You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
So far..
Good side:
Went and did 2nd FP, at least something going on
Per Defendant's Response to Order to Show Cause USCIA requested the FBI to expedite the name check on 09/18/06
Does anybody know how that works? Time Estimates?
Not good:
Called USCIA to check on 2nd FP that I took 10/17/06 and they say it's still pending.
How long does it take? I thought it's like 24-48 hours?
They also say my case is still pending for FBI name check. No note on the system that person was looking at that process was expedited.
Went to Court, add FOIA to the case, will send copy to AUSA.
What to do next - no idea....
Good side:
Went and did 2nd FP, at least something going on
Per Defendant's Response to Order to Show Cause USCIA requested the FBI to expedite the name check on 09/18/06
Does anybody know how that works? Time Estimates?
Not good:
Called USCIA to check on 2nd FP that I took 10/17/06 and they say it's still pending.
How long does it take? I thought it's like 24-48 hours?
They also say my case is still pending for FBI name check. No note on the system that person was looking at that process was expedited.
Went to Court, add FOIA to the case, will send copy to AUSA.
What to do next - no idea....
In NJ filed in Newark this past Tuesday, got summons - some questions
I filed on Tues, and today got back the Summons and a copy of the cover sheet and a copy of the complaint.
I just get one set of the summons...
Should I copy the complaint the court sent back and serve with the Summons, or should I just use the copies I had before? It'd be a hassle to unstaple the complaint and go to a local Kinko's to do the copying... but if it is better I'lll do that... please comment.
And, why don't I have 2 sets of summons like Moon_g has?
Thanks guys!
I filed on Tues, and today got back the Summons and a copy of the cover sheet and a copy of the complaint.
I just get one set of the summons...
Should I copy the complaint the court sent back and serve with the Summons, or should I just use the copies I had before? It'd be a hassle to unstaple the complaint and go to a local Kinko's to do the copying... but if it is better I'lll do that... please comment.
And, why don't I have 2 sets of summons like Moon_g has?
Thanks guys!
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
It'd be a hassle to unstaple the complaint and go to a local Kinko's to do the copying... but if it is better I'lll do that... please comment.
I bought an EPSON all-in-one. I know in the following weeks I will be doing a lot of copying, so I do my own photocopy at home. But sorry, I do not know the answer to your problem at the moment, at least not yet.
i actually have a high resolution scanner as well as a laser print so I can also do the same copying at home. However the scanning of 17 pages in high resolution will take about 10 minutes and that's why i'm a bit reluctant. Also I don't know what is the right thing to do - the original complaint? or the new one sent back to me by the court, which bear the caes number as well as judge's name etc... anyone can answer please let me know.
Thanks very much.
Thanks very much.
Bushmaster said:I bought an EPSON all-in-one. I know in the following weeks I will be doing a lot of copying, so I do my own photocopy at home. But sorry, I do not know the answer to your problem at the moment, at least not yet.
Hi icare,
If the court sent you back one set of summons (one for each defendant), complain and cover sheet; then each defendant will get an original summon, one complain and one cover sheet. You need to make at least two extra copies of each summon because you also need to serve the AUSA with a set of summons, a complain and cover sheet. The final copy of the summon will go back to the court as proof of service.
Looks little bit confusing . . . .
If you let me know the following I could answer you more better, how many set of summons have you received from the court? Have you included AUSA as a defendant in your complain? Have you fill out a summon for AUSA?
If the court sent you back one set of summons (one for each defendant), complain and cover sheet; then each defendant will get an original summon, one complain and one cover sheet. You need to make at least two extra copies of each summon because you also need to serve the AUSA with a set of summons, a complain and cover sheet. The final copy of the summon will go back to the court as proof of service.
Looks little bit confusing . . . .
If you let me know the following I could answer you more better, how many set of summons have you received from the court? Have you included AUSA as a defendant in your complain? Have you fill out a summon for AUSA?
icare said:I filed on Tues, and today got back the Summons and a copy of the cover sheet and a copy of the complaint.
I just get one set of the summons...
Should I copy the complaint the court sent back and serve with the Summons, or should I just use the copies I had before? It'd be a hassle to unstaple the complaint and go to a local Kinko's to do the copying... but if it is better I'lll do that... please comment.
