Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Good Law
714 F.3d 1353·2013 WL 1912465·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 9, 201308-72040California88 words

Opinion

Noonan, J.

ORDER

The motion for attorney’s fee is DENIED. The government’s position was substantially justified.

concurring:

I concur because the statute is clear. I regret the result. An able and experienced lawyer who devoted substantial time to aid persons threatened with deportation is denied remuneration for her services. At the very least, we should be able to postpone a decision on the fees until the conclusion of the case. The EAJA does not work well when it compels a court to cut off compensation of careful and effective advocacy.