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 |
$ 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 Homeland Security | USCIS | Kabura v. McNeer |
$ 7,751
|
REDACTED | Alleged erroneous denial of naturalization. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Valdivia, et al v. Barr, et al |
$ 45,971
|
REDACTED | APA claim alleging improper denial of I-130. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, et al v. USCIS, et al |
$ 500,000
|
REDACTED | Class action challenging the delays of EAD applications based on initial asylum applications that have been pending longer than the 30 day regulatory period. | Settlement was reached. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Guerra Rocha, et al v. Barr |
$ 15,000
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge of a BIA decision that involved alledged improper placement of U visa applicant in removal proceedings. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Stellar IT Solutions, Inc, et al v. USCIS |
$ 13,000
|
REDACTED | APA suit challenging the denial of an H1B petition. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Mendez Rojas v. Johnson |
$ 138,019
|
REDACTED | Class action challenging government’s alleged lack of adequate notice to asylum seekers regarding the statutory one year deadline to file an asylum application after entering the United States, and alleging that the government failed to provide a mechanism for certain class members to timely file for asylum. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Grigoryan, et al v. Barr |
$ 14,000
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge of a BIA decision that involved alledged improper termination of asylum. The Ninth Circuit panel vacated the Board’s decision and the IJ’s order of removal, and remanded for the Board to conduct further proceedings. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General |
$ 16,609
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge to denial of asylum and witholding of removal. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Henriquez v. Wolf |
$ 1,137
|
REDACTED | Mandamus litigation challenging delayed naturalization. USCIS agreed to have court remand for adjudication. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Flores Olivia v. Barr |
$ 10,650
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge to denial of asylum and witholding of removal. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Zhang v. Barr |
$ 12,000
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge to denial of asylum and witholding of removal. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Park v. Barr |
$ 55,000
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge to denial of naturalization. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show |