NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the FederaI Circuit IN RE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ' Petition.er. Misce11aneous Docket No. 111 ON PETITION _ 011 petition for writ of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsy1vania in case no. 10-CV-6908, Judge Ti1nothy J. Savage. ORDER The University of South F1orida Board of Trustees submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to vacate its order denying the motion of Bryan Cave, LLP to withdraw as counsel and to direct the district court to grant that motion Upon consideration thereof, IT IS 0RDERED THATZ The A1zheimer‘s Institute of A1nerica, Inc. is directed to respond to the petition no later than DeceInber 7, 2011. KAKUK V DVA 2 herbicides during his service in Vietnam. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied service connection, finding insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between Mr. Kakuk’s disease and his service. The Court of Ap- peals for Veterans C1aims (“Veterans Court") affirmed and Mr. Kakuk appealed to this court. While Mr. Kakuk’s appeal was pending, the Depart- ment of Veterans AEairs published a final rule affording a presumption of service connection for Parkinson’s Disease based upon exposure to herbicides. The Secretary moved, without opposition, to vacate the decision of the Veterans Court and to direct that court to remand to the Board with orders to remand to the regional office for further proceedings. The Secretary did not concede any error in its positions before the agency and Veterans Court. Nevertheless, the Secretary stated that remand was appropriate because the final rule might “provide Mr. Kakuk with the nexus currently lacking between his disability and his military service . . ." We granted the Secretary’s motion. Mr. Kakuk now seeks fees and ex- penses under the EAJA. In order to succeed in an application for fees and ex- penses under the EAJA, an applicant must show that he was a "prevailing party.” Upon such a showing, a court shall award attorney fees "unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2414(d)(1)(A). Prevailing party status requires “some relief on the meritS.” Bu.ckhcmnon, Bd. & Care Home, Inc. u. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Humcm Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001). The Supreme Court has been clear that remands by the court of appeals to district courts for further proceedings do not constitute relief on the merits or confer prevailing party status on the successful party. See Hewitt v. HeIm.s, 482 U.S. 755, 762 (1987). A different rule prevails when federal court review of administrative agencies is in-