“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a lawyer in possession of extra time, must be in want of a blog.”
And with that paraphrase, I welcome you, constant reader, to the “Pride and Prejudice” edition of TiNY.
Six determinations hit the DTA’s website on June 1. That might seem impressive, but all six determinations were decided without a hearing based on a jurisdictional issue. On the other hand: no timies (Huzzah!).
Acting Supervising Administrative Law Judge (“ASALJ”) Gardiner wrote each of the determinations and found that the DTA did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any of the petitioners’ complaints because the petitioners did not attach the appropriate statutory notices to the petitions, and then petitioners did not cure those formal deficiencies after having been given notice by the DTA. So, Judge Gardiner granted her own motion to have the cases dismissed.
And what is the connection to Jane Austen’s masterpiece, you ask? It is this trivial coincidence: Judge Gardiner’s determinations, which dismissed all of the Petitions with prejudice, were posted to the DTA’s website on the first day of Pride Month.
Determinations
Matter of Boone, Jr., ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Peter Ostwald, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Article 22. See above.
Matter of Gyan, ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Stefan Armstrong, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. Donald Rowland CPA; Article 22. See above.
Matter of Piacere and Kourland, ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Daniel Schneider, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Article 22. See above.
Matter of Miller, ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Peter Ostwald, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Article 22. See above.
Matter of Prag, ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Peter Ostwald, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Article 22. See above.
Matter of Silverman, ASALJ Gardiner, May 25, 2023; Div’s Rep. Amy Seidenstock, Esq.; Pet’s Rep. pro se; Article 22. See above.
