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

I am in Las Vegas, Nevada, I posted my details on an earlier post, 1447(b) filed on 8/28, USA served same day, answer due 10/27, motion for extension filed on 10/24, the AUSA proposal (for the MAY BE) was between me and him, I will wait till Tuesday to get a better proposal, before I file an answer for his extension motion.

paz1960 said:
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.
 
Dear Hayyyoot

hayyyoot said:
I am in Las Vegas, Nevada, I posted my details on an earlier post, 1447(b) filed on 8/28, USA served same day, answer due 10/27, motion for extension filed on 10/24, the AUSA proposal (for the MAY BE) was between me and him, I will wait till Tuesday to get a better proposal, before I file an answer for his extension motion.
Dear Hayyyoot,

So if I am not mistaken the AUSA did not use the words in his Motion for Extension in time, that "the Plaintiff needs to make up his mind" or "May Be"... If he did then if you please post his Notice here on forum or at least copy/paste without your personal info... we can look at it... if he did not use these words in his Motion then too if you can please post his response or at least copy paste without your personal info... I think if he did not use those words on his motion then you are totally fine... but if he used those words in his momtion then you may have to think about answering his response... Please enlighten us...

Good Luck...
 
Hello Hady;
the AUSA used the expression "30 days extension is needed to allow plaintiff to determine if she is going to remand the case back to the USCIS"
In his proposal that wasn't filed in the court, he litterally wrote: "the USCIS ancipates that the plaintiff's petition MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days"
So, actually he almost said that I can't make my mind, and he used the word MAY Be at least three times in his proposal, I don't have a whole lot of time to type the whole thing here (since there is no way to copy and paste from PDF format, and I am a slow typer), and the AUSA proposal was received via mail on hard copy.
But, if interestead, you can check pacer, tehre are very few cases in Nevada district, and I am the only 890 case that was filed on 8/28/06, you can see the motion for extension there. the AUSA will not make it to pacer, because I will never sign such BS.


Haddy said:
Dear Hayyyoot,

So if I am not mistaken the AUSA did not use the words in his Motion for Extension in time, that "the Plaintiff needs to make up his mind" or "May Be"... If he did then if you please post his Notice here on forum or at least copy/paste without your personal info... we can look at it... if he did not use these words in his Motion then too if you can please post his response or at least copy paste without your personal info... I think if he did not use those words on his motion then you are totally fine... but if he used those words in his momtion then you may have to think about answering his response... Please enlighten us...

Good Luck...
 
Here you go Haya,

Plaintiff filed her Petition on August 28, 2006, and Defendants’ Answer or other responsive pleading is due on October 27, 2006. On October 24, 2006, undersigned Counsel spoke with Plaintiff and the parties are attempting to resolve this matter without further litigation. A thirty (30) day extension of time is required for Plaintiff to determine whether she will stipulate to remand this matter to the Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”). For the reason stated, the CIS requests an additional thirty (30) days, to and including Monday, November 27, 2006, in which to file Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Petition.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
/s/ CARLOS A. GONZALEZ
CARLOS A. GONZALEZ
Assistant United States Attorney



Haya, I also downloaded your 1447 petition and I liked the wording in it, may I also use a similar format for mine? I also would like to download Paz1960's petition, and create something similar.

Haya my questions to you, about the exhibits in your petition, I never got anything in written from the USCIS saying that my N400 is pending security checks. Everything I got has been told orally so far. What can I put in my petition as an exhibit?

I also saw that your N400 has been recommended for approval, that means once the security checks are over, they will approve it? Mine doesn't say that it has been recommended for approval but a decision can not be entered, does this mean after the security checks there is still more to do, and a denial maybe the case?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hayyyoot, Paz1960, lovingusa, Haddy,

I NEED ADVICE ON SOMETHING,

I received a letter from my congressman about my N400.

My congressman's contact person in town send a short email to ATLANTA liaison saying that I had contacted them requesting assistance in expediting my N400 since it has been caught in the background check and I need this for my military career, they ask to respond.

Liaison responds back on the 25th, saying "Send me evidence of his military deployment and I will see if I can get the name check expedited."

I may be able to get a memorandum from my commander and/or higher that I will be deploying next year. Do you guys think I should halt the 1447(b) and pursue that?
 
hayyyoot said:
Hello Hady;
the AUSA used the expression "30 days extension is needed to allow plaintiff to determine if she is going to remand the case back to the USCIS"
In his proposal that wasn't filed in the court, he litterally wrote: "the USCIS ancipates that the plaintiff's petition MAY BE adjudicated within 30 days"
So, actually he almost said that I can't make my mind, and he used the word MAY Be at least three times in his proposal, I don't have a whole lot of time to type the whole thing here (since there is no way to copy and paste from PDF format, and I am a slow typer), and the AUSA proposal was received via mail on hard copy.
But, if interestead, you can check pacer, tehre are very few cases in Nevada district, and I am the only 890 case that was filed on 8/28/06, you can see the motion for extension there. the AUSA will not make it to pacer, because I will never sign such BS.

