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 (ICE) | REDACTED v. Wolf |
$ 23,923
|
REDACTED | Habeas | The district court found that the government's actions were not substantially justified where the plaintiff was removed while he had a motion to reopen pending, though no stay of removal, and his counsel discovered his removal while the plaintiff was already on an airplane for removal. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR); Department o... | Kharis v. Sessions |
$ 10,000
|
Alexey Kharis | Immigration habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing. | The district court found that the government committed a due process violation, and the Ninth Circuit has held that a denial of due process rights “precludes a finding that [the government’s] position was substantially justified.” Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213, 217 (9th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. $12,248 U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir. 1991). Fee award paid jointly by DOJ and DHS (50% each). | Show | |
| U.S. Department of State | Depts of HHS and DHS | HIAS, Inc. et al v. Trump et al |
$ 218,120
|
International Refugee Assistance Project; Shearman & Sterling | Plaintiffs alleged that Executive Order 13888, requiring state and local consent to refugee resettlement, violated the Refugee Act of 1980. | The District Court found that Executive Order 13888 violated the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of State | Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Se... | Ibrahim v. DHS, et al. (N.D. Cal.) |
$ 220,470
|
Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim (represented by McManis Faulkner) | Dr. Ibrahim claimed a violation of her due process rights by being put on the No Fly list. | The District Court found that Dr. Ibrahim was incorrectly put on the No Fly list for a brief period of time due to a clerical error. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Cascade Forest Conservancy v. Heppler |
$ 120,000
|
Tom Buchele | Plaintiff challenged decisions by the BLM and the USFS to grant Ascot Resources Ltd. hardrock mineral prospecting permits for federal lands near the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, the NEPA, the APA, and FOIA. Plaintiff filed an application for $272,613 in EAJA fees on April 29, 2022. | The district court found in favor of Plaintiff on its National Environmental Policy Act claim. Plaintiff had already prevailed against the BLM on the same NEPA claim in prior litigation. | Show | |
| Other Agency | Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Friends of Animals v. U.S. EPA |
$ 87,000
|
Friends of Animals, Inc. | Plaintiff challenged the EPA's denial of Plaintiff's petition under Section 6(b) of FIFRA that EPA initiate a Special Review of the pesticide ZonaStat-H to determine whether its registration should be cancelled or revised. | The district court entered an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge that EPA's denial of Plaintiff's petition was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the matter to EPA for reconsideration. Settlement Agreement for EAJA fees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Labor | Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) | Acosta v. Ricardo Silva, et al |
$ 87,824
|
AmeriGuard Security Services, Inc. | AmeriGuard filed a request for attorney fees under EAJA arguing that the Secretary was not substantially justified in alleging that AmeriGuard breached fiduciary duties owed to the Maryland Association of Correctional and Security Employees Health and Welfare Plan (Health Plan) and the Maryland Association of Correctional and Security Employees Retirement Plan (Retirement Plan), (collectively, Plans). We alleged that AmeriGuard breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plans under ERISA when it failed to insure that the Plans were administered by an equal number of employee and employer representatives as mandated by the Taft-Hartley Act. | The district court concluded that AmeriGuard was a prevailing party as it was fully successful in obtaining a summary judgment decision in its favor. The court also concluded that the Secretary was not substantially justified in bringing this case because the facts and the law did not support that AmeriGuard was a fiduciary to the Plans and held, over our objection, that AmeriGuard had no authority or control over the Plans. The court further determined that AmeriGuard was eligible to receive an award under EAJA because it had a net worth of less than $7 million and fewer than 500 employees at the time the suit was filed. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | High Country Conservation Advocates et al v. United States Forest Service et al |
$ 147,631
|
Edward B. Zukoski and Mary Emily Splitek | Violated NEPA failing to consider an alternative that would have protected the Pilot Knob Roadless Area from coal mining. Failed to disclose or analyze the water, wildlife, vegetation or other resources across the 19, 700-acre exception area, making it impossible for the agency to fairly compare alternative courses of action. Failed to acknowledge and account for the environmental impacts of the increased demand for coal which will be induced by its decision. Failure to take a "hard Look" at the Climate Impacts of the Lease Modifications. | The decision to eliminate the Pilot Know Alternative from Exception SFEIS was arbitrary and thus violated NEPA | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Transportation | Federal Aviation Administration | Charles Erwin v. FAA |
$ 22,500
|
Charles Erwin | Erwin filed a petition for review, under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, challenging the FAA’s withdrawal of his special issuance medical certificate under 14 C.F.R. 67.401(f). FAA settled the EAJA claim in consultation with DOJ. | The D.C. Circuit found the FAA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it did not expressly discuss the medical information Erwin had submitted to the agency for consideration, and remanded the issue back to the FAA for further explanation. Erwin filed an EAJA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). FAA settled the claim. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands, et al. v. BLM (Griffin Half Moon Timber Sale) |
$ 46,000
|
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center | The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) signed the decision record to approve the Griffin Half Moon Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA) on August 15, 2018. Four environmental groups challenged the decision in Federal court. The Court granted summary judgment to the BLM on one issue (Pacific fisher) and to the plaintiffs on another (great grey owl). | The Court vacated the EA and its decision record and enjoined the BLM from implementing the project until the BLM completes a new EA that adequately addresses the proposal’s effects on the great grey owl. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Arrega-Velasquez v. Cuccinelli |
$ 19,500
|
REDACTED | AdministrativeProcedures Act (APA) review of the denial of two separate I-360 petitions for a Special Immigration Juvenile visa. | The Court upheld one decision and remanded the second decision. The plaintiff timely filed a motion for EAJA fees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office of Immigration Review | Baldemar Zuniga v. William P. Barr, Attorney General |
$ 27,301
|
Baldemar Zuniga | The non-citizen petitioner claimed a right to be represented by an attorney in “reasonable fear” review by an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 and that the immigration judge violated that right by proceeding in that review without obtaining a valid waiver of that right. | The court ruled that the statutory right to counsel provided to non-citizens in removal proceedings initiated under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 applies to the related “reasonable fear” review by an immigration judge; given the government’s acknowledgement the immigration judge failed to obtain a valid waiver of that right to counsel, the court held that the non-citizen was deprived of that right and is entitled to a new “reasonable fear” review hearing. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Grell v. USCIS, et al | Null | REDACTED | Challenge to naturalization denial. | The Court ruled that the plaintiff should be naturalized and provided a timeline with which USCIS needed to complete naturalization. Remanded to USCIS. Case was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Bureau of Prisons (BOP) | Rodriguez-Castillo v. Nielsen, et al. |
$ 190,718
|
Gustavo Rodriquez Castillo, Gabriela M. Lopez, Immigrant Defenders Law Center | This case challenged the detention of immigration detainees at the Federal Correctional Institution at Victorville, California. Plaintiffs claimed a denial of attorney access violated their due process and First Amendment rights, and that Defendants’ policies regarding access to attorneys violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. | The court ruled that the Defendants’ assertion that confining detainees at a facility for convicted criminals complicated access to counsel does not justify Defendants’ position. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office of Immigration Review | Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. William P. Barr, Attorney General |
$ 52,500
|
Jorge Baez-Sanchez | The noncitizen petition sought a nonimmigrant waiver of removability before an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the immigration judge lacked the authority to consider the waiver. | The court ruled that the Board’s decision conflicted with its mandate in an earlier decision remanding the case to the Board and ordered the agency to grant the nonimmigrant waiver. | Show |