[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10512-10516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05308]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[EB Docket No. 18-239; DA 18-834]


Ministerios El Jordan Application for Modification for Station 
KEJM-LP, Carthage, Missouri

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) commences a hearing proceeding to determine ultimately 
whether Ministerios El Jordan is qualified to be and to remain a 
Commission licensee, and as a consequence whether its license should be 
revoked, and whether its pending application should be denied.

DATES: Petitions to intervene by parties desiring to participate as a 
party in the hearing, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.223, may be filed on or 
before April 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela S. Kane, Investigations & 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission at (202) 418-2393.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for 
Hearing (Order to Show Cause), EB Docket No. 18-239; DA 18-834, adopted 
and released on October 11, 2018. The complete text of this document is 
also available for inspection and copying from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on Friday at 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, Room CY-A257, 445 
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this 
document is also available on the internet at the Commission's website 
through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. Alternative formats are available to 
persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format); to obtain, please send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Each document that is filed in this 
proceeding must display the docket number of this hearing, EB Docket 
No. 18-239, on the front page.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In the Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and 
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, we commence a hearing proceeding 
before the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether Ministerios El 
Jordan (Jordan) is qualified to be and to remain a Commission licensee 
and, as a consequence thereof, whether its license should be revoked, 
and whether its pending application should be denied.
    2. As discussed more fully below, based on the totality of the 
evidence, there are substantial and material questions of fact as to 
whether (i) Jordan repeatedly made misrepresentations to and/or lacked 
candor with the Commission in its submission of various applications in 
connection with Low Power FM Station (LPFM) KEJM-LP; (ii) aliens (non-
United States citizens) owned or voted more than one-fifth of Jordan's 
capital stock in violation of section 310(b)(3) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); \1\ (iii) Jordan failed to maintain 
the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in 
its still pending captioned application for modification of Station 
KEJM-LP's technical facilities; and (iv) Jordan failed to respond to 
Commission requests for information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. We issue this Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, 
and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing pursuant to sections 309(e), 
312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 312(c) of the Act,\2\ and the 
delegated authority of the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id. at sections 309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), 
312(c).
    \3\ See 47 CFR 0.111 and 0.311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Ministerios El Jordan

    4. Ministerios El Jordan (Jordan) is a non-profit organization that 
was first incorporated in Missouri in September 2009, and, as described 
in its first application with the Commission, desires to serve God, the 
nation, and the people of Carthage, Missouri, by providing educational 
family counseling, sermons, and Christian music through live and 
recorded religious programming.\4\ Jordan presently holds a Commission 
license for Station KEJM-LP in Carthage, Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Missouri Nonprofit Corporation Details for Charter No. 
N00994664 as of June 15, 2018. https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/BusinessEntityDetail.aspx?page=beSearch&ID=2864628; 
see also Articles of Incorporation of a Nonprofit Corporation for 
Charter No. N00994664 (filed Sept. 8, 2009) https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=6437643&version=1; File No. BNPL-20131025ACN, at Exh. 2 (filed Oct. 25, 
2013) (October 2013 Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Jordan first applied for a construction permit for a new LPFM 
station on October 25, 2013, by submitting Commission Form 318 (October 
2013 Application).\5\ Section II, Question 3(a) of the Commission's 
Form 318 asks the applicant to identify, inter alia, ``each party to 
the application including, as applicable, the applicant, its officers, 
directors, five percent or greater stockholders, non-insulated 
partners, members, and all other persons and entities with attributable 
interests'' and their citizenship.\6\ In the October 2013 Application, 
Jordan responded to Section II, Question 3(a) by identifying as ``board 
members'' with an equal percentage of votes, the following five (5) 
individuals: Eliud Villatoro, Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, Marlon 
Fuentes, and Tomas Calgua. In response to the citizenship inquiry in 
Section II, Question 3(a), Jordan answered ``US'' for each of these 
five individuals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See October 2013 Application.
    \6\ October 2013 Application at Section II, Question 3(a).
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On January 10, 2017, Jordan filed a minor modification 
application (January 2017 Modification).\8\ In the January 2017 
Modification, Jordan notified the Commission that the transmitter site 
specified in the October 2013 Application was unavailable. The January 
2017 Modification therefore specified new transmitter coordinates and 
stated that the station was ready to broadcast at the new 
coordinates.\9\ In response to Section II, Question 3(a), Jordan again 
identified Eliud Villatoro, Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, Marlon 
Fuentes, and Tomas Calgua as board members and again responded that 
each was a United States citizen.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See File No. BMPL-20170110AAI (filed Jan. 10, 2017) (January 
2017 Modification).
    \9\ See id. at Exh. 1.
    \10\ See id. at Section II, Question 3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Jordan filed a modification application on November 20, 2017 
(November 2017 Modification).\11\ In the November 2017 Modification, 
Jordan

