Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SANTO ALBERTO BUMBILA IZA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 6:25-cv-03392-MDH
)
JIM C. ARNOTT, et. al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER ON EAJA FEES
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Under EAJA. (Doc.
10). The matter is now ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
based on his statutory arguments regarding the Immigration Nationality Act and his detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a). 	The Court found that the Government’s position was not
substantially justified and that Petitioner may pursue an award of fees under the EAJA.
STANDARD
A party seeking attorney’s fees and expenses under EAJA must, within thirty (30) days of
the entry of a final judgment, file a fee application with the Court that: (1) demonstrates the
applicant is the “prevailing party” and eligible to receive an award; (2) shows the amount sought,
including an itemized statement of the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other
expenses were computed; and (3) alleges the “position of the United States” was not substantially
justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
Case 6:25-cv-03392-MDH Document 13 Filed 09/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ANALYSIS
I. 	Eligibility
To receive an attorney fee under EAJA, an individual cannot have a net worth in excess of
$2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed. § 2412(d)(2)(B)(i). Petitioner states that he meets
the eligibility requirement, which the Government does not dispute. 	Accordingly, Petitioner
satisfies this requirement because he does not have a net worth above the statutory limit.
II. 	Prevailing Party
This Court granted Petitioner’s habeas petition. The parties do not dispute that Petitioner
was the “prevailing party” in this habeas action and that Petitioner submitted a statement of
attorney’s fees incurred. Thus, Petitioner was the prevailing party in this habeas action.
III. 	Substantially Justified
To avoid liability under EAJA for attorney’s fees, the Government bears the burden of
showing that its position, including its pre-litigation conduct, was substantially justified. Bah v.
Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 684 (8th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(D) (defining “position of the
United States” to include its pre-litigation conduct). “Substantially justified” means “justified in
the substance or in the main—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.”
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (cleaned up). The Government’s position must
have “a reasonable basis both in law and fact.” Id.
The Court acknowledges the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Avila v. Bondi, 2026 WL 819258
(8th Cir. March 25, 2026). 	While the statutory grounds upon which Petitioner’s motion was
granted has, for the past twenty-nine years and five presidential administrations, been interpreted
to mean that he was entitled to a bond hearing during his removal proceedings, the new presidential
administration has adopted a novel interpretation of that statutory scheme.
Case 6:25-cv-03392-MDH Document 13 Filed 09/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
To this Court’s surprise, a divided panel of the Eighth Circuit recently agreed with this
administration’s interpretation, in a decision still subject to appeal. 	Other circuit courts have
rejected the novel interpretation consistent with this Court and hundreds of other district courts
across the country. At this time, however, this Court is bound by the panel’s interpretation of the
statutory scheme, which effectively prevents this Court from finding that Respondents’ position
was not substantially justified. Thus, the fee motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION
While Petitioner was a prevailing party, the Government’s position has subsequently been
justified by the Eighth Circuit. 	Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner’s motion is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for EAJA Fees is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 2, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-03392-MDH Document 13 Filed 09/02/26 Page 3 of 3