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

[Eastbayer]

To Needssolution

Is this what you are looking for?

 

[mohamedmohamed]

designated list

if any one of you wonder why his/her name check is delayed, just look at this, and you will find a name , that look / spelled /or sound like yours, this is the most updated list posted by the daprtment of the treasury 4/28
for your convenience it is alphabetically arranged

 

[Eastbayer]

For Mohamedmohamed

Hi, I sent you a PM asking a couple questions. Coupld you check it out? Thank you.

Eastbayer.

 

[Eastbayer]

if any one of you wonder why his/her name check is delayed, just look at this, and you will find a name , that look / spelled /or sound like yours, this is the most updated list posted by the daprtment of the treasury 4/28
for your convenience it is alphabetically arranged

Why is the name list from the Department of Treasury relevant to FBI's name check?

I did not see anyone even with the same last name as mine. Sometimes I wonder if USCIS ever submitted a name check request at all. I was told at one of the InfoPass that a request was made in Sept 2004; another time was told it was submitted when I was interviewed March 2005.

 

[mohamedmohamed]

Why is the name list from the Department of Treasury relevant to FBI's name check?

I did not see anyone even with the same last name as mine. Sometimes I wonder if USCIS ever submitted a name check request at all. I was told at one of the InfoPass that a request was made in Sept 2004; another time was told it was submitted when I was interviewed March 2005.

it doesnt have to be your exact name, according the FBI name check section cheif " the names are searched in a multitude of combinations, switching the order of first , last and middle names, as well as combinations with just first and last , first and middle and so on".
which mean that even i fo your last name is not there, but any other combinations of your constituents exist, i t will be considerd a hit, or refrences, and it will require manual checking of the files that related to such names, and an analyst have to review the all that informations.
i also read and replied to your pm sometimes yesterday in the afternoon.

 

[backues]

Hi All,

I have served all defendents on April 6th. It is May 1st already but I have not got the return receipt from FBI yet. Also the return receipt I got back from Emilio Gonzales does not have anything on it, including signature.

Should I re-send summon to them?

Any help is appreciated.

 

[mohamedmohamed]

Hi All,

I have served all defendents on April 6th. It is May 1st already but I have not got the return receipt from FBI yet. Also the return receipt I got back from Emilio Gonzales does not have anything on it, including signature.

Should I re-send summon to them?

Any help is appreciated.

i would think you are ok, a return receipt is good, even if it doesnt have any signiture, at least it shows that the document have been delivered at the proper address, as far as the FBI, i am not , but as long as you have served the main deffendents (uscis, dhs) that should b enough

 

[backues]

Thanks monhamedmohamed. But it seems the clock does not start to tick until all return receipts are received. Am I right?

 

[bashar82]

Clock starts as soon as the US Attorney's Office receives the summons and complaint.

 

[backues]

Clock starts as soon as the US Attorney's Office receives the summons and complaint.

Thanks bashar82. I feel much better now.

The US Attorney is not my defendent, I served them the summon though. Does the clock start as well when they get the summon?

 

[Amir/Houston]

I need everybody's advise

Hello everybody,

I don't know if you guys remember or not, I filled mine (1447) on 3/02/06 and I just received the answer via e-mail from US attorny. I think they denied because of lack of jurisdiction. I don't know what is the next step that I should take. I appreciate any advise.



Thanks


Defendants, through the United States Attorney, Answer Plaintiff’s Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application, addressing the consecutively numbered paragraphs seriatim:

INTRODUCTION

Paragraph 1 describes the nature of the action, to which no answer is required.
PARTIES

First numbered Paragraph 2 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Plaintiff ******, is a lawful permanent resident. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiff Rahighi’s current address. Defendants admit that Plaintiff *** was interviewed concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005, and that no decision has been made on the application since that date.
#2. Second Paragraph 2 describes Defendant Alberto Gonzales to which no answer is required.

Paragraph 3 describes Defendant Michael Chertoff to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 4 describes Defendant Emilio Gonzalez to which no answer is required.
There is no Paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6 describes Defendant Sharon Hudson to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 7 describes Defendant Robert Mueller to which no answer is required.
JURISDICTION

Subject to Defendants’ First Affirmative Defense, jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit is admitted.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny Plaintiff **** current address for purposes of venue.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for the initiation of this action, however Defendants deny that Plaintiff has clearly established his eligibility to be naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.
CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants admit that Plaintiff **** is a lawful permanent resident, that he filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization on or about March 9, 2005, and that he was interviewed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2005.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** was examined concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005 and that he passed the English test and the U.S. History and Government test, but was informed that a decision cannot be made awaiting completion of the background check.
Defendants admit that on December 22, 2005, Defendant USCIS notified Plaintiff Rahighi that the background investigation was still pending.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** naturalization application remains pending since the interview conducted on July 11, 2005.
Defendants deny that sufficient information has been obtained to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for naturalization.
Defendants deny violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446, but admit that more than 120 days have passed since the date of initial examination.
Defendants deny that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) is binding on this Court.
PRAYER

18. The allegations contained in this section of the Petition for Hearing constitute Plaintiff’s prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed appropriate, Defendants deny that this Court can declare Plaintiff to be a naturalized citizen of the United States without completion of mandatory security background checks and/or updating of mandatory criminal and security checks. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff can establish eligibility for Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees.

