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

Hey, waitforsolong,

According to what lazy told me, there is no extension on the deadline unless you add a new defendant. Even if you add a new defendant, the deadline can be extended to only the new defendant, it should not affect the deadline for the other defendants.


waitforsolong said:
Hi Lazycis and other members,

If I file the amendment to add my husband as plaintiff, does it reset 60 days for USA?

Thank you very much!!
Click to expand...
 
waitforsolong said:
Hi Lazycis and other members,

If I file the amendment to add my husband as plaintiff, does it reset 60 days for USA?

Thank you very much!!
Click to expand...

In your case it may give them 10 extra days (in reality, two weeks) if you file amended complaint right before AUSA answer is due.
 
Hi Lazycis and other members,

One more question following my previous one.

Are there any rules applying to time setting for the amendment? The reason I asked this is because the USA is mean to us right now. I am worried that they will try to make us life harder at the time and reset the time as they want.

Thanks very much!!
 
See FRCP 15(a)(3)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule15.htm
(3) Time to Respond.

Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

I say two weeks because it's 10 business days and three days are added if you serve amended complaint by mail.
Keep in mind that you can make any changes you want, so it's a good opportunity to make your original complaint stronger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there anyone here who is filing a WOM also asking that the GC approval gets backdated to six months after application was submitted as it would have been if not for the name checks?
 
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Allegations

Hi Lazycis:

I read the class-action lawsuit for delayed N400 cases. The lawyer also seeks the declaratory and injunctive relief. This is largely symbolic, making the defendants to admit their faults. Am I correct?

Thanks!
 
Hi LAZICIS and other pro's,

I have traveled extensively in the past few years (860+ days) and it looks like if USCIS continues to take more time to process my case, it would force me to stay in the US until my case is adjudicated and finished. I applied in Oct, 2007 in LA DO and 225 days have already passed and I am getting impatient and just plain tired of the delay in processing.

I have heard that WOM is the right way to compel USCIS carry out its responsibilities to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time frame. Now do you think it is unreadonable to ask a court to COMPEL USCIS to adjudicate a case when only 7 months have passed? I know USCIS is going to say something like the sheer number of applicants that applied in the summer of 2007 has created a backlog and such excuses.

Another thing is that, why should I have to abandon the naturalization process altogather when it is their fault that would force my application to may be denied since I may have to travel once more in the next few months which would push me over the limit of 30 months of physical presence in the US and thus become "not eligible" to naturalize.

Since I am a borderline case in terms of both continuous residence and physical presence requirement, I am seriously thinking of suing the USCIS and relevant departments and get some sort of relief from the above mentioned requirements and get adjudicated without further delay.

Do you think some sort of writ may help me? What about being part of any pending class action lawsuit (is it possible?)

As I am not a legal pro, I need your opinion. Do I honestly have a remedy in this case? I just can not believe I am stuck in this limbo. First, the application receipt notice came almost 3 months later, then getting stuck in the name check just is not acceptable to me. From the horror stories I learned from reading some posts today, what I gathered is that a law suit is the only way out of their control of my life. Can you help? Please reply to this email as soon as possible.
 
I filed my WOM case in early April. On 4/10, the judge issued an order to show cause, it ordered the defendants to respond by 5/16(I will check PACER tomorrow but I believe USA* will ask for extension).

Today I received my second FP appointment notice. The date of the appointment is 5/27/98. I believe this movement was caused by my WOM lawsuit. Does this mean my name check has been cleared?

Thanks a lot!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweetapple said:
Hi Lazycis:

I read the class-action lawsuit for delayed N400 cases. The lawyer also seeks the declaratory and injunctive relief. This is largely symbolic, making the defendants to admit their faults. Am I correct?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Defendants will never admit their faults. The court may declare that they are violating the law. It's symbolic in our cases, but such declaration sets a precedent for other similar cases.
Injunctive relief is a court order which forces agency to do something (i.e. adjudicate your app within 30 days).
 
citizen2008 said:
Hi LAZICIS and other pro's,

I have traveled extensively in the past few years (860+ days) and it looks like if USCIS continues to take more time to process my case, it would force me to stay in the US until my case is adjudicated and finished. I applied in Oct, 2007 in LA DO and 225 days have already passed and I am getting impatient and just plain tired of the delay in processing.

