U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013

Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 9, 2013 · Farris, Noonan, Bybee
714 F.3d 1353; 2013 WL 1912465; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Opinion

ORDER

The motion for attorney’s fee is DENIED. The government’s position was substantially justified.

NOONAN, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur because the statute is clear. I regret the result. An able and experienced lawyer who devoted substantial time to aid persons threatened with deportation is denied remuneration for her services. At the very least, we should be able to postpone a decision on the fees until the conclusion of the case. The EAJA does not work well when it compels a court to cut off compensation of careful and effective advocacy.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.