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

The sequence of emails from USCIS...

The sequence of events in my case (so far) is:
03/05/08 Renewal FP appointment (more than 18 months since the last FP)
03/07/08 "Card production ordered" email notification (twice on the same day), LUD
03/11/08 "Registered as Permanent Resident" email notification, LUD

Still waiting for "card in mail" email.

I guess you are equating "Case approved" to "Card production ordered" ... correct?

You will receive 3 more emails this week, each in duplicates
Case approved
Registered as LRP
Card mailed

You card will most likely to be received in a week.
 
The same exercise in 3 years :( I hope not ...

I agree. You can always file 90 days before. This is what we did in case of my wife. Also, I'm just worried about what happens in 3 years time. I hope USCIS ways have improved by then and we do not hit the name check snag again... If I do then WOM is still a possibility and I'll only wait for a year then ...
But you could file N-400 application 90 days before the three years period. I knew people who did that. I hope I don't hit name check wall again. That is why I am still on this form and try to learn things. I strongly felt that people here are very helpful and friendly. After all, it become routine to log on this site everyday.
 
Congratualtion

To anyone in FL thinking of a WOM this might be helpful to you...

12-20-05: USCIS received N-400 App
2-16-06: FP
5-12-06: Interview Date
5-8-06: Received letter that my interview has been descheduled due to FBI name check. ...........................

File WOM through attorney in Orlando - 07/07
After all the back and forth, Motion to dismiss, and all, we finally had an evidentiary hearing in feb of 2008
Judge ruled in our favor and granted mandamus releif and asked USCIS to expedite name check

03/10/08 - Interview passed
waiting for oath letter...

Riverbats:

Your victory is our victory, I'm very happy for you .. Congratulation :D

Question: Can you please share with this forum your original WoM complaint along with your response to MTD.. You can omit your personal info.

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks
 
Same information as yours!

Received response to an SR opened after the memo, this time it didn't say that security/background check is pending rather like the first SR I opened before the memo in 2007. It says the this case is actively being processed but the additional review has caused longer processing time. If I don't receive decision or other notice of action within six months, call back etc.

Now I'm not naive but wanted to share that their standard line has changed now after the memo. Anyone else received similar response to their SR?

Could it be actually going under extended review(whatever that means)?

Lazycis: I received the same information just like above. What do you think about my case? what is the next step I should take?
N-400 Filing on 03/23/2006
Passed interview on 07/10/2006
waiting for the oath letter because of the name check...
Lawsuit(Pro Se) Filed on 01/02/2008
AUSA asked 2 weeks extension to answer on 03/04/2008
 
Good News.

Just got this in by email from Greg Siskind and et al:


In an effort to alleviate the state department’s workload, President
Bush announced last week that the government will allow green-card
applicants to obtain permanent residency before FBI security check are
complete, Christian Science Monitor reports. The rule change will
instantly benefit nearly 47,000 foreigners hopeful for US residency.
An
estimated 3 million people were waiting for green cards in 2006. The
backlog
has not been reduced since then, even in the face of a drastic
application fee hike last summer, from $395 to $1,010 per applicant.

The process comes at a time when the application process for US
permanent residency has become more arduous and difficult than ever
before.
In addition to the often years-long wait and the steep fee increase,
applicants must find suitable sponsors and legal representation,
gather
and submit hundreds of pages of personal documents that vouch for
their
identity and professional/familial relationships, in addition to
scattered countless expenses for photos, medical examinations, and
vaccinations.

With all of these headaches, and despite the Bush administration’s
pledge to speed the process along, there’s still a long way to go
for a
reasonable return on an application status. “It’s not where we
want it to be,” said USCIS spokesman Shawn Saucier. He estimates
that
an estimate 4 million people outside of the US are still waiting to
even have the opportunity to apply for the finite number of visas
offered
annually. Citizens of high-volume countries such as India, China and
Mexico have so much demand for the applications that exceed
availability
that it could potentially take longer for them to be eligible for
application.

Though no new application estimates have been released since 2006,
Saucier claims that, by that years end, much of USCIS’ applicant
backlog
had been eliminated and that processing times for “high
preference”
applications and those not subject to quotas or additional FBI checks
has improved measurably.

I am very happy to hear the news. I am glad the government has changed this harmful policy that placed hardships on many innocent people. We always hope for a government that would be kind and merciful to its people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally somebody in government realized that their policy is so harmful to innicent people who paid hugh amount educational expense and great contribution to economy. If it is so difficutlty to get residence through legal way, no wonder people will find illegal solution to enter country. Immigration issue is hot potato. I hope the new administration really do something. Obama or Clinton?
 
ED Va

Judge Hudson in posted opinion is going midway. I don't see it as a positive development. A judge must take a valid side - USCIS or Plaintiff.
He cannot have it both ways.
 
