Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lazycis

    Would you mind telling me why you were recommending Attorney Amy M. Tehauno to Houston Folks?

    I have seen and talked to over 8 attorneys around here. I believe this made it much harder for me to pick the right one. Each one has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to WoM.

    I also believe that my case is much harder because I have not had an interview, So I really need a very smart and clever attorney who has done it before and preferably has some good connections with CIS or the AUSA.

    Any thoughts on that?

    Very Grateful

    --------------------------------
    N400 @ TSC
    PD: 11/??/06
    FP: 12/??/06
    ID: ????????
    OD: ////////

    Comment


    • Originally posted by N400-Misery View Post
      Would you mind telling me why you were recommending Attorney Amy M. Tehauno to Houston Folks?

      I have seen and talked to over 8 attorneys around here. I believe this made it much harder for me to pick the right one. Each one has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to WoM.

      I also believe that my case is much harder because I have not had an interview, So I really need a very smart and clever attorney who has done it before and preferably has some good connections with CIS or the AUSA.

      Any thoughts on that?

      Very Grateful

      --------------------------------
      N400 @ TSC
      PD: 11/??/06
      FP: 12/??/06
      ID: ????????
      OD: ////////
      Amy is the attorney for I-485 Wom case in the 3rd circuit (appeal from NJ). So she is quite experienced in Wom cases.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lazycis View Post
        Amy is the attorney for I-485 Wom case in the 3rd circuit (appeal from NJ). So she is quite experienced in Wom cases.
        Can some one please please give me the addresses of individual to serve the mandamus to. I am in San Diego Ca. My namecheck has been stuck for a while now. I just want to serve the correct individuals

        FBI? USCIS? who else? please share and thanks in advance

        Comment


        • Originally posted by salman501 View Post
          Can some one please please give me the addresses of individual to serve the mandamus to. I am in San Diego Ca. My namecheck has been stuck for a while now. I just want to serve the correct individuals

          FBI? USCIS? who else? please share and thanks in advance
          See this post.
          http://www.immigrationportal.com/sho...ostcount=15389
          You will need to serve it to all defendants (Chertoff, Gonzalez, Mueller, Mukasey) and your district US Attorney.

          Comment


          • Can't you file something asking circuit court to enjoin defendants from adjudicating your case until the legality of namecheck process for I-485 is settled by the circuit court ? you can cite recent memo & mocanu order for substantiating your arguments or will they remand it back to district court to answer that question ?
            Anyway.. I agree that overcoming mootness is very difficult unless appeals court will permit you to modify your complaint and add relief for backdating GC.
            Those ****.. Can't believe govt officials can stoop to such lengths..
            Another line of thought is to question govt's litigation strategy and add estoppel arguments to enjoin defendants from adjudicating your application. How about promissory estoppel and asking that they can adjudicate only if they complete the namecheck as they said before ..

            Originally posted by lazycis View Post
            In re Zenith Electronics Corp., 329 F.3d 338, 50 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 440, 41 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 97, Bankr. L. Rep. P 78,853 3rd Cir.(Del.) May 21, 2003

            We have determined that an appeal is constitutionally moot “only if events have taken place that make it ‘impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever.’ ” In re United Artists Theatre Co. v. Walton, 315 F.3d 217, 226 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)).
            =====================
            I485, PD: 03/2000, 485 RD: 3/05
            WOM: 9/07/07, AUSA MTD:12/07
            Resp MTD: 1/08,
            leave to file 3rd amended compl 1/18
            AUSA Opposition: 2/4, Motion for leave granted: 2/21
            3rd amend comp: 2/27,
            Prelim Injunc & TRO : 3/21 && GC approval: 4/1/08

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wom_ri View Post
              Can't you file something asking circuit court to enjoin defendants from adjudicating your case until the legality of namecheck process for I-485 is settled by the circuit court ? you can cite recent memo & mocanu order for substantiating your arguments or will they remand it back to district court to answer that question ?
              Anyway.. I agree that overcoming mootness is very difficult unless appeals court will permit you to modify your complaint and add relief for backdating GC.
              Those ****.. Can't believe govt officials can stoop to such lengths..
              Another line of thought is to question govt's litigation strategy and add estoppel arguments to enjoin defendants from adjudicating your application. How about promissory estoppel and asking that they can adjudicate only if they complete the namecheck as they said before ..
              I agree that our best bet (if I-485 is approved ) is to argue that we intend to ask for backdating our green cards. This way 1) the court can potentially grant a relief; 2) it's a case capable of repetition (if we file a new complaint it is impossible to backdate green card without showing that the delay is unreasonable).

