Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01610/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01610-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamal Atalla,

Petitioner, 

vs.

John Kramer, District Director of United

States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, and United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-01610-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

(Doc. 121). Reconsideration of a prior order is appropriate in very limited circumstances. 

A court should reconsider its ruling if it is presented with newly discovered evidence,

shown that it committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. 

See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or, v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993). Respondents do not offer newly discovered evidence or note an intervening

change in controlling law. 

Respondents request reconsideration of the order granting Petitioner attorneys’

fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. 119.) Under the EAJA, the

government bears the burden of proving the special circumstances or substantial

justification exceptions to the mandatory award of fees under the EAJA to an eligible

party. Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 2:09-cv-01610-NVW Document 122 Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Respondents contend their litigation position was substantially justified because a

reasonable person considering the record “as a whole” could conclude Petitioner provided

false and misleading sworn testimony during his three naturalization interviews. The

Court made detailed, specific findings of fact regarding Petitioner’s three sworn oral

statements, including lengthy excerpts from transcripts of the recorded interviews, which

support its conclusion that Petitioner did not give false sworn oral testimony with the

subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. (Doc. 99 at 10-20.) In their motion for

reconsideration, Respondents have not identified any clear error in those findings, but

instead urge reconsideration of whether Petitioner made false written statements on his

application for naturalization and “played an elaborate game of semantics throughout his

naturalization proceedings.” This argument was previously presented, considered, and

rejected.

Respondents further contend that “USCIS was not so far afield that it deserves to

pay EAJA fees.” Award of fees under the EAJA is not a sanction imposed on the

government when it deserves punishment. Rather, the EAJA mandates fee awards unless

the government proves an exception. Here, it did not.

Respondents also contend that special circumstances counsel against an award of

EAJA fees because the USCIS believed Petitioner posed a threat to national security and

it should be allowed “greater latitude in cases where USCIS is vigorously defending

against the naturalization of an alien with a nexus to national security.” Respondents

state that their “litigation position is often driven by third-agency information upon which

it is not authorized to reveal [or] rely upon in its defense,” leaving them “empty handed”

when it comes to matters of proof at trial, but they should not be forced to accede to the

granting of immigration benefits to known or suspected terrorists. Our justice system,

however, requires courts to make findings based on admitted evidence, not by speculating

about possible evidence not admitted or even offered. Whether Respondents choose to

oppose naturalization of an individual based on evidence they cannot or will not reveal is

a policy decision they are free to make, but their policy decision, without more, does not

Case 2:09-cv-01610-NVW Document 122 Filed 01/18/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

constitute special circumstances making an award unjust under the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(1)(A). Creating a national security exception to the EAJA is the responsibility

of Congress, not of this Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (Doc. 121) is denied.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-01610-NVW Document 122 Filed 01/18/12 Page 3 of 3