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

Mandamus was the way to go !

Hello all,

Just wanted to give you all heads up here. After waiting for 21 months, I am now a US citizen. I had filed for mandamus on Nov 11th' 2007 thru my lawyer. Well, last Friday, I got a call from the officer in Atlanta asking me to appear for the interview on Tues morning. I showed up on time. Interview went well. Answered all the history questions and was asked to come to attend the oath the same afternoon. I attended the oath ceremony and was given the certificate.

Thanks to all of you for your positive & encouraging feedback.

Here is my timeline:

N-400 sent: April 2006
1st FP: May 2006
1st Interview: Jan 2007
File wasn't in the office so interview was descheduled.
2nd FP: Sep 2007
2nd Interview: Oct 2007
File wasn't in the office so interview was descheduled again.
WOM filed: Nov 2007
3rd Interview: Jan 8th 2008
Oath: same day on Jan 8th 2008
Applied for Passport: Jan 9th 2008.

Love you all. You guys are great :)
 
probably means in the NC backlog queue

I received a letter from Sen. Ted Kennedy's office with email response from the TSC saying that name check pending that my case was just transferred to NSC(a coincident?).I'm not sure about what "awaiting process" actually means is it another way of saying that they are waiting for the results. May be just a play on words!

The congressman's office forwarded me the email they received from TSC:

"This case is currently on hold due to the FBI name check is still out waiting for a clearance.

Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.

(Congressional Use Only)
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations
"
eliama said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
 
Adding DOS to complaint. Any limitations?

Are there any limitations on when I can amend an existing WOM (response filed by AUSA) complaint to add Dept of State as a defendant? My case in the Norther District of CA. Can someone point me to a link on the process to do this? I cannot find much in the Civil Local rules.
 
Retrogression is real, India EB-2 becomes unavailable!

I think adding DOS and arguing for adjudication if the I485 affected by retrogression is more real than ever.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3925.html

Even folks who are not affected by it for now should add DOS and be ready to add arguments to their response to MTD in case of dates retrogressing during while WOM is pending.

Should a possibility of being affected by retrogression because of lengthy delays in NC be added to list of harms done to the applicant?
 
Dec 11,2007 I requested a foipa with the local fbi office. they sent me a letter 2 days later stating they forwarded it onto the the D.C office. Should I expect a reponse soon? Should I contact them? who would I contact?
 
lazycis said:
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.

Dear lazycis
-Here is my timeline:

N-400 sent: sep 2005
1st FP: oct 2005
1st Interview: April 2006
interview was descheduled..
WOM filed: Nov 2007.
In December 2007 : Receiving a letter from FBI that my background check cleared on Oct 2005
Sending the letter of FBI to US Attorneys office in December 2007
Receiving a letter from US Attorney office for interview appointment on March 2008

Do you advise me not to dismiss the case until I got my citizenship?
Can they prolong my case after interview even after my background check is cleared?
What is the best thing for me to do? because I don’t have a lot of information and it is the first case of WOM without interview for my lawyer
Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
 
adding Rice as a defendant

rp1234 said:
Are there any limitations on when I can amend an existing WOM (response filed by AUSA) complaint to add Dept of State as a defendant? My case in the Norther District of CA. Can someone point me to a link on the process to do this? I cannot find much in the Civil Local rules.
Click to expand...

Check these two posts:

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1840149&postcount=14909

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1840196&postcount=14914
 
nooshinkdd said:
Do you advise me not to dismiss the case until I got my citizenship?
Can they prolong my case after interview even after my background check is cleared?
What is the best thing for me to do? because I don’t have a lot of information and it is the first case of WOM without interview for my lawyer
Thanks a lot
Click to expand...

Exactly. Do not dismiss it until you get an oath letter. Why do you think you've got an interview letter? Only because of the lawsuit. Your NC was cleared two years ago and they did nothing! If AUSA wants, let him file a motion to hold a case in abeyance until the interview. You can join the motion, but AUSA has to draft it.
One more point - you probably want to recover attorney fees, that's another reason not to dismiss it voluntarily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
feb visa bulletin, India EB2 - U

Hmm..
How can DOS state India EB2 alone is unavailable ? (when EB1 & EB3 are available and Family based is available too)
USC 1152(a)(2) states so:
Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
>> so does it mean...only 7% of green card approvals in any fiscal year could go to indians &&
only 2% of all EB2 approvals could go to Indians.. IMO, The latter should have been 7% too.
Am I interpreting this correctly ?
Looking at trends in employment based and family based immigrations, it is only fair to increase these %.. esp for EB categories.
On one hand visa's are going unused.. on the other hand, select citizens are denied every year.. Am I the only one seeing the irony here.
Seems like, now the only argument left for womers in EB2,India is:
a. First, USCIS must finish the namecheck.. otherwise this argument is not ripe for discussion
b. Keep the case open until AC21 unused numbers are available(all categories are subscribed ?) or argue
with estoppel and/or argue like przhebelskaya
It seems to me that EB2 Indians and Asylum seekers are in a comparable situation..
We need someone in congress to shift 7% to 10%.. or increase visa numbers by statute..
(how about a signed letter by all affected and sympathisers to Mr/Mrs Bush)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jay Solomon asked the same question.
http://usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
And was this legal????

Maybe not. Section 203(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that employment based visas are to be made available "in the order in which a petition in behalf of each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General...."