And, why don't I have 2 sets of summons like Moon_g has?
Thanks guys!
Thank you for your reply. Answers to your questions are:786riz said:Hi icare,
If the court sent you back one set of summons (one for each defendant), complain and cover sheet; then each defendant will get an original summon, one complain and one cover sheet. You need to make at least two extra copies of each summon because you also need to serve the AUSA with a set of summons, a complain and cover sheet. The final copy of the summon will go back to the court as proof of service.
Looks little bit confusing . . . .
If you let me know the following I could answer you more better, how many set of summons have you received from the court? Have you included AUSA as a defendant in your complain? Have you fill out a summon for AUSA?
I got 1 set of summons back from the court. One for each defendent and I actually made one out for the AUSA. That comes out to 5 summons. The Attorney General Gonzales is a defendent so I don't think I need to serve a separate summons.
What you suggested: I need to make 2 extra copies of each summons - I am not sure why that is. Please elaborate. Also, do I need to send a copy of the cover sheet to any of the defendents and/or the AUSA?
Another question I had is should I copy the compliant which was sent back to me from the court, or should I use the copies I made before going to the court. I guess either way it'll work right?
Thanks again. it is the collecitve wisdom that gives us the power to fight!
icare said:Thank you for your reply. Answers to your questions are:
I got 1 set of summons back from the court. One for each defendent and I actually made one out for the AUSA. That comes out to 5 summons. The Attorney General Gonzales is a defendent so I don't think I need to serve a separate summons.
What you suggested: I need to make 2 extra copies of each summons - I am not sure why that is. Please elaborate. Also, do I need to send a copy of the cover sheet to any of the defendents and/or the AUSA?
Another question I had is should I copy the compliant which was sent back to me from the court, or should I use the copies I made before going to the court. I guess either way it'll work right?
Thanks again. it is the collecitve wisdom that gives us the power to fight!
Hi icare,
I would make a single copy of all the summonses and as many copies of the first, stamped page of your complaint as many defendants+US Attorney. I.e., if you have 4 defendants, 5 copies of the cover page of the complaint and one copy of each summonses. You send to each defendant plus AUSA their summons+ a full copy of the complaint, just replace the front page of the complaint copies you did before you filed your case in your district court.
The original complaint is the one what you filed with the court and that's with your original signature in ink. All the others are copies. But the defendants need to have the case number (although that is stamped on the summons too), that's why I believe that you need a copy of the complaint which has a front page stamped with the case number and judge's name.
Remember, the whole purpose of this serving is to let the defendant know that you are filed a lawsuit against him and you need to provide him the full complaint+exhibits (copies, of course) to allow him to prepare his answer to your complaint. The summonses what you got from the court will be used after you served the defendants to file with the court the Proof of Service. Make sure that you make a copy for your personal file of every single piece of paper you send to anybody involved in this case.
You don't have to send copies of your Civil Cover Sheet, this is used by the court to classify your case and file it in their archives.
The above explanation is based on my local court rules. Please verify if this agrees with your local rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
wenlock said:Guys I need some help what to put in relief.
I am filling WOM pro se for pending N-400 keep in mind my interview is not scheduled yet so I do not qualify for 1447(b) I can only file WOM My priority date is June 23rd 2005.
What should I ask in relief just to adjucate application in 30 days
or
also to FBI that they process my Name check
also Do you ask court to take Jurisdiction in WOM case I thought it was only in 1447(b) cases but not sure please highlight
Not sure about this also one more thing My field office is Charleston SC and District is Atlanta
Who should I sue Officer in charge of Charleston Sc or District Director?
I am not sure who will call me for interview Charleston or Atlanta I have few friends in neigbourhood some got interview in Charleston others got in Atlanta so I am not sure who is my processing office.
I think I am the first person filling for WOM based on N-400 without interview.
I know they stopped scheduling for interview after May 26th internal Memo.
Let me know I have a lot of ammo including FOIPA, Senators letters, Congressman, First Lady, Presendent's office, Senete immigration commatee letter, FBI emails to justify that I have exhausted every administrative avenue available. they all say same thing NAME CHECK
I am also suing them on both WOM and Adminstrative Procedure Act as mentioned in AILF best practices about WOM. I have read the law and it make sense to me so I am adding on that based too. I have seen very few but well written suit using both so I am sure it apply but let me know ur thoughts
I will not sit and relax till I will get it done period.