[[Page 10513]]

notified the Commission that the studio location and mailing address 
had changed and requested certain engineering changes.\12\ In the 
November 2017 Modification, Jordan similarly identified Eliud 
Villatoro, Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, Marlon Fuentes, and Tomas 
Calgua in response to Section II, Question 3(a) and again responded 
that each was a United States citizen.\13\ This application is pending 
before the Commission's Media Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See File No. BPL-20171121AAB (filed Nov. 10, 2017) 
(November 2017 Modification).
    \12\ See id. at Exh. 1.
    \13\ See id. at Section II, Question 3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Enforcement Bureau Investigation

    8. On January 24, 2017, the Commission received a complaint through 
its electronic Consumer Complaint Center asserting that four of the 
five board members that Jordan had identified in each of its Commission 
applications were not United States citizens.\14\ Specifically, 
associated with Commission licensee, asserted that Eliud Villatoro, 
Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, and Tomas Calgua were Guatemalan 
citizens and that Marlon Fuentes ``became a US citizen just last 
year.'' \15\ The Commission referred the Complaint to the Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Complaint No. 1415080 (filed Jan. 24, 2017) 
(Complaint).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Bureau uncovered additional information concerning the 
citizenship of at least two of the board members that Jordan had 
identified: Eliud Villatoro and Johana Villatoro. On January 4, 2017, 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed an 
order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Eliud 
Villatoro's motion to reopen proceedings to remove him from the United 
States.\16\ This decision referred to Mr. Villatoro as a citizen of 
Guatemala.\17\ In addition, father,, informed Bureau staff that Mr. 
Villatoro's wife--Johana Villatoro--had been deported.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch, 844 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2017) 
(Villatoro-Ochoa). We note that, in this Eighth Circuit decision, 
Mr. Villatoro's first name appears as ``Eluid'' rather than as 
``Eliud.'' However, there is little doubt that it refers to the same 
individual as identified in Jordan's Commission filings. The caption 
of the decision, for example, identifies the petitioner as ``Eluid 
Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa.'' Id. During the Bureau's investigation, it 
uncovered documents filed with the Missouri Secretary of State which 
identified Jordan's president as ``Eliud H. Villatoro O.'' See 2012 
Annual Registration Report, Charter No. N00994664 (filed Feb. 14, 
2013) https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=9744099&version=1. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit decision acknowledges 
that it refers to a pastor from Guatemala. See Villatoro-Ochoa, 844 
F.3d at 994. The website for Jordan states that its founder, Eliud 
Villatoro, had been a pastor in Guatemala. https://ministerioseljordan.weebly.com/historia.html.
    \17\ See Villatoro-Ochoa, 844 F.3d at 994.
    \18\ See Decloration [sic] of, dated Aug. 6, 2017; see also 
website for Jordan identifying Johana Villatoro as the wife of Eliud 
Villatoro. https://ministerioseljordan.weebly.com/historia.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Bureau also located documents filed with the Missouri 
Secretary of State indicating that at the time Jordan filed its various 
applications with the Commission, its officers and board members were 
different than those Jordan had identified in its Commission filings. 
Jordan's 2012 Annual Registration Report indicates that, as of February 
14, 2013, Jordan's officers were Eliud H. Villatoro O. (President), 
Edilma J. Villatoro (Vice-President), Edgar Poroj (Secretary), and 
Efrain Coquij (Treasurer) and that its board of directors were Genaro 
Cifuentes, Doris Paxtor, and Edy Fuentes.\19\ Jordan's 2016 Annual 
Registration Report indicates that, as of August 25, 2016, its board of 
directors were comprised of Ruth Cifuentes, Samuel Hernandez, and Eddy 
Fuentes.\20\ Jordan's 2017-2018 Biennial Registration Report indicates 
that, as of October 5, 2017, its Vice-President was Edilma J. Reyes and 
its Treasurer was Tony Shadden.\21\ It also indicates that its board of 
directors were Ruth Cifuentes, Samuel Hernandez, and Dixi 
Villatoro.\22\ Other than Eliud Villatoro, Jordan never identified any 
of these various officers or board of director members on any of the 
applications it filed with the Commission between October 2013 and 
November 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 2012 Annual Registration Report, Charter No. N00994664 
(filed Feb. 14, 2013) https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=9744099&version=1.
    \20\ See 2016 Annual Registration Report, Charter No. N00994664 
(filed Aug. 25, 2016) https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=12289036&version=5.
    \21\ See 2017-2018 Biennial Registration Report, Charter No. 
N00994664 (filed Oct. 5, 2017) https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=13206145&version=5.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. On November 14, 2017, the Bureau directed a letter of inquiry 
(LOI) to Jordan seeking, among other things, the name and citizenship 
of each of Jordan's officers and board members from October 1, 2013, to 
the present, and putting Jordan on notice of the Bureau's concerns that 
Jordan may have violated section 310(b) of the Act and misrepresented 
information to the Commission concerning its board of directors.\23\ 
Six days later, Jordan filed its November 2017 Modification, 
identifying a different mailing address than had previously been on 
file with the Commission. On December 6, 2017, the Bureau issued a 
second LOI to Jordan at the new mailing address, enclosing the November 
14, 2017 LOI, and requiring a response within seven calendar days.\24\ 
Although Bureau staff had preliminary conversations with Jordan's 
counsel after the LOIs were issued, Jordan did not respond to either 
LOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Letter of Inquiry from Matthew L. Conaty, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau to Mr. 
Eliud Villatoro, President, Ministerios el Jordan (Nov. 14, 2017) 
(on file in EB-IHD-17-00024261).
    \24\ See Letter of Inquiry from Matthew L. Conaty, Deputy Chief, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau to Mr. 
Eliud Villatoro, President, Ministerios el Jordan (Dec. 6, 2017) (on 
file in EB-IHD-17-00024261).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    12. Pursuant to section 309(e) of the Act, the Commission is 
required to designate an application for evidentiary hearing if a 
substantial and material question of fact is presented regarding 
whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.\25\ The character of an applicant is among 
those factors that the Commission considers in determining whether the 
applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission 
licensee.\26\ Section 312(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Commission 
may revoke any license if ``conditions com[e] to the attention of the 
Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or 
permit on the original application.'' \27\ Because the character of the 
applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers in its 
review of applications to determine whether the applicant has the 
requisite qualifications to operate the station for which authority is 
sought,\28\ any character defect that would warrant the Commission's 
refusal to grant a license