              Comment


              • lazycis

                Do you know if there is recent sucsessful (winning) WOM cases with retrogression problems?

                I responded to RFE for EB1A case on Feb 13th and was hoping that I can circumvent the retrogression problems. There have been LUDS on Feb 14 and March 2nd, but it is not approved yet. I called US attorney on Feb 29th and checked the status of my WOM case. And she told me that USCIS agent said they need 30 day extension to decide on Eb1A case. I agreed to give them one month extension (feel regretful about that now). Now I am wondering if nothing happened after 1 month, is it better to fight or only give them a 2 week extension? Any suggestions?
                I got laid off last month and had to take a job with lower salary to maintain legal status for me and my husband. This GC thing really drives me crazy!

                Thanks.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wommei View Post
                  Do you know if there is recent sucsessful (winning) WOM cases with retrogression problems?

                  I responded to RFE for EB1A case on Feb 13th and was hoping that I can circumvent the retrogression problems. There have been LUDS on Feb 14 and March 2nd, but it is not approved yet. I called US attorney on Feb 29th and checked the status of my WOM case. And she told me that USCIS agent said they need 30 day extension to decide on Eb1A case. I agreed to give them one month extension (feel regretful about that now). Now I am wondering if nothing happened after 1 month, is it better to fight or only give them a 2 week extension? Any suggestions?
                  I got laid off last month and had to take a job with lower salary to maintain legal status for me and my husband. This GC thing really drives me crazy!

                  Thanks.
                  Mei, can you remind me your case status? Did you file MSJ yet? Did you get an answer to your complaint? In the meantime you may ask for court leave to amend your complaint in order to include latest developments (new memo) and retrogression arguments. This way you will not waste this month. wom_ri posted retrogression complaint recently.

                  Comment


                  • case status

                    Originally posted by lazycis View Post
                    Mei, can you remind me your case status? Did you file MSJ yet? Did you get an answer to your complaint? In the meantime you may ask for court leave to amend your complaint in order to include latest developments (new memo) and retrogression arguments. This way you will not waste this month. wom_ri posted retrogression complaint recently.
                    I filed WOM on 09/27/07 at Northern Illinois Court and 2 month deadline was due on 12/03/07.

                    US attorney asked for 1 month extension and I gave her the extension. My name check was cleared on 12/13/07.

                    On 01/02/08, US attorney told me that my case cannot be approved due to the retrogression in EB2 for Chinese although name check is cleared. She said the USCIS will work on my EB1 140 soon. I agreed to gave them 2 month extension.

                    On 01/04/08, I got RFE notice from USCIS about the EB1A case. I replied the RFE on 02/13/08. There is one LUD on 02/14/08, saying the process of the case is resumed.

                    On 02/29/08, I called US attorney and ask about the case. She said USCIS need 30 days for EB1A decision.

                    On 03/02/08, An other LUD on I140 for EB1A.

                    Thanks for your advice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lazycis View Post
                      I agree that our best bet (if I-485 is approved ) is to argue that we intend to ask for backdating our green cards. This way 1) the court can potentially grant a relief; 2) it's a case capable of repetition (if we file a new complaint it is impossible to backdate green card without showing that the delay is unreasonable).
                      Lazy and Wom_ri
                      I do not think it is possible to change amend the complaint at this time. Furthermore, you cannot raise new issues in appeal if it has not already been raised in the district court. Therefore, I cannot explicitly raise the issue of backdating green card. However, I can probably say that I deserve a change to argue for unreasonableness in the district court and upon success request some equitable relief such as fees and backdate. But I will need more abstract legal arguments based on my current pleadings.

                      Comment


                      • Update On Family Visa Processing Under New Name Check Policy

                        The immigration service has provided AILA with the following explanation about processing family-based green card applications in light of the new policy regarding name checks that have been pending for more than 180 days:

                        "Assuming that an application is otherwise ready to be placed into the interview queue, and the only item remaining is the name check, then the application will be placed in the queue in time for the application to be ready to be scheduled for interview as of the 180th day.

                        If the application is not ready to be placed into the interview queue (for example, if the biometrics have not been taken), then the application will not be placed into the queue, even if the name check has been completed.

                        NBC reminds AILA members that the Field Offices schedule cases when they have available interview slots. The automated system by which Field Offices schedule interviews automatically schedules applications on a first-in, first-out basis (based on the date the filing was received at USCIS, which usually would be when received at the Lockbox), once the NBC identifies a case as interview ready."

