Valadez Moran v. Mayorkas
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-02323
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Valadez Moran v. Mayorkas, Judge Nelson denied attorney-fee and cost requests because the Government’s position was substantially justified.
Adrian Valadez Moran was denied attorney fees and costs after prevailing in the underlying citizenship case; the Government avoided an EAJA fee award because the court found its position substantially justified.
What happened
Valadez Moran v. Mayorkas concerned Adrian Valadez Moran’s request for attorney fees and costs after he won a judgment declaring that he is a United States citizen.
The Government had opposed his citizenship claim based partly on statements that his mother was born in Mexico and that he had previously said he and his parents were Mexican citizens. The court had rejected that position after finding other evidence more convincing and determining that some witnesses were not credible.
Judge Nelson denied the request under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the Government’s position, although incorrect, had a reasonable basis in the facts and depended on disputed witness credibility. The court also found that the requests under other fee provisions were undeveloped and waived.
The detailed version
- Valadez Moran v. Mayorkas · No. 0:21-cv-02323
- Susan Nelson
- Nov. 22, 2024
Background
Adrian Valadez Moran sought attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, after prevailing in a bench trial against Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Leslie Tritten. In the earlier proceeding, the court entered a declaratory judgment stating that Valadez Moran is a United States citizen because his mother was a United States citizen who had met the physical-presence requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g).
The citizenship case turned on whether Valadez Moran’s mother was born in the United States. Valadez Moran presented testimony, affidavits, birth certificates, and a court-ordered Texas birth certificate. The Government relied in part on a 2023 sworn statement by Valadez Moran’s grandmother saying that his mother was born in Mexico, and on a 2015 statement by Valadez Moran that he and his parents were Mexican citizens. After weighing the evidence, the court found the grandmother’s statement not credible and found credible Valadez Moran’s testimony explaining his earlier statement.
EAJA standard
The EAJA generally requires an award of fees and expenses to a prevailing party who is not the United States unless the Government shows that its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances would make an award unjust. A position is substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in law and fact, even if it is ultimately incorrect. The court noted that substantial justification is especially likely when a case turns on factual disputes and witness credibility.
Ruling
The court held that the Government’s position was substantially justified. Although the Government was wrong on the citizenship issue, its position had a reasonable factual basis because of the grandmother’s statement and Valadez Moran’s earlier statement. The result depended importantly on the court’s credibility determinations. The court therefore denied Valadez Moran’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Under the EAJA.
The court also addressed Valadez Moran’s references to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and (b). It found that his request under those provisions was undeveloped and therefore waived because he identified neither qualifying costs under § 1920 nor an applicable common-law exception allowing fees.
Disposition
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act was DENIED.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.