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

wommei said:
That is a very good point, lazy! But does it fall in "use information incorrectly" or "withhold information"? My understanding of "withhold information" is to conceal information, is that right? Actually I already put the following arguments in the MSJ from your eariler post, but I didn't realize this could be served as "misrepresentation". Now I know how powerful it is.:D

I will read the material that you uploaded and I think it will strengthen my arguments. My strategy is: If I cannot win the case at district court, at least I will make the AUSA feel tired to death...
Click to expand...

You do not need to prove all elements of estoppel in your case. You do not need a court order to estop government from enforcing an existing law provision. There is no law provision that prohibits DOS/USCIS from issuing you a visa number! The AUSA seems to be confused here :) Anyway, misrepresentation is obvious: the Defendants claimed that they cannot adjudicate your I-485 because name check is not complete (you have case status letter from the USCIS). Now they say that name check is not required by law. The government knew that in 2005, yet they did not request a visa number for you even when you filed a complaint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Lazycis:

I searched a few closed cases (N400, AOS) at MD court and found that the opinions are favorable. Though I didn't go through all cases (maybe I should do later), I am now confident to file the 1447(b) lawsuit at MD court.

lazycis said:
Yes, mandamus statute is not applicable when you use 1447b. However you can still use APA statutes if you want to. If you have access to Lexis, you can search for opinions there. I am not aware of any favorable opinions in MD. In fact, I am not aware of any opinion regarding N-400 in MD. I know another favorable opinion in DC (I-485 WOM): Liu v. Novak, 2007-0263
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007cv0263-13
Click to expand...
 
please

Can anyone who has access to lexis post these decisions here?

Edgewater Hospital, Inc. v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1123(7th Cir. 1988);
Portmann v. United States, 674 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1982)
Akbarin v. INS. 669 F.2d 839 (1st Cir 1982)
Best v. Stetson, 691 F.2d 42 (1st Cir 1982)
 
Look for a good lawyer in San Jose area

Hi all,

My husband got the return phone call from US attorney today. My husband described to me that the lady who called him sounded very angry on the phone. She accused us lack of courtesy because we left message on their phone showing that we don't want to do any extension because our case is so simple (no need to do FBI name check, interview etc). She further pointed out that she will not talk to my husband any more about my case since my husband is not on the plaintiff yet. She said she has a lot of cases to deal with, so she will not look at our case until few weeks before 60 days deadline. She will only contact me few weeks before deadline, or she got any updates from USCIS.

I clearly know that the local USCIS is not on my favor, since the supervisor remains my case on his/her desk for more than 4 months without decision. It looks like the local DA also not on my side.

So, I worry that things might get messy with the time being. I think it might be good to find a good professional at this time to help us. At least, we need to prepare to go to court to fight.

I wonder any of you know any *good* lawyers in San Jose area.

Thanks,
 
Mohakem

Hi Mohakem,

If possible, could you please share your experience how you found your "hit man" for yourself in New York? Did you get a reference? Or, you found him online?

Did you pay any fee to interview him? (Here, in San Jose, the lawyer my husband called will charge us hundreds of dollars consultation fee even before we decide to hire him).

Thanks,
 
I am in the US District Court Fifth Circuit, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. Can anyone tell me if there are any WOM cases for N-400 delays cases in this area and where I can find them to review. I would like to get a handle on how the judges respond here....since I can't move to Northern California! :)

Thank you for any help!
 
Lazycis and others:

My N-400 application was adjudicated and approved on 04/23/2008, but I still waiting for the oath letter...
One of my friend(in the same area) passed the interview on 03/15/2008, he received the oath letter 04/20/2008, the oath ceremony date is 07/08/2008. from interview to oath ceremony, it take 4 month! His case is normal case. My case through lawsuit, we already waiting too long time. Is there any way we could speed up the processing after adjudication?
Thanks!
 
Half of the element is still missing for estoppel??

Hey, lazycis and others,

I read some of these cases about estoppel, especially 1982 U.S. App. Lexis 22101. On page 5 ,it says
" We believe that the soundest method for analyzing a claim of estoppel against the Government in an immigration case is to make two principal inquiries: whether the Government's action was error, and, if the complaining party reacted to the error, whether the action was intended to or could reasonably have been intended to induce reliance. The second inquiry is strict: [HN6] in immigration cases where the Government has been estopped, the Government misconduct must have induced the petitioner to act in a way that he would not otherwise have. See, e.g., Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d at 306; cf. Mashi v. INS, 585 F.2d at 1315; Tejeda v. INS, 346 F.2d at 392-94; [**15] McLeod v. Peterson, 283 F.2d at 187. Thus a probability that an individual would have acted even without the Government's [*844] misconduct may bar an assertion of estoppel. We also think that Hansen requires that reasonable reliance includes exhaustion of opportunities to correct the Government's error or lack of such opportunities. In Hansen the respondent had an opportunity to correct the error by filing a written application and did not do so."

I think we can certainly say that " we lack of such oppertunities to correct the Goverment's error" because we didn't know that name check was not required for I485 cases until Feb 4, 2008. But it mentioned that " the goverment misconduct must have induced the petitioner to act in a way that he would not otherwise have." How can we prove that? I can say I acted suicidially depressed and cut all the letters from USCIS. I would have not acted that way if they approve my case timely. BUt i am not sure if the judge will buy that:) Any advice on that ? Thanks.
 
Here is the missing part: you believed that name check is required and, instead of filing TRO requiring government to issue you a visa number you asked court to compel FBI to complete name check and then compel USCIS to adjudicate your petition. Also, you waited significantly longer before you filed a lawsuit than you would've if you knew that name check is not required.
Another fact of misrepresentation: AUSA asked extension saying that they need time to consider your EB1 filing. In the meantime, your PD retrogressed and the USCIS denied your EB1 after the extension was up.
 
Thanks, lazy!

Hey, lazycis,

That is very insightful advice and I will definitely put that in my MSJ. I can vividly imagine that the judge will laugh out loud when he sees it. Strangely enough, I think this advice is very humorous although we should take it seriously under the circumstance.
About the second one, I will probably have to drop it. AUSA told me that they will process my EB1A petition on Jan 2, 2008, which happened after retrogression of the PD. But the first one can be our resonable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation.


lazycis said:
Here is the missing part: you believed that name check is required and, instead of filing TRO requiring government to issue you a visa number you asked court to compel FBI to complete name check and then compel USCIS to adjudicate your petition. Also, you waited significantly longer before you filed a lawsuit than you would've if you knew that name check is not required.
Another fact of misrepresentation: AUSA asked extension saying that they need time to consider your EB1 filing. In the meantime, your PD retrogressed and the USCIS denied your EB1 after the extension was up.
Click to expand...
 
Mei

Another case for you
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/031075p.pdf

Had Coraggioso sought relief prior to the expiration of the 1998 fiscal year, our analysis may have been different. See Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Similar to Coraggioso’s parents, Paunescu was a lottery winner for the fiscal year 1998 DV Program. But unlike Coraggioso’s parents, Paunescu filed a complaint for mandamus and declaratory judgment against the INS on September 23, 1998. After a hearing on September 25, 1998, the District Court ordered the INS to “complete adjudication of the applications for adjustment status” for Paunescu and his wife without delay, or by no later than September 30, 1998. Id. at 898. Despite the court order, Paunescu’s application was not adjudicated in time. In that instance, and despite the expiration of the fiscal year, the District Court ordered “defendants to process plaintiffs’ applications and to grant plaintiffs all relief to which they would have been entitled had defendants processed their applications in a timely fashion.” Id. at 903 (emphasis added). The Seventh Circuit has explicitly approved this result.
It would be a different case had the district court ordered the INS to adjudicate the appellants’ status while the INS maintained the statutory authority to issue the visas. In such a situation, the INS would be on notice to reserve visas and must complete the task, as ordered, before time expires. Allowing the INS to claim inability to issue visas at that point would impinge the authority of the court.
Iddir, 301 F.3d at 501 n.2 (discussing and citing Paunescu) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).

See also this page where similar cases and opinions from your circuit/district are collected (including Paunescu http://dv.semper-ante.com/Cases/Paunescu (ok).pdf):
http://dv.semper-ante.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N-400 Wom

lazycis,
Seems like you know everything! :) Can you tell me where I can look to research any cases in my district or have you heard of any?

Thank you for you help!

soccergirl said:
I am in the US District Court Fifth Circuit, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. Can anyone tell me if there are any WOM cases for N-400 delays cases in this area and where I can find them to review. I would like to get a handle on how the judges respond here....since I can't move to Northern California! :)

Thank you for any help!
Click to expand...
 
soccergirl said:
lazycis,
Seems like you know everything! :) Can you tell me where I can look to research any cases in my district or have you heard of any?

Thank you for you help!
Click to expand...

I wish I knew everything, especially the future :)

You should look for opinions in pacer (court system) if you do not have access to Lexis
https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

It's free to search for opinons, but you need to have a PACER account (free to get). After you log in to pacer, click on "Reports-Written opinons" and you will get to the search screen. Search by "Chertoff".

You can find info about rules and procedures on your court website:
http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/

I am not aware of opinons coming from your district.

P.S. I am currently working on a template for N-400 wom with no interview. Will post it soon.
 
Thank you! You are so kind to help me and everyone. :)

lazycis said:
I wish I knew everything, especially the future :)

You should look for opinions in pacer (court system) if you do not have access to Lexis
https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

It's free to search for opinons, but you need to have a PACER account (free to get). After you log in to pacer, click on "Reports-Written opinons" and you will get to the search screen. Search by "Chertoff".

You can find info about rules and procedures on your court website:
http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/

I am not aware of opinons coming from your district.

P.S. I am currently working on a template for N-400 wom with no interview. Will post it soon.
Click to expand...
 
amendment and 60 days

Hi Lazycis and other members,

If I file the amendment to add my husband as plaintiff, does it reset 60 days for USA?

Thank you very much!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top