EAJA Awards
Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U.S. Department of Labor | WHD | Administrator v. Graham and Rollins, Inc. (original ALJ hearing) and In Re Graham and Rollins, Inc. (appeal case before ARB) |
$ 22,100
|
Leon R. Sequeira (counsel for Respondent Graham and Rollins, Inc.) | The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) investigated Respondent for compliance with H-2B regulations. The WHD determined that Respondent had committed violations of the H-2B requirements, and Respondent requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On June 26, 2018, the ALJ dismissed the case finding that the pertinent statute of limitations barred the proceedings. | Respondent filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA. On May 19, 2021, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision and Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees, concluding that the EAJA applied, and that the Administrator of the WHD failed to demonstrate that her position in the matter was substantially justified. | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 840,487
|
National Veterans Legal Services Program | Ongoing class action litigation regarding a group of Vietnam-era veterans and their survivors | Settlement agreement | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 1,204,312
|
National Veterans Legal Services Program | Ongoing class action litigation regarding a group of Vietnam-era veterans and their survivor | Settlement agreement | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Martinez v. Wilkie |
$ 37,974
|
Chris Attig | Entitlement to VA benefits | Settlement agreement | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Brayman v. McDonough |
$ 9,924
|
Kent A. Eiler, Esq. and William R. Brayman | Entitlement to VA benefits | Settlement agreement. VA agreed that Mr. Brayment was entitled to the VA benefit and that VA's failure to originally award the benefit was not substantially justified. | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 929,781
|
National Veterans Legal Services Program | Ongoing class action litigation regarding a group of Vietnam-era veterans and their survivors | Settlement agreement | Show | |
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Mattingly v. McDonough |
$ 46,500
|
Harold H. Hoffman, III | Entitlement to VA benefits | Settlement agreement | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | A.O., et al., v. Jaddou, et al. |
$ 213,348
|
REDACTED | Class action challenging denials of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Brandt v. Mayorkas, et al |
$ 1,141
|
REDACTED | Challenge to delayed decision in naturalization case under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Innova Solutions, Inc. v. CAMPAGNOLO |
$ 92,008
|
REDACTED | The the parties disputed whether Innova established that the perspective employee would perform a “specialty occupation” under any one of the four criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). | Petitioner was the prevailing party and the respondent was not substantially justified. Some enhanced rates were justified. | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Adueva v. Mayorkas et al |
$ 55,384
|
REDACTED | Claim that USCIS unlawfully withheld EAD adjudications under 8 U.S.C. 1184(p)(6), and interim EADs in the alternative, from 65 Plaintiffs who filed U visa petitions between 2015 and 2017 | Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and the government's position here was hardly "substantially justified" and was a blatant disregard of its duty plainly stated under the law. Settlement of amount of fees stipulated by the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Chen v. Wolf, et al |
$ 8,100
|
REDACTED | Challenge under the APA to the USCIS denial of form I-90 seeking to replace the applicants permanent resident card (form I-551) | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Melara v. Mayorkas, et al |
$ 17,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) to denial of naturalization by USCIS. | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Tomas v. United States Attorney General |
$ 6,171
|
REDACTED | Non-citizen was ordered removed in absentia and challenged the denial of her motion to reopen, alleging non-receipt of her Notice to Appear, which had been upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Munyuh v. Garland |
$ 23,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to denial of asylum application which had been based on an adverse credibility finding | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show |