1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Obama's LEGAL immigration reform.

    What does it mean? Listen to a discussion by Attorney Rajiv S. Khanna in the November 21 conference call recording. Subscribe to Our YouTube channel to be notified when new updates are posted.

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

Discussion in 'US Citizenship' started by Publicus, Oct 29, 2005.

  1. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit

    I have merged Publicus's two threads dealing with his filing and then his results. This thread is a MUST read for folks who are contemplating suing USCIS over Citizenship delays. Great going Publicus - Rahul

    Make sure you watch this thread! I am going to update it regularly. This is a thread for all those members who are thinking about or have filed a lawsuit (whether writ of mandamus or petition for naturalization), it comprises valuable information on how to file a lawsuit, and what to do thereafter. Please post your username below and let us know how we can help you.

    Don't forget to browse through the pages of this thread as they contain a lot of good links and examples of lawsuits that you can use to educate yourself about the litigation process. It is easy if you know what to do. Remember, if you don't have a lawyer or can't afford one, just file a lawsuit, and keep looking. You never know, the lawsuit may just draw the needed attention, and USCIS may just complete your case, and you won't even have to do anything with your lawsuit except dismissing it.

    At the end of my plight with USCIS, when I am a United States Citizen (because it is only a matter of time), I will post a brief on how I did it, what methodology I used, and who I contacted during this amazing long journey. Most of this information is scattered on this thread and around this forum, but in the end I will compress it into this first post. So stay tuned!

    The key to success in any endeavor is INFORMATION. Let us share our experiences and let us learn from each other. Remember, "Your silence will not protect you."

    I am planning on becoming a U.S. Citizen before the end of 2005. Are you?
    I made it on January 9th, 2006. Only nine days away from 2005. Therefore I accomplished the goal I set up for myself. Here is the complete story of my oath ceremony (read this story because it includes important advice regarding the oath ceremony, what to bring with you, and what to expect there):
    Part 1: http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1333065&postcount=260
    Part 2:http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1333068&postcount=261


    Read how the press documented how people are filing a lawsuit to speed up their naturalization case: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/12/17/immigrants_are_suing_to_speed_up_citizenship/

    Steps to take to file a lawsuit:


    1. Contact your Federal District Court and ask for a Civil Case Pro Se package.
    2. Read it and follow the instructions.
    3. Prepare a lawsuit on Microsoft word. Print it and sign it.
    4. Get a Civil Cover sheet and fill it out.
    5. Call the court and ask to speak to the clerk...explain your situation and listen for advice.
    6. Either mail in or drop off the papers [complaint (with exhibits if any) + cover sheet]
    7. The court will send you a summons with your case number.
    8. Make copies of the summons and your complaint. (one for each defendant and an extra copy for the US attorney in your district)
    9. Put the case # on all copies.
    10. Serve the complaint + summons + exhibits if any via CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED on all defendants and the US atty office. Call the US ATTORNEY and get their address and the right department you should send your complaint to. (read the memo called whom to serve in my first post)
    11. Wait for the return receipt. The 60-day count starts from the date shown on the receipt received from the US atty.
    12. File the return receipt with the court, and send a copy to the US atty office.
    13. From here, everytime you file something with the court, send a copy to the US attorney and file a Certificate of service with the court. (see p.10 of this thread for an example)
    14. 2 weeks before the expiration of the deadline, call the US atty, introduce yourself, and ask about your case.
    15. Hopefully the name check will be cleared, and you'll be a citizen within 2 to 3 months of filing the suit.

    When you file a lawsuit, with your complaint, you have to introduce a Civil Cover Sheet, Basically this allows the court's clerk to classify your case in the system. All immigration lawsuits are filed under code 890 for Nature of Suit. See below an example of a cover sheet. Make sure you use your district court's cover sheet. You may download it online.

