Gomez-Beleno v. Holder
644 F.3d 139
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Petitioners Gomez-Beleno and Avila-Gaviria sought EAJA fees after prevailing on review of a final removal order.
- Government opposed EAJA on the basis that the United States’ position was substantially justified.
- BIA and IJ decisions found no past persecution or CAT relief; misquotation of the sufragio affected credibility analysis.
- Court vacated and remanded the case twice to address credibility and CAT issues; misquotation remained central to asylum/withholding determinations.
- EAJA motion filed October 2008 for fees and costs; court held the Government’s position was not substantially justified and awarded fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the US position was substantially justified | Gomez-Beleno | HOLDER | Not substantially justified |
| Whether EAJA applies to immigration petitions for review | Gomez-Beleno | HOLDER | EAJA applies to petitions for review of BIA decisions |
| Impact of sufragio misquotation on agency decision | Gomez-Beleno | HOLDER | Misquotation undermined basis for asylum/withholding decision; not substantially justified overall |
| CAT claim consideration on remand | Gomez-Beleno | HOLDER | BIA failed to address whether government constitutes de facto authority for CAT; remand appropriate |
| Impact of OIL litigation position on substantial justification | Gomez-Beleno | HOLDER | OIL's defense of the agency decisions insufficient to cure underlying error; fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, 62 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 1995) (EAJA in immigration and asylum-related review; substantial basis for fees)
- Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2006) (misquotation and legal error undermine relief determinations)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial justification includes agency decisions and litigation position)
- Vacchio v. Ashcroft, 404 F.3d 663 (2d Cir. 2005) (standards for substantial justification in EAJA)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (base criteria for entitlement to EAJA fees (prevailing party, lack of substantial justification))
- Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, 62 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 1995) (duplicate listing for emphasis on EAJA scope)