Ibrahim v. Sessions

Background

Ibrahim filed a petition challenging his continued immigration detention while he awaited removal. The court previously ordered that he be released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody because there was no significant likelihood that he would be removed in the foreseeable future. After that judgment became final, Ibrahim moved for $4,736.90 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the government to pay fees when a qualifying party wins a civil case against it.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Ibrahim filed his fee motion on time. The Equal Access to Justice Act required the motion to be filed within 30 days after the judgment became final and no longer appealable. The court determined that the appeal period ended on January 14, 2019, and that Ibrahim’s February 13, 2019, filing was exactly 30 days later.

The court also found that Ibrahim was a “prevailing party,” meaning that a court had awarded him relief that changed the legal relationship between the parties. The government argued that Ibrahim had merely been returned to his prior position and that the case had been sent back to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to establish conditions for supervised release. The court rejected that characterization, explaining that the court had ordered Ibrahim’s release and that release was the relief he sought.

The court further ruled that the government’s position was not substantially justified. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, detention after the removal period cannot continue longer than reasonably necessary to accomplish removal, and detention is presumptively reasonable for six months after the removal period begins. The court concluded that this six-month period had expired well before the case ended and that the government lacked a reasonable factual basis for believing that Ibrahim was likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court also found no special circumstances making a fee award unjust.

Fee award and order

The court approved the requested $202 hourly rate as a reasonable cost-of-living-adjusted rate under the Act. It noted a mathematical error in counsel’s time log: the listed entries totaled 23 hours and 27 minutes rather than 20 hours and 32 minutes. The court nevertheless stated that the requested fee total was correctly calculated. It also noted that counsel had not provided a statement supporting a separate costs award, although the final order awarded $4,736.90 in attorney’s fees and costs.

The court granted Ibrahim’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, awarded $4,736.90, and ordered the government to pay the award directly to Ibrahim rather than to his attorney.