Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-796, 2016 WL 3127209 (E.D. La. June 2, 2016) (Lemelle, J.)

Date: 
Thursday, June 2, 2016

Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-796, 2016 WL 3127209 (E.D. La. June 2, 2016) (Lemelle, J.)

Re: Request for plaintiff's client's I-485 Receipt Notice

Disposition: Denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees

  • Attorney Fees, Entitlement: The court holds that "[plaintiff] is not entitled to attorney's fees under FOIA."  The court notes that, while "there appears to be a causal nexus between this action and the agency's release of the requested I-485 receipt notice" because "USCIS essentially admits that, but for this lawsuit, it would not have conducted the supplemental search that located the requested document," "this Court need not decide that issue because it is clear that [plaintiff] is not entitled to attorney's fees."  Regarding plaintiff's entitlement to attorney fees, the court first finds that "the I-485 receipt notice will not assist citizens in making vital political choices in any conceivable way" and, "[a]ccordingly, the public benefit here has not been shown and the first and most important factor weighs against awarding attorney's fees."  The court explains that "[it] cannot fathom any way in which [this] request sheds light on immigration policies."  Second, the court finds that, while "[i]t is evident that [plaintiff] received some indirect commercial benefit through receipt of the document because he is now able to more effectively advocate for his client and maintain the reputation of his law practice, which is undeniably a commercial endeavor," "that commercial benefit is insubstantial, meaning this factor militates in favor of awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees."  Third, the court finds that "[t]he primary interest here was obtaining a fair hearing for [plaintiff's client] by presenting all relevant documentation."  "And while that interest does not confer a significant public benefit (as discussed above), it does show that [plaintiff] did not enter into this lawsuit solely for personal reasons."  "Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of granting attorney's fees."  Fourth, the court notes that it "found no FOIA violations by USCIS" and, "[a]ccordingly, [finds that] there were no unreasonable withholdings by the government and this fourth factor militates in favor of denying attorney's fees."  Overall, "[b]ecause the first factor is arguably the most significant, . . . and because USCIS did not employ 'the sort of dilatory litigation tactics that [the attorneys' fees] provision was aimed to prevent,' . . . this Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees."
Topic: 
Attorney Fees
District Court
Updated September 16, 2016