## Facts

- Abdollah Naghash Souratgar and Lee Jen Fair married in Singapore in 2007 and had a son, Shayan, in 2009.
- In 2011, Lee left Singapore with Shayan and moved to the United States, asserting she fled because of Souratgar’s domestic abuse.
- Souratgar filed a petition in the Southern District of New York under the Hague Convention and ICARA seeking Shayan’s return to Singapore.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found most of Lee’s domestic-abuse claims credible, found Souratgar committed intimate partner violence against Lee, and found Lee committed no domestic abuse toward Souratgar.
- The district court nonetheless granted the return petition, and the Second Circuit affirmed the return order in an earlier appeal.
- After prevailing on the return petition, Souratgar sought “necessary expenses” under ICARA, 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3), including litigation and related costs.
- The district court awarded Souratgar $283,066.62 in expenses, rejecting Lee’s argument that an award was “clearly inappropriate” due to Souratgar’s abuse and her inability to pay.
- Lee appealed the expenses award.

## Issues

1. Whether an expenses award to a prevailing petitioner under ICARA § 9007(b)(3) was “clearly inappropriate” where the petitioner committed unilateral intimate partner violence that substantially caused the respondent’s removal of the child.
2. Whether, and how, the respondent’s inability to pay must be weighed as an equitable factor under ICARA’s “clearly inappropriate” exception.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by misweighing equitable factors when awarding $283,066.62 in expenses.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the expenses award and remanded.
- The court held that the district court abused its discretion by misassessing and misweighing equitable factors under ICARA’s “clearly inappropriate” standard.
- The court concluded the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the causal link between Souratgar’s intimate partner violence and Lee’s decision to leave Singapore with the child.
- The court directed that, on remand, the district court must properly weigh intimate partner violence and other equities, including Lee’s financial circumstances, in deciding whether any award is appropriate and, if so, in what amount.

## Legal Principles

- Under ICARA, a prevailing petitioner “shall” receive necessary expenses unless the respondent establishes the award would be “clearly inappropriate.” 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3).
- The statute creates a rebuttable presumption favoring an expenses award, subject to equitable limits.
- The “clearly inappropriate” inquiry requires courts to weigh relevant equitable factors, including (at minimum) intimate partner violence and the respondent’s financial condition.
- Where unilateral intimate partner violence substantially causes the respondent’s removal of the child, that causal connection strongly weighs against ordering the victim to pay the abuser’s expenses, even if the removal is adjudged wrongful under the Hague Convention.
- ICARA’s deterrence purpose does not justify a near-automatic award when equity, based on the case’s facts, points the other way.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated a substantial ICARA expenses award because the district court did not properly weigh the equitable significance of the petitioner’s unilateral intimate partner violence—found to be the reason for the respondent’s departure with the child—and instructed the district court on remand to reassess whether any award is clearly inappropriate, including consideration of the respondent’s ability to pay.


Souratgar v. Fair, 818 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016)