8 USC 1153 (e)

(e) Order of consideration
(1) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General (or in the case of special immigrants under section 1101 (a)(27)(D) of this title, with the Secretary of State) as provided in section 1154 (a) of this title.
(2) Immigrant visa numbers made available under subsection (c) of this section (relating to diversity immigrants) shall be issued to eligible qualified immigrants strictly in a random order established by the Secretary of State for the fiscal year involved.
(3) Waiting lists of applicants for visas under this section shall be maintained in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State.
 
wom_ri said:
Hmm..
How can DOS state India EB2 alone is unavailable ? (when EB1 & EB3 are available and Family based is available too)
USC 1152(a)(2) states so:
Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
>> so does it mean...only 7% of green card approvals in any fiscal year could go to indians &&
only 2% of all EB2 approvals could go to Indians.. IMO, The latter should have been 7% too.
Am I interpreting this correctly ?
Looking at trends in employment based and family based immigrations, it is only fair to increase these %.. esp for EB categories.
On one hand visa's are going unused.. on the other hand, select citizens are denied every year.. Am I the only one seeing the irony here.
Seems like, now the only argument left for womers in EB2,India is:
a. First, USCIS must finish the namecheck.. otherwise this argument is not ripe for discussion
b. Keep the case open until AC21 unused numbers are available(all categories are subscribed ?) or argue
with estoppel and/or argue like przhebelskaya
It seems to me that EB2 Indians and Asylum seekers are in a comparable situation..
We need someone in congress to shift 7% to 10%.. or increase visa numbers by statute..
(how about a signed letter by all affected and sympathisers to Mr/Mrs Bush)
Click to expand...

I think dependent area is not a foreign state (i.e Antarctica :)) so I can understand 2%.

Regarding EB2 unavailable. It's possible only if the USCIS issued about 2802 EB2 India GC during the Q1.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=209141&postcount=4

The problem can be solved only by Congress, so we are out of luck for quite some time.
 
lazycis said:
Jay Solomon asked the same question.
http://usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
And was this legal????

Maybe not. Section 203(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that employment based visas are to be made available "in the order in which a petition in behalf of each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General...."

8 USC 1153 (e)

(e) Order of consideration
(1) Immigrant visas made available under subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General (or in the case of special immigrants under section 1101 (a)(27)(D) of this title, with the Secretary of State) as provided in section 1154 (a) of this title.
(2) Immigrant visa numbers made available under subsection (c) of this section (relating to diversity immigrants) shall be issued to eligible qualified immigrants strictly in a random order established by the Secretary of State for the fiscal year involved.
(3) Waiting lists of applicants for visas under this section shall be maintained in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

Violation of a Statute... This should be the thrust of every WoM argument. USCIS should be estopped because in violation of the law it approved applications filed after us. You do not need proof of approval, just the very action of making the priority dates current in July 2007 and your application still remaining unadjudicated is a proof that applications filed after you were being adjudicated.
 
Another WOM victory

I just wanted to share my joy with all of you
After more then 3 years of wait (NC pending since 11/04), my journey was over this morning.
It didn't take them but 29 days after I filed 1447(b) to get me sworn in.
I filled on 12/12, got my 2nd set of FPs last Monday, and an IO called me late afternoon yesterday to ask me to come in today for the oath ceremony.
I want to thank Lazycis and all the others , if it wasn't for you I will be still waiting.
Thank you again
 
Need Help!!!!

Hello

Can someone please help me with this information?

Does anyone know any lawyer who works in non profit who can help me with the WOM process? I am in New York City. Or does anyone know any lawyer who charge really low fees as I am in some financial strain right now.

My I-485 was filed on Oct 22, 2004.
Name check pending- Nov 30th, 2004

Interview- Feb 15, 2005
Still name check pending.

My husband is sick again, and this time I really need this green card so that I can accompany him back home where his parents are, and also I need to see my own parents, I am mentally exhausted from all of these.

Please please if anyone knows any lawyer from any non-profit org or low charge let me know!

Thanks for your help.
 
Adding DOS to complaint. Any limitations?

lazycis said:
Check these two posts:

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1840149&postcount=14909

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1840196&postcount=14914
Click to expand...

Thanks lazycis! Does the effective date of the litigation get adversely affected by the amended complaint. My WOM was filed when visa dates were current but now they are unavailable. Wouldn't the court consider the date of litigation as the date of 1st amended rather than the original date and consequently not benefiting the argument in Basova.
 
Dear lazycis
Because I didn’t know that my NC was cleared by FBI then my lawyer asked:
1- compel the FBI to conclude its background security checks within 30 days of courts order
2- compel USCIS to issue a scheduling notice within 30 days of receipt the FBI security checks for an examination on plaintiffs naturalization application and:
3- grant such order and further relief as this court deems proper

after sending wom I understood my nc was cleared. now I am so confused should I do something on my case and change something on it? I don’t want to wait again after my interview.
And is it better to go to the interview with my lawyer?
 
rp1234 said:
Thanks lazycis! Does the effective date of the litigation get adversely affected by the amended complaint. My WOM was filed when visa dates were current but now they are unavailable. Wouldn't the court consider the date of litigation as the date of 1st amended rather than the original date and consequently not benefiting the argument in Basova.
Click to expand...

Do not worry about it. Original date stays. Amend the complaint, first amendment is automatic even if AUSA filed MTD already. Serve summons+amended complaint to DOS (using certified mail+return receipt) and serve amended complaint to AUSA (certified mail will do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top