                        Source: http://vkvisalaw.wordpress.com/2008/...-check-policy/
                        Priority Date: 09/17/2013
                        Check Chased: 09/18/2013
                        Biometrics letter Rcvd: 09/28/2013
                        Biometrics Appmnt Done: 10/11/2013
                        Online Status Changed to "Testing and Interview" on 10/15/2013
                        Recvd Yellow Letter 12/2/2013
                        Online update to "Scheduled for interview" 12/16/2013
                        IL Received on 12/23/2013, Interview at 1/23/2014 in Boston,MA
                        "placed in oath scheduling que" on 02/11/2014
                        "Oath Letter Mailed" on 02/28/2014, recvd on 03/04/2013, Oath on 03/20/20114
                        Oath done, US Citizen!!

                        Comment


                        • N400 Name Check Delay and Divorce

                          Thanks for the information on this site I successfully filed the lawsuit against FBI and USCIS and got name check cleared and USCIS is ready to adjudicate my application.
                          1/22/02 Permanent Resident (Job based, NOT marriage based)
                          11/4/04 N-400 (as a spouse of US citizen, after 3 years of being permanent residence)
                          5/10/05 Passed English test at interview, pending on FBI name check
                          6/12/06 Filed divorce at Divorce store (finallized on8/14/06”), after 6 year marriage and a son
                          12/18/07 Filed “Petition for hearing on Naturalization Application Under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b)" against FBI and USCIS pro se
                          1/24/08 Fingerprint again
                          2/13/08 Notified by US Attorney “the name check has been resolved”

                          However, USCIS is ready to adjudicate my application but is going to deny it because of my divorce and is not willing to expedite my new application (the attorney general did try but told me USCIS is not willing to expedite the new application for me). I am talking with attorneys, they all charge fee to even talk to me, first appointment $170-350. I am not sure do I have a case here, whether it worth the try.
                          My understanding on N400 application is at the time I filed I was married to US citizen, and at the time of interview I was still qualified. Can someone show me the law that says I have to be married to US citizen at the time of adjudication?
                          And even there is such law, my situation was caused by name check delay. Why USCIS won't comprimise and agree to process my new application immediately (I am perm resident for more than 5 years now anyway)? Do I have a chance fighting in court? Or is it possible the judge just approve my case?
                          Please please help!!!! Thanks so much!

                          Comment


                          • bibdaily

                            namecheck:
                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030403070.html
                            new ombudsman
                            http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1204720623164.shtm
                            =====================
                            I485, PD: 03/2000, 485 RD: 3/05
                            WOM: 9/07/07, AUSA MTD:12/07
                            Resp MTD: 1/08,
                            leave to file 3rd amended compl 1/18
                            AUSA Opposition: 2/4, Motion for leave granted: 2/21
                            3rd amend comp: 2/27,
                            Prelim Injunc & TRO : 3/21 && GC approval: 4/1/08

                            Comment


                            • I would try to see if it is possible for appeal court to remand the case back to district court based on new developments for a retrial. i.e.. it saves everyone time instead of you filing a new complaint for a backdated GC.
                              Need to research this situation in detail. It should be common that issues have changed so much that warrant a retrial in lower court.

                              Originally posted by Slow_CIS View Post
                              Lazy and Wom_ri
                              I do not think it is possible to change amend the complaint at this time. Furthermore, you cannot raise new issues in appeal if it has not already been raised in the district court. Therefore, I cannot explicitly raise the issue of backdating green card. However, I can probably say that I deserve a change to argue for unreasonableness in the district court and upon success request some equitable relief such as fees and backdate. But I will need more abstract legal arguments based on my current pleadings.
                              =====================
                              I485, PD: 03/2000, 485 RD: 3/05
                              WOM: 9/07/07, AUSA MTD:12/07
                              Resp MTD: 1/08,
                              leave to file 3rd amended compl 1/18
                              AUSA Opposition: 2/4, Motion for leave granted: 2/21
                              3rd amend comp: 2/27,
                              Prelim Injunc & TRO : 3/21 && GC approval: 4/1/08

                              Comment


                              • I'm not a lawyer, but I think since your quilifying condition (marriage to US citizen) does not exist any more, that could be the grounds to deny your application. I don't think you have any chances to fight it in the court either, since it was your voluntary decision to divorce.

                                You might want to consider to make an InfoPass appointment and ask IO if your existing application can be amended at this time due to changing life events. If not, you may want to withdraw it now before it was denied, and submit the new one.

