496 (1991). Following this principle, the Court has stated consistently that fees for administrative proceedings can only be awarded under § 2412(d)(1)(A) if the district court ordered the further proceedings, and the district court action remained pending until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 96-97, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991) (reasoning that Hudson “stands for the proposition that in those cases where the district court retains jurisdiction of the civil action and contemplates entering a final judgment following the completion of administrative proceedings, a claimant may collect EAJA fees for work done at the administrative level”); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 299-300, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Our circuit has followed these decisions,
recognizing the retention of jurisdiction at the district court level in sentence six remands holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over claim for interim social security benefits during pendency of administrative proceedings holding that the plaintiffs could not recover fees for postlitigation administrative proceedings before the immigration and naturalization service because the pjroceedings under the immigration and nationality act lacked the specific features of the ssa proceedings that in hudson demonstrated the intimate tie between administrative and judicial proceedings holding that because the district court does not retain jurisdiction sentencefour social security remands do not fall within the scope of hudson and noting that the court had limited hudson to a narrow class of qualifying administrative proceedings where the district court retains jurisdiction of the civil action pending the completion of the administrative proceedings internal quotation marks and citation omitted