Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05329/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05329-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed June 13, 1997

No. 96-5329

OBINNA MADUKA,

APPELLANT

v.

DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 94cv01085)

-

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

-

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig 

Lawrence and Diane M. Sullivan, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, were on the motion for summary affirmance for 

appellee.

USCA Case #96-5329 Document #278776 Filed: 06/13/1997 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Margot J. Champagne was on the opposition to the motion 

for summary affirmance for appellant.

Before: WALD, WILLIAMS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service ("INS") has moved for summary affirmance of the 

district court's denial of Obinna Maduka's petition for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ("EAJA"). Because the complaint 

Maduka filed in district court was not the cause of the relief 

he obtained from the INS, Maduka was not a "prevailing 

party" within the meaning of EAJA. Accordingly, we grant 

the motion for summary affirmance.

I. BACKGROUND

This case stems from Obinna Maduka's efforts to obtain 

administrative review of a July 28, 1992 INS decision to deny 

him a visa petition on the ground he had entered into a 

marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 

In December 1993, Maduka's counsel notified the INS she 

intended to file a district court complaint to compel the 

agency to take action on Maduka's appeal from that decision. 

INS Baltimore District Counsel George Maugans discovered 

that the file had been transferred to the Detroit District 

Office and then lost. The file was located and forwarded to 

Maugans in mid-January 1994.

Maugans promised to shepherd the appeal through the 

administrative review process as expeditiously as possible. 

Maduka's lawyer indicated she was attempting to obtain 

additional evidence of the validity of Maduka's marriage, and 

requested that Maugans not present the file until he received 

that evidence. Maugans agreed. Counsel submitted the 

additional evidence on April 5, 1994, and Maugans presented 

the file to the Assistant District Director, who denied the 

petition. On May 16, Maduka filed a complaint in district 

court seeking an order compelling INS to reverse its denial of 

his visa petition, or to forward the appeal within ten days to 

the Administrative Appeals Unit, with instructions that it be 

USCA Case #96-5329 Document #278776 Filed: 06/13/1997 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

decided within ten days. Sometime in mid-May, Maugans 

forwarded the file to the Administrative Appeals Unit with a 

request that the appeal be considered on an expedited basis. 

On June 2, 1994, the visa petition was approved.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss Maduka's complaint 

as moot. The district court granted the motion except as to 

Maduka's claim for fees and costs, a claim it ultimately denied 

on the ground that the filing of the civil complaint had not 

caused INS to approve the visa application. The district 

court also held that the government's position was substantially justified and that special circumstances existed making 

an award of attorney's fees unjust. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS 

Under EAJA, the United States is liable for attorney's fees 

and costs in civil actions to a "prevailing party ... 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). A party has "prevailed" 

if: (1) the party received a significant part of the relief it 

sought; and (2) the lawsuit was a catalytic, necessary or 

substantial factor, see Tucson Medical Center v. Sullivan, 947 

F.2d 971, 982 (D.C. Cir. 1991), in obtaining that result. 

"[T]he claimant must show that it is more probable than not 

that the government would not have performed the desired 

act absent the lawsuit." Public Citizen Health Research 

Group v. Young, 909 F.2d 546, 550 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

It is clear Maduka ultimately received the relief he filed his 

lawsuit to obtain. Maduka has not demonstrated, however, 

that the lawsuit was a necessary or substantial factor in 

obtaining that result. Maduka argued in district court that 

"what Plaintiff could not get done between August 7, 1992 

and December 16, 1993, he accomplished seventeen days after 

filing this lawsuit"in other words, that his filing of the 

lawsuit induced INS to act on his appeal. This contention, 

however, rests squarely upon the post hoc ergo propter hoc

fallacy. Although it is true the agency acted on Maduka's 

appeal soon after he filed his lawsuit, it does not follow that 

the lawsuit caused that action. See Public Citizen, 909 F.2d 

USCA Case #96-5329 Document #278776 Filed: 06/13/1997 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1Moreover, the additional documentation, not the lawsuit, was 

apparently the chief basis for granting the visa petition. 

at 551 ("Although chronology is important in determining 

causation (citations omitted), it is by no means dispositive...."). In fact, it appears the accelerated pace of events 

of the spring of 1994 was due to the completion of the file, 

and the efforts of Maugans, rather than to the filing of the 

complaint: INS took final action on the visa petition promptly 

on the submission of the new evidence.1 Under these circumstances, the district court's finding of lack of causation was 

not clearly erroneous. See Public Citizen, 909 F.2d at 549. 

Because Maduka was not, therefore, a prevailing party under 

EAJA, we affirm the denial of attorney's fees.

So ordered.

USCA Case #96-5329 Document #278776 Filed: 06/13/1997 Page 4 of 4