All allegations that have not been specifically admitted are hereby denied.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the allegations in the Petition.










SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

One or more of the allegations in the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 

[needsolution]

Hello everybody,

I don't know if you guys remember or not, I filled mine (1447) on 3/02/06 and I just received the answer via e-mail from US attorny. I think they denied because of lack of jurisdiction. I don't know what is the next step that I should take. I appreciate any advise.



Thanks


Defendants, through the United States Attorney, Answer Plaintiff’s Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application, addressing the consecutively numbered paragraphs seriatim:

INTRODUCTION

Paragraph 1 describes the nature of the action, to which no answer is required.
PARTIES

First numbered Paragraph 2 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Plaintiff ******, is a lawful permanent resident. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiff Rahighi’s current address. Defendants admit that Plaintiff *** was interviewed concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005, and that no decision has been made on the application since that date.
#2. Second Paragraph 2 describes Defendant Alberto Gonzales to which no answer is required.

Paragraph 3 describes Defendant Michael Chertoff to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 4 describes Defendant Emilio Gonzalez to which no answer is required.
There is no Paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6 describes Defendant Sharon Hudson to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 7 describes Defendant Robert Mueller to which no answer is required.
JURISDICTION

Subject to Defendants’ First Affirmative Defense, jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit is admitted.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny Plaintiff **** current address for purposes of venue.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for the initiation of this action, however Defendants deny that Plaintiff has clearly established his eligibility to be naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.
CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants admit that Plaintiff **** is a lawful permanent resident, that he filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization on or about March 9, 2005, and that he was interviewed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2005.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** was examined concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005 and that he passed the English test and the U.S. History and Government test, but was informed that a decision cannot be made awaiting completion of the background check.
Defendants admit that on December 22, 2005, Defendant USCIS notified Plaintiff Rahighi that the background investigation was still pending.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** naturalization application remains pending since the interview conducted on July 11, 2005.
Defendants deny that sufficient information has been obtained to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for naturalization.
Defendants deny violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446, but admit that more than 120 days have passed since the date of initial examination.
Defendants deny that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) is binding on this Court.
PRAYER

18. The allegations contained in this section of the Petition for Hearing constitute Plaintiff’s prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed appropriate, Defendants deny that this Court can declare Plaintiff to be a naturalized citizen of the United States without completion of mandatory security background checks and/or updating of mandatory criminal and security checks. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff can establish eligibility for Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees.

All allegations that have not been specifically admitted are hereby denied.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the allegations in the Petition.


SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

One or more of the allegations in the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Amir,

first of all, know that you are not alone getting this kind of response.

I got the very similar response to my petition. I think it is not as easy in other states as it is in California.

If you private message me your phone number, I will be glad to talk to you and I can refer you to an attorney I am using, who is an expert in federal litigation against USCIS in Texas.

 

[sfaizullah]

Suzy/Mohamed/others

Hi Suzy/Mohamed/others,
I went to Newark (NJ) DO today (Infopass appointment) based on suggestion made by the agent that spoke to me on my early April Infopass visit who said to make an early morning appoint so that I can talk to an immigration officer and they only send 10-15 people per day. So, today, I did go to the same floor where I was first interviewed and after long wait my name was called. Someone in the window repeated the same thing that name check pending (but this time she said since May 06, 2005 instead of May 14, 2005 as I was told the last time). She further said that my other file is here so it is only name check that is still pending. When I showed her the letter from FBI (FOIPA) she said that it is not only one agency (FBI) that does this name check. When I inquired about who does it she said she is not at liberty to answer my question. I was/am surprised that now we can not even know where is the name check pending with! Then I should he their own letter which states criteria for expedite and asked her that I have sent several requests for such an expedite based on medical condition (one of their own criteria) and I also showed her copies of the situation (hospital stuff). She then said let me take copies and I will pass to my supervisor to see if s/he will request an expedite or not. I told her that since I have written so many times and visited here, so it no problem that I wait for your supervisor to see the documents and let me know. She told I can wait and then after a while she said her supervisor said to drop these copies and they will send me a letter. While saying goodbye I noticed that she have written “pending” and underneath “G325” on the printout that she has attached to top of the copied documents.