Hello hayyyoot,

Thanks to you and Bushmaster, now we have a better picture what's going on with your case. In my reading, all the signs show that they are doing something with your petition and they hope that till November 27 they will have a decision. Because they had to give a reason why to ask the judge a 30 day extension, they stated that they spoke to you and they try to resolve this case without further litigation. They could stop here and everything would be fine. I don't understand, why they needed to add that untrue statement, that you need 30 days to make up your mind. Probably, that's how they try to interpret their proposal to dismiss and your request for a different wording.

All this is not really important, because in all the cases I saw here on this forum, the judge invariably granted the AUSA first motion for an extension, either the Plaintiff oposed it or not. From the point of view of the judge is understandable, if it is stated that they need the 30 days extension, the judge will be happy to grant it; maybe the case will be solved by the end of the extension and case over...

I think that in this case you can not do anything before the 30 days are up, and either your case will be solved by then (which is very likely, in my opinion) or they will file for an another extension or a Motion to Dismiss or Remand to USCIS. If this latter happens, you will need to be prepared to file an Opposition responding to that Memorandum to Dismiss or Remand. We can help you at that point.

Of course, you can file an Opposition to the AUSA's motion for extension and you can state in that Opposition that you didn't ask AUSA in the phone conversation 30 days to make up your mind; you were willing to file a joint motion to dismiss with precisely worded guarantees that your case will be adjudicated in the commonly agreed timeframe, because as per AUSA, your background check is now complete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Paz expressed it very clearly, Hayyyoot, don't worry, sit back and relax at this time. At the end of 30 days, you will have something solid.

Paz, no email yet? I will try to send you something from the web based email client of mine.
 
Bushmaster said:
Yes, Paz expressed it very clearly, Hayyyoot, don't worry, sit back and relax at this time. At the end of 30 days, you will have something solid.

Paz, no email yet? I will try to send you something from the web based email client of mine.

No, no, no! Don't sit back and relax. Do your homework, study the Oppositions to Motion to Dismiss or Remand posted on this forum. If AUSA will file a Motion to dismiss at the end of the 30 days extension, most likely will argue along Danilov v. Aguirre (i.e., the "examination" means not only the interview but also all the other steps etc.). If they request to remand your case back to USCIS, you will need to convince the judge that 1. he should not remand it 2. even if he decides to remand it, he should do it with a precise timetable not to leave you in this indefinite limbo with USCIS.

Bushmaster, I sent you a PM, and no, I still didn't receive anything from you to my e-mail address I gave you.
 
Bushmaster said:
Hayyyoot, Paz1960, lovingusa, Haddy,

I NEED ADVICE ON SOMETHING,

I received a letter from my congressman about my N400.

My congressman's contact person in town send a short email to ATLANTA liaison saying that I had contacted them requesting assistance in expediting my N400 since it has been caught in the background check and I need this for my military career, they ask to respond.

Liaison responds back on the 25th, saying "Send me evidence of his military deployment and I will see if I can get the name check expedited."

I may be able to get a memorandum from my commander and/or higher that I will be deploying next year. Do you guys think I should halt the 1447(b) and pursue that?

Bushmaster,

This is a tough question, I'm not sure that I know the correct answer, but I will share with you what would I do in your shoes.

I would try to evaluate which course of action gives me earlier what I want: the adjudication of my N-400 petition. If there is not enough data to make this determination, I probably would try to go with the congressman first. We know that USCIS has a memo, which defines the circumstances when can they ask expedited name checks from FBI. The first such cause is the imminent military deployment. If you can get a letter from your military superiors, which states that your deployment will happen soon (they can and should avoid to say when exactly, this very well can be a matter of military secret), there is a good chance that the namecheck will be expedited and your N-400 adjudicated without litigation. Considering that you are in the military, this may be a better option. Besides that who likes to start a fight in court, on an unfamiliar terrain for us, and who wants to spend $350+the other costs, if you have a chance that your case can be solved without litigation?

On the other hand, maybe this congressional liason will not be able to help you and you will loose some time. It would be good to know, how much, but I realise that there is no way to tell this. That's why this is a difficult call.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heh heh, sit back and relax, I guess in the military when you take a breath you can say that. My bad, well take a breath :)

By the way, if they argue along Danilov v. Aguirre (i.e., the "examination" means not only the interview but also all the other steps etc.), and if this is indeed the case, I thought, then WHY does it mention the 120 day clause on the INTERVIEW RESULTS sheet?

