Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

1991-12-10

Headline: Court limits fee recovery by holding the fee‑recovery law does not cover administrative deportation hearings, blocking many immigrants from obtaining attorney’s fees after winning removal proceedings.

Holding: The Court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act does not authorize attorney’s fees and costs for administrative deportation hearings before the INS, so prevailing immigrants cannot recover those fees under the statute.

Real World Impact:

Prevents most immigrants who win INS hearings from recovering attorney’s fees under the EAJA.
Leaves legal costs with individuals unless Congress creates a new fee‑shifting rule.
Encourages Congress to act if fee recovery in deportation cases is desired.

Topics: immigration enforcement, attorney fees, administrative hearings, asylum and deportation

Summary

Background

Rafeh‑Rafie Ardestani, an Iranian woman of the Bahai faith, sought asylum and won relief at her INS deportation hearing. She asked the Immigration Judge for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The judge awarded fees, but the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eleventh Circuit denied recovery, concluding the EAJA does not apply to administrative deportation proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a deportation hearing is an “adjudication under section 554,” meaning governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court relied on precedent that the Immigration and Nationality Act supplies exclusive procedures for deportation and on the ordinary meaning of “under section 554.” The majority held the EAJA’s language unambiguously excludes administrative deportation proceedings and emphasized that waivers of the Government’s immunity must be strictly construed. As a result, the Court ruled that attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA are not available in these INS hearings.

Real world impact

The decision means immigrants who win in administrative deportation hearings generally cannot recover attorney’s fees from the federal government under the EAJA. Legal costs remain the responsibility of individuals unless Congress changes the law or other statutes apply. This ruling addresses only fee recovery; it does not change how asylum claims are decided on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, arguing the statute is ambiguous, the EAJA’s purpose supports fee awards in deportation cases, and that denying fees undermines access to justice for vulnerable aliens.