Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04643/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04643-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YICK HUNG SIM,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES; TOM RIDGE,

Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security; EDUARDO AGUIRRE,

Director, United States Citizenship

and Services; DAVID N. STILL,

District Director, United States

Immigration and Citizenship Services,

San Francisco; and United States

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Respondents.

 /

No. C 04-4643 CW

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS' FEES

UNDER THE EQUAL

ACCESS TO

JUSTICE ACT

Petitioner Yick Hung Sim moves for an award of attorneys' fees

and costs in the amount of $1,576.04 under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA). Respondents oppose the motion. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court DENIES

Petitioner's motion. 

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

BACKGROUND

Petitioner seeks to recover fees and costs he incurred in

litigating a petition for review filed on November 2, 2004. In

that petition, Petitioner sought review of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) denial of his

application for naturalization. According to Petitioner, the USCIS

improperly declared him ineligible for naturalization because it

failed to consider two disability waivers that would have exempted

him from the English language requirement and the requirement that

he demonstrate knowledge of United States history and government. 

The petition for review requested a de novo proceeding on

Petitioner's naturalization application and attorneys' fees and

costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

On February 16, 2005, the government filed a notice of intent

to reopen Petitioner's naturalization application for favorable

adjudication, stating that the USCIS had "reconsidered"

Petitioner's medical certifications and had approved the disability

waivers. On June 3, 2005, the government filed a notice of

favorable adjudication of Petitioner's naturalization application

and requested that the Court dismiss this action as moot. On June

13, 2005, Petitioner filed an opposition in which he requested that

the Court retain jurisdiction over his case in order to consider

his request for attorneys' fees and costs under § 2412.

Because Petitioner was scheduled to become a naturalized

United States citizen on June 21, 2005, the Court dismissed as moot

Petitioner's petition for review of the USCIS's decision and

allowed Petitioner to file an application for attorneys' fees and

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

costs in accordance with § 2412. Judgment dismissing the petition

and setting a briefing schedule for Petitioner to file this

application for attorneys' fees was entered accordingly. 

Petitioner filed a timely motion for attorneys' fees under the

EAJA on August 4, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

The EAJA states, 

A court shall award to a prevailing party other

than the United States fees and other expenses

. . . incurred by that party in any civil

action (other than cases sounding 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). 

Petitioner asserts he is a prevailing party under the EAJA

because his filing of the petition for review motivated the USCIS

to reconsider his application for naturalization.

Under the EAJA, "a party need not prevail on all issues" to be

considered a prevailing party. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. United

States Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1167 (9th Cir. 1997). A

plaintiff may be considered a "prevailing party" under the EAJA if

it "succeed[s] on any significant issue in litigation which

achieves some of the benefit [it] sought in bringing suit." United

States v. Real Property Known as 22249 Dolorosa Street, 190 F.3d

977, 981 (9th Cir. 1999)(internal quotation marks omitted). 

However, to prevail, a party must have been awarded some relief by

the courts. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001). 

This is satisfied by securing a judicially-sanctioned change in the

parties' legal relationship, through an enforceable judgment on the

merits or through a court-ordered consent decree. Id.

The argument that the plaintiff prevails "if it achieves the

desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change

in the defendant's conduct" is incorrect. Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at

610. In Buckhannon, the Court specifically rejected this "catalyst

theory" as an impermissible basis for awarding attorneys' fees. 

Id. Although Buckhannon defined "prevailing party" under the Fair

Housing Amendments Act, id. at 601, the Ninth Circuit has since

found its reasoning "persuasively applicable to an award of

attorneys' fees under the EAJA." Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.

3d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Bennett v. Yoshina, 259 F.3d

1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2001)("There can be no doubt that the Court's

analysis in Buckhannon applies to statutes other than the two at

issue in that case.")

Perez-Arellano is factually similar to this case. In PerezArellano, the court denied the petitioner's request for attorneys'

fees "because the INS voluntarily granted his application for

naturalization. His change of status was the result of the INS'

voluntary decision and was not compelled by the district court." 

279 F.3d at 795; see also Maduka v. Meissner, 114 F.3d 1240, 1242

(D.C. Cir. 1997)(attorneys' fees denied because the court did not

cause the INS to approve a visa application).

Petitioner claims he is a prevailing party because the court

intervened and issued an order on his behalf. This order, dated

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

February 22, 2005, states, 

Pursuant to respondents' notice of intent to

reopen Mr. Sim's naturalization application for

favorable adjudication, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby VACATES

the scheduling order of February 14, 2005. 

Respondents shall provide the Court with

evidence no later than March 11, 2005 of the

favorable adjudication of Mr. Sim's

naturalization application.

However, the Court's order was issued after Respondents filed on

February 16, 2005, their notice of intent to reopen Petitioner's

naturalization application for favorable adjudication. 

Petitioner's change of status in this case was due to the USCIS'

decision to reconsider his application for naturalization, not to

an enforceable order of this Court. Furthermore, the judgment

merely states that the Court will vacate the scheduling order; it

grants Petitioner no relief nor does it change his status. Thus,

Petitioner is not a "prevailing party" under the EAJA. 

Petitioner's reliance on Abela v. Gustafson and RuedaMenicucci v. INS is misplaced. In Abela, 888 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

Cir. 1989), EAJA fees were upheld because the court granted the

appellees' motion to schedule for final hearing and determination

their pending petitions for naturalization. In Rueda-Menicucci,

132 F.3d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1997), attorneys' fees were upheld when

the court remanded for further agency action an application for

asylum and withholding of deportation. In both cases, definitive

court action led to the desired result, which made the parties in

question "prevailing parties." Here, however, the USCIS acted

voluntarily. Therefore, Petitioner is not a prevailing party. 

Petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees is denied.

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for

attorneys' fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/9/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04643-CW Document 26 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 6