The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows the recovery of attorney's fees provided the applicant is the prevailing party and can show that the position of the government agency was not "substantially justified".
The recent case of Cody v. Caterisano involves the case of an Irish national serving in the U.S. Navy as a midshipman who petitioned for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act arguing that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to adjudicate his naturalization application within 120 days under 8 U.S.C. section 1447(b).
Mr. Cody had applied for naturalization based on Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. section 1440, which provides for naturalization through active duty service in the Armed Forces during times of war or periods of military hostilities. Interestingly enough, this case also involved the issue of whether attendance at the U.S. Naval Academy constitutes "active duty" for purposes of naturalization under 8 U.S.C. section 1440. Although there were some questions as to whether Mr. Cody was in fact in "active duty", he was was able to naturalize after all - albeit with some delays.
To determine whether the Government's position was substantially justified, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered all aspects of the civil action to determine whether the Government's position was justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. In affirming the district court's denial of the request for attorneys fees, the court held that the Government's position was substantially justified given the Government's reasonable arguments based on statutory interpretation and analogous cases. The Court also rejected Mr. Cody's request to remand for the district court to explain its reasoning in denying his request for EAJA fees.
Posts
