Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 17 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:11cv939 (JCC/TCB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | JAMAL ABUSAMHADANEH, Plaintiff, v. SARAH TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jamal Abusamhadaneh's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act [Dkt. 84] (the "Motion"). For the following reasons, this Court will grant the Motion and adjust the rates and billable hours of Plaintiff's legal counsel.
The instant Motion arises out of this Court's judgment on Plaintiff's Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization Pursuant To 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and Request for De Novo Hearing [Dkt. 1] (the "Petition").
Jamal Abusamhadaneh is a natural born citizen of Jordan. (March 13, 2012 Tr. [Dkt. 49] ("Tr. I") 29:9.) He is apracticing Muslim. (Tr. I 52:19-21; 54:13-21.) He currently resides in Falls Church, Virginia. (Tr. I 29:4-7.) He lives with his wife, who obtained citizenship in 2008, and their four children. (Tr. I 44:17-45:9.)
On February 13, 2008, Mr. Abusamhadaneh submitted his N-400 Application for Naturalization (the Application) along with appropriate supporting documentation and the required fee. (Appl. [Joint Exhibit (JE) 1] at 10; Stipulation of Uncontested Facts [Dkt. 27] (Stip.) at 1.) In addition to Mr. Abusamhadaneh's signature, the Application contains the signature of his attorney, Ashraf Nubani, as the preparer of the Application. (Id.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh retained Mr. Nubani to assist with preparation of the Application and with the ensuing naturalization proceedings. (Tr. I 48:24-51:11.)
The processing of Mr. Abusamhadaneh's Application took much longer than the usual six months, so after contacting United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Mr. Abusamhadaneh threatened to file a writ of mandamus. (Tr. I 231:17-232:7.) On October 5, 2009, Mr. Abusamhadaneh finally attended his N-400 naturalization interview at the USCIS Washington District Office in Fairfax, Virginia. (Stip. at 1.) He was accompanied by Mr. Nubani. (Id.) The interview was conducted by Senior District Adjudications Officer MalgorzataLutostanski and a portion of it was videotaped.1 Mr. Abusamhadaneh's testimony was provided in two parts: before and after a ten to fifteen minute break. During the break, Mr. Abusamhadaneh and Mr. Nubani conferred outside the presence of Officer Lutostanski. The Court recounted the intricacies of the instant interview in its prior Memorandum Opinion on Jamal Abusamhadaneh's Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization ("Mem. Op.") and familiarity with that opinion is presumed. (Mem. Op. 3-6.)
On April 30, 2010, USCIS issued a decision denying Mr. Abusamhadaneh's N-400 Application ("the 2010 Decision"). (JE 11; see also JE 2.) The 2010 Decision concludes Mr. Abusamhadaneh lacked the "good moral character" required for naturalization because he provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining naturalization. (JE 11 at 2.)
On June 2, 2010, Mr. Abusamhadaneh filed a Request for a N-336 Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings with USCIS. (Stip. at 2.) In support, he submitted a sworn affidavit from himself and from Mr. Nubani in order to explain and rebut the conclusion by USCIS that he provided false testimony during the N-400 interview. (Id.) On December 29, 2010, Mr. Abusamhadaneh appeared for his N-336 hearing at the USCIS Washington District Office accompanied by Mr. Nubani. (JE 12.)He was interviewed by Senior District Adjudications Officer June Williams and the interview was videotaped. (Id.)
On July 28, 2011, USCIS issued a decision affirming the prior denial of his Application ("the 2011 Decision"). (JE 13.) The 2011 Decision, drafted by Officer Williams, concludes that "you have failed to overcome the denial of your application dated April 30, 2010, as it pertains to a finding that you are a person of good moral character." (JE 13 at 5.)
On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed their Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization Pursuant To 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and Request for De Novo Hearing. A three-day bench trial was held on March 13, 14, and 15, 2012 as to Plaintiff's Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization. After considering the relevant evidence, including exhibits and witness testimony at trial, the Court found Mr. Abusamhadaneh to be a person of good moral character and that he met the requirements for naturalization set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Familiarity with this Court's June 5, 2012, Memorandum Opinion is presumed. [Dkt. 69.]
On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses, as well as several accompanying exhibits in support. [Dkt. 84.] On September 19, 2012, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motionfor Attorney's Fees and Expenses [Dkt. 86] ("Opposition" or "Opp'n"), as well as several accompanying exhibits and affidavits in support. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply in response to Defendants' Opposition [Dkt. 87] ("Reply" or "Rep."), as well as a Supplemental Affidavit of Denyse Sabagh [Dkt. 87, Ex. 1] ("Sabagh's First Supplemental Affidavit"). On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Affidavit in Support of their Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses [Dkt. 88] ("Supplemental Affidavit" or "Supp. Aff."), as well as a second Supplemental Affidavit of Denyse Sabagh [Dkt. 88, Ex. 1] ("Sabagh's Second Supplemental Affidavit"). On November 13, 2012, the Government filed a Notice Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act [Dkt. 91] with an accompanying exhibit [Dkt. 91-1] ("Government's Notice"). On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Government's aforementioned Notice. [Dkt. 92.]
Plaintiff has moved for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), which provides that:
[A] court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than casessounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Thus, in order for the Plaintiff to become eligible for an award of attorney's fees under the EAJA, the following conditions must be met:
(1) that the claimant be a "prevailing party"; (2) that the government position was not "substantially justified"; (3) that no "special circumstances make an award unjust"; and, (4) that the fee application be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment and be supported by an itemized statement.
Broaddus v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 166 (4th Cir. 2004)(quoting Crawford v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 655, 656 (4th Cir. 1991).
In order for Plaintiff to be eligible for an award of attorney's fees, the Government's position cannot have been "substantially justified." The Government's position is substantially justified if it is "'justified in substance or in the main' — that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). It is not a requirement that the Government must win in order to prove its position substantially justified; rather, "it can be substantially justified if a reasonable person couldthink it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact." Id. at 566 n. 2. It should be noted that the Government's "position" includes both the agency level determination and the defense of that agency decision upon review by this court. See Crawford, 935 F.2d at 656 (citing I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 159 (1990)). When determining whether the position of the United States was substantially justified, courts should avoid an issue-by-issue analysis and should consider the totality of the circumstances. Roanoke River Basin Ass'n v. Hudson, 991 F.2d 132, 138-39 (4th Cir. 1993); May v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir. 1991). Courts have uniformly recognized that the burden of establishing that the position of the United States was substantially justified must be shouldered by the Government. See Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 414 (2004) () (citations omitted).
1. USCIS Decision
a. Applicable Law
It is axiomatic that the United States Government has a strong and legitimate interest in ensuring that only qualified persons are granted citizenship. Berenyi v. Dist. Dir.,Jmmigration & Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967). It should be noted that Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating their eligibility for citizenship, as "it has been universally acknowledged that the burden is on the alien applicant to show his eligibility for citizenship in every respect." Cody v. Caterisano, 631 F.3d 136, 142 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Berenyi, 385 U.S. at 637). The Supreme Court has "often stated that doubts should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant." Id. In essence, Courts have the power to confer citizenship only "in strict compliance with the terms of an authorizing statute." Id. (quoting Jmmigration & Naturalization Service v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 884 (1988). Regarding the applicable standard of proof, 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b) states:
The applicant shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial