Mora-Albarran v. Mayorkas

Background

Mora-Albarran brought an immigration case under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the denial of his application to renew his lawful permanent resident card. He sought, among other relief, an order vacating the denial, recognition of his lawful permanent resident status, and an injunction against removing him or denying him entry as a returning lawful permanent resident.

After the case was filed, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services reopened and approved the application and issued a new card. The government then moved to dismiss the case as moot, meaning that no live dispute remained for the court to resolve. The court denied that motion because the government had not shown that the application would not be denied again based on the allegedly invalid form. After that ruling, the government canceled the form and issued a memorandum stating that it would not be considered in future agency decisions.

The court then granted the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Mora-Albarran’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that canceling the form eliminated the possibility that it would again be used to deny a card renewal, so Mora-Albarran had received all relief available in the case and the court lacked jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.

Fee Motion

Mora-Albarran requested $26,665 in attorney’s fees and $466.35 in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government argued that he was not a prevailing party, that the government’s position was substantially justified, and that the requested fees were excessive and unreasonable.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a party generally must be a “prevailing party” to seek fees. The court explained that this requires both a material change in the parties’ legal relationship and a court-approved entitlement to relief. A party must be able to require the opposing party to do something it otherwise would not have been required to do.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Mora-Albarran was not a prevailing party. Although the government changed its conduct after the court denied the motion to dismiss, the government acted voluntarily. The earlier order only addressed whether the case was moot; it did not require the government to cancel the form or take any other action.

The court rejected Mora-Albarran’s argument that the order denying dismissal was comparable to a remand order or an interim award. Those types of orders can provide enforceable relief, but the order in this case did not grant any relief that Mora-Albarran had requested. The court also rejected the argument that the lawsuit’s role in prompting the government’s actions made him a prevailing party under a “catalyst” theory, explaining that the Supreme Court had rejected that theory.

The court further explained that its later summary-judgment ruling could not provide enforceable relief because it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on mootness grounds. The government’s statements about not using the form in future decisions did not turn the judgment in the government’s favor into a judicial sanction for Mora-Albarran.

Disposition

Judge Corley denied Mora-Albarran’s motion for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The order terminated the fee motion docket entry.