Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

714 F.3d 1353, 2013 WL 1912465, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 9, 2013·No. 08-72040·Published

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 714 F.3d 1353, 2013 WL 1912465, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

714 F.3d 1353 (Martik Sargsyan v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.