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

Hi everyone, it is very enlighting by reading this thread. I have a situation: I filed my N-400 applications in Feb 2005, interviewed with USCIS in late 2006. However USCIS denied my applications on the ground of “You testified that you were absent from the United States from April 1, 2000 to June 26, 2002, a period in excess of one year.” However, I got Reentry Permit(titled "Approval Notice to Preserve Residence for Naturalization") before I left for Hong Kong on an assignmet to work for a US company.

The Approval Notice clearly stated “Your application to preserve residence for naturalization purpose has been approved to cover your absence from the United States from September 11, 1999, to an indefinite date thereafter”. Further more, it stated, “The approval of your application allows you to count the period of your absence toward residence in the United States for naturalization purposes”. I attached this approval to my N-400 application.

I wrote to the district Director (in New Orleans) immediately after I received the denial notice. I also attached another copy of approval of the "Preserve Residence". I sent out the letter with a registered letter so that I have a proof the USCIS in New Orleans received my letter. However, I did not receive any thing back from USCIS since then.

What do you think I can do in this situation? Can I take any legal action or I need to simply call the office asking what's going on?

Thanks!

Eyehz
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eyehz

I would suggest that you post your issue as a seperate thread. There are a number of people who don't visit this thread but hang around in the US Citizenship sub forum who can help you.
 
I have already shared the news of my name check completion a couple of days ago. The AUSA told me that he is working with the USCIS headquarters in Washington DC to get my file released to the local field office so that the interview can be scheduled. The file being in Washington DC is generally not a good sign. In the meanwhile, I called the Traffic Court to get a copy of any traffic violations I had in the last 10 years. They told me I had 3 violations, in 1999, 2003 and 2004. The court clerk told me that the violation in 1999 is still showing as active, and I owe the bail amount of $67. But he said that this record has been purged, and that I don't have to pay this amount anymore. I am pretty sure that I had paid off the bail amount, so I called my bank to order my bank statements from 1999, but they told me that the bank statements only have a "check number" and "dollar amount" which may not be enough to prove that the specific check was written to the traffic court.
I am 100% sure that the USCIS Interviewing Officer will try to use this against me (see my prior postings about Lazli and Mahd adjudications). Any suggestions what I should do to prepare for this?
 
worried,
I've heard that the attorney in Chebil case is not a very good one. I do not recommend him. He may be OK in simple cases, but if any difficulty arise, you may have problems.
So you better off doing it Pro Se or picking an attorney using a search from Lexis (it also has peer's ratings so you can evaluate potential attorneys):
http://www.martindale.com/Immigration/Michigan/Troy/1426-LL2/firms.html

All,

How about Donald Slowik in Columbus Ohio, Charles Kuck in Atlanta GA, and Scott Bratton in Cleveland Ohio? I am considering retaining one of them to handle my WOM for AOS. Are they professional? Your comments and opinion are greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
Pengdi
 
All,

How about Donald Slowik in Columbus Ohio, Charles Kuck in Atlanta GA, and Scott Bratton in Cleveland Ohio? I am considering retaining one of them to handle my WOM for AOS. Are they professional? Your comments and opinion are greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
Pengdi

Slowik and Kuck are good ones (Kuck was selected as president-elect of AILA recently), but they will probably be expensive.
Bratton is a smart guy too, albeit young (6 years of practice). Check their prices and pick one. It seems that Ohio AUSA district office does not have the brightest people in the Civil division so your chances are good.
 
Hi everyone, it is very enlighting by reading this thread. I have a situation: I filed my N-400 applications in Feb 2005, interviewed with USCIS in late 2006. However USCIS denied my applications on the ground of “You testified that you were absent from the United States from April 1, 2000 to June 26, 2002, a period in excess of one year.” However, I got Reentry Permit(titled "Approval Notice to Preserve Residence for Naturalization") before I left for Hong Kong on an assignmet to work for a US company.

The Approval Notice clearly stated “Your application to preserve residence for naturalization purpose has been approved to cover your absence from the United States from September 11, 1999, to an indefinite date thereafter”. Further more, it stated, “The approval of your application allows you to count the period of your absence toward residence in the United States for naturalization purposes”. I attached this approval to my N-400 application.

I wrote to the district Director (in New Orleans) immediately after I received the denial notice. I also attached another copy of approval of the "Preserve Residence". I sent out the letter with a registered letter so that I have a proof the USCIS in New Orleans received my letter. However, I did not receive any thing back from USCIS since then.

What do you think I can do in this situation? Can I take any legal action or I need to simply call the office asking what's going on?

Thanks!

