example cases won in 2007
Hello GCWAITLONG
I think that the WOM is the only way out for my case because I have waited for 2 years and 7 months. To answer your question about the cases that were won in 2007, here are some:
Okunev v. Chertoff, No. 07-00417, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53161 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court ruled that USCIS has a non-discretionary statutory duty to adjudicate plaintiff's application, and reasoning that if the court were to hold otherwise, USCIS could withhold a decision indefinitely. The court reasoned that there are too many important rights associated with permanent resident status to allow the rate at which these applications are processed to go entirely unchecked. Plaintiff's application was pending for over three years when the court issued its decision.
Quan v. Chertoff, 06-7881, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44081 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2007). The court found mandamus jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that the relevant statutes and regulations impose a non-discretionary duty on the agency to make a decision on the application, and that the decision must be made within a reasonable amount of time.
Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found mandamus jurisdiction to order adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was unreasonable delay in the adjudication of plaintiff's applications and that plaintiff had no other remedy. At the time the court issued its decision, plaintiff's asylum-based I-485 application had been pending for more than seven years and his marriage-based I-485 application had been pending for almost four years.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately eight years when the court issued its decision.
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Relative Petition (Form I-130), finding that the agency has a ministerial duty to process plaintiff's petition under 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). However, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the agency's inaction was "clearly unreasonable." The court similarly denied the government's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency failed to demonstrate that its inaction was "reasonable." The court invited plaintiffs to file an amended motion for summary judgment if the government failed to resolve plaintiff's I-130 petition within 28 days of the court's order. Plaintiff's petition was pending for over two years at the time the court issued its decision.
Hope that helps.
what? they denied your case? based on what? how can they do that if the judge ruled in your favor?