and properly focus on those circumstances that are ‘relevant,’ and in particular on any circumstances that may be ‘determinative.’ ” (citations omitted)); Massie v. United States, 226 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“As a waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA is interpreted narrowly. But this is not a talisman for permitting the [Gjovernment to avoid liability in all cases.”). The Government has the burden to demonstrate that its position was substantially justified. See Scarborough, 541 U.S. 401 at 414, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (“The burden of establishing ‘that the position of the United States was substantially justified,’ ... must be shouldered by the Government.” (citations omitted)); see also RAMCOR Servs. Group v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The term “ ‘position of the United States’
holding that the statute is mandatory holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that although the eaja is not a mandatory feeshifting device the burden is on the government to prove that the litigation and agency position was reasonable in law and fact holding that the governments position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted