ThreeYears?
Registered Users (C)
I thought in marriage cases, you need to wait 3 years after the GC is obtained to become a citizen. Is this correct?
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Hi EVERYONE (LAZYCIS)
Thanks for all the help , I could nt find samples of summons.. but here is a dumb question. does addresses of defendants go on the summons or just names..titles?
On the summons form its has _______ on number of days defendants have to respond..Should I fill that out or the clerk will do that...
thanks
Palang
Thanks for all the help , I could nt find samples of summons.. but here is a dumb question. does addresses of defendants go on the summons or just names..titles?
On the summons form its has _______ on number of days defendants have to respond..Should I fill that out or the clerk will do that...
thanks
Palang
Last edited by a moderator:
Names and addresses. Leave "number of days" blank, the court clerk will fill it.
There is a slight chance that something may change during next 5 years. If not - here we go again.
Well, it sucks because of their incompetence, it add another 4 years on my application which if they have done the right thing from the beginning, I will be eligible for citizenship soon.
Anyway, when I do apply for citizenship and I have this same problem again. How long do you guys think I should file another WOM or 1447? I don't want to wait another 4 years before filing the wom
futureuscitizen
Registered Users (C)
Well AUSA finally came to realize that he has 60 days to work on my case. So now he is pushing for that. Well I guess the court has no ther way than giving that timeframe...
That will make the case to move to first half of February.......
That will make the case to move to first half of February.......
nooshinkdd
Registered Users (C)
Dear lazycis and the others,
I received email from my lawyer that says: US Attorneys office faxed him a copy of an appointment letter for my citizenship interview in March 2008 and an appointment for fingerprint in February 2008. I filled my WOM in November 2007 and my lawyer says: as we have received an appointment for my naturalization test, our federal court case is complete. Is that right or I should do something else?
And one thing else does any one know a lawyer in Huston (Texas) for wom cases?
I want to thank all of you to help me for my case.
I received email from my lawyer that says: US Attorneys office faxed him a copy of an appointment letter for my citizenship interview in March 2008 and an appointment for fingerprint in February 2008. I filled my WOM in November 2007 and my lawyer says: as we have received an appointment for my naturalization test, our federal court case is complete. Is that right or I should do something else?
And one thing else does any one know a lawyer in Huston (Texas) for wom cases?
I want to thank all of you to help me for my case.
It depends on what you asked in your prayer. Did you ask for an appointment letter or did you ask for a decision upon your naturalization application? Remember that there are a lot of people waiting for years after the interview. I would not dismiss the case until you get a decision on N400.
http://tehauno.com/contact.html
Tehauno & Associates, P.C
Amy Tehauno
7322 Southwest Freeway
Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77074
Tel. (713) 981-3844
Fax. (713) 981-3271
For a free assessment of your situation via e-mail, please contact: consultations@tehauno.com
Lazy, I think you hsould update the template that you posted a while back (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1795238&postcount=13632) to include the state department as defendant ... what do you think ?
Also I read one case (I forgot which one) where the plaintiff dismisses in the complaint some of the arguments that the AUSA usually makes in the MTD. Is that a good idea or is it better to play it dumb and hope for the AUSA to present a weak MTD and argue at that point ?
Also I read one case (I forgot which one) where the plaintiff dismisses in the complaint some of the arguments that the AUSA usually makes in the MTD. Is that a good idea or is it better to play it dumb and hope for the AUSA to present a weak MTD and argue at that point ?
gerard declaration and retrogression
Lazycis,others:
Someone posted the gerard declaration recenty(indicating retrogression as a delay in adjudication). Looking at the declaration I am puzzled by the following facts:
1. The visa bulletin mentions the priority dates as the I-140 filing date(DOS interpretation)
2. I always understood that USCIS interprets the labor filing date as the priority date. Seems like AGC4ME mentioned some regulations that indicate to this effect.
3. Gerard declaration however is using DOS interpretation to argue that plaintiff is affected(to a larger extent) by retrogression. Can't we point out the inconsistency here.