                                Again, I'm not a lawyer, my suggestion is based on common sense (not the current law), so please take it with grain of salt.
                                -albertr
                                -albertr

                                :
                                DO:        Philadelphia
                                N400 sent: 03/26/2007
                                N400 rcvd: 03/28/2007
                                PD:      : 03/28/2007
                                FP notice: 04/14/2007
                                FP taken : 05/03/2007
                                NC started:04/19/2007
                                NC cleared:05/29/2008
                                Placed in the queue for the interview: 06/06/2008
                                2nd FP:    09/06/2008, was scheduled for 09/11/2008
                                IL notice: 09/23/2008
                                IL:        11/06/2008
                                Oath:      11/13/2008

                                Comment


                                • Yes, There is no law indicate that you have to be adjudicate by married US citizen. I think you have chance. You might need to spend money to talk to attorney to fight for it.

                                  Just my two cents

                                  Comment


                                  • Does anyone know the mailing addresses of the following ? Thanks

                                    Michael Chertoff,
                                    Emilio T. Gonzalez
                                    Christina Poulos
                                    Robert S. Mueller

                                    Also, would there be a need for me to do a FOIPA for my wfie and child still living in China? I'm a US born Citizen.
                                    Last edited by waitinfori130; 5th March 2008, 01:00 PM.
                                    filed I-130 for wife and stepson July 2006.
                                    received noa1 for I-130 8/2006.
                                    3/27/08 filed wom for I-130
                                    4/16/2008 USCIS approved I-130 petition

                                    Comment


                                    • http://www.immigrationportal.com/sho...ostcount=15389


                                      Originally posted by waitinfori130 View Post
                                      Does anyone know the mailing addresses of the following ? Thanks

                                      Michael Chertoff,
                                      Emilio T. Gonzalez
                                      Christina Poulos
                                      Robert S. Mueller

                                      Also, would there be a need for me to do a FOIPA for my wfie and child still living in China? I'm a US born Citizen.

                                      Comment


                                      • Once you got the permanent GC; you don't have to stick with your spouse in order to become US Citizen, Period...Go ahead and fight for it....

                                        Originally posted by davidwyu View Post
                                        Thanks for the information on this site I successfully filed the lawsuit against FBI and USCIS and got name check cleared and USCIS is ready to adjudicate my application.
                                        1/22/02 Permanent Resident (Job based, NOT marriage based)
                                        11/4/04 N-400 (as a spouse of US citizen, after 3 years of being permanent residence)
                                        5/10/05 Passed English test at interview, pending on FBI name check
                                        6/12/06 Filed divorce at Divorce store (finallized on8/14/06”), after 6 year marriage and a son
                                        12/18/07 Filed “Petition for hearing on Naturalization Application Under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b)" against FBI and USCIS pro se
                                        1/24/08 Fingerprint again
                                        2/13/08 Notified by US Attorney “the name check has been resolved”

                                        However, USCIS is ready to adjudicate my application but is going to deny it because of my divorce and is not willing to expedite my new application (the attorney general did try but told me USCIS is not willing to expedite the new application for me). I am talking with attorneys, they all charge fee to even talk to me, first appointment $170-350. I am not sure do I have a case here, whether it worth the try.
                                        My understanding on N400 application is at the time I filed I was married to US citizen, and at the time of interview I was still qualified. Can someone show me the law that says I have to be married to US citizen at the time of adjudication?
                                        And even there is such law, my situation was caused by name check delay. Why USCIS won't comprimise and agree to process my new application immediately (I am perm resident for more than 5 years now anyway)? Do I have a chance fighting in court? Or is it possible the judge just approve my case?
                                        Please please help!!!! Thanks so much!

                                        Comment


                                        • 485 mandamus victory ND illinois(still no Feb 4 memo)

                                          AMER FAROUQ ADIB KAMAL, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al., Defendants.
                                          No. 07 C 4840
                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
                                          2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15942
                                          March 3, 2008, Decided
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Defendants argue that we lack jurisdiction over Kamal's claim because "Congress granted USCIS, through the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary, the discretion to adjudicate adjustment of status petitions," which "includes the timing, the method, and information needed for adjudication." (Mot. at 3). It appears that no federal circuit court has decided whether the delayed timing, or pace, of adjudicating adjustment of status applications falls under the scope of discretionary power -- thus precluding it from judicial [*9] review under § 1252(a)(B)(ii) -- and district courts around the country are split on the matter.

