Federal judge is like a senior guy. If magistrate judge does not want to take a responsibility and issue a ruling, s/he send the matter to federal judge. It's neither good nor bad. Judges supposed to be neutral when they are on the job.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Federal judge is like a senior guy. If magistrate judge does not want to take a responsibility and issue a ruling, s/he send the matter to federal judge. It's neither good nor bad. Judges supposed to be neutral when they are on the job.
I believe shvili or somebody else posted a good link about the subject:
http://www.rbs0.com/lawcite.htm
Here is what's written regarding WESTLAW:
For example: 1991 WL 55402, at *3
cites a case available in WESTLAW but not in published reporters. This particular example was the 55402th item added to the WESTLAW computer database in 1991, and the citation is to page *3. If one is citing the whole case, then one would omit , at *3 because every case in an electronic database begins at page *1, there is no need to mention the first page number.
If you need more details, check http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/
I could not find that case in Westlaw so I am not sure about the correct citation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Missingpa for these documents. Missingpa, I left a PM for you.
Is that true that we need to file OPP in 10 business days? Or in my case, I can wait till July 9th?
Is that true that we need to file OPP in 10 business days? Or in my case, I can wait till July 9th?
Last edited by a moderator:
Lazycis and toolong2,
I have not submitted a copy of my husband's N-400 appl-n with his 1447+WOM either, as we did not even keep an exact copy. But it should not be a problem at all! I saw many cases on Pacer which didn't have them, either. Think: CIS supposedly has your appl-n (unless they notified you that they lost it), and nowhere it says that you are supposed to submit a copy of N-400 to the court. You're supposed to submit docs SUPPORTING YOUR CASE as exhibits to the court, but N-400 is not really supporting your case. The doc that does is the CIS receipt form which you received from CIS as a reply. I hope you have it and you should definitely submit it to prove that CIS accepted and started to process your case.
So I wouldn't bother to even try to get it from them, if I were you, but if you're relly worried, you should follow Lazycis advice on how to get it.
Good luck!
I have trouble even understanding the last runaway sentence of the passage, -it seems to miss at least one verb.
But overall, they say they need to withhold evidence because it's sensitive, but to that you may reply that judges have kept close hearings (where plaintiff was not present) to consider the evidence under seal (see some cases among those posted before). So if defendants indeed have some evidence to account for your unreasonable delay, they should present it to the court. Otherwise, the court has a right to treat this refusal as "lack of evidence" (and later on you can do MSJ to request judge to rule based on this-also see at least couple of recent cases where judges complained in their orders that defen-s could not justify the delay). Lazycis, do you think this can be submitted within the proposed plan?shvili, you are right, you don't need to submit a copy of your N-400 application as an exhibit to your complaint.
But I think that you missed the more important thing from toolong2 previous post. S/he doesn't remember what jobs and residences did s/he list in his/her N-400 application, and s/he knows that the list was not too accurate. This potentially can be a big problem later. If any cross examination happens and s/he tells USCIS different addresses and work history, his/her application can be denied. So I would follow lazycis' recommendation and request with FOIPA a copy of that N-400 application and in the future stick to the data listed there.
hopeforall2
Registered Users (C)
Thanks lazycis / lotechguy , will follow up on this issue and see how history unfolds.
always.wired
Registered Users (C)
The Immigration bill failed the test vote today. At least it is going to be delayed. Good news or bad? I guess it depends which of the amendments were accepted. Any thoughts.?
No, he doesn't mention non-electronic docs.
Also, judge asked if we would like to submit the experts and defined time frame (June 26) for their deposition. We don't have a lot of time? What kind of experts we can submit to the case? Any thoughts?
I have trouble even understanding the last runaway sentence of the passage, -it seems to miss at least one verb.
Absolutely. I also have trouble understanding that "legal" language. AUSA mentioned something about dates. I would object to that request as I do not get how dates can be classified info in nastena's case. Moreover, timeline is very important to prove that delay is unreasonable.
Reading FRCP rule 26 I noticed that a party have to move for a protective order if they want to protect some parts of evidence from public view. I do not have any experience from discovery phase so I cannot really advise here. But I would request AUSA to move for a protective order and present evidence to the court if they do not want to disclose it to public.