Eyehz


Did you file administrative appeal N336 within 30 days? Thats the first thing to do. Most likeley you will get approved at that stage. However if appeal fails you can file in district court.
 
I was planning on filing WoM this October until I recieved 2. Fingerprinting notice. I got the notice 2 days ago and yesterday they took my fingerprinting. (since I will be out of country on appointment date I went in there early. )

Now I got this dilemma. Should I wait? or Should I go ahead and file WoM thru my lawyer next month?

What would you all recommend?
Any post or Private messages greatly appreciated.

Springbranch,
From what I have seen different district offices/service ctrs are following two different 2nd FP rules. Some are automatically scheduling 2nd FP in the 16 month after the first FP irrespective of wether something has changed or not ie name check came or not. Others will just wait and schedule only when name check comes. so if it is around 15-17 months after your first FP then chances are that it is a routine 2nd FP, however if its more than that then name check is clear. Also try and find out how your DO is doing this.
 
I have already shared the news of my name check completion a couple of days ago. The AUSA told me that he is working with the USCIS headquarters in Washington DC to get my file released to the local field office so that the interview can be scheduled. The file being in Washington DC is generally not a good sign. In the meanwhile, I called the Traffic Court to get a copy of any traffic violations I had in the last 10 years. They told me I had 3 violations, in 1999, 2003 and 2004. The court clerk told me that the violation in 1999 is still showing as active, and I owe the bail amount of $67. But he said that this record has been purged, and that I don't have to pay this amount anymore. I am pretty sure that I had paid off the bail amount, so I called my bank to order my bank statements from 1999, but they told me that the bank statements only have a "check number" and "dollar amount" which may not be enough to prove that the specific check was written to the traffic court.
I am 100% sure that the USCIS Interviewing Officer will try to use this against me (see my prior postings about Lazli and Mahd adjudications). Any suggestions what I should do to prepare for this?

why are you worried about traffic violations unless it resulted in an arrest or you have something else to hide :-0)
 
Is there a deadline to reopen?

Thanks for replying AGC4ME. I voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice on August 7, 2007 according to FCRP 41.
(without specifying a subparagraph or 41).

I guess I'll have to go ahead and reopen it. AUSA offered filing
a joint motion to reopen the case. I don't know if I should accept
this or not. I wonder also, if there is a deadline to reopen the case.
Maybe I should check with FCRP.

A word of warning to everyone. When AUSA tells you something,
verify it from another source, if you can. Like, by calling USCIS
customer service. It sounds obvious and common sense, but
I can't believe I hadn't done so.

Was your case dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice ? Was it dismissed according to FRCP 41(a)(1). Best bet would be to reopen the case. File a motion to reopen. How many days have elapsed since the case was dismissed ?
 
Thanks for replying AGC4ME. I voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice on August 7, 2007 according to FCRP 41.
(without specifying a subparagraph or 41).

I guess I'll have to go ahead and reopen it. AUSA offered filing
a joint motion to reopen the case. I don't know if I should accept
this or not. I wonder also, if there is a deadline to reopen the case.
Maybe I should check with FCRP.

A word of warning to everyone. When AUSA tells you something,
verify it from another source, if you can. Like, by calling USCIS
customer service. It sounds obvious and common sense, but
I can't believe I hadn't done so.

Without prejudice means that you can either open it or you can file a new case. Man if your AUSA offers to file a joint motion to reopen, grab it with both hands and do it immediately. Have him do the work of creating the motion and just sign it.
 
Hi everyone, it is very enlighting by reading this thread. I have a situation: I filed my N-400 applications in Feb 2005, interviewed with USCIS in late 2006. However USCIS denied my applications on the ground of “You testified that you were absent from the United States from April 1, 2000 to June 26, 2002, a period in excess of one year.” However, I got Reentry Permit(titled "Approval Notice to Preserve Residence for Naturalization") before I left for Hong Kong on an assignmet to work for a US company.

The Approval Notice clearly stated “Your application to preserve residence for naturalization purpose has been approved to cover your absence from the United States from September 11, 1999, to an indefinite date thereafter”. Further more, it stated, “The approval of your application allows you to count the period of your absence toward residence in the United States for naturalization purposes”. I attached this approval to my N-400 application.