[[Page 10514]]

or permit in the original application would likewise warrant the 
Commission's determination to revoke a license or permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 47 U.S.C. 309(e).
    \26\ See, e.g., Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in 
Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Rules of Broadcast Practice and 
Procedure Relating to Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and 
the Making of Misrepresentations to the Commission by Permittees and 
Licensees, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 
(1986), recons. denied, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed sub 
nom., National Ass'n for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 86-1179 
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (1986 Character Policy Statement); Policy Regarding 
Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Part 
1, the Rules of Broadcast Practice and Procedure, Relating to 
Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of 
Misrepresentations to the Commission by Permittees and Licensees, 
Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), recons. on other 
grounds, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), modified on other grounds, 7 FCC Rcd 
6564 (1992).
    \27\ 47 U.S.C. 312(a)(2).
    \28\ See 47 U.S.C. 308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Misrepresentation/Lack of Candor and Section 1.17. The 
Commission and the courts have recognized that ``[t]he FCC relies 
heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a regulatory 
system that is largely self-policing.'' \29\ In considering an 
applicant's character, one of the Commission's primary purposes is to 
ensure that licensees will be truthful in their future dealings with 
the Commission. Full and clear disclosure of all material facts in 
every application is essential to the efficient administration of the 
Commission's licensing process, and proper analysis of an application 
is critically dependent on the accuracy and completeness of information 
and data that only the applicant can provide. Misrepresentation and 
lack of candor raise serious concerns as to the likelihood that the 
Commission can rely on an applicant, permittee, or licensee to be 
truthful.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Contemporary Media Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
    \30\ See 1986 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1209-11. 
The fundamental importance of truthfulness and candor on the part of 
applicants and licensees in their dealings with the Commission is 
well established. See FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 (1946); Nick 
J. Chaconas, Decision, 28 FCC 2d 231 (1971); Lebanon Valley Radio, 
Inc., Decision, 35 FCC 2d 243 (Rev. Bd. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Commission's rules (Rules) states 
that no person shall, in any written or oral statement of fact, 
intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or 
intentionally omit material information that is necessary to prevent 
any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or 
misleading.\31\ We note that a misrepresentation is a false statement 
of fact made with the intent to deceive the Commission.\32\ Lack of 
candor is a concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully 
informative, accompanied by an intent to deceive the Commission.\33\ A 
necessary and essential element of both misrepresentation and lack of 
candor is intent to deceive.\34\ Fraudulent intent can be found from 
``the fact of misrepresentation coupled with proof that the party 
making it had knowledge of its falsity.'' \35\ Intent can also be found 
from motive or logical desire to deceive.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 47 CFR 1.17(a)(1).
    \32\ See Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 
(1983) (Fox River); Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7435 (2004) 
(Discussion Radio).
    \33\ See Fox River, 93 FCC 2d at 129; Discussion Radio, 19 FCC 
Rcd at 7435.
    \34\ See Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., Initial 
Decision, 10 FCC Rcd 12020, 12063 (1995), subsequent history 
omitted; Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435.
    \35\ David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. FCC, 941 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991) (quoting Leflore Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 
462 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 
7435.
    \36\ See Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435; Black Television 
Workshop of Los Angeles, Inc., Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 4192, 4198, n.41 