I have heard that WOM is the right way to compel USCIS carry out its responsibilities to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time frame. Now do you think it is unreadonable to ask a court to COMPEL USCIS to adjudicate a case when only 7 months have passed? I know USCIS is going to say something like the sheer number of applicants that applied in the summer of 2007 has created a backlog and such excuses.

Another thing is that, why should I have to abandon the naturalization process altogather when it is their fault that would force my application to may be denied since I may have to travel once more in the next few months which would push me over the limit of 30 months of physical presence in the US and thus become "not eligible" to naturalize.

Since I am a borderline case in terms of both continuous residence and physical presence requirement, I am seriously thinking of suing the USCIS and relevant departments and get some sort of relief from the above mentioned requirements and get adjudicated without further delay.

Do you think some sort of writ may help me? What about being part of any pending class action lawsuit (is it possible?)

As I am not a legal pro, I need your opinion. Do I honestly have a remedy in this case? I just can not believe I am stuck in this limbo. First, the application receipt notice came almost 3 months later, then getting stuck in the name check just is not acceptable to me. From the horror stories I learned from reading some posts today, what I gathered is that a law suit is the only way out of their control of my life. Can you help? Please reply to this email as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

You need to read residency requirements carefully and determine whether you have a reason to worry or not. There are exceptions for those who travel because of the job duties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001427----000-.html

I do not think court action is feasible in your case - the court simply has no power to order government to ignore existing statutory requirements unless those requirements are deemed unconstitutional (estoppel is the other case, but it's not applicable to your situation).
It does not mean you cannot try to initiate action alleging that the USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudication. But chances are small that the court will recognize 7 months as an unreasonable delay.
 
Do you have a link for this lawsuit? Thanks!

sweetapple said:
Hi Lazycis:

I read the class-action lawsuit for delayed N400 cases. The lawyer also seeks the declaratory and injunctive relief. This is largely symbolic, making the defendants to admit their faults. Am I correct?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
how to attack the validity of the declaration of Cannon

I drafted the following after reading Basova case. Hope that helps, folks!

The defendants have provided this Honorable Court erroneous information twice in this case. The first piece of erroneous information is “no visa numbers are available for Plaintiffs’ preference categories”, which is no minor detail; see Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The second piece of erroneous information is “After defendants’ filed their motion to dismiss in the case, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming the United States Department of State as a party”, stated in footnote 1 in Defendants’ Reply. Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2008 and offered 10 day extension to the Defendants. On April 17th, Defendants served Plaintiff XXXXX a copy of Motion to Dismiss and emailed her a denial notice of her I140 petition on the same day, when the deadline was due. Moreover, the defendants have provided erroneous information concerning visa number availability to other federal courts in their declarations, i.e. see Basova v. Ashcroft, 2005 LEXIS 12150 (E.D. N.Y. 2005) (“Although defendants claim that no visas remain for the 2003 program, plaintiffs cite government statistics showing that less than 50,000 visas were actually issued that year.”). Therefore, this Honorable Court should not find compelling reasons to take Declaration of Michael A Caonnon, exhibit A in Defendants’Reply, as solid truth without detailed evidence about how the name check has been performed on Plaintiff XXXXX.
 
Thanks, Lazy!