Please help me make decision on relief and who to sue.
Wenlock
Hi Wenlock,
I found a good formula for a WOM N-400 case for the relief the Plaintiff is asking:
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the FBI to complete the Plaintiff's background check and forward the results to the Detroit District Office, USCIS and compelling the Detroit District Office of USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization;
Alternatively, it is prayed that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the FBI to commence a new background check in the Plaintiff's case so USCIS can reach a decision about Planitiff's Application;
Alternatively, it is prayed that this Honorable Court order the USCIS to approve Plaintiff's Application and to make immediate arrangements for the Plaintiff's naturalization.
from Ismail v. Jones et al. case 2:06-cv-13320, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
You can adapt this to include the interview schedule after name check is complete.
I put defendants the District Office director of USCIS, the director of USCIS, the Secretary of DHS, the director of FBI and the US Attorney General. Besides them, you will need to serve a summons + complaint to the local US Attorney's office, Civil Process Clerk, but the US Attorney is not defendant. Somebody from this office will be the counsel of the defendants (i.e., representing the Government).
Last edited by a moderator:
AUSA are starting to use dirty tricks
MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
hayyyoot said:MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
hayyyoot, in which district court did you file your case?
It is not completely clear to me what was actually filed in court and what is just proposal (and counter proposal) between you and AUSA? Legally, it counts only what is filed in court. My reading is that so far there is only a Motion to Extend by 30 days filed in court. The proposal and counter proposal is just between you and AUSA. Please clarify.
You should be firm and do not accept this MAYBE or will see, bla-bla-bla. Most likely USCIS already knows from your name check results what will be their decision (if the name check is really done). It is still hard to believe that AUSA would lie to you and would try to deceive you on purpose. But I can't read his mind and I don't have all the facts...
I maintain my previously stated opinion that your case will be adjudicated before the new 30 day term expires.
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
Hayyyoot,
I second what Paz said, they are definitely trying to play you, this is ridiculous, just because you are filing pro se, they think you will be obeying what they throw at you at once? Keep the firm attitude and tell them that you will settle when you see the oath letter in the mail, that is what I am going to push for.
Paz, you got my last email?
I second what Paz said, they are definitely trying to play you, this is ridiculous, just because you are filing pro se, they think you will be obeying what they throw at you at once? Keep the firm attitude and tell them that you will settle when you see the oath letter in the mail, that is what I am going to push for.
Paz, you got my last email?
Bushmaster said:Hayyyoot,
I second what Paz said, they are definitely trying to play you, this is ridiculous, just because you are filing pro se, they think you will be obeying what they throw at you at once? Keep the firm attitude and tell them that you will settle when you see the oath letter in the mail, that is what I am going to push for.
Paz, you got my last email?
Hi Bushmaster,
I sent you a PM.
Concerning your advice to hayyyoot to not dismiss his/her lawsuit till the oath letter is in the mail, I have to respectfully disagree. If the court and USCIS accept that according the 1447(b) the district court has exclusive jurisdiction on the applicant's case as soon as the complaint was filed in the court, USCIS can not formally adjudicate applicant's case till they don't regain the jurisdiction on the case, i.e., the lawsuit is dismissed. So a Joint Motion to Dismisss, which stipulates clear timeline for adjudication (you can not put in this motion "appoval") and further action (i.e, oath ceremony date, if aplication is approved) should be the correct way to settle this (and similar) cases.
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
I see, I understand, however I remember seeing someone on the forum who did the same thing? Or did I read it wrong? Well, you are right, something that is solid is needed which the petitioner would know when to expect an oath letter.
But again, I remember seeing something to the effect that a person on this board dismissed the case after receiving the oath letter. Strange.
This however may very well result in a denial, I am talking about my case though. I checked my military enlistment records. Before enlisting in the military, they take fingerprints and send the results to OPM.
There it is, I have a FBI case number and the check result is "Record", there is a also an issue/seriousness code that is given to this "record" which is 05B. I made a web search to find out about the "05B". It is explained in a OPM document that “B” issue(s) are Moderate and the conduct or issue, standing alone, would probably not be disqualifying for any position under suitability. It was a visa overstay and I am surprised it is "moderate", not "minor".