(1993) (citing California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 
670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Joseph Bahr, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 10 FCC Rcd 32, 33 (Rev. Bd. 1994); Scott & Davis Enterprises, 
Inc., Decision, 88 FCC 2d 1090, 1100 (Rev. Bd. 1982)). Intent to 
deceive can also be inferred when the surrounding circumstances 
clearly show the existence of an intent to deceive. See Commercial 
Radio Service, Inc., Order to Show Cause, 21 FCC Rcd 9983, 9986 
(2006) (citing American International Development, Inc., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 808, 816, n.39 (1981), aff'd sub nom. 
KXIV, Inc. v. FCC, 704 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules further requires that no person 
may provide, in any written statement of fact, ``material factual 
information that is incorrect or omit material information that is 
necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from 
being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing 
that any such material factual statement is correct and not 
misleading.'' \37\ Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false 
statement may constitute an actionable violation of Sec.  1.17 of the 
Rules if provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the 
material factual information it contains is correct and not 
misleading.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 47 CFR 1.17(a)(2).
    \38\ See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules 
Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 
18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4017, para. 4 (2003) (stating that the revision to 
Sec.  1.17 is intended to ``prohibit incorrect statements or 
omissions that are the result of negligence, as well as an intent to 
deceive''), recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
5790, further recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd 1250 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In the instant case, Jordan represented to the Commission in 
each of its applications that its ``officers, directors, five percent 
or greater stockholders, non-insulated partners, members, and all other 
persons and entities with attributable interests'' were the following 
five people, each of whom held a 20 percent voting interest: Eliud 
Villatoro, Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, Marlon Fuentes, and Tomas 
Calgua.\39\ As discussed above, records from the Missouri Secretary of 
State suggest that, at the time Jordan filed its various applications 
with the Commission, only Eliud Villatoro held any sort of positional 
interest with Jordan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ October 2013 Application at Section II, Question 3(a); see 
also January 2017 Modification at Section II, Question 3(a); and 
November 2017 Modification at Section II, Question 3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. According to Jordan's Missouri 2012 Annual Registration Report, 
as of February 14, 2013, Jordan's officers were Eliud Villatoro 
(President), Edilma J. Villatoro (Vice-President), Edgar Poroj 
(Secretary), and Efrain Coquij (Treasurer) and its board of directors 
were Genaro Cifuentes, Doris Paxtor, and Edy Fuentes.\40\ Of these 
individuals, the only one Jordan disclosed to the Commission in its 
October 2013 Application was Eliud Villatoro, whom it described only as 
a board member.\41\ In addition, according to Jordan's Missouri 2016 
Annual Registration Report, as of August 25, 2016, Jordan's officers 
were Eliud Villatoro (President), Edilma J. Villatoro (Vice-President), 
Edgar Poroj (Secretary), and Efrain Coquij (Treasurer) and that its 
board of directors were comprised of Ruth Cifuentes, Samuel Hernandez, 
and Edy Fuentes.\42\ Here again, the only one of these individuals whom 
Jordan disclosed to the Commission in its January 2017 Modification was 
Eliud Villatoro and again only as a board member.\43\ Similarly, 
Jordan's Missouri 2017-2018 Biennial Registration Report suggests that, 
as of October 5, 2017, a little more than a month before Jordan filed 
its November 2017 Modification, its officers were Eliud Villatoro 
(President), Edilma J. Reyes (Vice-President), Edgar Poroj (Secretary), 
and Tony Shadden (Treasurer) and that its board of directors were Ruth 
Cifuentes, Samuel Hernandez, and Dixi Villatoro.\44\ Nevertheless, in 
its November 2017 Modification, Jordan disclosed only Eliud Villatoro 
and again only as a board member.\45\ Thus, the information before the 
Commission raises a substantial and material question of fact as to 
whether Jordan misrepresented the identification of its ``officers, 
directors, five percent or greater stockholders, non-insulated

