EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Boch-Saban v. Garland |
$ 4,900
|
REDACTED | The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held the Board of Immigration Appeals should have considerd whether Petitioner's untimely appeal should be subject to equitable tolling. Following remand, the parties negotiated a settlemet with regard to EAJA fees. | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Sow v. U.S. Attorney General |
$ 82,736
|
REDACTED | The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found Mr. Sow's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the ineffective assistance prejudiced his case. The Court remanded to the Bord of Immigration Appeals with instructions for the immigration judge to reconsider Mr. Sow's applications for relief. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). | The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit awarded fees but did not explain why. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security... | Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Counterterrorism Cente... | Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, et al. |
$ 4,462,156
|
Rahinah Ibrahim | The underlying litigation arose out of Plaintiff’s mistaken placement on the No Fly List. Plaintiff prevailed in part following a bench trial and sought attorneys’ fees and expenses under EAJA. Plaintiff asserted that she was entitled to attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) or, alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). | Regarding § 2412(d), the district court found that the government’s position was not “substantially justified” in certain respects and awarded fees and expenses, but significantly less than Plaintiff had requested. However, the district court denied Plaintiff’s request for bad faith fees under § 2412(b). On appeal, the en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred it its approach to determining substantial justification, and the en banc Ninth Circuit made its own substantial justification determination. In this regard, the en banc Ninth Circuit, among other things ruled that “[t]he district court correctly concluded that the government’s litigation position—to defend the indefensible, its No Fly list error—was not reasonable. As the district court stated, ‘[t]he government’s defense of such inadequate due process in [Plaintiff’s] circumstance— when she was concededly not a threat to national security--was not substantially justified.’” In addition, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in determining that the government had not engaged in bad faith conduct. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Flores v. Garland |
$ 52,500
|
REDACTED | The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Flores settlement in September 2020. The government filed an appeal of that order, which it subsequently lost in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a request for EAJA fees and costs, which was referred to the Ninth Circuit. The parties subsequently engaged in mediation of the EAJA motion. | settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Flores v. Rosen |
$ 90,209
|
REDACTED | The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enjoined the government's promulgation of regulations implementing the Flores Settlement Agreement in October 2019, on the basis that they were inconsistent wtih the terms of the Agreement. The Ninth Circuit reveresed in part and affirmed in part. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a request for EAJA fees and costs, which was referred to the Ninth Circuit. The parties subsequently engaged in mediation of the EAJA motion. | settlement agerement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Flores v. Garland |
$ 575,000
|
REDACTED | The U.S. Distict Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Flores Settlement Agreement in June 2017. The parties later negotiated settlement of the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs. | settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security... | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and I... | Saravia v. Garland, et al. |
$ 1,950,000
|
Plaintiff’s counsel (1) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California; (2) Cooley LLP; (3) ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; (4) New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation; and (5) Law Offices of Holly S. Cooper | The three named plaintiffs in this class action were all unaccompanied alien children who had previously been in the custody of ORR and were released. After release, ICE officers arrested them. Plaintiffs alleged that ICE re-detained them based on their suspected gang ties, but failed to afford them a hearing before an immigration judge. | Settlement agreement | 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 | |
| Other Agency | General Services Administration | State of Washington, et al., v. Shelanda Young |
$ 10,927
|
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. | The states of Washington and Oregon, along with multiple Native American tribes, filed a civil complaint/preliminary injunction against the United States in the Western District of Washington in connection with the Public Buildings Reform Board’s (PBRB) determination to dispose of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) records facility in Seattle, WA, pursuant to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) “high value round.” The General Services share of the award is $2,731.79. | The parties have stipulated to dismissing all claims without predjudice, without any costs, except the Plaintiff Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., shall recover attorney fees of $10,927.15 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | State of Alaska |
$ 400
|
State of Alaska | The State of Alaska filed a Quiet Title Act claim over the navigability of the upper Knik River. After the complaint was filed, BLM completed a field investigation showing a navigable channel, resulting in the United States filing a Quiet Title Act disclaimer of interest. | N/A - award of costs only | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service | Center for Biological Diversity Inc. et al v. Bernhardt |
$ 40,000
|
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago | The present dispute centers around Plaintiffs’ petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the lake sturgeon as a threatened or endangered species under 16 U.S.C. §1533. The parties agree that the Service has not complied with 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(3), which requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue a finding related to an interested person’s petition within 12 months of receiving the petition. | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meet the statutory deadline for responding to a petition to list the Lake Sturgeon as threatedned or endangered. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OS/OGC/CMSD | Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc., et al; 20cv00361 |
$ 54,992
|
Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc.; Kirsty Hambrick; Rebecca Barson; Mariel DiDato; and Tanja Hollander | The plaintiffs challenged the Separate Billing Rule, see 84 Fed. Reg. 71,674, 71,683-95, 71,710-11 (Dec. 27, 2019), which required issuers of Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) that cover abortions for which public funding is prohibited to send each QHP policy holder two separate monthly bills—one for premiums covering those abortions and another for premiums covering all other services—and instruct the policy holder to pay the premiums through separate transactions. The plaintiffs claimed the Separate Billing Rule violated the APA insofar as they alleged it was contrary to law, citing sections 1303 and 1554 of the Affordable Care Act; arbitrary and capricious; and promulgated without observance of procedure required by law. | Settlement | 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 | USCIS | Masood v. Garland |
$ 5,000
|
REDACTED | The petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed the denial. On a PFR to the 9th Circuit the government moved to remand the case to the BIA for further consideration of the petitioner’s past persecution and well‐founded fear of future persecution claims, as well as the country‐of‐removal designation. | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office of Immigration Review | Mendez-Morales v. Barr |
$ 6,500
|
Jose Luis Eduardo Mendez-Morales | The petitioner claimed that the Agency erred in concluding that he did not meet his burden to establish eligibility for a particular application that he filed. He argued that the record revealed multiple potential bases for establishing eligibility and, in light of intervening case law, the Court should remand for further consideration. He also highlighted problems with the transcript of expert witness testimony. | The Court found multiple bases for potential eligibility that needed to be considered in light of its intervening precedential case law. The Court also noted that the “exceptionally poor quality” of the transcript of the expert’s testimony made the Court’s review impossible and ordered the Agency to re-transcribe that testimony before re-examining the petitioner’s application. | Show |