Now AUSA or CIS can use this to deny my case, but that is better than waiting forever not seeing a result. After that, I can fight the denial I guess.
But again, I remember seeing something to the effect that a person on this board dismissed the case after receiving the oath letter. Strange.
So a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which stipulates clear timeline for adjudication (you can not put in this motion "approval") and further action (i.e, oath ceremony date, if application is approved) should be the correct way to settle this (and similar) cases.
This however may very well result in a denial, I am talking about my case though. I checked my military enlistment records. Before enlisting in the military, they take fingerprints and send the results to OPM.
There it is, I have a FBI case number and the check result is "Record", there is a also an issue/seriousness code that is given to this "record" which is 05B. I made a web search to find out about the "05B". It is explained in a OPM document that “B” issue(s) are Moderate and the conduct or issue, standing alone, would probably not be disqualifying for any position under suitability. It was a visa overstay and I am surprised it is "moderate", not "minor".
Now AUSA or CIS can use this to deny my case, but that is better than waiting forever not seeing a result. After that, I can fight the denial I guess.
Sometimes USCIS will continue to work on the Plaintiff's case and will adjudicate it anyway (they claim many times that they have concurrent jurisdiction, however, in the light of USA v. Hovsepian this is not true). Now if they approve the Plaintiff's case and agree to issue the oath letter even before the lawsuit is dismissed, the plaintiff obviously will agree and not tell them that according to 1447(b) the court has exclusive jurisdiction and USCIS is not allowed to send him/her the oath letter before (s)he dismisses the lawsuit. Now if USCIS adjudicates Plaintiff's case after the lawsuit is filed with the court and the result is denial, this has to be fought vigurously because USCIS lost jurisdiction so they can't deny the application. In this case the only chance would be to convince the judge to determine the matter in court. If the judge remands the matter back to the Service (USCIS) they simply deny it again and the applicant has to go through the administrative appeal inside USCIS before (s)he can file a complaint in the district court requesting a judicial review (de nuovo examination). This is the second way how can a naturalization end up in court.Bushmaster said:I see, I understand, however I remember seeing someone on the forum who did the same thing? Or did I read it wrong? Well, you are right, something that is solid is needed which the petitioner would know when to expect an oath letter.
But again, I remember seeing something to the effect that a person on this board dismissed the case after receiving the oath letter. Strange.
This however may very well result in a denial, I am talking about my case though. I checked my military enlistment records. Before enlisting in the military, they take fingerprints and send the results to OPM.
There it is, I have a FBI case number and the check result is "Record", there is a also an issue/seriousness code that is given to this "record" which is 05B. I made a web search to find out about the "05B". It is explained in a OPM document that “B” issue(s) are Moderate and the conduct or issue, standing alone, would probably not be disqualifying for any position under suitability. It was a visa overstay and I am surprised it is "moderate", not "minor".
Now AUSA or CIS can use this to deny my case, but that is better than waiting forever not seeing a result. After that, I can fight the denial I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
paz1960 said:Sometimes USCIS will continue to work on the Plaintiff's case and will adjudicate it anyway (they claim many times that they have concurrent jurisdiction, however, in the light of USA v. Hovsepian this is not true). Now if they approve the Plaintiff's case and agree to issue the oath letter even before the lawsuit is dismissed, the plaintiff obviously will agree and not tell them that according to 1447(b) the court has exclusive jurisdiction and USCIS is not allowed to send him/her the oath letter before (s)he dismisses the lawsuit. Now if USCIS adjudicates Plaintiff's case after the lawsuit is filed with the court and the result is denial, this has to be fought vigurously because USCIS lost jurisdiction so they can't deny the application. In this case the only chance would be to convince the judge to determine the matter in court. If the judge remands the matter back to the Service (USCIS) they simply deny it again and the applicant has to go through the administrative appeal inside USCIS before (s)he can file a complaint in the district court requesting a judicial review (de nuovo examination). This is the second way how can a naturalization end up in court.
