EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Sun v. USCIS |
$ 6,000
|
REDACTED | 1447(b) litigation regarding delayed naturalization. USCIS settled the claim. | Settlement was reached. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Pulatov v. USCIS |
$ 13,370
|
REDACTED | 1447(b) litigation regarding delayed naturalization. USCIS settled the claim. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Mendoza-Rosas v. Mayorkas |
$ 2,572
|
REDACTED | 1447(b) litigation regarding delayed naturalization. USCIS settled the claim. | Case was remanded to USCIS for adjudication. Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | Frimmel Management v. USA |
$ 92,000
|
Frimmel Management, LLC | 4th amendment evidence suppression issue. ALJ refused to suppress employment records obtained during ICE investigation. | Omissions and distortions in local law enforcement search warrant affidavits violated the Fourth Amendment. Evidence obtained by agency therefore constituted fruit of unlawful search. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of State | N/A | Mohamed, et al. v. Barr, et al. |
$ 25,952
|
Goldberg & Associates | A family of applicants for diversity visas (DV) were refused visas under 8 U.S.C. 1201(g), as administrative processing was require for their cases. One week before the end of the relevant fiscal year, at which time plaintiffs’ eligibility for the visas would expire, plaintiffs sued seeking mandamus on an emergency basis. On Friday, September 27, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion, finding the government had unreasonably delayed adjudicating their DV applications, and ordered the consular officer to adjudicate the visa applications by noon the following day. The consular officer readjudicated and again found applicants ineligible. Following a motion by plaintiffs, on September 29 the court found neither of the two prior refusals were proper adjudications and, therefore, found the Department not in compliance with the Court’s order. Following issuance of that order, a consular officer reajudicated the cases and the visas were issued on September 30. | In granting the plaintiffs’ August 2020 motion for fees, the Court found that the government had not complied with the courts order to properly adjudicate the visa applications and that the “government’s conduct was not substantially justified,” which entitled plaintiffs to fees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Hispanic Affairs Project v. Acosta, et al. |
$ 62,500
|
REDACTED | A membership organization of herders challenged agencies’ 364-day certification period for H-2A visas and a number of additional regulatory measures. | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
| Social Security Administration | Null | Driggs v. Saul |
$ 14,285
|
Nossaman LLP | Action brought by survivor of a same-sex couple who was prevented or delayed from marrying by unconstitutional State laws. The case challenged the application of the 9-month duration of marriage requirement for purposes of determining entitlement to wife's or husband's benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act to these individuals. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | Organic Sphere v. USDA |
$ 10,000
|
Organic Sphere, LLC | Action for damages under the Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7716, for recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities | Null | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 4,700
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 3,700
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 7,850
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 8,159
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 1,933
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 6,400
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show | |
| Other Agency | Social Security Administration (SSA) | [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security |
$ 6,500
|
[Redacted] | Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act | [Redacted] | Show |