EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Taylor Made Software, Inc v. Cuccinelli |
$ 7,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the denial of an I-129 petition, H-1B for failing to establish that the position sought was a “specialty occupation” under the INA and associated regulations. | The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating that USCIS neglected to explain why it discounted substantial evidence and found that the decision was therefore arbitrary and capricious. EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Doe v. Risch |
$ 6,167
|
REDACTED | Mandamus case challenging delay in associated travel document of I-730. | The Court ruled against USCIS, ordering adjudication of the travel document within 30 days, and plaintiff a prevailing party under EAJA. EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service | Rocky Mountain Wild, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Wilderness Work (Wolf Creek) |
$ 137,500
|
Travis Stills and Matthew Sandler | Plaintiffs sued the USFS and FWS for a land exhanged alleging NEPA, ESA, APA, and NFMA claims. Plaintiffs alleged a violation under ESA section 7 for the consultation on Canada lynx. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and the land exhange with the applicants was unwound. The USFS granted applicants access under ANILCA and the Plaintiffs sued again. The USFS and FWS settled the fees. | The court ruled against the USFS and FWS on ESA and NEPA claims. The US dismissed its appeal and the USFS selected a different action. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Delgado v. Barr |
$ 20,061
|
REDACTED | Petition for review challenging BIA order of removal. | The Court reversed the BIA’s determination that petitioner was statutorily ineligible for removal and voluntary departure because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Court ordered USCIS to pay EAJA. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Randhawa v. Barr |
$ 5,800
|
REDACTED | Petition for review of BIA decision affirming IJ denial of asylum and CAT. | The Court reversed and remanded to the BIA, finding two separate errors. First, the court held that the BIA failed to apply the proper analysis to petitioner’s claim and second, that the BIA failed to properly address evidencepetitioner presented that his wife and been subject to persecution. The Court's decision rendered petitioner a prevailing party and granted EAJA. EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Ding v. Barr | Null |
$ 14,500
|
REDACTED | Petition for review challenging IJ denial and BIA dismissal of asylum, withholding, and CAT application based on an adverse credibility finding. | The Court remanded to the BIA, holding that “[s]ubstantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination and will not uphold an adverse credibility finding where it is based on “speculation and conjecture. EAJA claim was settled. | Show |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Godinho v. Barr |
$ 5,000
|
REDACTED | Petition for review of BIA decision affirming IJ denial of asylum and CAT. | The Court remanded the case to the BIA after finding that the Board abused its discretion by failing to consider petitioner’s claim of being persecuted on account of political opinion, and failing to consider supporting evidence. The court also found that the BIA abused its discretion by finding thatpetitioner failed to support his claim that he is being pursued by a corrupt police inspector. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM, FWS and U.S. Forest Service |
$ 201,000
|
Center for Biological Diversity | Plaintiffs challenged BLM’s approval of, and the U.S. Forest Service’s consent to, issuance of 36 oil and gas leases in the Wayne Nat'l Forest. They alleged various violations of NEPA and the ESA by BLM and FS, and an ESA violation by all 3 agencies (BLM, FS, FWS). On Mar. 8, 2021, the court issued a remedy order remanding the leasing decisions to BLM for additional NEPA analysis ; and (2) the court enjoined certain oil and gas activities until the further NEPA analysis is completed. | The court rejected the ESA claims and found only NEPA violations, concluding BLM and FS had failed to adequately analyze impacts on air quality, on the Indiana bat, and on surface water resources. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement | REDACTED v. Barr |
$ 9,145
|
REDACTED | Petition for Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The Court held that the BIA erred in determining whether the noncitizen was eligible as a derivative beneficiary for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i). The BIA also abused its discretion in alternatively denying the noncitizen's motion to reopen based on the noncitizen's asserted failure to “fully address his criminal record.” | The court provided no explanation for denying DHS' motion to send the case to mediation or for granting an award of fees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Fares v. Barr |
$ 25,000
|
REDACTED | Petition for review challenging the denial of naturalization application due to he ineligibility for the DV2 immigrant visa and unlawful entry into the United States. | The Court issued a published decision and overall concluded that, notwithstanding his failure to satisfy or receive a waiver of the two-year residence requirement, petitioner remained admissible under several provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) and, as a matter of law, was “otherwise admissible” for the purposes of the waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) | National Wildlife Federation et al v. National Marine Fisheries Services, et al. (FCRPS) |
$ 64,484
|
Earthjustice | Plaintiffs alleged various violations of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). | The court identified legal deficiencies with and remanded the 2008, 2010, and 2014 Biological Opinions to NMFS. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Food and Drug Administration (FDA) | Seife et al., v. HHS, et al. |
$ 37,500
|
New York University Law Clinic (aka Washington Square Legal Services, Inc.) and Yale University Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic | Plaintiffs Charles Seife and Peter Lurie sued HHS, the Secretary, NIH, the Director, FDA, and the Commissioner, challenging an interpretation of FDAAA set forth in the Final Rule that basic results summary information did not need to be submitted to the ClinicalTrials.gov data bank for any ACT completed before the Final Rule’s effective date if the ACT studied a product that was approved by FDA after the ACT was completed. Plaintiffs also claimed that NIH failed to post notices regarding noncompliance and make them searchable in the ClinicalTrials.gov data bank. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the statutory interpretation issue and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on the last two issues. | The court held that, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) unambiguously requires responsible parties to submit to the ClinicalTrials.gov data bank summary basic results information for applicable clinical trials (ACTs) completed before January 18, 2017, if the ACT studies a product that is approved, licensed, or cleared by FDA at any time, including after the ACT’s primary completion date. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Hexacta Inc., et al. v. Mcaleenan |
$ 28,677
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the denials of L-1A executive immigration petition filed on behalf of plaintiff and the derivative L-2 applications for plaintiff’s family. Although USCIS eventually granted plaintiff's applications, plaintiff still sought EAJA. | The Court held that plaintiff was in fact a prevailing party and that the government's position was not substantially justified. Court granted plaintiff's request for EAJA. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | National Park Service | Cottonwood Env. Law Ctr. v. Gianforte |
$ 22,500
|
John Meyer | Plaintiff challenged NPS bison management plan under NEPA. NPS decided to undergo a new NEPA process and asked for a voluntary remand. The court granted the voluntary remand. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit and requested a deadline for the EIS. The Ninth Circuit did not impose a deadline on NPS. Plaintiff revised their fee request during briefing and asked for $183,912.09. The court denied their fee request for $183,662.83 in full (2:18-cv-00012-SEH). Plaintiff appealed the fee denial. The US settled the fee claim. | The court granted the voluntary remand on the basis that NPS was preparing additional NEPA analysis. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Mohammed v. Barr |
$ 34,601
|
REDACTED | Petition for review challenging IJ denial and BIA dismissal of asylum, withholding, and CAT application. | The Court granted the petition and remanded to USCIS for further proceedings because Mohammed demonstrated that incompetent translations occurred during his asylum hearing and that they prejudiced the outcome. Court awrded EAJA.. | Show |