
    GOLF INTERNATIONAL, DBA Desert Canyon Golf, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent.
    No. 14-72234
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed November 30, 2016
    John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Trial Attorneys, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Golf International petitions for review of an order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, imposing an employer sanction of $57,650 against Golf for 129 violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(B). We deny the petition.

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision to impose a fine of $57,650 against Golf was not arbitrary and capricious. An ALJ’s order for civil money penalties for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(B) is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.l0(b). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(5), consideration must “be given to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the good faith of the employer, the seriousness of the violation, whether or not the individual was an unauthorized alien, and the history of previous violations.”

The ALJ properly considered these factors and found that Golf was a small business with no history of previous violations, that only three of the employees were unauthorized aliens, and that there was no bad faith on Golfs part, but that all 129 of Golfs violations were serious. The ALJ concluded that, “[a]part from the seriousness of the violations ... the statutory factors otherwise incline in Golfs favor,” thus, the ALJ rejected the penalty amounts proposed by ICE, which were “near the maximum permissible,” and instead made a downward adjustment for each proposed fine, for a total penalty of $57,650. We conclude that the ALJ properly considered the relevant statutory factors and did not make a clear error of judgment in imposing the fine she did against Golf. We therefore deny Golfs petition because the ALJ’s fine was not arbitrary and capricious.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     