But her AUSA seems to know about this jurisdiction issue? Am I wrong?
 
I agree with you Paz. This course of action seems suitable I was thinking, I can send a memo to the congressional liaison from my superiors testifying to the situation. And have the congressman's staff put that in action and in the meantime I can get ready with my 1447(b) to file and maybe send a letter to USCIS ATL and AUSA a letter of intent to sue like bashar82 did. I am sure I will hear from congressman's staff pretty quick if they are expediting or not. If they are not, baamm, I will file the petition.

Or, I can just give a go ahead to the congressman, and still prepare and file the petition regardless of their liaison help. I don't expect much from that anyway. I don't really care about the 350 at this point since I didn't pay anything for N400. I guess that expense would go to court.

I think I have plenty of options. Another one is, I can wait a little, (my deployment is after spring) and in the meanwhile you will get pretty professional in these case types to assist me :D :D :D
 
Bushmaster said:
Heh heh, sit back and relax, I guess in the military when you take a breath you can say that. My bad, well take a breath :)

By the way, if they argue along Danilov v. Aguirre (i.e., the "examination" means not only the interview but also all the other steps etc.), and if this is indeed the case, I thought, then WHY does it mention the 120 day clause on the INTERVIEW RESULTS sheet?

But her AUSA seems to know about this jurisdiction issue? Am I wrong?

Bushmaster, my Interview Result sheet (form N-652) doesn't say anything about the 120 day clause. I wonder what others have? The paper I received at the end of my interview is the 12/7/1999 revision of the form and still has INS on it, not USCIS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh shoot! But regardless, I think this can be used as an exhibit for jurisdiction.

I just checked mine, it is a 2005 revision, and it is USCIS. Clearly states as a note at the bottom that you can request a hearing before the District court if USCIS had not made a determination on the case.
 
need info about 1447B

hello everyone i have been cheking this forum for the past few months here is my story as of the 26th of this month my 120 days has elapsed and i decided to file 1447B.
i filed my N400 i and i had my interview in NY got stuck in ther name check BS. the entire time waiting i was attending school in Florida and going back during summer time in NY. the USCIS has both my addresses. since i am a full time student i dont have time to go to Ny to file the suit so can i file here in florida , or should i just call them to transfer my case to the orlando district and then file here in florida.
any help as welcome

There are terrible temptations which it requires strength and courage to yield to.
Oscar Wilde
 
what is the definition of the full criminal background check?

Reading all kind of stuff about these N-400 applications pending security background checks (like mine), I don't understand couple of things. I would be interested to know your opinions.

In a November 26, 1997 appropriations act for the Department of Justice and other federal departments and agencies, Congress mandated that "during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be used to complete adjudication of an application for naturalization unless the INS has received confirmation from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed". Pub. L. No. 105-199, Title 1, 111 Stat. 2440. 2448-49 (1997).

Now let's see what are the Federal Regulations: 8 C.F.R. Sec. 335.2 Examination of applicant. Paragraph (b) states:
b) Completion of criminal background checks before examination. The Service will notify applicants for naturalization to appear before a Service officer for initial examination on the naturalization application only after the Service has received a definitive response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of an applicant has been completed. A definitive response that a full criminal background check on an applicant has been completed includes:
(1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record;
(2) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or
(3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that two properly prepared fingerprint cards (Form FD-258) have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected.

(Paragraph (b) added effective 3/29/98; 63 FR 12979)

This is from the USCIS web page: from the Immigration law repository, see at http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dl...b-32058?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0

If I go now and read what is at 69 FR 12979, I found nothing about name checks.

Now let's see what Michael Cannon, the chief of the National Name Check Program in FBI said in a declaration given in one of the 1447(b) lawsuits:

"(17) In this period of heightened national security concerns, a review of the background check procedures employed by USCIS was conducted in November 2002. It was determined that in order to better protect the people and the interests of the United States, a more detailed, in-depth clearance procedure was required. One of these procedures involved the name check clearance performed by the FBI. At that time only those "main" files that could be positively identified with an individual were considered responsive. The risk of missing a match to possible derogatory record(s) was too great and therefore, the search criteria was changed to access references. From a process standpoint, this meant many more files were required to be revieved for each individual."

(These main files are checked when we are requesting the FOIPA, and in most of the cases this comes back with "no record".)

In my interpretation, there is nothing in the statue, codified law or federal regulation, which includes the FBI name check in the definition of the full criminal background check. And, again, in my opinion, this is the explanation, why people were interviewed before the name check results came back from FBI. After 9/11/2001 somebody in DHS or USCIS decided in November 2002 that they should add the FBI name check to the full criminal background check requested from FBI about the N-400 and I-485 applicants. The problem is that they simply 'forgot' to go to Congress and ask them to ammend the law and now we are in this mess, with these name checks pending forever, without any legal basis, just an internal decision made by somebody in a government agency.