My questions are: (1) does one know who really does name checks for N-400 applications? I thought only FBI.
(2) What is G325 for? I thought it was CIA check and it was for green card. Am I right? If so, should one then include CIA Director in the suit? I saw one lawyer in NJ included CIA Director in two suits that he filed (see Akram88 postings in page 91 (I believe)).

Then I went straight to District of NJ court and spoke to the clerk and showed her the draft petition. She said that the format was fine and that I bring original and four copies and summons (she was not sure but said one per defendant) and money order for $350.

My other question is that: should I wait until I receive an answer from USCIS (which I seriously doubt will be anything more than what they have doing so far) and send “intend to file” letters to them and US Attorney with a copy of the complaint and state a date that by (or before) I will file? I am just thinking and wondering if they can use this against me and say that I should have waited for a reply (even though more 120 days have passed and even though they did not reply to 5+ previous letters)?

Your help and reply is appreciated!

Best Regards

 

[sfaizullah]

Hello everybody,

I don't know if you guys remember or not, I filled mine (1447) on 3/02/06 and I just received the answer via e-mail from US attorny. I think they denied because of lack of jurisdiction. I don't know what is the next step that I should take. I appreciate any advise.



Thanks


Defendants, through the United States Attorney, Answer Plaintiff’s Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application, addressing the consecutively numbered paragraphs seriatim:

INTRODUCTION

Paragraph 1 describes the nature of the action, to which no answer is required.
PARTIES

First numbered Paragraph 2 is admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Plaintiff ******, is a lawful permanent resident. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiff Rahighi’s current address. Defendants admit that Plaintiff *** was interviewed concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005, and that no decision has been made on the application since that date.
#2. Second Paragraph 2 describes Defendant Alberto Gonzales to which no answer is required.

Paragraph 3 describes Defendant Michael Chertoff to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 4 describes Defendant Emilio Gonzalez to which no answer is required.
There is no Paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6 describes Defendant Sharon Hudson to which no answer is required.
Paragraph 7 describes Defendant Robert Mueller to which no answer is required.
JURISDICTION

Subject to Defendants’ First Affirmative Defense, jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit is admitted.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny Plaintiff **** current address for purposes of venue.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for the initiation of this action, however Defendants deny that Plaintiff has clearly established his eligibility to be naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.
CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants admit that Plaintiff **** is a lawful permanent resident, that he filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization on or about March 9, 2005, and that he was interviewed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2005.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** was examined concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005 and that he passed the English test and the U.S. History and Government test, but was informed that a decision cannot be made awaiting completion of the background check.
Defendants admit that on December 22, 2005, Defendant USCIS notified Plaintiff Rahighi that the background investigation was still pending.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** naturalization application remains pending since the interview conducted on July 11, 2005.
Defendants deny that sufficient information has been obtained to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for naturalization.
Defendants deny violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446, but admit that more than 120 days have passed since the date of initial examination.
Defendants deny that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) is binding on this Court.
PRAYER

18. The allegations contained in this section of the Petition for Hearing constitute Plaintiff’s prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed appropriate, Defendants deny that this Court can declare Plaintiff to be a naturalized citizen of the United States without completion of mandatory security background checks and/or updating of mandatory criminal and security checks. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff can establish eligibility for Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees.

All allegations that have not been specifically admitted are hereby denied.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the allegations in the Petition.










SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

One or more of the allegations in the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Amir/Houston,
Who is this letter from (US Attorney I suppose)? And why they think the court does not have the jurisdiction? Is it because you can prove that you live there? You should be able to counter their claims. I believe, the judge will be able to deny not the attorney?

Best Regards

 

[akram88]

Hi Suzy/Mohamed/others,
I went to Newark (NJ) DO today (Infopass appointment) based on suggestion made by the agent that spoke to me on my early April Infopass visit who said to make an early morning appoint so that I can talk to an immigration officer and they only send 10-15 people per day. So, today, I did go to the same floor where I was first interviewed and after long wait my name was called. Someone in the window repeated the same thing that name check pending (but this time she said since May 06, 2005 instead of May 14, 2005 as I was told the last time). She further said that my other file is here so it is only name check that is still pending. When I showed her the letter from FBI (FOIPA) she said that it is not only one agency (FBI) that does this name check. When I inquired about who does it she said she is not at liberty to answer my question. I was/am surprised that now we can not even know where is the name check pending with! Then I should he their own letter which states criteria for expedite and asked her that I have sent several requests for such an expedite based on medical condition (one of their own criteria) and I also showed her copies of the situation (hospital stuff). She then said let me take copies and I will pass to my supervisor to see if s/he will request an expedite or not. I told her that since I have written so many times and visited here, so it no problem that I wait for your supervisor to see the documents and let me know. She told I can wait and then after a while she said her supervisor said to drop these copies and they will send me a letter. While saying goodbye I noticed that she have written “pending” and underneath “G325” on the printout that she has attached to top of the copied documents.

My questions are: (1) does one know who really does name checks for N-400 applications? I thought only FBI.
(2) What is G325 for? I thought it was CIA check and it was for green card. Am I right? If so, should one then include CIA Director in the suit? I saw one lawyer in NJ included CIA Director in two suits that he filed (see Akram88 postings in page 91 (I believe)).

Then I went straight to District of NJ court and spoke to the clerk and showed her the draft petition. She said that the format was fine and that I bring original and four copies and summons (she was not sure but said one per defendant) and money order for $350.

My other question is that: should I wait until I receive an answer from USCIS (which I seriously doubt will be anything more than what they have doing so far) and send “intend to file” letters to them and US Attorney with a copy of the complaint and state a date that by (or before) I will file? I am just thinking and wondering if they can use this against me and say that I should have waited for a reply (even though more 120 days have passed and even though they did not reply to 5+ previous letters)?

Your help and reply is appreciated!

Best Regards

Hi sfaizullah,
it seems that this is the answer they give in Newark DO regarding Name checks. At my CZ interview I asked the officer for the name of the agency that is doing the name check (at the time I knew nothing about it) the answer was that she cannot answer this question.
The officer also wrote down on my interview result sheet G325 which later on I knew it's something done by the CIA. Don't know if this makes any sence but at least now I know that this G325 is not something specific for me.
I'm trying to remember the conversation now, I think she mentioned, at some point, that they wait for some replies from the country of origin. I vagely remember this conversation but I'm sure we spoke about waiting for something from the country of origin...
I don't think anyone has an answer for this big puzzle called name check.

 

[backues]

Hi sfaizullah,
...
The officer also wrote down on my interview result sheet G325 which later on I knew it's something done by the CIA. Don't know if this makes any sence but at least now I know that this G325 is not something specific for me.
I'm trying to remember the conversation now, I think she mentioned, at some point, that they wait for some replies from the country of origin. I vagely remember this conversation but I'm sure we spoke about waiting for something from the country of origin...
I don't think anyone has an answer for this big puzzle called name check.

So does this mean for people who come from certain countries will get CIA (G325 Form) checked too?

 

[akram88]

So does this mean for people who come from certain countries will get CIA (G325 Form) checked too?

I don't know, all I know is that she mentioned something about waiting for the country of origin's official response. I don't know why and when they process a G325 and if I got it because I'm coming from a middle eastern country... like I said it's a big puzzle

 

[Balto]

Amir/Houston, that's my question too.

Amir/Houston,
Who is this letter from (US Attorney I suppose)? And why they think the court does not have the jurisdiction? Is it because you can prove that you live there? You should be able to counter their claims. I believe, the judge will be able to deny not the attorney?

Best Regards

How can the US A decide the case, it's the court's job, right? So I guess you will file an answer to that and take them to the court. Am I right? Whoever knows, please shed some light.

Balto

 

[RealSuperK]

Hello everybody,

I don't know if you guys remember or not, I filled mine (1447) on 3/02/06 and I just received the answer via e-mail from US attorny. I think they denied because of lack of jurisdiction. I don't know what is the next step that I should take. I appreciate any advise.



Thanks

CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants admit that Plaintiff **** is a lawful permanent resident, that he filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization on or about March 9, 2005, and that he was interviewed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2005.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** was examined concerning his Form N-400 naturalization application on July 11, 2005 and that he passed the English test and the U.S. History and Government test, but was informed that a decision cannot be made awaiting completion of the background check.
Defendants admit that on December 22, 2005, Defendant USCIS notified Plaintiff Rahighi that the background investigation was still pending.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff ***** naturalization application remains pending since the interview conducted on July 11, 2005.
Defendants deny that sufficient information has been obtained to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for naturalization.
Defendants deny violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446, but admit that more than 120 days have passed since the date of initial examination.
Defendants deny that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) is binding on this Court.

Interesting. I posted the attachment earlier but I'm gonna post it again. It's a USCIS memoradum issued a month and a half ago that states " DOJ/OIL (Department Of Justice and Office of Immigration Litigation) believes that CIS violates its own regulations (at 8 CFR 335.2(b)) in holding interviews before background checks are done, and that DOJ is left without good argument to make when advocating these cases before district courts" 8 CFR 335 happens to be 8 USC 1446 that your district attorney is claiming they are not violating. So, DOJ/OIL says that CIS violates 335. CIS says they do not. Can it get any more disfunctional?

Also, I'm not sure on what basis are they saying that they are not violating 8 USC 1446 even though they admit that it's been more that 120 days since the interview. The only possible explanation - they are gonna claim that examination isn't over till background check is complete. Check out this link for a list of cases that won the argument that 120 days start from the interview - http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=19037.

 

[thryen]

U. S. Department of Homeland Security Judge:
Office of the General Counsel
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20258

Should the zip code be 20528 or 20258?

it is 20528