    While you are reading this, and filing your suit, do not get trapped in the Analysis Paralysis syndrom. Don't get scared or worried about small administrative issues. The Court knows you are a Pro Se applicant and does not expect you to be perfect. Just GO FOR IT, take the first step and things will become clearer as you go along. The first step is the hardest, but trust me, YOU CAN DO IT. I DID. :)

    Since each message only allows a maximum of five attachments, I will later post a cover sheet for Green Card lawsuits. (update:Cover sheet for Green Card is on page 14)

    For more information about Civil Lawsuit, refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FCRP). They are a great sources for answers on Summons, who to serve, etc...

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/index.html

    I just found out that I've reach the maximum number of files I can upload. So see page 8 for the cover sheet example. Thanks. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2006
  2. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Steps to file a lawsuit

    INA Section 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), specifically provides for judicial review for a stalled naturalization petition. It states as follows:

    If there is a failure to make a determination under [INA] § 335 [8 U.S.C. § 1446] before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States District Court for the District in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions to the Service to determine the matter.
    In short, the statute says that if more than 120 days have passed since the naturalization interview, the applicant can seek judicial relief. The judicial relief can come in two forms:
    1) An adjudication of the naturalization application in court and by the court, or
    2) A remand to CIS for immediate adjudication.
    You will likely want to ask the court to decide the application, rather than submit to the delays associated with further agency proceedings.

    The statute is very specific in identifying precisely when a naturalization applicant can ask the district court to intervene and decide the case due to agency delay: when the agency fails to make a decision on the application within 120 days after the examination. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).3 The examination referred to is the initial interview scheduled under 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). See also 8 C.F.R. § 335.2.
    In some offices, examiners may ask – or sometimes pressure – the applicant to sign a waiver of the 120-day decision deadline. An applicant is not required to sign such a waiver.
    In many cases, CIS continues the initial examination on the naturalization applicant and instructs the applicant to submit additional evidence. CIS will then schedule a reexamination of the applicant. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(b). Even when this happens, however, CIS still must make its decision within 120 days of the initial examination. The government might claim that this is not correct, and instead argue that the 120-day period does not begin to run until after the reexamination.

    (to be continued)
     
  3. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    It is always a good idea to show the court that you've been trying to resolve the issue before trial. But there is nothing about sending two rounds of certified letters.

    What you want to do, is show the court that you have exhaused your administrative remedies. How do you do that? Well, you show that you've been calling the 800 Customer Disservice number inquiring about your case for n times. Then you show that you've contacted your Congressman's office to no avail. You can also state that you have used an infopass. You can say that you've sent letters if you did. Any of the above venues or a combination is sufficient to show the court that you've been trying to fix the issue. Remember 1447 (b) speaks that USCIS has 120 days to decide the case. And if they fail: You have the right to petition the courts. So in that venue you are covered. But you need to show that you've been trying to solve the case through other venues to make your case stronger. Keep in mind that you can still use the other routes after you file your lawsuit.

    Sending what is called a Demand Letter or an Intent to Sue letter is also advised. But for such letter to be effective, it has to be sent to the right authority: In the case of USCIS, you should send it to the Office of the General Counsel and to the District Director of the District Office handling your case. The General Counsel is the Attorney who advises USCIS regarding legal matters. They are like Corporate attorneys. When you sue a Corporation, the case is handles by their attorney. When you sue USCIS, the case goes to the General Counsel's office. You should include a draft of your complete complaint with the demand letter to show them that you are serious about suing. Give them a 30 days deadline then sue if you receive no answer.

    Good luck to you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2005
  4. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    The GC and Ombudsman are two different entities. GC counsels USCIS on legal issues, Ombudsman investigates misconduct.

