Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
This text of 714 F.3d 1353 (Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
The motion for attorney’s fee is DENIED. The government’s position was substantially justified.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
714 F.3d 1353, 2013 WL 1912465, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martik-sargsyan-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2013.