Please, please, tell somebody that I am wrong and point me to the correct legal basis of the name checks. I can't believe that this is true and NOBODY, neither the suffering applicants, nor the immigration lawyers or District Judges discovered till now the lack of legal basis....

Disclaimer: I am not advocating that the name check is not necessary if people who know better than me (like the responsible persons in DHS or USCIS) how useful is this name check to catch the bad guys. So be it. But in this case this should be codified, i.e., included in the law, and FBI should fix the process to not sit forever in this "black hole" called name check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should I file an answer for the motion to extend?

What do you guys think? what should I write in my answer to the AUSA motion to extend?
Bushmaster, my exhibit that states that my name check is bending was obtained as a reply from the local USCIS office when I wrote them a letter inquiring about teh status of my application, it took about three weeks for them to respond, YOU NEED TO GET SOMETHING IN WRITING regarding your delayed name check before you file your suit, you can also walk in the local USCIS office and inquire about your status, when they tell you tehy are waiting on teh name check results, ask them to write this down on your infopas, I also have that, I just didn't include it as an exhibit since I got it after I filed my lawsuit.

Bushmaster said:
Here you go Haya,

Plaintiff filed her Petition on August 28, 2006, and Defendants’ Answer or other responsive pleading is due on October 27, 2006. On October 24, 2006, undersigned Counsel spoke with Plaintiff and the parties are attempting to resolve this matter without further litigation. A thirty (30) day extension of time is required for Plaintiff to determine whether she will stipulate to remand this matter to the Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”). For the reason stated, the CIS requests an additional thirty (30) days, to and including Monday, November 27, 2006, in which to file Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Petition.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
/s/ CARLOS A. GONZALEZ
CARLOS A. GONZALEZ
Assistant United States Attorney



Haya, I also downloaded your 1447 petition and I liked the wording in it, may I also use a similar format for mine? I also would like to download Paz1960's petition, and create something similar.

Haya my questions to you, about the exhibits in your petition, I never got anything in written from the USCIS saying that my N400 is pending security checks. Everything I got has been told orally so far. What can I put in my petition as an exhibit?

I also saw that your N400 has been recommended for approval, that means once the security checks are over, they will approve it? Mine doesn't say that it has been recommended for approval but a decision can not be entered, does this mean after the security checks there is still more to do, and a denial maybe the case?
 
hayyyoot said:
What do you guys think? what should I write in my answer to the AUSA motion to extend?
Bushmaster, my exhibit that states that my name check is bending was obtained as a reply from the local USCIS office when I wrote them a letter inquiring about teh status of my application, it took about three weeks for them to respond, YOU NEED TO GET SOMETHING IN WRITING regarding your delayed name check before you file your suit, you can also walk in the local USCIS office and inquire about your status, when they tell you tehy are waiting on teh name check results, ask them to write this down on your infopas, I also have that, I just didn't include it as an exhibit since I got it after I filed my lawsuit.

Hello hayyyoot,

Se my posting #6322.
If you decide to file the Response to the AUSA motion to extend, you can state that you agree with the 30 day extension because the defendants signaled that they are willing to settle this case without litigation and YOU want to give them more time to do this but you didn't request the additional time. Your words against their words...

You file or not a response, agree or not with the 30 days extenstion request, the judge will grant them most likely.
 
Please verify these addresses

I'll serve the summons tomorrow morning. I filed the suit in NJ district court in Newark. I named the following defendants.

1. Michael Chertoff - sec. of DHS
2. Alberto R. Gonzales - AG, DOJ
3. Emilio T. Gonzales - Director, USCIS
4. Paul Novak - Director, VSC, USCIS

I will use USPS certified mail with return receipt and the following addresses:

Michael Chertoff
Office of the General Counsel
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Alberto R. Gonzales
US Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pensylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Office of the Chief Counsel
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Rm 4025
Washington, DC 20529

Paul Novak
Director, Vermont Service Center
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
75 Lower Welden St.
Saint Albans, Vermont 05479

U.S. Attorney's Office
Civil Processing Clerk
970 Broad Street, 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102

I'll include for each the orignial summons, which I made copies of. I'll also include a full clear copy of the complaint. The US attorney is not a defendant, should I make a copy of all other summons and send that to the USA's office?

Please let me know if there is any errors.

Thanks a lot!
 
mredil24 said:
can i file here in florida , or should i just call them to transfer my case to the orlando district and then file here in florida.
any help as welcome

You have a chance to have your file transferred? Then, by all means, it is my opinion that you should, since you spend more time in FL. I can imagine the hardship of filing in a different state and try to follow it, especially if distant. But there is a chance that the file might get lost, it is nothing they haven't done in the past.
 
Top