    Here is GC address:

    DHS/ USCIS
    Office of the Chief Counsel
    20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
    Suite 4025, Fourth Floor
    Washington, D.C. 20529​
     
  5. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Well, unless you file a lawsuit with a District Court, USCIS keeps Jurisdiction over your Naturalization Application. But once an applicant files a lawsuit, USCIS automatically loses jurisdiction over the case. USCIS can still approve the case, just NOT DENY IT. At least this is a fact in States such as California, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, Washigton, Alaska, and Oregon. It is still to be proven in other jurisdications. So to answer your question Sony, since you did not file a lawsuit right after the 120 days deadline, USCIS can deny your case, and you have to exhaust the other administrative venues before you can appeal to the courts. But there is hope! Don't lose faith!

    Frequently, after suit is filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the CIS will quickly adjudicate the naturalization application and file a motion to dismiss the district court proceedings as moot. The agency has historically taken the position that it retains concurrent jurisdiction with the district court after a suit under § 1447(b) is filed, and thus argues that it has the authority to continue to process the application. Moreover, where the application is denied by the CIS, CIS takes the position that the individual must exhaust the administrative appeal required by statute before he or she will be able to go back into district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1447; 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d); cf. Chavez v. INS, 844 F. Supp. 1224 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (no jurisdiction to reinstate § 1447(b) suit where agency denied application following remand; applicant had to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)).

    Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that CIS retains concurrent jurisdiction over the application. The Court held that, once suit was filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the district court assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application, and CIS lost the authority to decide the case. United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). In Hovsepian, the applicant filed for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) after the legacy INS failed to decide his application within 120 days of the initial examination. While the case was pending at the district court, the legacy INS denied the naturalization application. The district court determined that the legacy INS no longer had jurisdiction over the case, and the court thus disregarded the legacy INS decision and instead proceeded to approve the naturalization application. On appeal by the legacy INS, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court was correct in asserting exclusive jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the plain language of § 1447(b), the larger statutory context, and Congress’ policy objectives.
    Thus, it is now clear that in cases arising in states within the Ninth Circuit, CIS will lose jurisdiction over a case as soon as the applicant files for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). In these states, CIS will not be able to deprive the Court of jurisdiction by attempting to moot the federal court case by denying the naturalization application. Because Hovsepian is the only published court of appeals decision that addresses this issue, however, it remains an open question in other circuits. In these other circuits, should CIS deny your application after you have filed for district court review of the case under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), you can rely on Hovsepian to argue that the district court should disregard the CIS decision and instead independently adjudicate the application. See, e.g., Castracani v. Chertoff, 377 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.C.D.C. 2005) (adopting Hovsepian); Zaranska v. U.S. DHS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17559 (S.D. NY 2005) (same).
     
  6. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough before. The language of 8 USC 1447(b) says:

    If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.

    So it is simple. The courts' interpretation of the code never stated that the petitioner has to exhaust their administrative remedies. I said before that sending letters would make your case stronger, showing the Judge that you were trying to solve the issue peacefully, but it is not required.

    Nevertheless, in the case of Mandamus under 28 USC 1361, the plaintiff has to prove among many requirements, that no other adequate remedy exists. (Blaney v. United States, and Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd).

    Sometimes I question the wisdom of those who decide to take the hard choice of filing a mandamus instead of using the blessings of 8 USC 1447b.
     
  7. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Attached is a copy of a lawsuit.
     
  8. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    I am filing Pro Se.

    Here is a Pro Se case.
     
  9. Gegemon

    Gegemon Registered Users (C)

    In response to court summons I served to Paul Novak, Director of VSC, I have received a second letter from Sandra T. Bushey, Acting Director of Vermont Service Center. In her first letter she claimed that my AOS application is in EB3 category and is subject to retrogression / visa unavailability. I faxed her an explanation request - my application is in EB1 category and visas are still current.

    She wrote that they "apologize for the confusion and have verified that your category is 1st employment based ..."
    "However, the processing of your petition/application has been delayed. ..."due to"... security checks.."
    - the same stuff I got from them for 5-10 times already. So there is no indication that they are willing to resolve my case before going to court and that they requested an expedite on my FBI Name/DOB check.