I believe you have to submit your response at least 10 days before the hearing, i.e no later than June 29. It's not true that you have to submit OPP to MTD in 10 days.
how DOS solved NC problem
If we are to believe this article, DOS does not wait for the completion of NC to issue a visa. Not sure if the practice applies to all visa types.
"The FBI is a "silent partner" in the Visas Mantis review. It still conducts name checks, but the State Department does not have to wait until it receives a response from the agency before replying to the consular officer."
Why doesn't USCIS adopt the same practice at least for some applications (H visas, GC, EAD)? All of these can be revoked at any time if NC investigation discovers substantial evidence.
If we are to believe this article, DOS does not wait for the completion of NC to issue a visa. Not sure if the practice applies to all visa types.
"The FBI is a "silent partner" in the Visas Mantis review. It still conducts name checks, but the State Department does not have to wait until it receives a response from the agency before replying to the consular officer."
Why doesn't USCIS adopt the same practice at least for some applications (H visas, GC, EAD)? All of these can be revoked at any time if NC investigation discovers substantial evidence.
Indeed, answering the first post of toolong2 I mainly focused on the fact that her/his N-400 application is not available so s/he may not remember all info s/he originally put there. Since we are in the same situation (in terms of not having its exact copy and also not remebering just a few small things in it), I wrote that in my opinion (-judging it is the same situation), I think it's not important. But you are right, if toolong2 has indeed forgot the work history details and perhaps omitted some of this history (I didn't address this in my answer), s/he should follow the excellent advise of Lazycis and do the extra effort to obtain the copy. Then, better stick to the data listed there or, if there is something that really needs to be added, s/he should probably file it as an exhibit, but it may be painful as defendants may jump on it screaming "inaccurate info" and use it to delay desicion even more.
So I agree with you, it's "better be safe than sorry" and get N-400 copy through FOIPA and then try to stick to whatever is in there.
james_gmail
Registered Users (C)
What to prepare for case managment conference?
Hi, Friends,
Could you share some experience of case managment conferences?
Basically what to prepare? Is it a phone conference. I did not get any schedule from court so far (except the time and location).
Could you share?
Hi, Friends,
Could you share some experience of case managment conferences?
Basically what to prepare? Is it a phone conference. I did not get any schedule from court so far (except the time and location).
Could you share?
Maybe ask somebody from the Department of State to explain how they avoid multi-year delays for name checks when they issue immigrant visas or other visas that require name check. Keep in mind that you may need to pay expert for a testimony.
Hello Friend,
Please read the handbook regarding the OPP days. In North CA, you have to file the OPP before 21 days of hearing if I am not wrong.
Amy
Missingpa great opposition
Missingpa,
for "just another rookie" you did an outstanding job on your MTD Opposition. Who needs a lawyer when we have people like you!!!
Seriously, I think you did an excellent job on your Opposition. Furthermore, I would suggest (of course if you do not object to it) that other people with a similar case should use it as a very good sample. It is very well written, very conscise and easy to follow. Although my husband's case is different (1447+WOM), I really advise other members with AOS cases to follow your opposition.
I also recognize a great input of Lazycis and his wonderful help for this dociment must be tremendous. I suggest (with few minor changes) even to post your Opposition somewhere in the beginning of this thread together with other Publicus advises so that other people can easily access it (again, only if you do not object to it).
I have a few comments (if I'm not too late to post them) on it.
On page 3, you only listed one precedent which says that statues for visa applicants also apply to AOS applicants. Since my husband's case is not in this category, I did not specifically follow the logic of #1154 and all the applicable argument that Lazycis earlier posted, but I think I remember at least two other cases where judges compared visa statues with AOS and given the fact you spend considerable amt. of space to argue this point, perhaps you might add another example. (Again, I am sorry I can't point you the the exact doc-t, -I'd have to search too many so if you can't find it just disregard it).
On p. 7 when you quote part 245 of CFR you also quote subparagraph ii. I would just limit my quote to the i) part. The ii) shows the obligatory language but it is not relevant to your argument. (but again it's pretty small and you might just keep it).