I wrote to the district Director (in New Orleans) immediately after I received the denial notice. I also attached another copy of approval of the "Preserve Residence". I sent out the letter with a registered letter so that I have a proof the USCIS in New Orleans received my letter. However, I did not receive any thing back from USCIS since then.

eyehz,
Please read page 23 of M-476 (Guide to Naturalization) from USCIS webpage. You are not eligible for naturalization at this point.
“Continuous Residence” Example
• An applicant became a Permanent Resident on January 1, 1994.
• She lived in the United States for 3 years, then returned to her native country for 1 year and 3months.
• She got a Re-entry Permit before leaving the United States so that she could keep her Permanent Resident status.
• The applicant re-entered the United States with Permanent Resident status on April 1, 1998.
Question: When is the applicant eligible for naturalization?
Answer: On April 2, 2002, 4 years and 1 day after she returned to the United States. The last 364 days the applicant was out of the United States count toward her time as a Permanent Resident in “continuous residence,” but the 3 years in the United States before leaving do not.
 
why are you worried about traffic violations unless it resulted in an arrest or you have something else to hide :-0)

Well, nothing to hide:)
But don't you think if they are pissed off because of the lawsuit and want to cause trouble, they could say that I haven't paid $67 for the traffic violation in 1999. Bad moral character!! I do not have a proof that I really paid the fine!!
If that happens to me, I will have to file N-336 Request for Hearing, just more delay. I mean, look at Lazli, they denied him because:
1) Unlawful or Unsignaled Turn. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
2) Improper Display Valid Sticker. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
3) He was outside USA for about 2 months.
I understand that he did not disclose these facts, and they made it the basis of their denial, and I have no intension of hiding any facts.
So I guess the only thing I can do is to tell them clearly the facts that I found out from the traffic court about owing $67, and that this has already been purged from the court records.
Or may be, just write a check of $67 to the traffic court, and print out a copy of the cancelled check from my bank's website, and take it on the interview day as proof that it is paid off.
I just do not trust USCIS anymore... I hope this will be my last dealing with the USCIS.
 
Part I. FBI Name Check procedures in the case of delay. The best I saw as was digged by LazyCIS
8 CFR 103.2(b)(18) defines conditions under which the adjudication may be withheld pending investigation (18) Withholding adjudication.
A district director may authorize withholding adjudication of a visa petition or other application if the district director determines that an investigation has been undertaken involving a matter relating to eligibility or the exercise of discretion, where applicable, in connection with the application or petition, and that the disclosure of information to the applicant or petitioner in connection with the adjudication of the application or petition would prejudice the ongoing investigation.
If an investigation has been undertaken and has not been completed within one year of its inception, the district director shall review the matter and determine whether adjudication of the petition or application should be held in abeyance for six months or until the investigation is completed, whichever comes sooner. If, after six months of the district director’s determination, the investigation has not been completed, the matter shall be reviewed again by the district director and, if he/she concludes that more time is needed to complete the investigation, adjudication may be held in abeyance for up to another six months. If the investigation is not completed at the end of that time, the matter shall be referred to the regional commissioner, who may authorize that adjudication be held in abeyance for another six months. Thereafter, if the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement, determines it is necessary to continue to withhold adjudication pending completion of the investigation, he/she shall review that determination every six months.


Therefore, if you application is pending more than 1 year, the USCIS should present the evidence that the district director reviewed your application. If it is pending more then 2 years, it should've been reviewed by the regional commissioner. If it is pending more than 2.5 years, it should've been reviewed by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement. If it was not done, the USCIS "unlawfully withheld" adjudication.

Further, 8 CFR 103.2(b)(18) confirms non-discretionary duty to process an application:
(19) Notification. An applicant or petitioner shall be sent a written decision on his or her application, petition, motion, or appeal.

Part II. How congress intended to regulate FBI (again from LazyCIS)
To counter the argument that Congress gave the AG unlimited power over AOS applications and that Congress did not intend to impose any deadlines for AOS processing, I find that Chapter 13, Subchapter II is very useful.
Not only Congress expressed its intention in 1571(b) that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application", but
- 1572(2) says that "The term “immigration benefit application” means any application or petition to confer, certify, change, adjust, or extend any status granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act"
- 1573 (a) Authority of the Attorney General:
The Attorney General shall take such measures as may be necessary to—
(1) reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications, with the objective of the total elimination of the backlog 1 year after November 25, 2002;
(2) make such other improvements in the processing of immigration benefit applications as may be necessary to ensure that a backlog does not develop after such date; and
(3) make such improvements in infrastructure as may be necessary to effectively provide immigration services.
- 1574(b)(2)(C)(i) - subparagraph "Annual reports" specifically includes AOS:
(C) a status report on—
(i) applications for adjustments of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
- 1574(b)(2)(B)(iii) - annual report should include (this relates to AOS and other applications)
(iii) the number of applications or petitions pending for up to 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 48 months or more;
(confirming implicitly 180 days as intended processing time)

So clearly it was not Congress intention for application to linger significantly longer than 6 months.