    I would assume that by the end of 60 days given them by the court to reply to summons and after doing nothing, they will file a "Motion for an Extension of Time" which I should oppose due to a "lack of good cause." I would greatly appreciate if you guys got such document ready by now and can comment on a general style and layout.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2005
  10. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Here are some questions for you Publicus.

    1. Could you answer these questions and post the questions and anwers please if you like?


    No Problem.

    2. Which one is better?, filing mandamus or filing petition for naturalization hearing?

    Petition for Naturalization is the best.

    3 . Why is one better than the other?
    4. What are the differences?
    5. What is the success rate you observed on mandamus cases (for naturalization) you researched?
    6. What is the success rate you observed on petition for naturalization hearing cases you researched?
    7. How long do these lawsuits take on average? Which one takes longer on average? Mandamus or Petition for Naturalization Hearing?


    First, when you file a Petition for a Hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) with a District Court, USCIS loses Jurisdiction over your Naturalization Application. Meaning, if they deny your case, you can send the denial notice back to the immigration officer who typed it with a nice courteous note suggesting that s/he frames the denial notice in their office. Why? Because the 9th circuit appeal court in the case of United States v. Hovsepian ordered that 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) stripped away USCIS jurisdiction over the case. In Hovsepian, the applicant filed for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) after the legacy INS failed to decide his application within 120 days of the initial examination. While the case was pending at the district court, the legacy INS denied the naturalization application. The district court determined that the legacy INS no longer had jurisdiction over the case, and the court thus disregarded the legacy INS decision and instead proceeded to approve the naturalization application. On appeal by the legacy INS, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court was correct in asserting exclusive jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the plain language of § 1447(b), the larger statutory context, and Congress’ policy objectives. Thus, it is now clear that in cases arising in states within the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon), CIS will lose jurisdiction over a case as soon as the applicant files for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). However petitioners in other states can cite this case in other circuits. In a recent decision in the District of Columbia, USCIS moved the court to dismiss the case for mootness. They quickly approved petitioner’s citizenship application after lawsuit. The court granted their motion, but in the process, and mainly because the Plaintiff’s attorney made a point of asking the court to uphold the concept of Jurisdiction, stated that It had Jurisdiction of the case based on 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) based primarily on the 9th Circuit Appeal Court’s interpretation of the code in Hovespian. It is very likely that all courts in the United States will follow such venue as long as the Petitioner cites U.S. v Hovespian as ground. This is a landmark case. This great benefit of courts’ jurisdiction does not exist under 28 USC 1361 which is the basis of Mandamus actions.

    Frequently, after suit is filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the CIS will quickly adjudicate the naturalization application and file a motion to dismiss the district court proceedings as moot. Usually 3 to 6 months if there are no criminal records or aggravated felony issues which may render the Petitioner deportable or which may temporarily or permanently bar him from becoming a citizen of the United States. .

    I think that’s a great benefit. It gives you the peace of mind that you don’t have to go through the appeal process and jump right to the District Court. This in itself will save you between 3 to 12 months.

    Number two, The language of 8 USC 1447(b) says:
    If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter. ​


    So it is simple. The courts' interpretation of the code never stated that the petitioner has to exhaust their administrative remedies. Nevertheless, in the case of Mandamus under 28 USC 1361, the plaintiff has to prove among many requirements, that no other adequate remedy exists. (Blaney v. United States, and Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd). Mandamus is also not clear in what the courts can do or order USCIS. Mandamus requires more legal expertise because it allows the Defendants (USCIS) and their attorney a lot of room to jingle in and play with the rules. Your suit is subject to dismissal on a technicality a lot more in case of a Mandamus than that of a Petition under 8 USC 1447b. Why use the hard way while 1447b is a blessing to us.


