Sharma v. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAVI SHARMA, No. 24-5507 OCAHO Case No. 19B00048 Petitioner, Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer v. MEMORANDUM* OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, Nominal Respondent; LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Ravi Sharma petitions pro se for review of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s summary decisions in Sharma’s administrative action alleging that Lattice Semiconductor Corporation discriminated against him

* 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). on the basis of citizenship status in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(1). We review de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) conclusions of law, and for substantial evidence the ALJ’s findings of fact. Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir. 1989). We deny the petition for review.

The ALJ properly granted summary decision for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation as to both of Sharma’s citizenship-status discrimination claims because Sharma failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the company’s legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring him for two positions were pretextual. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and explaining that to show pretext using circumstantial evidence, “a plaintiff must put forward specific and substantial evidence challenging the credibility of the employer’s motives”); see also Zajradhara v. Ranni’s Corp., 16 OCAHO No. 1426h, 26 (Sep. 19, 2024) (applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze claims under the IRCA).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-5507