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

[mt100]

Is there a way to find out how a particular AUSA replies generally, and how a specific judge rules on mandamus cases? Or any experiences of the current forum members about my AUSA and District and Magistrate Judge. Here are the details:
AUSA: Marcus M Kerner
Court: California Central District Court
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Andrew J. Guilford
Referring Judge: Marc L. Goldman

[snorlax]

Snorlax,

I also went to the traffic court and the clerk said, the most recent ticket is available (and I guess she could print it) but the 2003 citation is on microfilm and the charge for searching for it is 15.00. I paid, and she said someone will be in touch with me within 2 weeks to pick up official printout. Either she was a bit greedy or it's a newer rule, but she didn't actually say she can just print right away even the recent ticket receipt. She asked if I need the official letter with the letter head, and I said yes (the more official the better) and she said that's what other naturalization applicants request. Perhaps if I directly requested the printout of the most recent receipt she would do it. But now it's too late and if anything, I'm $15.00 short. You see, his 2003 citation happened BEFORE his interview, so he doesn't have to provide it according to the letter. But since he never disclosed it (was not asked in 2003), it's probably better to get it. Clerk said, they keep records for 5 yrs and then store them on microfilm. There are earlier citations which I have to get from a different court (it was in another city in CA) But the first thing, we'll call CIS or even the AO directly and ask him if we need receipts for those earlier ones (6 and 9 yrs ago).

I would agree that $15 is not much compared to the possibility of the Oath ceremony being postponed… Probably people that I saw had recent tickets and did not request official letterhead.

Best of luck,
snorlax

[shvili]

Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.

Missingpa,

that's a great victory! I'm so happy for you! The judge said he's not convinced the delay is reasonable, so what you have to do is to persuade him in your MSJ that it is in fact UNREASONABLE. With your very good language I think you can do a great job. Cite other cases which ruled a 20 + months delay was unreasonable. The only thing, some of those are 1447 naturalization cases, but since we discuss the same exactly delay-your security check and since your judge confirmed that it is necessary in I-485 cases ( re. Lazycis point that it's not statutory-maybe, but as I said before, hardly any judge, even a reasonable one, would say that it is not required in AOS/485 cases)- so since it is exactly the same delay and in very similar cases (both for immigration benefit and both - apparently - require security checks), you can argue that those rulings on unreasonable delays from different districts are applicable to your delays. So IMHO, you should start preparing your Motion for Summary Judgement.

Lazycis has posted several more great cases, and one forum member's denial of MTD is very good.

And here's the important thought: just from following the forum and my district, I see quite a few rulings on MTD (in Plaintiffs favor) and then-no rulings at all for later stages (like MSJ or hearings). There are hardly any later orders on MSJs instructing to complete nc within XX days. If this is indeed true, it only means one thing: once judge denies MTD defendants expedite for sure even in AOS cases and so cases are resolved before any further stage is involved. Because after MTD, is denied, case looks even more hopeless for AUSAs so they can push for expediting security checks. Once these results are received by CIS, it hurries up to adjudicate-they want to save $$$ and even more $$$ if case prolongs in court.. This scenario excludes cases where case is delayed indefinitely in transfer in route from one CIS center to another, and in these cases, especially in N-400 cases I really think people shouldn't wait and just sue the suckers as soon as 120 days are due. If anyone can follow up a disappeared case (once MTD was denied) my logic can easily be checked on Pacer. But the only logical explanation of "disappeared cases" after denied MTD is that these cases are resolved!

Based on these thoughts, Missingpa, I really hope your chances of good news are increasing by every passing minute now. Meanwhile prepare your next brief and feel proud- you won one crucial stage in your battle!

[Bou]

Hi Missingpa, which state are you in?

Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.

[shvili]

Check this post
http://boards.immigration.com/showth...61#post1733461
Basically, they cannot justify such delay by A-file transfer. They have to proceed using T-file (temporary file) if A-file is not received within 30 days. Prepare and file 1447b suit, it will cost you $350+mailing expenses, but you will see the results very quickly.
There is no need to write to senators/etc as it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies for 1447b suit.

I agree with you and DUDE's advice to Brendroba that waiting in his/her case is no use. If you had a nc delay, I would suggest to wait as the issue of "reasonableness" of the delay is considered. But in a case stalled between CIS centers defendants would have a hard time answering to judge why sending your file from, say, Nebraska to CA took more than 120 days...

So Brandroba, go ahead and sue the suckers! You can get plenty of 1447 templates from us on the forum. Good luck!

[shvili]

Shvilli,
Congratulations on the oath letter!

Lo, thank you for your help and your good wishing! Please post as soon as you hear the news!

[AGC4ME]

Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.

great victory for you missinpa !!!!

[aryin]

Hi everybody,

Could you tell me what Id. stands for in the following paragraph?


