Sunil Kumar Kurapati v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
700 F. App'x 974
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kurapati and Mallidi sued, alleging the United States failed to give proper notice before revoking their immigrant visa petitions.
- They won summary judgment on the notice claim; thereafter they moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
- Plaintiffs argued the Government’s initial defense—that they lacked standing—was not substantially justified, entitling them to fees.
- The district court denied fees, finding the Government’s standing position reasonable because the controlling law was unsettled in this circuit.
- On appeal, Kurapati and Mallidi contended the Government’s standing argument was foreclosed by out-of-circuit precedents and the Portability Provision of the American Competitiveness Act.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the Government’s position was substantially justified when advanced and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States’ position that plaintiffs lacked standing was "substantially justified" for EAJA purposes | Kurapati: government position was not substantially justified because precedent and the Portability Provision foreclosed the standing defense | Government: position was reasonable given unsettled law in this circuit at the time | The court held the Government’s position was substantially justified; no abuse of discretion in denying EAJA fees |
| Whether out-of-circuit authority and statutory Portability Provision made the Government’s stance unreasonable | Kurapati: relied on non-circuit precedents and §1154(j) to show the position was foreclosed | Government: those authorities did not render its position unreasonable in this circuit | The court held those authorities did not make the Government’s position unreasonable |
| Whether continuation to contest standing after reversal made the Government’s position unreasonable | Kurapati: claimed continued contesting showed lack of justification | Government: record did not show persistent contesting after reversal | The court found the record did not support plaintiffs’ claim that the Government continued to contest standing |
| Standard of review for EAJA substantial-justification determination | Kurapati: district court erred in its judgment | Government: district court’s ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion | The court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found no clear error of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (explains "substantially justified" standard under EAJA)
- Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (defines abuse-of-discretion for appellate review)
- Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (this court’s earlier decision finding plaintiffs had standing)