Phone: 312-714-2800
August 2024 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -
Recent Posts
- Immigration backlogs August 2, 2023
- Expunging, sealing criminal records, Illinois January 5, 2023
- Relief Application Waived if Not Filed by IJ’s Deadline, BIA Rules September 11, 2020
- BIA Precedent Decisions Volume 27 (3887 – 3984) Executive Office for Immigration Review 2017-2020 September 11, 2020
- CA7 finds that a deficient immigration court notice does not strip the immigration courts of authority to preside over the resulting removal proceedings May 22, 2019
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed
Links
Tweets
- Former teacher sentenced to 36 years in prison for child sexual exploitation after HSI Chicago-led investigation vi… https://t.co/KosmBAphVr 1 year
- Florida federal judge's border decision 'very harmful,' Mayorkas says - POLITICO https://t.co/J1t37ZhcYX 1 year
- New ICE program will put families under home curfew, deport those who fail asylum screenings - Los Angeles Times https://t.co/ENy1wj5nqH 1 year
- A Post-Title 42 US/Mexico Border https://t.co/XxEKPR1szC 1 year
- Immigration Article of the Day: Forced Back into the Lion's Mouth: Per Se Reporting Requirements in U.S. Asylum Law… https://t.co/tLhgEZdnNN 1 year
- From the Bookshelves: Green Card Soldier by Sofya Aptekar https://t.co/Fe9Fnk0MV5 1 year
-
Matter of MARTINEZ ESPINOZA, 25 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2009) conviction for possession or use of drug paraphernalia
Posted in BIA, Board of Immigration Appeals
Leave a comment
Lawyer Michael D. Baker – Chicago, IL Attorney – Justia Lawyer Directory
Posted in Chicago, IL Attorney, Michael D. Baker
Leave a comment
Attorneys’ fees and costs, Equal Access to Justice Act, EAJA
Potdar v. Holder, No. 06-2441 (10/21/09) Attorneys’ fees and costs, Equal Access to Justice Act, EAJA.
Potdar v. Holder (Ripple)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, arising from exclusion proceedings, is denied as, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2412, the government’s position was justified in substance or in the main.
Petitioners in immigration cases are eligible for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”). To be eligible for an award of fees, “a petitioner must show that: (1) he was a prevailing party; (2) the Government’s position was not substantially justified; (3) there existed no special circumstances that would make an award unjust; and (4) he filed a timely and complete application for fees.” Kholyavskiy v. Holder, 561 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir. 2009). To be substantially justified, the Government’s position must be “justified in substance or in the main” or “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” The Government meets this burden if: “(1) it had a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged, (2) it had a reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded, and (3) there was a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the theory propounded.” Kholyavskiy, 561 F.3d at 691 (citing Conrad v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 987, 990 (7th Cir. 2006)). The “EAJA is not an automatic fee-shifting statute in favor of litigants who prevail against the government,” Zapon v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 53 F.3d 283, 284 (9th Cir. 1995); “[t]he outcome of a case is not conclusive evidence of the justification for the government’s position,” United States v. Hallmark Const. Co., 200 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir.2000). More specific to the immigration context, a determination that part of the BIA’s decision was not supported “by substantial evidence does not foreclose the possibility that the position was substantially justified.” Howard v. Barnhart, 376 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2004). Rather, we must consider “the factual and legal support for the government’s position throughout the entire proceeding.” Hallmark Constr. Co., 200 F.3d at 1080.
exclusionary rule does not apply in removal proceedings
Krasilych v. Holder, No. 09-1026 (9/29/09) exclusionary rule, Ukrainian withholding of removal
Krasilych v. Holder (Per Curiam)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of the BIA’s denial of a Ukrainian citizen’s application for withholding of removal is denied as the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings, and here, petitioner obtained the I-551 stamp on his passport during an undercover investigation coordinated by immigration authorities.