Not really, but it will help you to kill another month
You can also prepare a complaint, it will take some time. Make another status inquiry with the USCIS in a couple months.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Not really, but it will help you to kill another month
You can also prepare a complaint, it will take some time. Make another status inquiry with the USCIS in a couple months.parsfalcon
Hi parsfalcon, I'm in the same situation, but WOM for AOS, I'm waiting for judge to rule on MTD which was filed back in April. Do you think this 'L.R. 83-9 Time Limits for Decisions by Court' also works in Massachusetts? I did file a request through my lawyer in september 'reminding' the judge it's been a long wait already and hope he rule on my case, but we did not cite this rule. I think you point out a very important rule. Now do you think I need wait another 120 days to file another request citing this rule since 120day starts with the last document you filed with court.
Hi parsfalcon, I'm in the same situation, but WOM for AOS, I'm waiting for judge to rule on MTD which was filed back in April. Do you think this 'L.R. 83-9 Time Limits for Decisions by Court' also works in Massachusetts? I did file a request through my lawyer in september 'reminding' the judge it's been a long wait already and hope he rule on my case, but we did not cite this rule. I think you point out a very important rule. Now do you think I need wait another 120 days to file another request citing this rule since 120day starts with the last document you filed with court.
why are u withdrawing your mandamus ? have you got your I485 adjudicated ? Your signature doesn't reflect it though...
parsfalcon
Registered Users (C)
to Pollinh
to Pollinh,
why do u wanna withdraw your mandamus? did u get your green card?
keep in mind, FOIPA's letter with no results does not mean your background check has been completed, and also, does not mean that you have been approved for a green card !
Be extra careful !
Name checks and background checks clearance will NOT be mailed to you.. they will be mailed to the USCIS since they were submitted by USCIS... even if you take that document that the FBI sent you and take it to the USCIS, they won't even look at it... they don't care...
I would not suggest you withdraw your case until you get your green card in your hand with your smiley picture on it !
Also, your signature does not show when you filed your Mandamus law suit ?!
to Pollinh,
why do u wanna withdraw your mandamus? did u get your green card?
keep in mind, FOIPA's letter with no results does not mean your background check has been completed, and also, does not mean that you have been approved for a green card !
Be extra careful !
Name checks and background checks clearance will NOT be mailed to you.. they will be mailed to the USCIS since they were submitted by USCIS... even if you take that document that the FBI sent you and take it to the USCIS, they won't even look at it... they don't care...
I would not suggest you withdraw your case until you get your green card in your hand with your smiley picture on it !
Also, your signature does not show when you filed your Mandamus law suit ?!
Last edited by a moderator:
frustrated_alot
Registered Users (C)
Thank you so much for your response. I am not filing until December for financial reasons. I am actively preparing my pro se case in the mean time.
Another Question. Does anyone have a template for a letter of Intent. I am not quite sure where to start with that and does it really help? I think it might just be another piece of evidence to add to my case.
question for lazycis
I encouraged immigrants to WOM at an Chinese immigration website. And lately people start to ask me questions like which state are more favorable for the WOMers. I think CA, WA, MA are pretty good ( but that is only 3 states out of 50 states). Do you have more information on that, so I could inform the others? I can cite your name if you want, that make it less of the plagerism(doesn't spell it right though).
I encouraged immigrants to WOM at an Chinese immigration website. And lately people start to ask me questions like which state are more favorable for the WOMers. I think CA, WA, MA are pretty good ( but that is only 3 states out of 50 states). Do you have more information on that, so I could inform the others? I can cite your name if you want, that make it less of the plagerism(doesn't spell it right though).
I maintain the spreadsheet of successfull cases. Here is the link:
http://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=pBQx8tqZHHU2A6Q-Pv9sULw&hl=en
There is a column with the district (state can have multiple districts) so one can easily sort by that column and find out the most favorable districts.
So, here are the most favorable districts as of today:
1. California Northern
2. Connecticut
3. Florida Southern
4. Louisiana
5. Oklahoma
6. Pennsylvania Eastern
7. Texas Northern
8. Washington Western
There are a number of others that I consider favorable, but I cannot say for sure at this point. Also some states do not have any similar suits.
http://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=pBQx8tqZHHU2A6Q-Pv9sULw&hl=en
There is a column with the district (state can have multiple districts) so one can easily sort by that column and find out the most favorable districts.