On p.8 you have a flaw in argument which I think you should correct: after you say that the remaining 10% of unresolved hits are delayed by FBI you jump to the conclusion that these 10% should be resolved prior to the processing name checks submitted a year later. FBI only said it delayed 10% but it did not say anywhere (or at least it's not in your text), how long the delay is or that it is less than a year. So your next sentence that VSC sent to FBI requests submitted a year later "which would suggest the vast majority of even the remaining 10% of the name check requests should have been completed" is illogical. Since I'm afraid I'm the one originally responsible for the "jump in line argument" (which you really developed very nicely later on), I suggest the following correction: After you say that only the remaining 10% of unresolved cases are delayed longer you can say that:
"assuming that FBI created a separate line for these delayed 10% of the cases (because according to their web site, VSC is currently processing AOS appl-s submitted a year later), it is fair to conclude that many of these 10% of the cases are delayed longer than Plaintiffs' and indeed are waiting for years. In this case Plaintiffs respectfully request FBI to inform them (just like CIS and VSC do), which name checks FBI currently processes so that Plaintiffs would know of their approximate place in this line (for example, FBI now processes name check requests submitted 2 years ago)."
Then you can proceed with your nice argument on "cutting in line": once you don't want to cut in front of people waiting loinger than yourself you plead:
"Defendants should apply criteria of fairness all the way by expediting those 10% of cases delayed longer than the current applicants' cases. In order to avoid the current name checks requests to "cut in front of the line" of these delayed 10% of the cases waitng for years, FBI shall first expedite processing of these delayed cases in the "first in, first out" order, and only then proceed with the currently pending name check requests."
Finally, my last suggestion is, perhaps divide your text into smaller portions for easier reading (like, this "line-cutting arg-t" has a separate chapter, and all other parts, like the next of new type of nc and inefficient processing). Also, there you could also include, it's "illogical to delay nc of potential terrorists for years based on "security concerns"".
I really wish you good luck and after you finish your complaint you should stick to the forum to help others (which number. I'm afraid, will not decrease unless something unexpected and drastic happens in this post-bill political arena ).
Missingpa,
for "just another rookie" you did an outstanding job on your MTD Opposition. Who needs a lawyer when we have people like you!!!
Seriously, I think you did an excellent job on your Opposition. Furthermore, I would suggest (of course if you do not object to it) that other people with a similar case should use it as a very good sample. It is very well written, very conscise and easy to follow. Although my husband's case is different (1447+WOM), I really advise other members with AOS cases to follow your opposition.
I also recognize a great input of Lazycis and his wonderful help for this dociment must be tremendous. I suggest (with few minor changes) even to post your Opposition somewhere in the beginning of this thread together with other Publicus advises so that other people can easily access it (again, only if you do not object to it).
I have a few comments (if I'm not too late to post them) on it.
On page 3, you only listed one precedent which says that statues for visa applicants also apply to AOS applicants. Since my husband's case is not in this category, I did not specifically follow the logic of #1154 and all the applicable argument that Lazycis earlier posted, but I think I remember at least two other cases where judges compared visa statues with AOS and given the fact you spend considerable amt. of space to argue this point, perhaps you might add another example. (Again, I am sorry I can't point you the the exact doc-t, -I'd have to search too many so if you can't find it just disregard it).
On p. 7 when you quote part 245 of CFR you also quote subparagraph ii. I would just limit my quote to the i) part. The ii) shows the obligatory language but it is not relevant to your argument. (but again it's pretty small and you might just keep it).
On p.8 you have a flaw in argument which I think you should correct: after you say that the remaining 10% of unresolved hits are delayed by FBI you jump to the conclusion that these 10% should be resolved prior to the processing name checks submitted a year later. FBI only said it delayed 10% but it did not say anywhere (or at least it's not in your text), how long the delay is or that it is less than a year. So your next sentence that VSC sent to FBI requests submitted a year later "which would suggest the vast majority of even the remaining 10% of the name check requests should have been completed" is illogical. Since I'm afraid I'm the one originally responsible for the "jump in line argument" (which you really developed very nicely later on
), I suggest the following correction: After you say that only the remaining 10% of unresolved cases are delayed longer you can say that:"assuming that FBI created a separate line for these delayed 10% of the cases (because according to their web site, VSC is currently processing AOS appl-s submitted a year later), it is fair to conclude that many of these 10% of the cases are delayed longer than Plaintiffs' and indeed are waiting for years. In this case Plaintiffs respectfully request FBI to inform them (just like CIS and VSC do), which name checks FBI currently processes so that Plaintiffs would know of their approximate place in this line (for example, FBI now processes name check requests submitted 2 years ago)."
