justification must be based on the entire record of proceedings and can be made even when the government’s litigating position raises an issue of first impression. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.2001) (“[T]here is no per se rule that EAJA fees cannot be awarded where the government’s litigation position contains an issue of first impression.”); United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584, 588-89 (11th Cir.1995) (rejecting the government’s contention that its position was substantially justified because it raised a question of first impression); Dalles Irrigation Dist., 91 Fed.Cl. at 698 (same). Moreover, even if prior administrative decisions had supported the government’s position, that position would not necessarily be reasonable. See Geo-Seis, 79 Fed.Cl. at 77-78 (<HOLDING>). Here, however, question of substantial
holding the governments actions were not substantially justified despite numerous decisions by gao supporting the governments position where gaos prior decisions were contrary to explicit regulations holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions holding that decisions by prior panels are binding holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board