I am not sure I agree with the govt's stand. This is NOT a workload on DOS. It is a burden of USCIS making and should remain so. DOS is always ready to issue visas requested by USCIS. It is USCIS that stifled this demand by requiring namecheck and rest is history. I would have expected Govt to remove figureheads in USCIS that instituted this policy or the subsequent litigation stand.
Just got this in by email from Greg Siskind and et al:




I am very happy to hear the news. I am glad the government has changed this harmful policy that placed hardships on many innocent people. We always hope for a government that would be kind and merciful to its people.
 
WoM vs. Declaratory Judgement Act

Mandamus Gurus:

Someone told me about an attorney who's had great success with Mandamus and 1447B. So I decided to send him an email and ask him about my case as he offers free email consultation..

His reply was " Mandamus is not the best vehicle in your case..." and he added " I would recommend filing a declaratory action and ask the court to declare jurisdiction over your case". He went on to say that he normally sends copy of the declaratory action to the USCIS before filing and it makes them roll the ball.

I have not heard about declaratory until today.. Can someone please explain?

I'd love to hear from Lazycis about this since he's a USCIS Director hopeful..:cool:

Many thanks,


-------------------------------------
N400 @ TSC
PD: 11/??/06
FP: 12/??/06
IL: ????????
OD: ???????
WoM: Very soon
 
Not sure what he is up to. Declaratory judgment is what it is, i.e. declaratory. You will not get any relief if the court only declares that the USCIS actions are unlawful. You need court to order the USCIS to adjudicate your application, right?
 
urgent!

Lazycis: I received the same information just like above. What do you think about my case? what is the next step I should take?
N-400 Filing on 03/23/2006
Passed interview on 07/10/2006
waiting for the oath letter because of the name check...
Lawsuit(Pro Se) Filed on 01/02/2008
AUSA asked 2 weeks extension to answer on 03/04/2008

Today, AUSA sent me email," I’m trying to get additional information from CIS. I need more time to get the information. Do you have any objection to me requesting from the Court 30 more days to respond?"

Anybody tell me what should I do? How to file the objection? Any sample?
Thank you for timely help!
 
Today, AUSA sent me email," I’m trying to get additional information from CIS. I need more time to get the information. Do you have any objection to me requesting from the Court 30 more days to respond?"

Anybody tell me what should I do? How to file the objection? Any sample?
Thank you for timely help!

Unfortunately the court will probably grant the extension anyway. If it is the first extension, I'd agree.
 
Urgent, Help!!!

Folks,

I need your help and advice,

I had an inteview (Adjustment of status based on Mariage, local office in Newark) last year (11 months ago), the case was approved with name check pending. I received a letter yesterday asking me to go to local office (Newark) next month for an interview!!! My question is: do you think that they want to posponed my green card another 180 days, or may be to stamp my passport? my case was approved with check name pending, why I need another interview, my wife is USCitizen and I have two children US born). Please, help, help help!!

Thank You in advance...Lirag
 
Interesting, SD TX Judge decided differently

This judge has gone back to safadi days... and no mention of Feb7 memo.
this issue refuses to die amicably.

In our case, a SD TX Judge recently denied MTD. Strange
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess, AILA must take initiative to tell all pending WOM 485 case Judge about Feb 4 memo. The legal analysis has changed quite a bit with this memo.
Is anyone in the same boat as me.. --> changed WOM to ask for backdated
GC ?
(Please ignore my PM.. I did not see the attached opinion)
In our case, a SD TX Judge recently denied MTD. Strange
 
judgement considering Feb 4 memo

NISHAT KOUSAR, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MUELLER III, Defendant.
No. C-07-05221 (EDL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18564
March 11, 2008, Decided

However, the Court requests further briefing as to the relief that is proper here in light of what appears to be a revision to USCIS's policy, which states that the adjudicator shall approve I- 485 applications that are otherwise approvable where the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. In addition, the parties shall update the Court in its brief as to whether Plaintiff's application has now been adjudicated since her name check is complete, [*13] and if not, when that adjudication is expected to occur. The parties shall file such briefs with the Court no later than March 17, 2008.
 
I guess, AILA must take initiative to tell all pending WOM 485 case Judge about Feb 4 memo. The legal analysis has changed quite a bit with this memo.
Is anyone in the same boat as me.. --> changed WOM to ask for backdated
GC ?
(Please ignore my PM.. I did not see the attached opinion)
People who have been stuck in Namecheck deserve a backdated GC but AUSA tells me there is no statute or caselaw supporting it. Almost seems like CIS will put their best foot to defend against that than just processing applications, which if they had done wouldnt have caused this in the first place.

Any insights on how the April visa numbers are going to be?
 
Top