I am familiar with this, yes, it is also mentioned in the AILA practice advisory. If they proceed to approve it, don't confuse them with jurisdiction issues, if they move to dismiss or deny then scream and yell "court has jurisdiction" . This situation is a win-win case. I am concerned about the denial of course. However, I might have a good chance since my run-in with the INS was not an issue at my interview. I don't believe they can use it in any way. If they'd argued the lack of good moral character issue, I wold point out the immigration judge's decision granting me AOS which can only be done after the IJ determines that the person has good moral character. All I gotta do is file the darn petition. I will get back to you with that.
Dear Friends, Sorry I have been working 2 jobs...hayyyoot said:MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
this is sad Hayyoot... Just be prepared for filing the Motion to Deny their motion to dismiss... the AUSA did play trick and made you look like bad person... I will definitly put this in writing and bring this to the judge's notice about what happened... the same way you told us... Now try not to call the AUSA for some time to make sure that you are not lokked like a weak person... if he is not going to get your case adjudicated in 30 days... he will be filing motion to dismiss and he has no standing... I am hoping you are N400 natz filer... if you are just watch the AUSA dancing in front of a judge... explaining what he was trying to do to an innocent Pro Se filer...
Dear Friends, Sorry I have been working 2 jobs...hayyyoot said:MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
this is sad Hayyoot... Just be prepared for filing the Motion to Deny their motion to dismiss... the AUSA did play trick and made you look like bad person... I will definitly put this in writing and bring this to the judge's notice about what happened... the same way you told us... Now try not to call the AUSA for some time to make sure that you are not lokked like a weak person... if he is not going to get your case adjudicated in 30 days... he will be filing motion to dismiss and he has no standing... I am hoping you are N400 natz filer... if you are just watch the AUSA dancing in front of a judge... explaining what he was trying to do to an innocent Pro Se filer...
Dear Friends, Sorry I have been working 2 jobs...hayyyoot said:MY AUSA called me few days ago -4 days befor the deadline for him to respond to my complaint and told me that my name check has been cleared and the USCIS is ready to now adjudicate my application, however, they can't because the court has sole jurisdiction over my case now, he asked me to write a ltter asking the judje to remand the case back to the USCIS ASAP. of course my heart danced to hearing that, and I first assumed that this guy is telling the truth, so, I asked if he is going to set any timeframes for adjudicating the application, and he said he will think about it, he later filed a motion for extension in court stating that they need an extension FOR ME to make my mind. I called him the next day and told him that I already made my mind, they are the ones that should make their minds regarding a time frame, he then said that they did, and they will adjudicate my case within 30 days, he then faxed me a proposal to remand the case back to the USCIS, and the proposal stated that the USCIS expects that the application MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days, but, isn't bound by this as an agreement. the AUSA refused to give me anything in writing that states that my name check was cleared, I really wonder how true his information is.
Of course I rejected this BS, and offered a counter proposal to totally dismiss the case if they stated that the application WILL BE AND NOT MAY BE adjudicated within a certain timeframe.
Guys, this is not a question, I just wanted you to know that those people can be dishonest, DON'T TRUST THEM.
this is sad Hayyoot... Just be prepared for filing the Motion to Deny their motion to dismiss... the AUSA did play trick and made you look like bad person... I will definitly put this in writing and bring this to the judge's notice about what happened... the same way you told us... Now try not to call the AUSA for some time to make sure that you are not lokked like a weak person... if he is not going to get your case adjudicated in 30 days... he will be filing motion to dismiss and he has no standing... I am hoping you are N400 natz filer... if you are just watch the AUSA dancing in front of a judge... explaining what he was trying to do to an innocent Pro Se filer...
Good luck and keep us posted... I will take couple of more days... I miss you guys... I'll be back...
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
So if hayyyoot would have fallen for this trick, and then dismissed the case, and Godspeed USCIS if you could ever heard from the again!
Hayyyoot, now this AUSA filed a motion for extension blaming you for not making your mind when it was clearly their fault. Seems like maybe he is trying to earn some time. Is it possible for you to file something with the court to the effect saying you will not dismiss the case with "MAY BE" proposals?
Let us know how this turns out...
Hayyyoot, now this AUSA filed a motion for extension blaming you for not making your mind when it was clearly their fault. Seems like maybe he is trying to earn some time. Is it possible for you to file something with the court to the effect saying you will not dismiss the case with "MAY BE" proposals?
Let us know how this turns out...