4. It is not clear to me which statutes/regulations require that a visa number be available at the time an applicant is ready for adjudication(only that adjustment is clearly in AG's discretion). 1255(b) only states that DOS will subtract by one...If numbers have retrogressed does not mean that country quota has been met. Can someone point out the statute or regulation that
clearly indicates this.
Lazycis,others:
Someone posted the gerard declaration recenty(indicating retrogression as a delay in adjudication). Looking at the declaration I am puzzled by the following facts:
1. The visa bulletin mentions the priority dates as the I-140 filing date(DOS interpretation)
2. I always understood that USCIS interprets the labor filing date as the priority date. Seems like AGC4ME mentioned some regulations that indicate to this effect.
3. Gerard declaration however is using DOS interpretation to argue that plaintiff is affected(to a larger extent) by retrogression. Can't we point out the inconsistency here.
4. It is not clear to me which statutes/regulations require that a visa number be available at the time an applicant is ready for adjudication(only that adjustment is clearly in AG's discretion). 1255(b) only states that DOS will subtract by one...If numbers have retrogressed does not mean that country quota has been met. Can someone point out the statute or regulation that
clearly indicates this.
Check this post by AGC4Me regarding the USCIS interpretation of the statue (8 USC 1153(b)).
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1810944&postcount=14147
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1810944&postcount=14147
retrogression further arguements
Miranda v INS lead me to Sun Il Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976).
Drawing on similar arguments I state:
Plaintiff contends that he was eligible for a visa number for extended periods of time since filing his I-485 application and was prevented from obtaining it only because of the USCIS's( and FBI's) unjustified delay in completing plaintiff's extended background checks(which are not statutorily required). The delay resulted from wilful negligence and are oppressive in nature to plaintiff's right to timely adjudication. Defendants have not even attempted to offer any explanation for having ignored applicants files for extended periods of time. In support plaintiff behooves USCIS to submit to honorable court the list of all applicants with priority dates later than plaintiffs who have been adjudicated. There is in short, no apparent justification from the USCIS or the FBI for the unreasonable delay in completing the namechecks. Plaintiff further alleges that since filing the complaint in Aug 2007, Defendants had adequate time to expedite the namechecks for plaintiff(refer to prev. USCIS memo) and adjudicate the application before plaintiffs was affected by retrogression in Jan 2008. Plaintiff further alleges that both USCIS( in cohorts with FBI) in response to DOS opening the floodgates with visa numbers completed the security checks and used by about 60,000 visa numbers in June 2007. Notwithstanding the work-load of either agencies, that a record number of visa numbers were consumed by USCIS weakens their argument that they are overburdened with applications. To support the argument of affirmative misconduct against the USCIS, plaintiff urges the honorable court to require that defendants submit information on details of namechecks conducted for all approved applicants approved in June 2007. Plaintiff also urges that Defendants be required to state under oath where visa number were pre-allocated to applicants whose namechecks had not been completed(emphasise). The ombudsmans report_2007 indicates that USCIS service centers process newer and simplere cases in a prioritised manner to obtain additional grants in future years( the grant allocation is proportional to the cases adjudicated by each service center).