    You should note that lawsuits under 8 USC 1447b are somewhat new. The changes in the policies and regulations after 9/11 cause this new era of litigation to emerge. Lawyers are mostly accustomed with Writ of Mandamus which is mostly used in issues concerning the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. If you are thinking about filing a 1447b Petition through a lawyer, you must keep looking for a lawyer until you find one who is familiar with it and accepts to do so, otherwise file for yourself. To find such lawyer you must do a lot of research and speak to a lot of lawyers. What do men do to find the right woman? They kiss a lot of women. Well it’s the same concept when it comes to lawyers. You must do the same thing. But I don’t suggest kissing them. :D

    But let me say this, a writ of mandamus is better than nothing.

    8. When did you file yours? Can you summarize all the stages in these lawsuits? At what stage are you?

    Last September. I called the court and asked them to mail me a Pro Se guide. It can also be downloaded from the website of the court under which district you reside. It is very comprehensive. A step by step guide.
    After that I typed my petition and sent it to the court. They docketed it and mail me a receipt and scheduling order for a conference. They also included the summons which you must serve on the defendants and an informational order telling you how to proceed. It is not that complicated. Do not hesitate to phone the clerk’s office to ask them any questions you may have.

    9. How long after you moved, did you file your lawsuit? I am thinking of filing my lawsuit about a week after I notify them of address change. Is there a disadvantage to that? Could they use the excuse to dismiss my lawsuit that my file is not transferred yet to the new state?

    Make sure you file an AR-11. Send it via Certified Mail and call the Customer Disservice Center 800 number to inform them about the change of address. They will send you a notice. Keep it and use it in court if necessary. If you don’t notify them they may try to dismiss the case based on jurisdiction or some other crappy excuse. It’s USCIS, so expect everything that tastes and smells bad to come from them. I filed ONE DAY after I notified USCIS of my move. It took the court about 6 days to file the lawsuit, and it was a great feeling. Now when I receive a letter from USCIS asking me to wait, I say: No Problem.

    Make sure you properly serve the defendants. After you serve them, they have 60 days to answer you. They may ask for an extension of time. But now you will be sure they are working on your case. Do not hesitate to file a lawsuit. File then wait. Remember that you can file a Motion to change venue to transfer your case to a different state if you move again.

    Good luck and let us all SUE THE BASTARDS.
     
  11. bashar82

    bashar82 Registered Users (C)

    Letter to USCIS giving them one last chance

    Phyllis Howard
    Director, Washington District
    USCIS
    2675 Prosperity Avenue
    Fairfax, Virginia 22031

    Re: Application for Naturalization – A-----------


    Dear Ms. Howard:

    Attached please find a draft copy of the petition I intend to file on December 19, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the event a fair and prompt decision (including any and all formalities associated with such decision, i.e. naturalization oath ceremony date) has not been made and communicated to me by the end of the business day on December 16, 2005.

    For background, my application for naturalization was received by the USCIS Vermont Service Center on July 14, 2004. On January 13, 2005 I had my fingerprints taken at the Norfolk Sub Office. On June 8, 2005, I was examined by Officer -----in Norfolk.

    During my interview I truthfully answered all questions asked. Mr. ---examined my current and expired passports and requested that I sign the application and the photographs I submitted with my application. I was also requested by the interviewing officer to submit a notarized statement within one month and three days from the date of the interview. Mr. ---- then informed me that he was unable to make a decision on my application as my name check was still pending as of May 24, 2005. He assured me that he would send an inquiry to the FBI in regard to the name check within a week. Before the conclusion of the examination, I informed ---- of my pending change of address. Mr. ---- promptly updated my address on his computer. I was then instructed to contact Mr. --- if I had not heard from USCIS within 120 days of the interview.

    On June 10, 2005, (2 days after the request) I couriered the requested notarized statement to Officer ----- at the Norfolk Sub Office.

    On September 14, 2005 I appeared at the Washington District Office for an appointment scheduled thru INFOPASS. I was informed by the information officer that there had not been any activity on my case since June 8, 2005 and that my name check was pending as of May 24, 2005. This would indicate that Mr. ---- did not follow thru on his assurance to send an inquiry to the FBI.

