EAJA Awards

Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement REDACTED v. Garland
$ 14,608
REDACTED Petition for Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 9th Cir. granted PFR and remanded, hodling that BIA did not make clear that it considered all evidence in its decision. Without discussion, 9th Cir. granted EAJA fees despite prior joint motion w/ language indicating that each party would bear its own costs; USG filed late opposition. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security USCIS Zizi v. Cuccinelli, et al
$ 48,659
REDACTED Challenge to the denial of an EB-1A visa, alien with extraordinary ability. USCIS settled the case. Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Qubadi v. Hackbarth
$ 100,000
David Sturman Mandamus USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to grant Mr. Qubadi’s I-485 application on the basis of providing material support to a Tier III terrorist organization. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Center for Biological Diversity; and Maricopa Audobn Society
$ 28,000
Marc D. Fink and Brian Segee Failure to reinitiate and complete consultation. Failure to develop and implement a recovery plan for the New Mexico Jumping Mouse. Failure to carry out the FWS' Assistance, Programs for the conservation of the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse. Failure to insure and maintain a viable population of ne New Mexico Meadow jumping Mouse. US Fish and Wildlife Service failed to develop and implement a recovery plan for the New Mexico Jumping Mouse Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ginger Kathrens and the Cloud Foundation v. Bernhardt
$ 45,000
Meyer, Glitzenstein & Eubanks, LLP Complaint alleging that Federal Defendants violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. TRO granted, BLM enjoined from proceeding. BLM has withdrawn DR. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Allen v. Barr
$ 67,686
REDACTED Mr. Allen was placed in removal proceedings. He argued he was a United States citizen. The Immigration Judge disagreed and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Mr. Allen was a United States citizen and terminated the removal proceedings against him. Counsel filed a subsequent claim for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated "[t]he position of the Respondent and the agency was not "substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Comm'r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158 n.6 (1990); Gomez-Beleno v. Holder, 644 F.3d 139, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2011)." The Court did not further explain their conclusion. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland
$ 12,583
REDACTED The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the immigration judge's conclusion that violence was not perpetrated with the consent or acquiesce of a public official was not supported by substantial evidence given Mr. Alvarado-Herrara's specific assertions of police complicity with a gang's violent acts. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case. 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 Ninth Circuit awarded fees at the cost-of-living adjusted statutory maximum rates but did not award enhanced fees. 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 the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dine Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Bernhardt
$ 791,710
Kyle Tisdel Plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S. C. §§ 4321 et seq., and its implementing regulations, made reviewable pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 11, 2015. The Tenth Circuit vacated certain oil and gas drilling decisions of the BLM for failure to comply with NEPA. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt et al., Case. No. 1:19-cv-01607-KBJ
$ 8,500
Collette Adkins CBD filed suit alleging that FWS had failed to designate critical habitat for the salamanders in violation of Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service missed the deadlines for designating critical habitat. Plaintiffs entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the "catalyst theory." Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt (D. Ariz. No. CV-4:19-218-TUC-RCC
$ 5,100
Brian Segee On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging the FWS missed the statutory timeframe to issue a 90-day finding. On September 6, 2019, FWS published the 90-day finding. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint. The Service failed to meet a statutory deadline. Plaintiffs entitled to fees and costs pursuant to the "catalyst theory." 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 Health and Human Services OS/OGC/CMSD STI Pharma, LLC -- Medicaid Drug Rebate Program
$ 80,000
STI Pharma, LLC STI argued that it was entitled to $117,270.24 in attorneys fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412. STI argued that it was a prevailing party as defined in the statute, that the government’s position was not substantially justified, and that the costs it requested were reasonable. The parties agreed to settle this matter for $80,000. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement REDACTED v. Barr
$ 9,272
REDACTED Petition for Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). In a published decision, the panel held that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the noncitizen was not credible viewing the totality of the circumstances. The Ninth Circuit wrote: "Our holding that the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence flows directly from well-established circuit precedent regarding responsiveness, lack of detail, and omissions in the credibility context. The government’s position was therefore not substantially justified." Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. McDaniel (Steen TMP)
$ 1,360,000
Oregon Natural Desert Association Plaintiff challenged Steens Travel Management Plan under NEPA, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Steens Act. The District Court upheld Plan. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that baseline analysis under NEPA was not sufficiently detailed. Show