Then you can proceed with your nice argument on "cutting in line": once you don't want to cut in front of people waiting loinger than yourself you plead:
"Defendants should apply criteria of fairness all the way by expediting those 10% of cases delayed longer than the current applicants' cases. In order to avoid the current name checks requests to "cut in front of the line" of these delayed 10% of the cases waitng for years, FBI shall first expedite processing of these delayed cases in the "first in, first out" order, and only then proceed with the currently pending name check requests."
Finally, my last suggestion is, perhaps divide your text into smaller portions for easier reading (like, this "line-cutting arg-t" has a separate chapter, and all other parts, like the next of new type of nc and inefficient processing). Also, there you could also include, it's "illogical to delay nc of potential terrorists for years based on "security concerns"".
I really wish you good luck and after you finish your complaint you should stick to the forum to help others (which number. I'm afraid, will not decrease unless something unexpected and drastic happens in this post-bill political arena
).Lazycis, Nastena,
I agree with Lazycis, you should still request them to agree to submit evidence under seal for the judge to consider. Also, why not a paper evidence, aren't there any, really??? And "dates" is obviously not a sensitive info.
Lazycis, I didn't even think of getting the testimony of State Department experts! (Except shouldn't it be DHS, not Dep-t of State?
Name checks for immig-t applicants are in DHS (FBI) jurisdiction aren't they?) But your soursefullness again proves that your contribution to this forum is irreplaceable! Really your help to us all is wonderful, please don't ever leave the forum! (Also, comparing to my mostly theoretical angle, you focus on practical part and that's a much needed help.)Really, no lawyer could ever replace people like you, Missingpa, and all other seniors who contribute here!!! From what I read, so many lawyers make mistakes, (sometimes fatal to cases,-like missing deadlines and as a result losing the case) that our pro se mistakes are tenfold less scary. I'd say, go pro se!!! (Of course, we'll have to see me in a couple of months when we get to later stages of our case
)Lazycis, I didn't even think of getting the testimony of State Department experts! (Except shouldn't it be DHS, not Dep-t of State?
Oops, my mistake! Of course you're talking of visas and that is definitely the State Department. (I keep forgetting your good point re. comparison of visa nc requests with the AOS ncs.)
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Publicus you carry an excellent knowledge on filing law suit and going thru this mandamus procedures. I have got some good strong feedback from equate and flydog in the past. I want to keep you all posted and share something with you. I had a word with this attorney who has been ion practice for over 20 yrs. After talking to you, I felt that he knew what he was talking about. He clearly told me that filing for madamus after 120 days as you all know would help but that's not the only reason you would want to file for madamus. After waiting for a reasonable period (in my case it has been over 14 months), I can go ahead and consider going this route. There ofcourse will be some money involved but it will be a win win situation and I don't have anything to loose but my $$$. the process gets expedited and we can expect results in 60 days. Just as a reminder, I had applied for my citizenship back in April of 2006. I was called for an interview in January of this year but the IO told me that he could not proceed with the interview as my file has not reached the local office yet. We are now in the second week of June now and no word yet. Case is still pending. I had hired a lawyer here in Atlanta who did some research on my case/file and found out that my FP and NC have been cleared but there is this third check which is delaying my interview. It could be an internal USCIS check. God knows. I am very close to file a law suit and sue USCIS to expedite my case. The reason I am being double minded is, have I waited long enough to go for mandamus, secondly, I am planning to go home (overseas) in the first week of July for three weeks. Should I wait till I get back & do it in August or do it before I leave and let it cook. This way I won't loose the month of July.
Let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Thank you again
Let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Thank you again