(Standard disclaimer- I am not a lawyer so I do not know how this wording can/maybe interpreted by court and whether these laws are current)


Part III Good lawyer in Maryland
(Answering the last question of GC-pending)
Maybe www.murthy.com (this site has 410- area code number) ?
The website publish a lot of useful info on immigration.

I strongly reccomend to register through pacer and review other people
cases throughout US in category "Other Statutory Actions"- this is where
WoM are published. Even if you hire a lawyer (which is typically beneficial)
you should still read about other similar cases and suggest them to your lawyer.

Some cons with lawyers.
Your lawyer (after you pay him) will almost instantly become
unreachable and rarely return your phone calls.
When (s)he returns- (s)he always say that everything is going as needed
and you just have to be patient.

Many immigration attorneys are not fully familiar with new tricks
pulled on us by USCIS/FBI duo.
For example, my attorney filed WoM without inclusion of FBI first.
The defense later told him that USCIS is not a responsible party for delay.
Bummer!!!
List of defendant is very important to start with (see discussion in this forum about who must be included).

Immigration lawyers who practice immigration law all thier life still can make mistake in your WoM because they rarely considered such cases in the past.
This process is new for them as it is for us.

Reason is that the category of people whose status is niether on visa nor PR
is relatively new. This category (let's call it AOS, we also can call it "in-limbo" or "INL") created artificially by FBI/USCIS relatively recently (on historical scale).

In all previous years of American history AoS category was transient.
Now it is our lives.

Thank you OLKO for your comprehensive response. About a lawyer in Maryland, I found this one with the name Hassan M. Ahmad who is currently handling another case similar to ours (I found the case and his name from Pacer). I was wondering if by any chance you know him. He seems to be very aggressive and files motion after motion (which I think should be a good sign).

Since there is might be a good chance that our cases (in Maryland) be dismissed, do you know how long the appeal process will take?
 
Suing FBI for violating FOIPA

Has anybody thought of suing FBI for not conforming to the Freedom of Information Privacy Act? Based on this Act, FBI should release the information and documents the have on you. The response to FOIPA, for most of us, shows "no record" but in fact they have some information or "hits" which are being kept secret from us. Perhaps a lawsuit based on FOIPA might push these lazy people to move and do something with our cases. Any thoughts?

Here is a case that sued for violation of FOIPA (not because of name check). it might give an idea of how far such a lawsuit can prevail.
 
Well, nothing to hide:)
But don't you think if they are pissed off because of the lawsuit and want to cause trouble, they could say that I haven't paid $67 for the traffic violation in 1999. Bad moral character!! I do not have a proof that I really paid the fine!!
If that happens to me, I will have to file N-336 Request for Hearing, just more delay. I mean, look at Lazli, they denied him because:
1) Unlawful or Unsignaled Turn. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
2) Improper Display Valid Sticker. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
3) He was outside USA for about 2 months.
I understand that he did not disclose these facts, and they made it the basis of their denial, and I have no intension of hiding any facts.
So I guess the only thing I can do is to tell them clearly the facts that I found out from the traffic court about owing $67, and that this has already been purged from the court records.
Or may be, just write a check of $67 to the traffic court, and print out a copy of the cancelled check from my bank's website, and take it on the interview day as proof that it is paid off.
I just do not trust USCIS anymore... I hope this will be my last dealing with the USCIS.
I think you have to get the record purge confirmation from the Traffic Court in writing. Try to get Traffic Court clerk write on the letter or printout “record purged, date, signature” or ask for a separate letter explaining that the record was purged.

I have heard from several people that bank statements are not admissible as evidence of ticket payment by USCIS officers. Also I would not expect your check to return from the Traffic Court in time for the interview.


Best of luck,
sbnorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, nothing to hide:)
But don't you think if they are pissed off because of the lawsuit and want to cause trouble, they could say that I haven't paid $67 for the traffic violation in 1999. Bad moral character!! I do not have a proof that I really paid the fine!!
If that happens to me, I will have to file N-336 Request for Hearing, just more delay. I mean, look at Lazli, they denied him because:
1) Unlawful or Unsignaled Turn. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
2) Improper Display Valid Sticker. Records do not provide a disposition of this charge, nor any sentence, fine, or restriction related to this charge.
3) He was outside USA for about 2 months.
I understand that he did not disclose these facts, and they made it the basis of their denial, and I have no intension of hiding any facts.
So I guess the only thing I can do is to tell them clearly the facts that I found out from the traffic court about owing $67, and that this has already been purged from the court records.
Or may be, just write a check of $67 to the traffic court, and print out a copy of the cancelled check from my bank's website, and take it on the interview day as proof that it is paid off.
I just do not trust USCIS anymore... I hope this will be my last dealing with the USCIS.