So, here are the most favorable districts as of today:
1. California Northern
2. Connecticut
3. Florida Southern
4. Louisiana
5. Oklahoma
6. Pennsylvania Eastern
7. Texas Northern
8. Washington Western
There are a number of others that I consider favorable, but I cannot say for sure at this point. Also some states do not have any similar suits.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, waiting for a Christmas bonus?
Letter of intent is useless in our cases. Do not bother with that.
Sure. Also, the most unfriendly districts are:
1. Maryland
2. Virginia (Eastern/Western)
3. Michigan Eastern
for Lazycis
Can you check to see if westlaw has red flagged Accardi case? LexisNexis has red flagged it indicating that it was superseded by statue as stated in LaGuerre v. Reno (7th circuit 1998). It reads:
"Until 1961, the mode of judicial review of deportation orders was by habeas corpus, or, after 1952, by declaratory judgment actions, in federal district courts. Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 99 L. Ed. 868, 75 S. Ct. 591 (1955); Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 267, 98 L. Ed. 681, 74 S. Ct. 499 (1954); Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 97 L. Ed. 972, 73 S. Ct. 603 (1953). In 1961 Congress made review of such orders by the courts of appeals, without preliminary recourse to the district courts, the exclusive method of judicial review. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 106, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1994 ed.).
...
Thirty-five years later, 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act amended section 106 to provide that a "final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a [drug] offense . . . shall not be subject to review by any court."
Do you think there is a way out by saying it is only limitted to deportation due to drug offenses?
Can you check to see if westlaw has red flagged Accardi case? LexisNexis has red flagged it indicating that it was superseded by statue as stated in LaGuerre v. Reno (7th circuit 1998). It reads:
"Until 1961, the mode of judicial review of deportation orders was by habeas corpus, or, after 1952, by declaratory judgment actions, in federal district courts. Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 99 L. Ed. 868, 75 S. Ct. 591 (1955); Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 267, 98 L. Ed. 681, 74 S. Ct. 499 (1954); Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 97 L. Ed. 972, 73 S. Ct. 603 (1953). In 1961 Congress made review of such orders by the courts of appeals, without preliminary recourse to the district courts, the exclusive method of judicial review. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 106, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1994 ed.).
...
Thirty-five years later, 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act amended section 106 to provide that a "final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a [drug] offense . . . shall not be subject to review by any court."
Do you think there is a way out by saying it is only limitted to deportation due to drug offenses?
westlaw has a yellow flag, which is "In cases and administrative decisions, a yellow flag warns that the case or administrative decision has some negative history but hasn’t been reversed or overruled".
No doubt that 8 USC 1252(a)(2)(B) was intended for removal proceedings only, but I think you should focus your argument on non-discretional duty to process application by the USCIS. If the action in question is non-discretionary, the defendants have no ground.
No doubt that 8 USC 1252(a)(2)(B) was intended for removal proceedings only, but I think you should focus your argument on non-discretional duty to process application by the USCIS. If the action in question is non-discretionary, the defendants have no ground.
to dismiss or not to dismiss
I spoke with AUSA today. He said that my file has finally reached the local office, and assigned to an officer who will be setting up an interview date for me. Along with that, they will send an appointment for my fingerprints, as my current fingerprints will expire next week.
He suggested that once I have received the interview letter, I should sign a stipulation to dismiss the case without prejudice. He said, then, after the interview, if USCIS does not naturalize me within 120 days, I can file a brand new 1447(b) case.
Since this is a N400 No Interview case, is it necessary to dismiss the case? Or should I tell him that I do not wish to dismiss the case until I am naturalized. In that case, I could possibly just amend the complaint and add 1447(b) to it if I am not naturalized in 120 days of interview.
I spoke with AUSA today. He said that my file has finally reached the local office, and assigned to an officer who will be setting up an interview date for me. Along with that, they will send an appointment for my fingerprints, as my current fingerprints will expire next week.
He suggested that once I have received the interview letter, I should sign a stipulation to dismiss the case without prejudice. He said, then, after the interview, if USCIS does not naturalize me within 120 days, I can file a brand new 1447(b) case.
Since this is a N400 No Interview case, is it necessary to dismiss the case? Or should I tell him that I do not wish to dismiss the case until I am naturalized. In that case, I could possibly just amend the complaint and add 1447(b) to it if I am not naturalized in 120 days of interview.