Noor Sakhawati v. Loretta Lynch
839 F.3d 476
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Noor Jahan Sakhawati sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) after this Court vacated the BIA’s grant of the government’s motion to reopen her immigration/asylum case.
- Counsel billed at $190.28/hour and claimed 114.85 hours (104.85 pre-application + 10 for fee work), requesting $21,248.37 plus $1,908.20 for fee preparation.
- The government opposed the EAJA award on two grounds: (1) equitable denial based on petitioner’s alleged misconduct (unclean hands) and (2) apportionment/reduction for partial or limited success.
- The court accepted the claimed hours as reasonable (government did not challenge them) but required proof to exceed the EAJA $125/hour statutory cap.
- Petitioner offered only conclusory assertions to justify a $190.28 rate; no adequate market-proof was supplied.
- The court awarded fees at $125/hour plus legal-assistant fees and expenses, totaling $15,653.76.
Issues
| Issue | Sakhawati's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s alleged fraud bars EAJA fees under unclean-hands equitable exception | Misconduct unrelated to the appeal; did not prejudice or advantage petitioner’s claim on reopening | Petitioner lied on asylum application and hearings, so equitable denial is warranted | Denied: unclean-hands not applicable because misconduct was not related to the matter on appeal nor to the government’s challenged conduct |
| Whether fees should be apportioned for partial/limited success | All appellate claims shared a common core of facts; rejection of some arguments does not warrant reduction | Court should reduce fees for claims not addressed/failed on appeal | Denied: claims were related; petitioner obtained the maximum relief (vacatur) so no apportionment required |
| Whether claimed hours were reasonable | Counsel’s billed hours (114.85) were reasonable and supported | Government did not contest the reasonableness of hours | Granted: court accepted the hours as reasonable due to lack of challenge |
| Proper hourly rate under EAJA ($125 cap vs. requested $190.28) | Increased rate justified by cost-of-living and special factors (asserted conclusorily) | No evidence submitted to justify >$125; EAJA requires proof of prevailing market rates | Court awarded statutory maximum $125/hr: petitioner failed to produce satisfactory evidence to justify higher rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cyber Solutions Int’l, LLC v. Pro Mktg. Sales, Inc., [citation="634 F. App'x 557"] (6th Cir. 2016) (defines unclean-hands equitable doctrine in context of relief)
- Oguachuba v. INS, 706 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1983) (refused EAJA fees where petitioner benefitted from his own bad-faith conduct)
- Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373 (6th Cir. 1995) (unclean-hands requires misconduct related to the matter at issue)
- Taylor v. United States, 815 F.2d 249 (3d Cir. 1987) (special-circumstances exception does not bar fees merely because plaintiff is a "bad" litigant)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (apportionment principle for fee awards and focus on overall result)
- Bryant v. Comm’n of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009) (EAJA fee increases require satisfactory market evidence beyond CPI)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (plaintiff must produce evidence that requested rates align with prevailing market rates)
- Sakhawati v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2016) (prior opinion addressing the underlying substantive appeal)