[[Page 10515]]

partners, members, and all other persons and entities with attributable 
interests'' in its various Commission applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 2012 Annual Registration Report, Charter No. N00994664 
(filed Feb. 14, 2013). https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=9744099&version=1.
    \41\ See October 2013 Application at Section II, Question 3(a).
    \42\ See 2016 Annual Registration Report, Charter No. N00994664 
(filed Aug. 25, 2016). https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=12289036&version=5.
    \43\ See January 2017 Modification at Section II, Question 3(a).
    \44\ See 2017-2018 Biennial Registration Report, Charter No. 
N00994664 (filed Oct. 5, 2017). https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/Common/CorrespondenceItemViewHandler.ashx?IsTIFF=true&filedDocumentid=13206145&version=5.
    \45\ See November 2017 Modification at Section II, Question 
3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In addition, in its various applications with the Commission, 
Jordan asserted that each of the five board members it identified in 
response to Section II, Question 3(a)--Eliud Villatoro, Johana 
Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, Marlon Fuentes, and Tomas Calgua--were 
United States citizens.\46\ The Eighth Circuit's January 2017 decision 
in Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch, affirmed an order by the Board of 
Immigration Appeals denying Eliud Villatoro's motion to reopen 
proceedings to remove him from the United States to Guatemala and 
refers to him as a citizen of Guatemala.\47\ The complaint that the 
Commission received from in January 2017 asserted that Eliud Villatoro, 
Johana Villatoro, Timoteo Garcia, and Tomas Calgua were Guatemalan 
citizens and that Marlon Fuentes only became a United States citizen in 
2016.\48\ In addition, the declaration provided by asserted that Johana 
Villatoro had been deported.\49\ Collectively, this information raises 
substantial and material questions of fact as to whether any of these 
individuals were United States citizens when Jordan filed its 
applications. Thus, the information before the Commission raises a 
substantial and material question of fact as to whether Jordan 
misrepresented the citizenship of its ``officers, directors, five 
percent or greater stockholders, non-insulated partners, members, and 
all other persons and entities with attributable interests'' in its 
Commission filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See October 2013 Application at Section II, Question 3(a); 
January 2017 Modification at Section II, Question 3(a); and November 
2017 Modification at Section II, Question 3(a).
    \47\ See Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch, 844 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2017).
    \48\ See supra n.14.
    \49\ See Decloration [sic] of, dated Aug. 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We therefore designate for hearing appropriate issues to 
determine whether Jordan misrepresented and/or lacked candor in its 
dealings with the Commission either with an intent to deceive and/or in 
willful and repeated violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules.
    20. Violation of Alien Ownership Limitations. Section 310(b)(3) of 
the Act prohibits non-stock, noncommercial incorporated entities with 
alien ownership or voting percentage greater than 20 percent from 
obtaining or controlling a broadcast license.\50\ The Commission will 
dismiss applications that do not comply with the statutory citizenship 
requirements of section 310 of the Act \51\ and designate for hearing 
permittees or licensees who seek or obtain a Commission license based 
on false statements of citizenship.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3).
    \51\ See, e.g., Caribbean Festival Ass'n, Inc., Letter, 22 FCC 
Rcd 19238, 19239-19241 (MB 2007) (affirming dismissal of application 
for new LPFM station because alien ownership exceeded the 20 percent 
benchmark imposed by the statutory limit in 47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3)).
    \52\ See, e.g., Pan Pacific Television, Inc. (Transferor), and 
Silver King Broadcasting of Northern California, Inc. (Transferee), 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Hearing Designation Order, 3 FCC 
Rcd 6629 (1988) (designating a broadcasting construction permit for 
hearing to determine whether the permittee had made 
misrepresentations concerning its alien ownership and thus whether 
the permittee was owned or controlled by aliens in violation of 
