Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Zapon family against the denial of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) following their unsuccessful challenge to a deportation order. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed whether the government's opposition to their claims was 'substantially justified,' which would preclude an award of fees under the EAJA. The Zapons were not notified of their deportation hearing and failed to appear, resulting in an order issued in absentia. Despite a legal amendment that should have automatically stayed their deportation pending a motion to reopen, the Zapons' decision to evade compliance with the order without seeking immediate judicial relief was a critical factor in the denial of their stay request. The court found that their actions rendered them fugitives, limiting their ability to contest the order. The court applied the 'substantial justification' and 'special circumstances' criteria universally to the family, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision by Senior United States District Judge Milton I. Shadur. The ruling underscores the principle that self-help actions in defiance of court orders are impermissible.
Legal Issues Addressed
Automatic Stay of Deportation under Legal Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite a legal amendment mandating an automatic stay of deportation for aliens not notified of their hearing, the Zapons' failure to comply with the deportation order and seek immediate relief led to denial of their stay request.
Reasoning: A legal amendment mandated that a motion to reopen deportation proceedings automatically stays deportation if the alien was not notified. However, the Zapons went into hiding rather than challenging the deportation order through available legal means, creating a 'Catch-22' dilemma.
Compliance with Court Orders and Self-Help Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Zapons' evasion of the deportation order without seeking judicial relief was deemed impermissible, resulting in the denial of their request for a stay.
Reasoning: Federal courts generally require compliance with existing court orders, even if they are believed to be mistakenly issued, unless the order has been vacated or reversed.
Denial of Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the government's position was 'substantially justified,' thus precluding the award of attorney's fees to the Zapon family under the EAJA.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on whether the government’s position was 'substantially justified,' which under EAJA can preclude fee awards if the court finds so or if special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust.
Fugitive Status and Access to Court Resourcessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Zapons' status as fugitives from a lawful deportation order limited their ability to contest claims through court resources.
Reasoning: An alien who fails to surrender to the INS after a lawful deportation order is considered a fugitive from justice, despite not being a fugitive in a criminal context.
Substantial Justification and Special Circumstancessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the 'substantial justification' and 'special circumstances' criteria universally to the Zapon family, affirming the government's opposition to their stay request.
Reasoning: Given these complexities, it was reasonable for the courts to apply the 'substantial justification' and 'special circumstances' criteria universally.