Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01856-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

IQRA AFZAL and MUZAMMAL ASLAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL POMPEO, Secretary of 

State of the United States; CARL 

RISCH, Assistant Secretary for 

Consular Affairs; EDWARD J. 

RAMOTOWSKI, Administrative

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Visa Services; ANTJE WEYGANDT, 

Acting Director, National Visa 

Center; PAUL W. JONES, 

Ambassador, United States

Embassy, Islamabad, Pakistan; 

JOHN HOOVER, Deputy Chief of 

Mission, United States Embassy, 

Pakistan; KEVIN McALEENAN,

Acting Secretary, United States 

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services; KENNETH CUCCINELLI, 

Acting Director, United States 

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services; CHRISTOPHER WRAY, 

Director, Federal Bureau Of 

Investigations;

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01856 WBS AC

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-01856-WBS-AC Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 5
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

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Iqra Afzal and her husband, Muzammal Aslam, 

filed a petition for writ of mandamus before this court to compel 

various government officials to adjudicate Mr. Aslam’s I-130 

immigrant visa application. (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) Defendants 

adjudicated the application and issued the visa while the 

petition was pending. (Mot. for Attorney’s Fees (“Mot.”) at 4

(Docket No. 15).) Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorney’s 

fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Id.) 

Ms. Afzal is a United States citizen. (Compl., Ex. A.) 

She married Mr. Aslam, a citizen of Pakistan, on July 5, 2017. 

(Id.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Afzal filed a Form I-130 visa 

application for her husband to join her in the United States. 

(Compl. at 2.) United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services approved the petition and forwarded it to the National 

Visa Center, where it was then sent to the United States Embassy 

in Pakistan. (Id.) Despite completing his visa interview, Mr. 

Aslam’s visa was delayed due to “administrative processing.” 

(Compl. at 3.) Plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus seeking to 

compel adjudication of the application. (Id.) The parties then 

stipulated to two extensions of time for the defendants to answer

the complaint. (Docket Nos. 7, 10.) However, after defendants 

voluntarily adjudicated the application, the parties stipulated 

to dismiss the matter on January 27, 2020. (Docket No. 13.) 

This motion for attorney’s fees and costs followed. 

EAJA was designed to reduce the disparity in resources 

between individuals and the government “by entitling certain 

Case 2:19-cv-01856-WBS-AC Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 5
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

prevailing parties to recover an award of attorney fees, expert 

witness fees and other expenses against the United States unless 

the government action was substantially justified.” H.R. Rep. 

No. 1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in, 1980 U.S. Code 

Cong. & Admin. News 4984, 4984. Under the statute, plaintiffs

are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if: (1) they are the 

prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its 

position was substantially justified; (3) the government fails to 

show special circumstances make an award unjust; and (4) the 

requested fees and costs are reasonable. Carbonell v. I.N.S., 

429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). 

The parties dispute whether plaintiffs are a 

“prevailing party.” (Compare Mot. at 7 with Opp. at 2 (Docket 

No. 16).) In order to be a prevailing party, plaintiffs must (1) 

achieve a “‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the 

parties’” and (2) the “alteration must be ‘judicially 

sanctioned’.” Carbonell, 429 F.3d at 898 (quoting Buckhannon Bd. 

& Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 

532 U.S. 598, 604-05 (2001)). A “material alteration” requires 

achieving “actual relief, not merely a determination of legal 

merit.” Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). The relief “must be 

relief that the would-be prevailing party sought.” Id. 

Furthermore, it must be obtained through “judicial imprimatur.” 

Id. at 1031. “[A] plaintiff is not a prevailing party if it only 

achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a 

voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct.” Id. (quoting 

Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601) (internal modifications omitted). 

Case 2:19-cv-01856-WBS-AC Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 5
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

Judicial imprimatur empowers “one party to require the other 

party to do something it otherwise would not be required to do.” 

Id. (internal citations and modifications omitted). 

Plaintiffs argue they are a prevailing party because 

Mr. Aslam’s application was adjudicated after this court gave 

defendants a deadline to file an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. 

(Mot. at 9.) Defendants argue granting the parties’ stipulation 

to extend time did not set a deadline or amount to a material 

alteration in the legal status between the parties. (Opp. at 3.) 

The court agrees with defendants. 

Here, the court did not order the agency to adjudicate 

the visa application by a particular date, or at all. Defendants 

voluntarily adjudicated Mr. Aslam’s visa application without the 

court’s intervention. Indeed, the court did not even consider 

the complaint’s merits -- it simply agreed to allow the 

defendants’ additional time to respond to the complaint. While 

the adjudication of the application is the relief the plaintiffs 

sought, the court is not responsible for the “voluntary change in 

the defendant’s conduct.” See Klamath, 589 F.3d at 1030 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601). Accordingly, 

because plaintiffs are not a prevailing party in this action 

their motion for attorney’s fees and their bill of costs to 

recover the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee will be 

denied.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for 

1 Because the court finds the plaintiffs are not a 

prevailing party, the court expresses no opinion as to whether 

the government’s actions were substantially justified. 

Case 2:19-cv-01856-WBS-AC Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 5
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

attorney’s fees (Docket No. 15) and accompanying bill of costs 

(Docket No. 14) be, and the same thereby are, DENIED.

Dated: April 15, 2020

 

Case 2:19-cv-01856-WBS-AC Document 17 Filed 04/15/20 Page 5 of 5