Sharma v. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 24-5507
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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