EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Division (CMS) | New Hampshire Hospital Association |
$ 296,333
|
New Hampshire Hospital Association (NHHA) | - Plaintiffs challenged a Medicaid policy that was reflected in two FAQs. The district court found that the FAQs should have gone through notice and comment rulemaking and the appellate court agreed. | the Court concluded that NHHA was an eligible party under EAJA, and that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show that their position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Nielsen |
$ 190,719
|
REDACTED, REDACTED, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center | APA and U.S. Constitutional Violations | The court concluded that civil immigration detainees should not be housed in prisons for convicted criminals. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | U.S. Army | Lionel Joell v. Secretary of the Army |
$ 18,770
|
Lionell Joell | Memorandum -Decision and Order. Plaintiff challenged his involuntary discharge from the Army. | The court awarded plaintiff attorney fees & costs for his counsel's efforts in opposing Defendant's motion to remand the case to the ABCMR. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Teymer v. Barr, et al |
$ 6,881
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the delay in adjudication of a naturalization application. | The Court remanded plaintiff’s N-400 application to USCIS and plaintiff was naturalized. EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Aviation Administration | Sky-Med v Federal Aviation Administration et. al. |
$ 62,142
|
Sky Med | Awarded | The consolidated matters were tried before the ALJ, then appealed to the FAA Decisionmaker, and Sky-med sought judicial review of the FAA Decisionmaker’s decision before the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit vacated the Decisionmaker’s decision. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Kaliuzhna v. DHS |
$ 25,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the delay in adjudication of naturalization application. | The case was remanded to USCIS for adjudication within 14 days . EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | WildEarth Guardians, Grand Canyon Trust v. Haaland (D. Utah) |
$ 175,000
|
Aaron Paul | The plaintiffs allege that the agencies failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the lease, failed to analyze the climate impacts of similar and cumulative actions, failed to supplement the environmental impact statement, and failed to demonstrate that leasing is in the public interest. | The case involved risk of an unfavorable judgment against the agencies and the parties agreed to settle it. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Whitaker |
$ 27,764
|
REDACTED | Petition for review | The Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by failing to find that the alien was prejudiced by his prior counsel’s ineffectiveness, and by failing to provide a reasoned decision addressing his request to reopen sua sponte because he was eligible for adjustment of status based on the discharge of a prior New York state conviction. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR); Department o... | Gbotoe v. Jennings |
$ 14,147
|
Aaron Gbotoe | Immigration habeas corpus petition claiming that petitioner’s removal from the United States prior to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ adjudication of his motion to reopen was a statutory and constitutional violation. | The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had summarily denied Petitioner’s motion to stay his removal. The District Court granted Gbotoe’s fee petition in part, finding that the Government’s position was not substantially justified because the BIA’s denial of the stay motion was not reasonable. The Court acknowledged that the Immigration Judge’s position and the government's litigating position were reasonable, and specifically noted that “the jurisdictional issue implicated by Gbotoe’s petition was (and remains) far from settled,” but based his finding of no substantial justification entirely on the BIA’s denial of the stay motion. Fee award paid jointly by DOJ and DHS (50% each). | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | 1425-1429 Snyder Realty, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 16,946
|
1425-1429 Snyder Realty, LLC | Appellant appealed a deemed denial of its claim for back rent when respondent unilaterally rescinded a bilateral agreement. | The Board found that the Government proposed a bilateral amendment, drafted the language, complied for years before changing course. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) | Ecological Rights Foundation v. FEMA | Null |
$ 717,400
|
REDACTED | The case is a 2017 lawsuit challenging the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) compliance with Section 7 of the ESA and seeking to set aside the 2016 Biological Evaluation (BE) of the implementation of the NFIP at the national level. | The award was based on a DOJ determination. | Show |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) | Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports, US DOT No. 2131513 |
$ 1,800
|
Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports | The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 173.24(b)(1) by offering or transporting hazardous materials in a package that had an identifiable release of haardous materials to the environment; 2) 49 C.F.R. § 177.801 by using an unauthorized tank to transport Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material in interstate commerce; and 3) 49 C.F.R. § 385.403 by transporting Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, prior to obtaining a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. | The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed two of the three regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) | Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost, US DOT No. 461410 |
$ 1,930
|
Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost | The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)/173.315 by offering for transportation an unauthorized tank to transport a hazardous material in commerce, and 2) 49 C.F.R. § 173.22(b) by offering a shipment of Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, to a carrier that does not hold a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. | The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed one of the two regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Rural Development | In the Matter of Rural Development |
$ 5,338
|
Null | Challenge to Multi-Family Housing decision. | The Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating that it meets all the conditions of eligibility for an award of EAJA fees and expenses. The Agency’s actions and decision were not substantially justified. The Applicant was the prevailing party in the adversarial adjudication. The Applicant has not unduly or unreasonably delayed or protracted the proceedings.There are no special circumstances that would make the award of fees unjust. The Applicant’s request for attorney fees and accountant fees is approved, as modified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | Department of the Air Force | Sloan v. United States |
$ 10,000
|
National Veterans Legal Services Program Inc. | This was an action for combat related special compensation (CRSC) pay that Plaintiff alleged the USAF unlawfully failed to provide Plaintiff as a result of the USAF's Board for Correction of Military Records' (AFBCMR) findings that his disabilities were not combat-related pursuant to 10 USC 1413a. Plaintiff alleged various violations of the APA, 5 USC 706(2)(A). | The agency was not substantially jusitifed in denying Plaintiff's case at the AFBCMR because he did, in fact, file his case within the 3 year requirement of 10 USC 1552(b); the CRSC board utilized an incorrect standard of proof; the AFBCMR failed to obtain a required advisory opinion; the AFBCMR ignored Plaintiff's requests to assist him in obtaining medical records; the AFBCMR failed to consider Plaintiff's response to the initial advisory opinion; and the AFBCMR decision was bereft of serious analysis. | Show |