
    Murty ROMPALLI, Petitioner, v. TYKHE CAPITAL, LLC, Respondent, Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Nominal-Respondent.
    No. 09-2872-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 9, 2012.
    Murty Rompalli, New York, N.Y., pro se.
    Peter L. Altieri & David J. Clark, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, N.Y., for Respondent.
    Present: WALKER, PIERRE N. LEVAL and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Murty Rompalli, pro se, seeks review of an order, dated May 4, 2009, of the OCA- [¶] granting a motion made by Tykhe Capital, LLC (“Tykhe”) for summary decision in his discrimination action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“Because the [statute at issue] itself does not specify a standard for judicial review in this instance, we apply the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and ask whether the Agency’s action was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ ” Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461, 496-97, 124 S.Ct. 983, 157 L.Ed.2d 967 (2004) (footnoted omitted).

The administrative law judge correctly concluded that Rompalli was precluded from raising claims concerning events that occurred more than 180 days prior to the date on which he filed a charge with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(d)(3). Rompalli’s claim that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his national origin was also precluded, given that he had filed the same claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(b)(2). And his claims relating to the terms and conditions of his employment were barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(2)(B).

Additionally, the administrative law judge correctly concluded that Rompalli failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on his citizenship status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(l) or retaliation under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(5). Rom-palli has not alleged any facts that suggest his alleged termination was motivated by impermissible factors, or by retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.38(b).

Therefore, the administrative law judge properly granted Tykhe’s motion for summary decision pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.38(c). We decline to grant Tykhe’s request for an award of its costs in connection with the instant appeal.

Accordingly, Rompalli’s petition for review is hereby DENIED.  