section 310(b) of the Communications Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. As discussed above, in each of its Commission filings, Jordan 
identified five (5) ``board members'' with an equal percentage of 
votes, each of whom Jordan identified as United States citizens.\53\ As 
also set forth above, there are substantial and material questions of 
fact as to whether these five (5) individuals were Jordan's ``officers, 
directors, five percent or greater stockholders, non-insulated 
partners, members, and all other persons and entities with attributable 
interests'' at the time it filed its various applications with the 
Commission.\54\ If indeed they were, then as discussed above, there is 
a substantial and material question of fact concerning the citizenship 
of each of these five (5) individuals.\55\ In light of Jordan's 
certification that each of these individuals held 20 percent of the 
voting interest, the information before the Commission raises a 
substantial and material question of fact as to whether Jordan is/was 
owned or controlled by non-United States citizens in excess of the 
statutory limitations allowed by section 310(b)(3) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See supra at 6, para. 16.
    \54\ See supra at 6-7, paras. 16-17.
    \55\ See supra at 7, para. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. We therefore designate for hearing appropriate issues to 
determine whether Jordan is/was owned or controlled by non-United 
States citizens in excess of the one-fifth allowed by section 310(b)(3) 
of the Act.
    23. Failure to Maintain Completeness and Accuracy of Pending 
Applications. Under Sec.  1.65 of the Rules, an applicant is 
responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the 
information furnished in a pending application or in Commission 
proceedings involving a pending application.\56\ Whenever the 
information furnished in the pending application is no longer 
substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, the 
applicant must, as promptly as possible and in any event within 30 
days, amend its application so as to furnish the additional or correct 
information.\57\ For the purposes of Sec.  1.65, an application is 
``pending'' before the Commission from the time it is accepted for 
filing until a Commission grant (or denial) is no longer subject to 
reconsideration by the Commission or review by any court.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 47 CFR 1.65.
    \57\ See id.
    \58\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. In the instant case, Jordan's November 2017 Modification 
remains pending.\59\ Thus, Jordan has been under a continuing 
obligation to ensure the accuracy of this application and to amend it 
as appropriate. Even after receiving the Bureau's LOIs, and being put 
on notice that there may be an issue with the individuals whom it 
identified in its Commission filings, Jordan did not amend its pending 
application. Accordingly, we designate for hearing an appropriate issue 
to determine whether Jordan willfully and/or repeatedly violated Sec.  
1.65 of the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See File No. BPL-20171121AAB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Failure to Respond to Commission Inquiries. Section 73.1015 of 
the Rules, in relevant part, provides the Commission, or its 
representatives, with the authority to ``require from any applicant, 
permittee, or licensee written statements of fact relevant to a 
determination whether an application should be granted or denied, or to 
a determination whether a license should be revoked.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 47 CFR 73.1015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In the instant case, the Bureau sent Jordan two LOIs requesting 
information concerning the identification and citizenship of Jordan's 
officers and board of directors.\61\ These LOIs notified Jordan, inter 
alia, that the Bureau was concerned that Jordan may have violated the 
alien ownership limitation set forth in section 310(b) of the Act and/
or misrepresented information to the Commission in violation of Sec.  
1.17 of the Rules.\62\ Such information is, at a minimum, relevant to 
whether Jordan's pending application should be granted or denied. 
Jordan failed to respond to either of the Bureau's LOIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See supra at 4, para. 11.
    \62\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. We therefore designate for hearing an appropriate issue to 
determine whether Jordan violated Sec.  73.1015 of the Rules.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    28. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 309(e), 
312(a)(1),

