Ramon Amezola-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
835 F.3d 553
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Amezola-Garcia, a Mexican national ordered removed for unlawful presence, sought review of the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and voluntary departure and the procedural decision to use a single-member BIA panel.
- He argued the BIA erred by (1) using a single-member panel instead of a three-member panel, (2) rejecting his claim that familial ties to a murdered brother-in-law create a likelihood of future persecution (withholding of removal), and (3) mischaracterizing the record in denying voluntary departure.
- The Government conceded on appeal that the BIA’s voluntary-departure reasoning was problematic and agreed remand was warranted for that issue; it opposed the other claims.
- This court remanded the voluntary-departure determination to the BIA but affirmed the BIA on the three-member panel and withholding-of-removal issues.
- Amezola applied for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing the Government’s position was not substantially justified because of the concession on voluntary departure.
- The court denied EAJA fees, finding the Government’s overall position was substantially justified despite partial concession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amezola is a "prevailing party" under EAJA | Amezola argued partial success (remand on voluntary departure) makes him prevailing | Government implicitly conceded error on voluntary departure but disputed entitlement to fees | Not resolved on this ground; court denied fees on substantial-justification ground |
| Whether the Government's position was "substantially justified" under EAJA | Government’s concession on voluntary departure shows pre-litigation position was unjustified | Government argued its overall position (agency action + litigation) was substantially justified because it prevailed on prominent, distinct claims | Denied fees: Government’s position "as a whole" was substantially justified despite partial concession |
| Whether distinct/‘‘prominent’’ claims should be weighed in the EAJA "as a whole" inquiry | Amezola argued the concededly incorrect voluntary-departure position tainted the whole | Government argued other claims (three-member panel; withholding) were distinct and substantially justified | Court held distinct and more prominent successful claims can make the Government’s overall position substantially justified |
| Whether Government’s appellate concession was itself evidence of substantial injustice justifying fees | Amezola emphasized the concession as proof of lack of justification | Government noted timely concession was appropriate litigation conduct and did not render entire position unjustified | Court found the concession did not make the overall position substantially unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 486 F.3d 127 (6th Cir. 2007) (EAJA requirements and standards)
- Comm'r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (EAJA fee principles)
- Delta Eng'g v. United States, 41 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 1994) (Government’s "position" includes agency action and litigation)
- United States v. Heavrin, 330 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of "position" in related statutory context informs EAJA analysis)
- E.E.O.C. v. Memphis Health Ctr., Inc., [citation="526 F. App'x 607"] (6th Cir. 2013) (applying the "as a whole" standard to deny fees when prominent claims were substantially justified)