party in any civil action ... including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). B. Governing Precedent. The EAJA “allows a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees, unless the position of the [Gjovernment was substantially justified.” Bowey v. West, 218 F.3d 1373, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)). Prevailing party status, however, does not automatically render the Government’s position not substantially justified. See Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 415, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court has defined
holding that admissions by debtor established that landlords case was substantially justified holding that congress did not want the substantially justified standard to be read to raise a presumption that the government position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case citations omitted holding that the governments position must be justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person and have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted holding that in order to establish bad faith claim under hyde amendment criminal defendant must show more than that governments position was not substantially justified holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact