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

[kefira]

Update on my status in N. Cal -- > AUSA called me and asked me to sign ADR papers that they will fax me. AUSA secretary faxed me ADR papers within 10 min, I will sign those and fax it back to her. Probably will have a telephone conference just like kefira had (but this case was AOS) but mine is 1447b. Wondering if anyone else on 1447b had to go thru ADR in N. Cal?

Based on my experience, try to oppose it. Try immediately ask for a hearing. It saves u at least 2 month. ADR is just waist of time in our cases, since no discovery and magistrate judge is not competent at all in this cases, so he just listen to AUSA that says that "NOTHING CAN BE DONE.. we are working very hard".

 

[colonel]

I sent a letter to Mrs George W. Bush back in December, the letter mention that, I dont know if this letter ( NC) is a response to the WOM or first lady help

I filed WOM Pro Se for I-485 in CT second district and I did not get MTD . The letter was sent trought USPS mail.

 

[shvili]

Shivili,

Thanks you so much for your quick response, i appreciate it!

I forgot to mention that my case if for Adjustment of Status, not naturalization. Do you have some sample cases on AOS?

Thanks,

Birdie,

I think some of the logic in N-400 may apply to AOS where they talk of unreasonable delay in nc processing. ALso I re-posted (someone posted them on the forum before) the order in Florida on WOM, and others. These are the judges orders, but still useful for writing WOM. Unfortunaly, I can't find better WOM coplaints, so here's waht I found. I havent yet registered with PACER so I haven't downloaded more recent cases.

Good luck!

 

[shvili]

Its not the end of options for remand cases with no instructions. Remand means that technically the court still has the option of asking the agency progress on the case at any time. Here is case (not CIS related) of a remand to an agency and the petetioner went back to the court after 7 months of no progress on his case to ask for a status from the agency.

http://dont.stanford.edu/cases/turner/turner.p.r.statusconf.pdf

So given this we need to research more on what mandmus options exists for remand cases.

Lotechguy,

thank you for posting. So looks like Riz may definitely need laywer's help if it gets to this. (But I still hope he'll get answers before 7 months). Doesn't the word "prompt" mean nothing?

 

[sfbayarea]

A letter from AUSA

I filed the lawsuit 1447(b) at Dec 2006. Today I got a letter from AUSA:
STIPULATION TO DISMISS:
"Plaintiff , appearing pro se, and Defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to dismissal of the above-entitled action without prejudice in light of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is now prepared to adjudicate plaintiff's application for naturalization and agrees to adjudicate such application within 30 days of the dismissal of this action."

Should I sign to agree to dismiss?

 

[shvili]

Shvili,
Thank you for your support and honestly I think that I did a good job, although judge already twice asked me if I have an attorney to represent myself and then asked if I am an attorney by myself. It pissed me off, but of course I kept quite on the hearing, but it clearly says that judge did not bother to read at least FIRST page of the WOM or my Opposition, where I clearly specified my occupation.
Anyway, based on my analysis of recent NCA cases (very recent ones from beg March), two different judges ruled in honor of Plaintiffs for AOS with "unreasonable time" wording. What will do this judge-no idea. When I asked him if I can submit additional paperwork showing that 2 separate cases in this court were ruled in favor of plaintiffs, he said-it is enough and I already missed my opportunity for opposition and he won't accept anything from me.
If he is honest and fair and in addition he communicates with other judges or if they at least have similar forum as we have (kidding), then he should rule in my favor and give them timeframe 30 days as I asked. If he just wants to be nice, then he will rule to keep my case, but will give another 6 month to INS to finish it, if he wants to be an evil, then I am back to square one with more confindence, that only rich and famous rule this country.
BTW I mentioned in my opposition, that if I loose, then I will oppose it and will complain to the higher court, but already with the attorney (then I mentioned cases where AOS with attorneys were resolved in 2 weeks period in NCA district), so it is in best interest of the government to save taxpayers money and resolve my case. You can laugh, but I have nothing to loose already...

Kefira,

Keep up hope and remember, CA is one of the best districts to have this fight. Also there's a big chance the judge is reasonable, and that would mean a victory for you!

Shvili

 

[paz1960]

I filed the lawsuit 1447(b) at Dec 2006. Today I got a letter from AUSA:
STIPULATION TO DISMISS:
"Plaintiff , appearing pro se, and Defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to dismissal of the above-entitled action without prejudice in light of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is now prepared to adjudicate plaintiff's application for naturalization and agrees to adjudicate such application within 30 days of the dismissal of this action."

Should I sign to agree to dismiss?

Congratulation, sfbayarea, you got what you wanted. I think that you will get your decision (hopefully approval) in less than 30 days, so in my opinion is safe to sign the stipulation. To make absolutely sure that you cover all the bases, I would propose AUSA to add the following sentence:

"If Plaintiff's N-400 application is not adjudicated within 30 days from the date of the order, this Court will reopen this instant case."

I think that AUSA and USCIS will agree 1. because they already know that your case is adjudicated they need to regain jurisdiction (you are in the 9th Circuit Court, where the distict court has exclusive jurisdiction on your case from the moment you filed your complaint) 2. because AUSA is proposing to dismiss the case without prejudice, which means that you can sue defendants agin, for exactly the same reason.

 

[united2007]

Some very basic questions regarding the legal language

Hello Friends:

I have some very basic questions regarding some common language formality using in the legal documents.

(1) What's the meaning of the "Id." ?
An example of a context this phrase is used is listed as follows:

"Soon thereafter, he received a form letter from the INS,
indicating that he had passed the tests of English and U.S.
history and government and that his application had been
recommended for approval. Id."

(2) What's the meaning of different part of the citation of previous cases?

For example:
* Danilov v. Aguirre, 370 F.Supp.2d 441 (E.D.Va.2005)
what's the meaning of "F.Supp.2d" here?
* Daami v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 1457862 (D.N.J. May 22, 2006)
what's the meaning of "WL" here?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[sfbayarea]

Thanks, I will call AUSA tommorrow.

Congratulation, sfbayarea, you got what you wanted. I think that you will get your decision (hopefully approval) in less than 30 days, so in my opinion is safe to sign the stipulation. To make absolutely sure that you cover all the bases, I would propose AUSA to add the following sentence:

"If Plaintiff's N-400 application is not adjudicated within 30 days from the date of the order, this Court will reopen this instant case."

I think that AUSA and USCIS will agree 1. because they already know that your case is adjudicated they need to regain jurisdiction (you are in the 9th Circuit Court, where the distict court has exclusive jurisdiction on your case from the moment you filed your complaint) 2. because AUSA is proposing to dismiss the case without prejudice, which means that you can sue defendants agin, for exactly the same reason.

 

[birdie]

Birdie,

I think some of the logic in N-400 may apply to AOS where they talk of unreasonable delay in nc processing. ALso I re-posted (someone posted them on the forum before) the order in Florida on WOM, and others. These are the judges orders, but still useful for writing WOM. Unfortunaly, I can't find better WOM coplaints, so here's waht I found. I havent yet registered with PACER so I haven't downloaded more recent cases.

Good luck!

Thanks, Shivili.

I will put in some hours in this, thanks a lot for sharing these files.

 

[786riz]

Motion to Reconsider, Please comment

Hi team,
I have prepared the first draft of the Motion to Reconsider, please review and comment on it. I have already posted the court order previously. I will be filing on Friday.
thank you.

 

[vmedikon]

AUSA sent ADR papers to sign for 1447b in N.Cal

Based on my experience, try to oppose it. Try immediately ask for a hearing. It saves u at least 2 month. ADR is just waist of time in our cases, since no discovery and magistrate judge is not competent at all in this cases, so he just listen to AUSA that says that "NOTHING CAN BE DONE.. we are working very hard".

Thanks kefira, the AUSA told me that court mandated that ADR be scheduled, I can see that in my docket report too. I am wondering if I have any choice in opposing ADR as it is a court order. My docket says "ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/6/2007. Case Management Conference set for 4/13/2007"

 

[needsolution]

Questions to all that are already Naturalized!

I have questions for all those who had been through the oath ceremony. I appreciate all answers. All my questions here refer to the oath ceremony. When you are called to oath ceremony, they ask you

AFTER your 1st interview for N400, if you have been charged with, or had traffic citations.

Question 1.
If you received several speeding tickets after your interview date, when you inform the officer at the oath ceremony, do they ask to see copies of speeding tickets and their dispositions or do they just take your word for it?

Question 2.
What would happen if someone gets a speeding ticket a few weeks before the oath ceremony and goes to court is put on deferred adjudication for 90 days. When the person informs the officers at the oath ceremony, can they still proceed with the oath even if the person is on deferred adjudication for 90 days?

Question 3.
At the oath ceremony, when you tell them how long you have been out of the country since your interview, do they require you to prove it in any way with stamps from your passport etc? If a person has been out of the country a few times for several months, and even once for 5.5 months, would they require to see proof of residency or proof of exit and entry?

 

[snorlax]

Snorlax, I disagree with you on two points:

As Paz brought up yesterday, an as I understand, you may only appeal on the merits of the original complaint and unless you had time to amend your petition like Riz is doing now, you simply can not bring WOM as additional complaint when you appeal.

Secondly, I don't think you can argue how "statutory" name check is if the law only lists appropriate background checks "AT A MINIMUM". As I said above, it means that at any time a new or revised check may be added and in no way it violates this law. What we SHOULD really learn to master is to convincingly argue WHY our delays are indeed unreasonable and try to convince district courts-for our own sake, and for the future petitioners.

In my opinion, although it is correct that there is no statue, which describes in detail what the "full criminal background check" must contain (so Snorlax is correct when s/he stated that there is no statutory requirement for the name check), it is hopeless to argue in front of any judge that a naturalization should be granted without the name check results. USCIS can always argue that it is the Attorney General's or Secretary of DHS discretion to determine what should the "full criminal background check" contain. And because Congress didn't define precisely what is the "full criminal background check", any judge will agree with USCIS, that a name check is part of it.

Sorry for not being clear regarding the “second shot” – I think I need to borrow some clarity form paz1960. What I meant to say was if/when the case is closed, by the time the appeal case is ready, etc. 786riz may have found himself well within the 2-year sweet-spot delay that makes a (totally separate) WOM case a fair shot at getting his petition adjudicated.

I totally agree with paz1960 that “it is hopeless to argue in front of any judge that a naturalization should be granted without the name check results”, especially in front of that horrible lady judge having little regard to the very law she is supposed to uphold. Nevertheless, unlikely things do happen and the example has been floating around this forum for quite a while:

Al-Kudsi vs. Gonzales, case 05-1584-PK Order:

It is further ORDERED that if a completed G-325 name check on the application of Bassem Fawwaz Al-Kudsi is not received by the District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Portland, Oregon, within said ninety day period, the Respondent District Director shall treat that failure as if he had received a completed G-325 name check from the F.B.I. containing no information that would lead to a denial of the application and within a thirty day period thereafter shall grant the application of Bassem Fawwaz Al-Kudsi and forward a certificate of naturalization to this court.

Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge

Honorable Paul Papak not only knows that this name check is not legally required - he has guts to order the USCIS to adhere to the law regardless of whether they have received the name check or not. Hats off to Honorable Paul Papak! No results = no detrimental results. This is what should be considered a clear interpretation of law. Had we have many more Paul Papaks - our world would have been a much better place.

All the best to us all!
snorlax

 

[lotechguy]

Hi team,
I have prepared the first draft of the Motion to Reconsider, please review and comment on it. I have already posted the court order previously. I will be filing on Friday.
thank you.

I read through it and will mail you my edits. One suggestion is to organise the numbered items in titled paragrahps with each title underlined and explaining the context of the items. eg:
Factual Background:
Intent of Congress:
etc.
Somehow these should relate to the "palpable new facts that the court missed or was misled about that can result in different disposition"

 

[wom]

Thanks kefira, the AUSA told me that court mandated that ADR be scheduled, I can see that in my docket report too. I am wondering if I have any choice in opposing ADR as it is a court order. My docket says "ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/6/2007. Case Management Conference set for 4/13/2007"

Check your local rules. In my case they say - either party has a right to opt out of the ADR for any reason..

 

[sksharma76]

Team just a update on my case My WOM deadline is coming on April 2nd today AUSA E-mailed me to ask for a 30 day extension and if i will agree not to contest the extension.What are my best options personally i feel they had enough time to work on my case more than 18 months but looks like right now it would be best to agree for extension.Any inputs.

