
    Kadhim AL-SHAIBANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants— Appellees; Faissal Al Amri, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants — Appellees; Anbar Dirir, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
    Nos. 08-35385, 08-35387, 08-35388.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2009.
    
    Filed July 29, 2009.
    Hilary Han, Vicky Dobrin, Esquire, Dobrin & Han, PC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert P. Brouillard, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Jeffrey S. Robins, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kadhim Al-Shaibani, Faissal Al Amri and Anbar Dirir (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo. See Carbonell v. INS, 429 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The facts of the cases are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

Appellants argue that the district court’s remand orders had sufficient judicial imprimatur in altering the parties’ legal relationship to render Appellants prevailing parties under EAJA. We agree with the analysis in the district court’s well-reasoned orders denying EAJA fees and costs and its orders denying reconsideration. The district court’s remand orders did not require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service “to do something directly benefiting the plaintiffi ] that [it] otherwise would not have had to do.” Id. at 900 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court correctly denied Appellants’ motions for EAJA fees and costs.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     