                                          However, we find that the issue in this present claim is broader than the Defendants have framed it. The question at issue is not whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review over challenges to the pace of application processing, but rather whether the provision precludes review over challenges to the failure to adjudicate an application. See Khelashvili v. Chertoff, No. 07 C 2826, 2007 WL 4293634, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2007) ("[I]t is undisputed that the decision whether to grant or deny an application for adjustment of status is discretionary. The [question] is whether the adjudication of those applications is also discretionary."). We agree that we neither have the power to adjust a petitioner's legal permanent resident status, nor to review decisions where the USCIS has denied or granted a petitioner's application for such status. See, e.g., Yong Tang v. Chertoff, 493 F. Supp. 2d 148, 151 (D. Mass. 2007) ("The ultimate decision whether or not to adjust an alien's status under INA § 245 is undisputably within the discretion of the Attorney General."). But we perceive a key distinction [*10] between how the Attorney General processes an application and whether he adjudicates the application at all. Singh v. Still, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("[T]here is a difference between the INS's discretion over how to resolve an application and the INS's discretion over whether it resolves an application.").

                                          On this latter issue, the Seventh Circuit has already provided controlling language in Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002). In Iddir, plaintiffs were foreign nationals who were eligible to apply for immigrant visas and eventually, legal permanent resident status, under the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, but whose applications were denied because the INS failed to process their applications within the statutorily mandated one-year timeframe. Id. at 493-94. Although the Seventh Circuit found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' mandamus claims, it held as a threshold matter that the district courts did have jurisdiction to review the claim under § 1252(a)(2)(B). 2 Id. at 498, 501. The court concluded that § 1252(a)(2)(B), "by use of the terms 'judgment' and 'decision or action', only bars review of actual discretionary decisions [*11] to grant or deny relief under the enumerated sections, including section 1255." Id. at 497 (emphasis added); 3 see also Ahmed v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 328 F.3d 383, 387 (7th Cir. 2003) (reiterating Iddir's holding "that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) . . . applies only if there has been an actual discretionary decision either to grant or to deny the visa.").
                                          Last, the Defendants point to the argument in Sadafi that the pace of adjudication falls under the discretion of USCIS because "Congress included no statutory time limits in § 1255(a), nor expressed any need for 'expedition' in the adjudication process." (Mot. at 5-6); see also Kuchumov, 2007 WL 2782045, at *3 [*17] (declining to find jurisdiction because unlike in other sections of the INA, Congress did not in § 1255(a) "set forth a statutory time period for adjudication and an explicit provision granting [adjustment of status] applicants a right to judicial review upon the expiration of that time period"). The absence of such time limits, the Defendants contend, confirms "Congress' intent that…the pace of decision-making[] be within the discretion of USCIS, and thus excluded from judicial review." (Mot. at 6). However, in order to preclude judicial review, "congressional intent to limit federal jurisdiction, generally, must be clear and convincing." Iddir, 301 F. 3d at 496. The absence of a statutory time limit, without more, is insufficient to suggest that Congress intended to preclude judicial review over challenges to the adjudication of adjustment of status applications. See, e.g., Saleem, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2007 WL 3132233, at *4 ("[I]t is inappropriate to infer a congressional intent to remove jurisdiction simply from the absence of a statutory deadline for making a decision.").
                                          The Defendants argue that this delay is reasonable because the extra time is necessary to conduct background checks of non-citizens pursuant to national security interests. (Mot. at 10-11). This argument is not persuasive because it urges us to refrain from ordering adjudication of Kamal's claim before his background checks have been completed. (Mot. at 11). Kamal is not challenging the background checks -- indeed, he has willingly supplied fingerprint and other biometric data on no less than three different occasions since August 2002 -- but rather is challenging USCIS's failure altogether to decide on his application. Accordingly, on the record before us, a five-year delay in processing and adjudicating Kamal's adjustment of status application is unreasonable. See, e.g., Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1069 ("[T]he mere invocation of national security is not enough to render agency delay reasonable per se.").
                                          =====================
                                          I485, PD: 03/2000, 485 RD: 3/05
                                          WOM: 9/07/07, AUSA MTD:12/07
                                          Resp MTD: 1/08,
                                          leave to file 3rd amended compl 1/18
                                          AUSA Opposition: 2/4, Motion for leave granted: 2/21
                                          3rd amend comp: 2/27,
                                          Prelim Injunc & TRO : 3/21 && GC approval: 4/1/08

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X