[[Page 10516]]

312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 312(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), 
312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), 312(c), that Ministerios El Jordan 
shall show cause why the authorization for which it is the licensee 
should not be revoked, and that the above-captioned application filed 
by Ministerios El Jordan is designated for hearing in a consolidated 
proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place 
to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues:
    (a) To determine whether Ministerios El Jordan engaged in 
misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the 
Commission.
    (b) To determine whether Ministerios El Jordan is/was owned or 
controlled by non-United States citizens in excess of the one-fifth 
allowed by section 310(b)(3) of the Act.
    (c) To determine whether Ministerios El Jordan failed to amend its 
pending application, in willful and/or repeated violation of Sec.  1.65 
of the Commission's rules.
    (d) To determine whether Ministerios El Jordan failed to respond to 
Commission inquiries in willful and/or repeated violation of Sec.  
73.1015 of the Commission's rules.
    (e) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the 
foregoing issues, whether Ministerios El Jordan is qualified to be and 
remain a Commission licensee.
    (f) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the 
authorization for which Ministerios El Jordan is the licensee should be 
revoked.
    (g) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the 
captioned application filed by or on behalf of Ministerios El Jordan 
should be granted.
    29. It is further ordered that, in addition to the resolution of 
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 
503(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an order of 
forfeiture should be issued against Ministerios El Jordan in an amount 
not to exceed the statutory limit for the willful and/or repeated 
violation of each Commission rule section above for which the statute 
of limitations in section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), 
has not lapsed.
    30. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the 
Act and Sec. Sec.  1.91(c) and 1.221(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 
U.S.C. 312(c) and 47 CFR 1.91(c), 1.221(c), to avail itself of the 
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in this 
proceeding, Ministerios El Jordan, in person or by an attorney, shall 
file with the Commission, within 20 calendar days of the release of 
this Order, a written appearance stating that it will appear at the 
hearing and present evidence on the issues specified above.
    31. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.91 and 
1.92 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91 and 1.92, if Ministerios El 
Jordan fails to file a timely appearance, its right to a hearing shall 
be deemed to be waived. If a hearing is waived under Sec. Sec.  
1.92(a)(1) or (3) of the Commission's rules, Ministerios El Jordan may, 
within 20 calendar days of the release of this Order, submit a written, 
signed statement denying or seeking to mitigate or justify the 
circumstances or conduct described herein. In the event the right to a 
hearing is waived, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (or presiding 
officer if one has been designated) shall, at the earliest practicable 
date, issue an order reciting the events or circumstances constituting 
a waiver of hearing, terminating the hearing proceeding, and certifying 
the case to the Commission. In addition, pursuant to Sec.  1.221 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221, if any applicant to the captioned 
application fails to file, within 20 calendar days of the release of 
this Order, a written appearance, a petition to dismiss without 
prejudice, or a petition to accept for good cause shown an untimely 
written appearance, the captioned application shall be dismissed with 
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
    32. It is further ordered that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall 
be made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written 
appearance.
    33. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(d) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d), and Sec.  1.91(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence 
and the burden of proof shall be upon the Enforcement Bureau as to the 
issues at paragraph 28(a)-(f) above, and that, pursuant to section 
309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and Sec.  1.254 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.254, the burden of proceeding with the 
introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be upon 
Ministerios El Jordan as to the issue at paragraph 28(g), above.
    34. It is further ordered that a copy of each document filed in 
this proceeding subsequent to the date of adoption of this document 
shall be served on the counsel of record appearing on behalf of the 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the identity of 
such counsel by calling the Investigations & Hearings Division of the 
Enforcement Bureau at (202) 418-1420. Such service copy shall be 
addressed to the named counsel of record, Investigations & Hearings 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    35. It is further ordered that copies of this document shall be 
sent via Certified Mail--Return Receipt Requested to the following:

Mr. Eliud Villatoro, Ministerios El Jordan, 1721 South Baker Boulevard, 
Carthage, MO 64836-3004
Steven Hays, Esq., 622 South Main Street, Joplin, MO 64801
Aaron Scott, Cedar Creek Consulting, 14117 W Travis Lane, Malakoff, TX 
75148-3570

    36. It is further ordered that a copy of this document, or a 
summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission.
Jeffrey Gee,
Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2019-05308 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P