Jose Ramon-Sepulveda v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
113 A.L.R. Fed. 763·863 F.2d 1458·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17173
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 198886-7536California3,708 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER AND OPINION

Jose Ramon-Sepulveda seeks attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A) (Supp. III 1985). We grant his motion for fees; however, except for an inflationary adjustment, we decline to award fees in excess of the $75 statutory maximum.

I

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our two previous opinions, Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 743 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1984) (Ramon-Sepulveda I), and Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 824 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.1987) (Ramon-Sepulveda II). The following facts are relevant here. In 1978, the INS unsuccessfully tried to prove that Ramon-Sepulveda was deportable. The immigration judge terminated the deportation proceeding after finding that the government had presented no evidence of deportability. Several months later, the INS moved to reopen the proceeding to present new evidence: a birth certificate that assertedly proved alienage. The immigration judge granted the motion, and the BIA affirmed. We held that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s decision to reopen the proceedings. We reversed on the ground that the INS had failed to show that the birth certificate could…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.