Hey, Lazycis,

This is very helpful and I will read it. And I found that you showed how to access opinions from Pacer in an earlier post, which is also quite helpful.
Here is another thought. A lot of federal judges relied on "misrepresentation" from USCIS (Name check is required by law) and did something that they would not do otherwise (dismissed the cases). So the federal judges can sue USCIS and claim estoppel against them if they want, right? :)


lazycis said:
Another case for you
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/031075p.pdf

Had Coraggioso sought relief prior to the expiration of the 1998 fiscal year, our analysis may have been different. See Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Similar to Coraggioso’s parents, Paunescu was a lottery winner for the fiscal year 1998 DV Program. But unlike Coraggioso’s parents, Paunescu filed a complaint for mandamus and declaratory judgment against the INS on September 23, 1998. After a hearing on September 25, 1998, the District Court ordered the INS to “complete adjudication of the applications for adjustment status” for Paunescu and his wife without delay, or by no later than September 30, 1998. Id. at 898. Despite the court order, Paunescu’s application was not adjudicated in time. In that instance, and despite the expiration of the fiscal year, the District Court ordered “defendants to process plaintiffs’ applications and to grant plaintiffs all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion.” Id. at 903 (emphasis added). The Seventh Circuit has explicitly approved this result.
It would be a different case had the district court ordered the INS to adjudicate the appellants’ status while the INS maintained the statutory authority to issue the visas. In such a situation, the INS would be on notice to reserve visas and must complete the task, as ordered, before time expires. Allowing the INS to claim inability to issue visas at that point would impinge the authority of the court.
Iddir, 301 F.3d at 501 n.2 (discussing and citing Paunescu) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).

See also this page where similar cases and opinions from your circuit/district are collected (including Paunescu http://dv.semper-ante.com/Cases/Paunescu (ok).pdf):
http://dv.semper-ante.com/
Click to expand...
 
lazycis said:
You need to read residency requirements carefully and determine whether you have a reason to worry or not. There are exceptions for those who travel because of the job duties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001427----000-.html

I do not think court action is feasible in your case - the court simply has no power to order government to ignore existing statutory requirements unless those requirements are deemed unconstitutional (estoppel is the other case, but it's not applicable to your situation).
Click to expand...

You have a valid point above.


lazycis said:
It does not mean you cannot try to initiate action alleging that the USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudication. But chances are small that the court will recognize 7 months as an unreasonable delay.
Click to expand...

Do I have a chance to win if I file WOM just to get to the interview without breaking the eligibility requirements. Stay here long enough to compel USCIS to let me sit for the interview. That way I am actually lowering my time to naturalize which is my only goal (to have this process completed before my eligibility runs out)

Do you not think 7 months (actually by the time I find a lawyer to prepare my case papers and all, it will be probably July or 9 months passed) is not enough acceptable delay in processing for a succesful turnout from WOM?

Have you seen anyone or know of any WOM case filed after waiting for 7-9 that resulted in a successful effort? Specially in the Central District in California

What are the valid reasons that can persuade a court to compel USCIS to adjudicate? for a WOM to be acceptable to the court?

If i say my reasons are:

7-9 months is unreasonable delay citing the congresses 180 day rule, is not not a good reason.

One more thing:

Do you know of any pending class action litigation in Souther California or Central District that includes all lawful permanent residents who have submitted or will submit applications for naturalization to the USCIS District Office located within Southern California, and whose applications for naturalization remain unadjudicated more than180 days after the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks?

If so, how can I take part in it? What is the procedure to be part of a class action lawsuit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Compliance Review

After having filed my 1447b lawsuit in March, I received a letter today from the USCIS asking me to come in for a compliance review, and also asking me to bring my spouse if she is in the US.

I am concerned about this because I got divorced in the last year, and no longer live with my ex-wife, or even in the same state, so there is no way I can bring her with me to the interview.

At the time I filed my N400, I applied on the basis of being a permanent resident for 3 years and married to the same US citizen during that time. I was still married at the time of the interview, and was also married when the 120 day limit for USCIS to complete adjudicating the case expired. Since that time however, I had to move for work reasons and subsequently got divorced.

Does this jeopardize my citizenship application in any way? I have by now been a permanent resident for well over 5 years, and qualify even under the 5 year permanent residence requirement. However I had met all the requirements under the three year rule when I had initially applied for citizenship.
 
some relevant cases

For those who have access to Lexis, Could you upload one or all of the following cases, if that is not too much trouble?

Amoakowaa v. Reno, 94 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
DeAvilia v. Civiletti, 643 F.2d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 1981)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32, 103 S.Ct. 321 (1982).

Thanks a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top