"On December 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed I-485
applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent
residents. (Comp. PP 2, 11). The applications were filed
by Plaintiff Lei Xu through her company lawyer with the
Vermont Service Center. (Id. at P 11) ".

[w&w]

Hi everybody,

Could you tell me what Id. stands for in the following paragraph?


"On December 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed I-485
applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent
residents. (Comp. PP 2, 11). The applications were filed
by Plaintiff Lei Xu through her company lawyer with the
Vermont Service Center. (Id. at P 11) ".

From http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/:

Idem -
Latin, same

: something previously mentioned: the same authority (used in citations to cases and other works to refer to an immediately preceding reference)
(compare infra supra)
Note: Idem is usu. used in the form of its abbreviation id.
Example: In Bally, the plaintiff also claimed . . . 403 Mass. at 720-21. The [court] denied the claim . . . Id. at 721 -- R. T. Gerwatowski

[missingpa]

Bou,

I am in California, central district.

Hi Missingpa, which state are you in?

[duck008]

I don't remember where I got this line from but here's what I sent to the AUSA about discovery
"Plaintiff anticipates minimal discovery requests that may include written interrogatories and request for production of documents.".


I don't think different judges matter in this kind of cases. So far 4 MTDs have been dismissed in our district by 3 different judges. No decisions have been made on MSJs. I'm keeping my eyes on 3 cases (07-0083, 07-0103, 07-0122) that are at the MSJ step.


There was only one and it took 15 minutes. I did talk to the AUSA the day before. Take the chance to ask questions if you didn't talk to AUSA before the conference.


Besides the discovery plan, the only other significant thing is that I put this under the ADR method:
"Plaintiff agrees that this case is not amendable to ADR, as it is extremely unlikely that this type of immigration proceeding can be settled. Plaintiff suggests that the Court issue a proposed briefing schedule setting forth the dates for the filing of summary judgment motions and any responses thereto."

Since my AUSA told me that he will file MTD, I ask the court to set dates for summary judgment motions hoping that things can move faster. I saw this in a case (JSR attached) filed by a professional. If you think the AUSA is working on your case and it can be resolved before MTD, you might want to do it differently. It seems to me that the due date for dispositive motions set by the court is usually quite late. That means the government can wait longer before they file MTD.

Thank you so much w&w.

[lazycis]

Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.

Hey missingpa,
I was wondering how your case is going. This is great!!!
Well, the next step would be to contact AUSA to develop a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment. I would insist on discovery, albeit minimal and limited to administrative records as it is customary in APA cases. Ask defendants (USCIS and FBI) to produce timeline for processing of your case. Ask FBI to provide some details regarding your name check processing (how many hits your name generated, a few samples of those "hits", how many hits had to be reviewed manually, when actions were taken, etc.). If AUSA does not agree to discovery, seek subpoena.
As for writing MSJ, I am sure you can do it with no problem.
If I can do anything to help you, just ask. Looking forward for your GC approval message!

[lazycis]

Is there a way to find out how a particular AUSA replies generally, and how a specific judge rules on mandamus cases? Or any experiences of the current forum members about my AUSA and District and Magistrate Judge. Here are the details:
AUSA: Marcus M Kerner
Court: California Central District Court
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Andrew J. Guilford
Referring Judge: Marc L. Goldman

Use http://dockets.justia.com/
it has information about judges assigned to cases and it also gives you a link to pacer if you need details about a particular case

[AGC4ME]

So I've filed my complaint and I've filed my summons in the court showing that those summons were executed. I've also established contact with AUSA though we haven't talked yet but just trading voice mails. I'll talk to him tomorrow for sure. I'm thinking of asking him in general how he handles I485 WoM cases. But in general what did you guys ask the AUSA ?

I understand that the Defendants have 60 days to answer to my complaint. Will the Court schedule a conference after the answer is filed ? I'm confused as to the steps between the time answer is filed and MTD is filed.

Thanks guys.

[SLIS]

So I've filed my complaint and I've filed my summons in the court showing that those summons were executed. I've also established contact with AUSA though we haven't talked yet but just trading voice mails. I'll talk to him tomorrow for sure. I'm thinking of asking him in general how he handles I485 WoM cases. But in general what did you guys ask the AUSA ?

I understand that the Defendants have 60 days to answer to my complaint. Will the Court schedule a conference after the answer is filed ? I'm confused as to the steps between the time answer is filed and MTD is filed.

Thanks guys.

If the AUSA has already told you that he will be filing MTD against your complaint, then he will not be filing an answer at this point. What's going to happen is that he's going to wait till 60 days are up and then file MTD on the 60th day. Then, it will take the Court up to a month or longer to rule on the MTD. Once the Court has ruled on the MTD and denied it, the AUSA has within 7-14 days to file his answer. After that, you can go ahead and file your motion for summary judgment if the Court does not set a specific scheduling for doing so.