This is the kind of "affirmative misconduct" on the Government's part that cannot be employed to penalize an alien who appears to have always acted in good faith and timely submitted all documents to process his I-485 application. Immigration agents may have no duty to inform aliens of matters of national security, but they have primary responsibility to complete investigations of such nature in a timely fashion, esp. if the nature of their investigation lies in their faulty databases on which basis they initiated the investigation. The delay is not justifiable if they cannot prove to the court any set/s of facts that show plaintiff to be a risk to this country. USCIS officials are under a duty to accord to him within a reasonable time the decision on his I-485 application to which he is entitled by law. By its maneuvers here, the INS has ensnared petitioner in a "Catch-22" predicament; the Service's conduct is analogous to the entrapment of a criminal defendant and, as such, cannot be countenanced. Given the present uncertainty about retrogression date movement, this would "result in the loss of all that makes life worth living" for the plaintiff. When such serious injury may be caused by USCIS decisions, its officials must be held to the highest standards in the diligent performance of their duties. Here, their duty was clear. Unlike the immigrants in Santiago, who had no right to enter the United States when they did, Plaintiff had a clear right under the INS's own regulation to have his I-485 application adjudicated in a timely manner. USCIS officials, by their affirmative inaction, deprived petitioner of that right without justification. The supreme court has stated that "a person might sustain such a profound and unconscionable injury in reliance on [an official's] action as to require, in accordance with any sense of justice and fair play, that [he] not be allowed to inflict the injury." Schuster v. CIR, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir. 1962). Justice and fair play can only be achieved in this case by holding, as we do, that the Government is estopped from denying petitioner the benefit of securing a visa-number in seeking an adjustment of his status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Plaintiff's application should be remanded so that he may be adjudicated for adjustment of status under the same circumstances as if the Service had completed all required checks within a reasonable time after receiving the statement of Jong Hwan Kim on Mar 2005.
Miranda v INS lead me to Sun Il Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976).
Drawing on similar arguments I state:
Plaintiff contends that he was eligible for a visa number for extended periods of time since filing his I-485 application and was prevented from obtaining it only because of the USCIS's( and FBI's) unjustified delay in completing plaintiff's extended background checks(which are not statutorily required). The delay resulted from wilful negligence and are oppressive in nature to plaintiff's right to timely adjudication. Defendants have not even attempted to offer any explanation for having ignored applicants files for extended periods of time. In support plaintiff behooves USCIS to submit to honorable court the list of all applicants with priority dates later than plaintiffs who have been adjudicated. There is in short, no apparent justification from the USCIS or the FBI for the unreasonable delay in completing the namechecks. Plaintiff further alleges that since filing the complaint in Aug 2007, Defendants had adequate time to expedite the namechecks for plaintiff(refer to prev. USCIS memo) and adjudicate the application before plaintiffs was affected by retrogression in Jan 2008. Plaintiff further alleges that both USCIS( in cohorts with FBI) in response to DOS opening the floodgates with visa numbers completed the security checks and used by about 60,000 visa numbers in June 2007. Notwithstanding the work-load of either agencies, that a record number of visa numbers were consumed by USCIS weakens their argument that they are overburdened with applications. To support the argument of affirmative misconduct against the USCIS, plaintiff urges the honorable court to require that defendants submit information on details of namechecks conducted for all approved applicants approved in June 2007. Plaintiff also urges that Defendants be required to state under oath where visa number were pre-allocated to applicants whose namechecks had not been completed(emphasise). The ombudsmans report_2007 indicates that USCIS service centers process newer and simplere cases in a prioritised manner to obtain additional grants in future years( the grant allocation is proportional to the cases adjudicated by each service center).
This is the kind of "affirmative misconduct" on the Government's part that cannot be employed to penalize an alien who appears to have always acted in good faith and timely submitted all documents to process his I-485 application. Immigration agents may have no duty to inform aliens of matters of national security, but they have primary responsibility to complete investigations of such nature in a timely fashion, esp. if the nature of their investigation lies in their faulty databases on which basis they initiated the investigation. The delay is not justifiable if they cannot prove to the court any set/s of facts that show plaintiff to be a risk to this country. USCIS officials are under a duty to accord to him within a reasonable time the decision on his I-485 application to which he is entitled by law. By its maneuvers here, the INS has ensnared petitioner in a "Catch-22" predicament; the Service's conduct is analogous to the entrapment of a criminal defendant and, as such, cannot be countenanced. Given the present uncertainty about retrogression date movement, this would "result in the loss of all that makes life worth living" for the plaintiff. When such serious injury may be caused by USCIS decisions, its officials must be held to the highest standards in the diligent performance of their duties. Here, their duty was clear. Unlike the immigrants in Santiago, who had no right to enter the United States when they did, Plaintiff had a clear right under the INS's own regulation to have his I-485 application adjudicated in a timely manner. USCIS officials, by their affirmative inaction, deprived petitioner of that right without justification. The supreme court has stated that "a person might sustain such a profound and unconscionable injury in reliance on [an official's] action as to require, in accordance with any sense of justice and fair play, that [he] not be allowed to inflict the injury." Schuster v. CIR, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir. 1962). Justice and fair play can only be achieved in this case by holding, as we do, that the Government is estopped from denying petitioner the benefit of securing a visa-number in seeking an adjustment of his status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Plaintiff's application should be remanded so that he may be adjudicated for adjustment of status under the same circumstances as if the Service had completed all required checks within a reasonable time after receiving the statement of Jong Hwan Kim on Mar 2005.
