Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran

Background

Innova challenged the decision by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denying its petition for an H-1B visa for its intended beneficiary, Dilip Dodda. The district court initially denied Innova’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to USCIS. Innova appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. Innova then moved for $148,625 in attorney fees and $1,580.34 in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a law that can require the government to pay a qualifying prevailing party’s fees unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unfair.

The opinion states that the parties also disputed USCIS decisions involving two other beneficiaries, but the district court adjudicated the summary-judgment motions concerning Mr. Dodda. The parties had consented to final adjudication by a magistrate judge.

Eligibility for Fees

Under the EAJA, a corporation seeking fees must have had no more than 500 employees and a net worth of no more than $7 million when the action was filed. Innova submitted evidence stating that it had approximately 144 employees and a net worth of $1,054,381 on June 27, 2017. USCIS questioned whether the financial condition of Innova’s foreign affiliates should also be considered.

The court found that the record supported treating Innova as a separate entity from its Indian affiliate. Because USCIS presented no authority or evidence showing that the affiliates’ finances should be included, the court found that Innova satisfied the EAJA’s definition of an eligible party.

Whether the Government’s Position Was Substantially Justified

USCIS had the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified, meaning supported by a reasonable basis in law and fact. The dispute concerned whether Mr. Dodda’s position qualified as a specialty occupation under the H-1B regulations. In particular, the parties disagreed about whether information stating that “most” computer programmers have bachelor’s degrees supported USCIS’s conclusion that a bachelor’s degree was not normally required for the position.

The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s finding that USCIS’s reasoning was arbitrary and capricious. The Ninth Circuit had concluded that there was no rational connection between the source cited by USCIS and the agency’s decision. The district court therefore found that USCIS had not shown that its agency decision or litigation position was substantially justified.

Amount of the Fee Award

Innova requested enhanced attorney rates of $450 per hour. The EAJA generally limits fees to $125 per hour, subject to adjustments such as cost-of-living increases and certain special factors. The court found that David Sturman and David Wulkan had distinctive immigration-law knowledge and skills that were necessary for this litigation, which involved a recent change in USCIS policy concerning H-1B petitions and the agency’s interpretation of the Occupational Outlook Handbook. The court approved the requested $450 hourly rate for their work.

The court found that Innova had not shown that Jonathan Sturman had the distinctive specialized skills required for an enhanced rate. His work was therefore compensated at the EAJA rate with a cost-of-living adjustment, and his travel time was compensated at $200 per hour.

The court generally found the attorneys’ hours reasonable. But where a single time entry grouped the work of multiple attorneys without showing each attorney’s time, the court divided the total time equally among them. The court also deducted 0.5 hours of paralegal time because the work was clerical, including formatting and filing. It awarded $1,225 for the paralegal’s remaining work.

Disposition

The court found Innova’s itemized costs reasonable and awarded the requested $1,580.34 in costs. It granted in part and denied in part Innova’s motion for EAJA fees and costs, awarding $92,008.11 in fees and $1,580.34 in costs, for a total award of $93,588.45.