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 Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review | Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Garland |
$ 2,000
|
Emmanuel Rodriguez-Vazquez | Rodriguez-Vazquez filed a petition for review under 8 U.S.C. 1252, arguing that the Board of Immigration Appeals had erred in dismissing his appeal as abandoned for failing to provide an address at which he could be reached. He argued that his prior attorney—who had been suspended from practice during the pendency of his appeal –had provided an incomplete address for him to the agency, leading to his appeal being dismissed for failing to provide a correct/updated address, and that this ineffective assistance was clear from the record. | We agreed to remand the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals because, in reissuing its decision at Rodriguez-Vazquez’s request, the Board had ignored evidence in the motion to reissue that contained Rodriguez-Vazquez’s complete address and made clear that his prior attorney had omitted Rodriguez-Vazquez’s apartment number on the notice to appeal. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Klamath Forest Alliance |
$ 37,000
|
Meriel L. Darzen | Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. | Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. | 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 Health and Human Services | OGC Childern, Family and Aging Division | Flores v. Garland |
$ 270,105
|
Flores Counsel; Name on Account: Foundation Trust Account | Description of Claims: On April 24, 2020, at the request of class members’ attorneys, the federal court ordered: (1) that ORR and ICE should continue to make efforts towards prompt and safe release of class members (including allowing for provisional release from ORR facilities if COVID-19 made fingerprinting unavailable); (2) that the Flores Monitor should oversee the conditions at ORR and ICE facilities; and (3) that the ORR and ICE juvenile coordinators should provide interim reports to the court on specified issues. The Government and lawyers for class members have agreed that the Government will pay class members’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $540,210.40 to compensate them for their work which resulted in the court’s three orders issued on April 24, 2020, May 22, 2020, and June 26, 2020, respectively. | Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Stipulation To Dismiss EAJA Motion With Prejudice and Proposal Regarding Notice to Flores Class Members Of Settlement (ECF No. 1292), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Court found: the parties engaged in non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“MAF”) [ECF No. 1182]; the settlement requires Defendants to Pay Plaintiffs $540,210.40 in settlement of Plaintiff’s claims and any potential claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and related expenses pursuant to the MAF, and the MAF supports an award of this size; no evidence of collusion between the parties or of Plaintiffs putting their interests in obtaining fees ahead of the interests of the Class; the Notice of the proposed settlement provided to the class satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23(e)(1) and due process; and counsel have received no objections from class members or their family members concerning the proposed settlement agreement. Court Order approving Settlement Agreement filed on 1/25/2023 (ECF No. 1325). | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC Childern, Family and Aging Division | Flores v. Garland |
$ 577,286
|
National Center for Youth Law | On June 22, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Class Notice of Settlement concerning ORR’s use of Emergency Intake Sites (“EIS”) facilities. This Settlement provides, in pertinent part, the standards the Government will meet while operating EISs including suitable living accommodations, access to daily outdoor activity, private phone calls at least twice a week for at least ten minutes in length, family reunification services, appropriate mental health interventions, educational services, legal services information, and structured leisure time activities. On September 23, 2022, the federal court granted final approval of the Settlement. The Government and lawyers for class members have agreed that the Government will pay class members’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $577,286.09 to compensate them for their work which resulted in the EIS Settlement. | Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 1329], Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support thereof [ECF No. 1338], and the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss EAJA Motion with Prejudice and Proposal Regarding Notice to Flores Class Members of Settlement (“Joint Stipulation”) [ECF No. 1310], and for the reasons stated on the record at the Final Fairness Hearing on April 14, 2023, the Court finds that: The parties engaged in non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“MAF”) [ECF No. 1282]; The proposed Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $577,286.09 in settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims and any potential claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and related expenses pursuant to the MAF, and the MAF supports an award of this size; There is no evidence of collusion between the parties regarding fees, or of Plaintiffs putting their interests in obtaining fees ahead of the interests of the Class; The Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement provided to the Class satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and due process; and Counsel have received no objections from Class Members or their family members concerning the proposed Settlement Agreement [see ECF Nos. 1327, 1338]. | 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 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 Defense | U.S. Army | Wayne P. Marta v. Secretary of the Army |
$ 22,000
|
Wayne P. Marta | Settlement. Plaintiff challenged the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records decision to deny his request to correct his records to show that he elected to transfer unused educational benefits to his children. | These fees were settled through negotiation. Fees were deemed appropriate because the the district court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case back to the ABCMR for further consideration consistent with its opinion. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | U.S. Army | Lucas Calixto, et al. v. Department of the Army, et al. |
$ 550,000
|
Wanjing Li, Jingquan Qu, Xiongzhou Zhang, Xi Zhang, Chenhao Qian, Sansiri Suangchomphan, Lei Liu, Wen Si, Yunzheng He, Wendapagnagde Yabre, Sen Li, Fang Lu, Anton Tate, Yue Yin, Sai Krishna Uppugandla, Zehua Bian, Hyunsung Kim, Chengping Yuan, Gunay Miriyeva, Sandeep Mahat, and Shengfan Yang | Settlement. A case affecting soldiers who enlisted in the U.S. Army (including Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve/Delayed Training Program (“DTP”) and Regular Army/Delayed Entry Program (“DEP”) Soldiers) through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (“MAVNI”) program. | These fees were settled through negotiation. Fees were deemed appropriate because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned our initial victory at the Court of Federal Claims and plaintiff received relief as a result of a subsequent evaluation. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | Department of the Army | Ewang Theophile Epie-Alobwede |
$ 10,000
|
E. Epie-Alobwede | Settlement. Plaintiff's complaint challenged the determination of the Physical Disability Review Board that plaintiff was not entitled to a medical retirement. | These fees were settled through negotiation. Fees were deemed appropriate as relief was granted on remand. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | U.S. Army | Nicholas Harrison, et al., v. Mark Esper, et al. |
$ 100,000
|
Nicholas Harrison, Richard Roe, Victor Voe and the Modern Miitary Association | Settlement. Plaintiff challenged his disability rating rendered by a PEB and the Physical Disability Board of Review. | These fees were settled through negotiation. Fees were deemed appropriate as relief was granted on remand and in accordance with a prior court's ruling. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | Department of the Army | Ronald L. Driscoll v. United States of America |
$ 33,864
|
Ronald L. Driscoll | Settlement. Plaintiff's complaint alleged claims for wrongfulful discharge and denial of military pay. | These fees were settled through negotiation. Fees were deemed appropriate as relief was granted on remand and in accordance with a prior court's ruling. | Show |