    On September 20, 2005, I sent a certified letter to Officer ---- requesting an update on my application. On October 11 and November 2, I sent letters to yourself, the Officer In Charge of the Norfolk Sub Office and Officer --- stating that 120 days had passed since my examination and that I was requesting an update on the status of my application. I believe that my written request for updates were reasonable (especially since Officer --- had instructed me to do so), yet I have yet to receive a response. At this point, I feel that I have met every requirement of the naturalization process and no one from USCIS has communicated differently.

    Therefore, while it is not my first choice to resort to a judicial determination on my application, I nevertheless feel that I have no other choice given the lack of response to my many requests. Further, I recognize that litigation is expensive for me (and for the Government), however, I reluctantly feel like that is the path I am forced to take.

    I, therefore, appeal to you this one last time to please act on my naturalization application.

    Please note that the draft pleading was prepared by -------------. Mr. ---- has worked with me in the preparation of the draft complaint and this letter, however, he has not been retained at this point for the purpose of filing said complaint on December 19, 2005 and a decision as to whether I will file this pro se or whether Mr. ----- will file on my behalf will be made between now and the proposed filing date. Therefore, any and all communications in regard to my application and/or response to this letter should be directed to me at: -----------------------


    Sincerely,



    --------

    cc: Mary Ann Russell, Officer In Charge, USCIS Norfolk Sub Office
    Paul J. McNulty, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia
     
  12. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Filing a Hearing for Naturalization pursuant to 8 USC 1447b can be as simple as this.
     
  13. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    It is a large file. Try to save it to your hard drive then open it afterwards. You may need to refresh your browser or even restart it.
     
  14. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Here is a well written complaint based on 8 USC 1447b.
     
  15. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    FOIA Victory Lawsuit
     
  16. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    GOOD ADVICE: MAKE SURE YOU SERVE THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN YOUR DISTRICT WITH THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE DEADLINE FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, IS LINKED DIRECTLY TO THE DATE WHEN THE US ATTORNEY RECEIVES THE COMPLAINT

    I just finished talking to the asst US atty. I was informed that my file is still traveling around the USA. :p Well, it has to be ordered from my old District Office to the new one, then USCIS will get a chance to look at it and see what can be done. They have till Dec, 13 for now. Hopefully we'll hear some good news by then. Please pray for me! :)

    The assistant US attorney was very courteous and professional. She told me that the whole issue lies on the new office's decision.

    This is just a quick update regarding my case.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2005
  17. peterdlu

    peterdlu New Member

    Thanks Publicus, 8 USC 1447(b) looks like the way to go. I am planning to send a "draft" of the petition to the USCIS and US Attorney no later than the end of this week.
    I also did some research and found a link that may be of some help.
    http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_index.asp
    Good luck on your journey and please share with us your experience.
     
  18. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Here is a draft of a lawsuit for I-485 applicants.

    The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed when USCIS completed the case.
     
  19. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    Many people asked me about the Cover Sheet. Here is the answer.

    When you file a lawsuit, with your complaint, you have to introduce a Civil Cover Sheet, Basically this allows the court's clerk to classify your case in the system. All immigration lawsuits are filed under code 890 for Nature of Suit. See below an example of a cover sheet. Make sure you use your district court's cover sheet. You may download it online.

    I will later post a cover sheet for Green Card lawsuits.
     
  20. Publicus

    Publicus Registered Users (C)

    8 CFR 335.3(a)

    Sec. 335.3 Determination on application; continuance of examination.

    (a) The Service officer shall grant the application if the applicant
    has complied with all requirements for naturalization under this
    chapter. A decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at
    the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of
    the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization under
    Sec. 335.2. The applicant shall be notified that the application has
    been granted or denied and, if the application has been granted, of the
    procedures to be followed for the administration of the
    oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337 of this chapter.
     

Share This Page