WOM info web site
I found out this web site by sheer serendipity. Looks like a good web site and has some good info for starters in a FAQ kind of format. It's a Chinese website but using Google's translation feature you can see it has collected good points. May be we can ask some Chinese readers to make sense of some of the weird translation and add to Wikipedia page.
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G
I found out this web site by sheer serendipity. Looks like a good web site and has some good info for starters in a FAQ kind of format. It's a Chinese website but using Google's translation feature you can see it has collected good points. May be we can ask some Chinese readers to make sense of some of the weird translation and add to Wikipedia page.
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G
Update on NC efforts from Boston
Senator Ted Kennedy's office replies in about a month or so. Their tag line is that they will not even make an inquiry with FBI until the case has been pending for THREE years.
Congressman Bill Delahunt in the 10th district was quick to respond and they also can't expedite but will place an inquiry with FBI to find out. They also have lot of complaints from their constituents about NC delays and according to them if it is less then 2-2.5 years, they can't do much. His office was willing to forward emails received from service center.
Senator Ted Kennedy's office replies in about a month or so. Their tag line is that they will not even make an inquiry with FBI until the case has been pending for THREE years.
Congressman Bill Delahunt in the 10th district was quick to respond and they also can't expedite but will place an inquiry with FBI to find out. They also have lot of complaints from their constituents about NC delays and according to them if it is less then 2-2.5 years, they can't do much. His office was willing to forward emails received from service center.
This is a very well stated argument. I wish I saw this post two days ago so that I can include it in my Opposition to MSJ.
So I did send out my opp to MSJ. The question is: what is next? Can I amend my Opposition to MSJ with additional documents?
I haven't see the opposition from AUSA yet. Can I oppose to her opposition if it comes?
Thanks very much.
So I did send out my opp to MSJ. The question is: what is next? Can I amend my Opposition to MSJ with additional documents?
I haven't see the opposition from AUSA yet. Can I oppose to her opposition if it comes?
Thanks very much.
what was the answer about your case ?
they replied to my inquiry saying "name check is in process"
one of my friends is saying that its is good news they are processing it right now.
his inquiery returned as "awaiting process"
any thoughts? is a different way of putting words ?
Great find by wom_ri.
Ask court's permission to amend your Opposition (file a motion for leave to file amended opposition).
Name check cleared and got MTD because of visa number not available
Lazycis and AGC4ME and everyone else,
My AUSA has just filed a MTD and MSJ. The main reason for MTD is that there is no visa number available since my name check was cleared in October 2007 (it was available when I file the WOM). So I think I need to work on a response and a counter MSJ.
Are there any sample documents that applies to my situation? Any advice you can provide?
Thanks!
Lazycis and AGC4ME and everyone else,
My AUSA has just filed a MTD and MSJ. The main reason for MTD is that there is no visa number available since my name check was cleared in October 2007 (it was available when I file the WOM). So I think I need to work on a response and a counter MSJ.
Are there any sample documents that applies to my situation? Any advice you can provide?
Thanks!
File a motion tor leave to amend your complaint to include DOS and join the club. WOM_RI has done some good research on this issue.
Check last 10 pages of this thread, we've had a good discussion about the retrogression going since the end of November.