 

[paz1960]

I have questions for all those who had been through the oath ceremony. I appreciate all answers. All my questions here refer to the oath ceremony. When you are called to oath ceremony, they ask you

AFTER your 1st interview for N400, if you have been charged with, or had traffic citations.

Question 1.
If you received several speeding tickets after your interview date, when you inform the officer at the oath ceremony, do they ask to see copies of speeding tickets and their dispositions or do they just take your word for it?

Question 2.
What would happen if someone gets a speeding ticket a few weeks before the oath ceremony and goes to court is put on deferred adjudication for 90 days. When the person informs the officers at the oath ceremony, can they still proceed with the oath even if the person is on deferred adjudication for 90 days?

Question 3.
At the oath ceremony, when you tell them how long you have been out of the country since your interview, do they require you to prove it in any way with stamps from your passport etc? If a person has been out of the country a few times for several months, and even once for 5.5 months, would they require to see proof of residency or proof of exit and entry?

I didn't have trafic violations, so I can't comment on this from my own experience. But I rather would pay that ticket and have with me all the proof that I don't have any outstanding business with the cops/courts than risking that my oath ceremony is postponed. I was so much fed up with USCIS that I considered as the highest priority to finish that business.

I traveled several times overseas between my interview and oath ceremony. I prepared a list with my travels, listing the departure dates, arrival dates, number of days out of the country, countries visited, reason for travel (business or leasure) and the page no. in my passport with the entry stamp. Strictly speaking, this would be still not enough, because when you leave USA, there is no departure stamp, so you can't prove, when did you leave. And in most of the EU countries, there is no entry stamp either. The immigration officer who took the oath invitation before the ceremony begun, attached this list to the oath letter, he summed up the days spent outside the country (it was only less than 50 days in 2 years) but he didn't actually check the stamps in the passport. In theory, they can always do a post audit and check everything you put in writing and signed for. So I would not recommend to try to hide anything.

 

[paz1960]

Hi team,
I have prepared the first draft of the Motion to Reconsider, please review and comment on it. I have already posted the court order previously. I will be filing on Friday.
thank you.

Just couple of quick preliminary comments (hopefully in the evening at home I will have more time to actually do some editing on the file you sent me).

Seems to me that you are still pushing for adjudication in court and only as an alternative to remand with specific instructions. I probably would go at this stage with wathsnamecheck's recommendation to ask only to add the critical sentence to compel FBI to finish the name check in 30 days, or even a weeker one would do the job: requesting USCIS to expedite with FBI the name check.

There are couple of things left from the materials you used which I believe, doesn't apply to your case. You say something that you want to contribute to the national security of this country. Never before you mentioned that you have the right qualification for this and you actually applied for such a job in the Department of Energy, where a security clearence is required (this is from my draft). Toward the end (copied from a different document) you identify yourself as a menmber of a class action lawsuit, which again, I believe that doesn't apply to you.

It is OK to use other documents, but when we copy from these, it should be a little bit more than just "copy+paste".

 

[paz1960]

Hi, what if you add Senator Obama's March 7, 2007 proposal "Citizenship Promotion Act" to your draft as an exhibit? It shows the congressional desire is that FBI should finish name check within 90 days. It's not a law yet, but the election is coming up, you want to vote.

And, I would rather call this a "motion to amend a judgment" rather than reconsider. The judgment itself is not incorrect. The only issue that the judge may not know is the only USCIS or the court can request/compel FBI to expedite your name check. The issue is not as if your name check were done but USCIS didn't adjudicate promptly. Maybe you just make it very simple: request the following to be amended to the current judgment: FBI shall finish your name check within 90 days.

I am saddened that the judge obviously and clearly knows where the bottleneck is in this whole naturalization delay issue, but she doesn't want to or cannot fix it. Do you think writing to congress/senator in your district can help after 3 months from now and nothing happens? I am not sure if the senators want to be involved in a lawsuit. This is why I stopped contacting any congress member/senator after I filed my 1447b lawsuit. I think they will just shun away from now on.

Unfortunately, I saw in many reports from members of this forum (and I can add my own experience) that members of Congress invariantly say that they don't have the power to expedite name checks. In my opinion, only a legal action can help.