Yesenia Equihua-Equihua v. Jefferson Sessions
16-35125
| 9th Cir. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Equihua sought attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after DHS/USCIS denied her I-485 based on a Quilantan admission despite an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding she credibly demonstrated that admission.
- ICE initiated removal proceedings against Equihua; after the IJ ruled for Equihua on the Quilantan issue, ICE voluntarily terminated those proceedings.
- USCIS ignored the IJ’s ruling, conducted a de novo credibility analysis, and denied Equihua’s I-485 citing minor inconsistencies that had been before the IJ.
- Equihua filed a mandamus action; DHS then stipulated that USCIS would not deny the I-485 based on the Quilantan admission, and the district court entered an abeyance order “pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.”
- The district court denied EAJA fees, finding (1) the abeyance order did not sufficiently confer judicial imprimatur and (2) the government’s position was substantially justified. Equihua appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Equihua is a "prevailing party" | Abeyance order plus stipulation conferred judicial imprimatur making her prevailing | District court: order insufficiently incorporated stipulation to be an enforceable judicial act | Reversed: order holding case in abeyance pursuant to the stipulation conferred judicial imprimatur; Equihua is prevailing |
| Whether the government’s position was "substantially justified" | DHS/USCIS conduct and litigation position were not substantially justified given ICE’s termination, the IJ ruling, USCIS’ de novo denial, and later DHS stipulation | District court: legal uncertainty about preclusive effect of IJ rulings and evidentiary support for credibility findings made government’s position substantially justified | Reversed: court abused discretion; DHS’ overall position was not substantially justified |
| Whether adverse-credibility evidence can justify de novo action by USCIS for EAJA | Equihua: evidentiary support is irrelevant if USCIS improperly ignored IJ ruling; substantial justification turns on government’s overall position | Government: existence of evidence supporting credibility findings made its position reasonable | Court: district court erred by focusing on evidentiary support rather than whether ignoring the IJ was substantially justified |
| Remedy and process for fee award | Equihua: entitled to fees and costs under EAJA; request for calculation | Government: opposed fees | Court: Reversed denial and referred calculation of attorney’s fees and expenses to the Appellate Commissioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.) (order holding case in abeyance can confer prevailing-party status)
- Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.) (incorporation by reference in an order can provide judicial imprimatur)
- Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.) (abeyance order may be an enforceable judicial act)
- Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.) (EAJA substantial-justification standard requires assessing government’s position as a whole)
- La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review requires considering relevant factors)
- United States v. Mancinas-Flores, 588 F.3d 677 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.) (definition and review of abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion discussion)
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Moore, 783 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion defined)