ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07A-122-RAC · Department of Racing · 2008-01-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 15, 2008; Record closed on January 30, 2008. APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Blair Driggs for the Arizona Department of Racing ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this matter, the above-mentioned licensee (“Licensee”) was licensed by the Arizona Department of Racing (“Department”) in the capacity of a groom. 2. Lillian Joyce Cozby (“Ms. Cozby”) the Management Review Administrator for the Department, the division that oversees licensing, testified: a. The renewal process for licenses in the horse racing industry is done every three years in June. b. For the renewal of licenses that were due to be renewed in June 2007, the Department decided to allow licensees to begin the renewal process in April 2007 to avoid a “crunch” in June 2007. c. The Licensee submitted an application for renewal of the licensee’s racing license and the license was renewed and valid as of the date of this hearing. d. The June 2007 renewal process was the first time Ms. Cozby was involved in the renewal process. She had begun looking at revising license applications to make them more user friendly for applicants. During the process, she discovered that for some licensees, the documentation provided for the renewal of their licenses was not current with respect to documentation showing , while not a citizen of the United States, that they were permitted to work in the United States on a visa or some other documentation that had an expiration date. For those licenses that had authority to be in the United States without an expiration date, the Department did not have any supporting documentation. e. Some licensees were notified by the Department that their license application was incomplete via a Notice of Incomplete Application that was mailed on October 26, 2007 providing a deadline of November 12, 2007 for the submission of the necessary documentation. Other licensees did not receive such notice because the Department was in the process of continuing to identify those licensees that did not have current documentation if not a citizen of the United States showing authorization to work in the United States. f. In this case, the evidence of record established that the Department issued a Notice of Incomplete License Application to the Licensee. 3. The Application submitted by the Licensee for the racing license currently held by the Licensee, required the Licensee to either provide an alien registration number or documents of eligibility to be employed in the United States. The documents on file with the Department show that the Licensee is not a United States citizen and do not show that the Licensee is eligible to work in the United States. 4. A Notice of Hearing was issued by the Department to the Licensee’s address of record informing the Licensee of the instant proceeding and the Department would be seeking to impose a civil penalty, suspend or revoke the Licensee’s racing license for failing to comply with the licensing requirements, namely, to submit an unexpired visa or other documentation showing current employment eligibility in accordance with federal law. 5. Ms. Cozby testified that the Department did not receive any unexpired visa or documentation showing that the Licensee is eligible to work in the United States. 6. The Licensee failed to appear at the hearing and, thus, did not submit any evidence to refute or rebut the evidence presented by the Department. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 12, Section 1324(a), contains certain eligibility requirements for a person who is not a United States citizen to work in the United States. 2. A.A.C. R19-2-106 requires an applicant for licensure to complete the license application prescribed by the Department. 3. A.R.S. § 5-108.05 provides the Department with the authority to revoke or suspend a license based on any grounds that the Department could refuse to issue a license, i.e., failing to complete the license application. 4. Based on the above-referenced legal authorities, the Licensee was required to submit certain documentation showing eligibility to work in the United States and the Licensee failed to do so. 5. The Department met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Licensee violated the above-mentioned provisions of law and grounds exist for the Department to suspend or revoke the Licensee’s racing license. ORDER Based on the above, the Licensee’s racing license shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. Done this day, February 8, 2008.

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2008, to:

Geoffrey Gonsher, Director Department of Racing 1110 W. Washington, Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826