Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jerson A.D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States;
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of the
United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David Easterwood, in
his official capacity as Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-516 (DWF/SGE)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jerson A.D.G.’s motion for attorneys’
fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. No. 10.) Respondents
oppose. (Doc. No. 17.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion and
awards attorneys’ fees to Petitioner’s counsel in the amount of $4,125.70.
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 2026, Petitioner was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”) the same day. (Id. at 19.) On January 27, 2026, the Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00516-DWF-SGE Doc. 18 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 4

2
granted the Petition and ordered Petitioner’s immediate release from custody. (Doc.
No. 7 at 6.)
Petitioner now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the EAJA,
28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,125.70. (Doc. No. 10 at 1.) Petitioner’s counsel
represented him on a pro bono basis and has thus far received no payment for time and
costs expended. (Doc. No. 14 ¶¶ 4-5.) Petitioner has a net worth of under $2,000,000.
(Id. ¶ 4.)
DISCUSSION
The EAJA provides that a court shall award fees, costs, and other expenses
incurred by the prevailing party in a civil action against the United States1 “unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special
circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The “position of the
United States” includes both the underlying agency action and the litigation position. Id.
§ 2412(d)(2)(D). The purpose of the EAJA is to eliminate, for the average person,
barriers to challenging unreasonable governmental actions. Comm’r, Immigr. &
Naturalization Serv. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990).
A party seeking an award must apply for fees within thirty days of the final
judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). In the application, they must establish that they
1 	For purposes of the EAJA, the “United States” includes both agencies and any
official acting in their official capacity. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(C). Respondents are
agents of the United States acting in their official capacity, so this action was against the
United States.
CASE 0:26-cv-00516-DWF-SGE Doc. 18 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 4

3
were the prevailing party and are eligible to receive an award, detail the amount of the
award sought, and allege that the position of the United States was not substantially
justified. Id. If the prevailing party meets their burden, the burden shifts to the
government to prove that it was substantially justified. Huett v. Bowen, 873 F.2d 1153,
1155 (8th Cir. 1989). Respondents do not dispute that Petitioner is the prevailing party,
nor do they challenge the amount of fees requested. (See Doc. No. 17.) The only
question for the Court is whether Respondents’ position was substantially justified.
To be substantially justified, the government’s argument need not be correct, but it
must be “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v.
Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 683-84 (8th Cir.
2008). A court determines whether the position of the United States was substantially
justified “on the basis of the record.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
Here, Respondents justified Petitioner’s detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1159.2 (Doc.
No. 5.) In doing so, Respondents acted in direct opposition to their own guidance and in
disregard of clear caselaw. (See Doc. No. 7 at 4-6 (explaining the deficiencies in
Respondents’ arguments).) That is unreasonable governmental conduct.
Respondents contend that their position was substantially justified because it is an
unsettled issue in the Eighth Circuit. (Doc. No. 17 at 3-4 (citing U.H.A. v. Bondi,
No. 26-cv-417, 2026 WL 558824 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2026)).) It is true that unsettled law
2 	Respondents’ position captures both the underlying agency action and the
litigation position. For the same reasons that the litigation strategy failed, the underlying
action of arresting and detaining Petitioner was not substantially justified.
CASE 0:26-cv-00516-DWF-SGE Doc. 18 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 4

4
may justify a denial of fees under the EAJA. Bah, 548 F.3d at 684. However, the Court
disagrees that the legal framework regarding detention of refugees is unsettled. In
U.H.A., Judge Tunheim made it abundantly clear that the government’s “position flatly
contradicts the plain meaning of § 1159(a) and contravenes forty-five years of agency
practice.” 2026 WL 558824, at *1. The law is settled and Respondents violated it.
The Court finds that Respondents were not substantially justified in arguing that
Petitioner could be detained pursuant to § 1159, nor in the underlying detention of
Petitioner. The Court therefore awards $4,125.70 to Petitioner’s counsel for the work on
this case.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. No. [10]) is GRANTED.
2. 	Petitioner’s attorney is awarded $4,125.70 in fees.
Dated: March 19, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00516-DWF-SGE Doc. 18 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 4