A federal court in Maine has awarded attorney's fees to Kevin Henao Arroyave after he successfully challenged his immigration detention. This ruling, made on October 9, 2026, is significant for noncitizens facing similar legal battles, as it reinforces their right to seek compensation for legal expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Arroyave's case stems from his detention by U.S. Border Patrol, where he had been held despite living in the United States for over four years. The court's ruling allows him to recover $5,104.33 in attorney's fees and costs, marking a victory not only for him but also for others in his situation.
The case, filed under docket number 1:26-cv-00093, highlights the ongoing legal struggles faced by noncitizens in the U.S. immigration system. The court's decision to grant fees under the EAJA is a critical step in ensuring that individuals can access legal representation without the burden of prohibitive costs.
Background
Kevin Henao Arroyave is the petitioner in this case, having filed a writ of habeas corpus against Derrick Stamper, the Chief Patrol Agent of the Houlton Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, and others. Arroyave's detention raised questions about the legality of his immigration status and the conditions under which he was held.
In February 2026, the court ruled in favor of Arroyave, stating that his detention was governed by section 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which pertains to the detention of noncitizens. This ruling allowed him to challenge his detention and seek a resolution regarding his immigration status.
The case reached the District Court of Maine after Arroyave filed for habeas corpus, arguing that his continued detention was unjust. The court's earlier ruling recognized his right to contest the legality of his detention, leading to the current motion for attorney's fees.
The Ruling
In its latest order, the court granted Arroyave's motion for attorney's fees, stating that the government had not provided substantial justification for its position against the award. The court ruled, "The position of the United States encompasses both the underlying agency action and the Government’s litigation position."
The court emphasized that the EAJA allows for the recovery of fees unless the government's position was justified or special circumstances made an award unjust. The court found that none of these exceptions applied in this case.
Judge Stacey D. Neumann presided over the case and noted that the government had previously conceded that similar arguments had been rejected in analogous cases. The court pointed out that other district courts within the First Circuit had also recognized that habeas petitions challenging immigration detention qualify as civil actions under the EAJA.
Impact
This ruling has broader implications for noncitizens facing immigration detention. By affirming the right to attorney's fees under the EAJA, the court is setting a precedent that could encourage more individuals to pursue legal action against unjust detention practices. It underscores the importance of access to legal representation for those navigating the complexities of immigration law.
As a result of this decision, noncitizens may feel empowered to challenge their detention without the fear of incurring overwhelming legal costs. The court's acknowledgment of habeas petitions as civil actions under the EAJA could lead to increased accountability for government agencies involved in immigration enforcement.
What's Next
The government has the option to appeal this decision. There is also a related case pending in the First Circuit, Bernardo-Rodrigues v. Hyde, which seeks to clarify similar issues regarding attorney's fees in immigration habeas proceedings. The outcome of these cases may further shape the landscape of immigration law and the rights of noncitizens in the United States.