 1725 (Sept. 2, 2026)
- United States v. Americas Welders Corp., 23 OCAHO no. 1734 (Oct. 6, 2026)
- United States v. Minnesota Halal Market, Inc., 23 OCAHO no. 1733 (Oct. 5, 2026)
- United States v. Job Solutions TX, LLC, 23 OCAHO no. 1729, Notice of Case Assignment (Sept. 29, 2026)
- Breitbart News, report on Tom Homan’s worksite enforcement remarks (Oct. 19, 2026)
- Latin Times, report on Homan’s worksite enforcement remarks (Oct. 20, 2026)
- ICE, Form I-9 Inspection Under INA § 274A fact sheet
- 28 C.F.R. Part 85, civil monetary penalty inflation adjustments (adjustment at 90 FR 29447, July 3, 2025)
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.