Hi MT100,

Since you haven’t gone thru interview yet so did you use [INA] § 335 [8 U.S.C. § 1446 or § 1447(b) in WOM or something else? Could you please let me know because my case is exactly the same as yours and I’m planning to file WOM soon. Thanks so much!
 
This is a fascinating thread, and I used all the info here to file 1447b Pro-Se
in SF in July of 2007, one year after my interview.

As expected, 2 weeks after the lawsuit USCIS fingerprinted me
again and send a request for updated information since the interview.
2 more weeks passed, and AUSA called me to tell me that my namecheck
has cleared and asked me to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit.

Now this is when it gets interesting. I dismissed the lawsuit,
and 3 weeks later contacted AUSA again. She said, let me check with
USCIS. One more week passed, and I reminded her again.
She replied saying that she is sorry, but USCIS provided her with
wrong information, and that my background check has not cleared.

Wow, thanks USCIS and AUSA!

Does anyone know what are my options at this point?
I suppose I can reopen the case, or file a new one with additional
evidence (emails from AUSA). I guess I could complain to CIS
Ombudsman, and AUSA bosses, which is probably a waste of time.

If anyone has any ideas please post.


Wow! How blindly you trusted AUSA when he said that they cleared your name check. I am mad!!! Why did you do that dear??? I mean you can see what a mess CIS is just by visiting this forum. You should have atleast made an infopass appoinment and find out by yourself or should have called the 800 number and talked to the IO.

Anyway, if you closed the case WITHOUT prejudice, then, there is no problem. You can re-open it any time. But if you did either a joint dismissal or dissmissal with Fed rule 41, then, you may have problem because this means that you closed it WITH prejudice, which means that you can not re-open the case. How did you do the dissmissal?? And did AUSA send you anything at that time that USCIS is ready to adjudicate your case??
 
Has anybody thought of suing FBI for not conforming to the Freedom of Information Privacy Act? Based on this Act, FBI should release the information and documents the have on you. The response to FOIPA, for most of us, shows "no record" but in fact they have some information or "hits" which are being kept secret from us. Perhaps a lawsuit based on FOIPA might push these lazy people to move and do something with our cases. Any thoughts?

Here is a case that sued for violation of FOIPA (not because of name check). it might give an idea of how far such a lawsuit can prevail.

The FOIPA request uses the FBI main files while for the Name check, they use main files PLUS refernce files, and therefore, you FOIPA came back with NO RESULTS like mine. FBI started to use these refernce files in NOV 2002 and these refernce files are the cause of all these background checks pending and processing delays and lawsuits!!:mad:

Did you read the letter they send it with the results. It explains that. This means that when you do the FOIPA, you can not find out anything about the refernce files that are causing your Name Check delay. I think this is another BS, but there is nothing we can do.

Check the second last question in the link below and you will see what I am talking about. Best of Luck to you!!!

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nationalnamecheck.htm
 
Thank you OLKO for your comprehensive response. About a lawyer in Maryland, I found this one with the name Hassan M. Ahmad who is currently handling another case similar to ours (I found the case and his name from Pacer). I was wondering if by any chance you know him. He seems to be very aggressive and files motion after motion (which I think should be a good sign).

Since there is might be a good chance that our cases (in Maryland) be dismissed, do you know how long the appeal process will take?

I do not want to discourage you, but I think hiring attorney for AOS case in Maryland will be the waste of money unless you are ready to go thru the appeal process. Or may be it make sense to hire one at the appeal stage? One member is going thru the appeal in your circuit at this time so if he wins, that may change the situation. I hate to be pessimistic, but out of 70 favorable AOS cases we have, there is not a single one from the 4th Circuit (all other Circuits have at least one). I filed a notice of appeal on May 16th and I am expecting a decision by the end of October. So the whole process is about 6 months.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi MT100,

Since you haven’t gone thru interview yet so did you use [INA] § 335 [8 U.S.C. § 1446 or § 1447(b) in WOM or something else? Could you please let me know because my case is exactly the same as yours and I’m planning to file WOM soon. Thanks so much!
OK-Boy,
I had sent you PM yesterday. Probably, you did not check your PM.
No, I did not use 1447(b) which is not applicable for my and your cases.
Please feel free to send me PM and I'll be happy to help.
 
Top