971 F.3d 794
8th Cir.2020Background
- Edgar Gallegos Garcia, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, was hired as a Minnesota police cadet and later certified as a peace officer based on a Certification Form that he signed; the form included an affirmation that he was a U.S. citizen, which he signed without reading.
- Garcia applied for naturalization, answered “no” to whether he had ever claimed U.S. citizenship, and affirmed that answer at his naturalization interview; the application was denied for lack of good moral character based on alleged false statements.
- Garcia sought de novo review in federal court; after a one-day bench trial the district court credited Garcia’s testimony that his earlier claim of citizenship was an innocent mistake and granted naturalization.
- Garcia moved under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for attorney’s fees and costs; the district court denied both, finding the government’s position was "substantially justified." Garcia appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees (no abuse of discretion in finding the government’s position substantially justified) but modified the judgment to award Garcia costs of $1,074.18; the court also denied Garcia’s motion to supplement the record with deposition transcripts.
Issues
| Issue | Garcia's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. position was "substantially justified" for EAJA attorney’s fees | Pre-trial discovery showed Garcia made an innocent mistake signing the Certification Form, so gov’t position was not substantially justified | Evidence supported questioning Garcia’s credibility and intent; reasonable basis to conclude lack of good moral character | Court: No abuse of discretion in finding the government’s position substantially justified; attorney’s fees denied |
| Whether Garcia is entitled to recover costs under EAJA | Garcia is prevailing party and therefore entitled to costs | Government conceded costs are recoverable and did not contest amount | Court: Costs awarded ($1,074.18) |
| Whether the appellate court should consider deposition transcripts not in the district-court record when assessing substantial justification | Depositions should be considered in the interests of justice; the transcripts were available below | EAJA requires determination based on the record made in the civil action; transcripts were not part of that record | Court: Denied supplementation; determination must be made on the record below |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (explains "substantially justified" means reasonable basis in law and fact)
- Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. standard for EAJA substantial-justification review)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (false testimony can demonstrate lack of good moral character for naturalization)
- United States v. Hurt, 676 F.3d 649 (government’s position must have reasonable basis in law and fact)
- United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, 794 F.2d 1313 (limitations on considering new evidence on appeal)