EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) | Protest of Spatial Front, Inc.; Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-12-R-08591 |
$ 12,481
|
Spatial Front Inc. | Spatial agrued that its evaluation scores should be higher, and the Awardee's scores should be lower, and that the Awardee's price was unreasonably high. | Spatial Front’s position was substantially justified, and they prevailed on a significant issue in litigation. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) | Protest of Spatial Front, Inc.; Pursuant to Solicitation DTFAWA-12-R-08591 |
$ 3,143
|
Spatial Front Inc. | Spatial agrued that its reevaluation scores should be higher. | Spatial Front’s position was substantially justified, and they prevailed on a significant issue in litigation. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) | Sorensen v. FAA and Cole v. FAA (Combined case with same counsel) |
$ 10,000
|
Tony Jobe (Counsel) | Challenge of DOT drug testing-related issue under the Administrative Procedure Act. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | OST's Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy and Compliance | Sorensen v. FAA and Cole v. FAA (Combined case with same counsel) |
$ 20,000
|
Tony Jobe (Counsel) | Challenge of DOT drug testing-related issue under the Administrative Procedure Act. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) | Quality Control Systems Corp. v. U.S. Department of Transportation |
$ 26,000
|
Quality Control Systems Corp. and David L. Sobel (Counsel) | NHTSA allegedly violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to a FOIA request for documents related to NHTSA’s PE16-007 closing resume. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) | In the Matter of D N D International, Inc. |
$ 17,277
|
D N D International, Inc. and David L. LaPorte (Counsel) | Challenge to Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service Order under 49 U.S.C. Section 521 (b)(5)(A), that allege Federal safety regulatory violations. | The agency failed to demonstrate that the violations of federal safety regulations committed by seven drivers could predict the behavior of the entire population of the carrier’s drivers. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR); Department o... | Kharis v. Sessions |
$ 10,000
|
Alexey Kharis | Immigration habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing. | The district court found that the government committed a due process violation, and the Ninth Circuit has held that a denial of due process rights “precludes a finding that [the government’s] position was substantially justified.” Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213, 217 (9th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. $12,248 U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir. 1991). Fee award paid jointly by DOJ and DHS (50% each). | 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 Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Whitaker | Null | REDACTED | Petition for review | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Moore | Null | REDACTED | Writ of mandamus | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Barr |
$ 8,940
|
REDACTED | Habeas petition | Prolonged detention of alien in mandatory detention. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Nielsen | Null | REDACTED | Habeas petition/preliminary injunction motion. | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | REDACTED v. Nielsen |
$ 10,980
|
REDACTED | Habeas petition/motion for preliminary injunction to reinstate immigration bond. | Order simply states that the government's position was not substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) | Calmo-Carrillo v. Barr |
$ 2,000
|
REDACTED | Petitioner claimed the Board of Immigration Appeals made a factual determination with regard to asylum defense in removal proceeding in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Government moved for a voluntary remand. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) | Avalos-Suarez v. Barr |
$ 13,000
|
REDACTED | Petitioner claimed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) incorrectly concluded there was a lack of clarity in the law in 1993 in relation to the admissibility date of Special Agricultural Worker permanent residents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Petitioner that the BIA committed legal error in determining the law was unclear when deciding whether to reopen Petitioner's 1993 deportation proceeding. | Settlement Agreement | Show |