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

Stillstuck, you said county clerk,,,,

stillstuck said:
I have been following this forum for the last three months and have always hesitated to file a lawsuit against USCIS, but this morning I woke up and right away made the decision to proceed with the lawsuit.
I got my interview done in Apr, 2005 and am still waiting on name check.
I did some research on this forum, visited a few web sites and called the county clerk to get the form. But I did not reach any where. The county clerk did not understand what a ProSe form is. I know there are some members here from NJ - so If you can help me out here and provide me with exact instructions on how to get the package from the federal district court - I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I hope it does not mean your state court clerk, you need to go to the federal district court, and like kenny485 said, I did not find the so called Pro Se package in Maryland at all, just a bunch of forms and instructions also available from their website. It's an itimidating thing, even though I have been reading and educating myself since January and thought I was well prepared, it still took me many hours to finish up the complaint. But hey, if you don't do it, USCIS will never do anything, waiting is hopeless, stand up and fight, that's the only way out.

Best of Luck! Hang in there and we will prevail!

Balto
 
andrew2006 said:
Thanks everyone!!!!
I got the following from my friend, which I will mention if they filed with that damn "national security":
Click to expand...

The "national security" argument is laughable. How can they possibly mention in the same sentence "we are doing this in the interest of national security" and "a background check can an indefinite amount of time"? I mean, do they realize how moronic this sounds? In essence they are saying that in the interest of national security, they let a person with "checkered past" do whatever he/she wants in the US while they are doing his security checks for years. That is as bizarre as it gets!

I say they should go all out and just throw all people with a pending name check into a slammer. I mean, if they are so dangerous, why let them be out there? That will get things going! Kidding, of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
qim, we can't let you get away that easily!

qim said:
OK, after slightly more than a year, it's finally over. I passed the interview in April 2005, like many others was waiting (hoping, thinking, reading, hesitating, analysing, preparing) for some time (probably way too long), filed 1447b in February 2006, very recently agreed to dismiss in exchange for USCIS approval within a month, and finally got naturalized.

Aside from several specific nuances (unclasiifiable subsequent fingerprints, N-14 from USCIS, and some others), my case turned out to be what I think is a kind of standard now, with the following essential steps: (1) filing, (2) serving, (3) waiting 50 to 60 days, (4) stipulation to extend dates (30 days), (5) stipulation to dismiss, (6) oath letter (N-445), and (7) naturalization.

..........

I suggest that those who are still passively waiting, please wake up and consider taking matter in court very seriously. Every month brings more and more (actually, many more) lawsuits, and from various unofficial sources I read and hear that Government will not tolerate current situation for long. There are various rumors of planned changes (no interview without completed NC, 240 or 360 days instead of 120, and others).

So, I believe, until it's too late, those suffering from NC better sit down, focus, and file Pro Se. In worst case, all you've got to lose is $350 + copying & postal expenses. And while many old-timers on this thread are not active participants anymore (which isn't unnatural), there are still many active participants including new very active members who are willing and ready to help (like mohamedmohamed, and others). This means that you, those who file, are not alone - like it was previously (in Publicus' times).

Thank you all and good luck.
Click to expand...
First, congratz! and second, you have to share with us one more time your timeline, and write about your ordeal so we learn from your experience. Otherwise we all are going to hunt you down :D and bug you for the rest of your life. Yes, I do share your view about this thread and all the people who have extended a helping hand to each other. I am grateful for all the help and knowledge that I gained here. Filed my 1447 5/10/2006, on the 126th day after the interview. and I am preparing for the ultimate fight if it comes to that point, and as you said, I am not alone and I will not give up!

Congratulations again and good luck with your wife's GC!

Balto.
 
Does my response to their "answer" (if you can call what they wrote "an answer") have to be in a spefic format? Does it have to have the "legalise" they used in their answer?

I haven't written my reply but basically, I'll use all the ideas brainstormed here. In a very polite way, I'll try to tell them that the Plaintif could not find a single statue or a regulation that quantifies a "reasonable delay" in processing name checks. However, according to Mr. Cannon, 90% of background checks are cleared within 60 days and my name check has been pending for over 450. I'll let the judge make his own judgement about this issue.

In response to their Hovsepain remark, I'll mention the cases references I have for the cases that sided with Hovsepian and of course mention Al-Kudesi case as an example of a ruling I'd wanna get from the judge.

I'll respond to their denial of properly following the statue and regulations, I'll cite the whole paragraph from the USCIS memo about DOJ opinion on this issue. I'll also metion that 3 weeks ago, in response to lawsuits filed by ADC, the USCIS decided to stop scheduling interviews before the name check is in, thus following their regulations once again. If they were properly following regulations before, why all the sudden make that change? Does anybody know where I can get the annoucement mentioned here - http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=64680? I love it "Today, NumbersUSA praised an announcement Tuesday by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to change the naturalization process to complete background checks before citizenship interviews are scheduled, as the law already requires." Yet AUSA is saying that they aren't violating anything? :D

And for a good measure, I'll mention that according to Cannon, the name check can be expidited if the USCIS asked for it. So, once the 120 day clock started ticking after my interview, it's up to the USCIS whether they (a) comply with their regulations and ask for an expidited name check to avoid violating 1447(b) or (b) decide to let it go and violate their regulations. I should not suffer from their actions if the USCIS decides to do the latter and let the name check last an indefinite period of time. I figured that since AUSA decided to offer their unsolicited opinion about the situation, I'll go ahead and offer mine too.

Also, on the side note, I still haven't recieved their response in the mail. They filed it May 9th, I assume they mailed it the same day or the day after. It takes a day to get things sent within a city. Let's see when I get. How is it I get a mail box full of junk mail every day, but something sent by a AUSA who works in the same city where I live doesn't get to me in a day? Can AUSA share their mailing methods with junk mail senders so that I don't get their mail too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pro se package

pro se package in more of a name than actually a pckage.
all you need is the civil sheet cover everything else you have to do from scratsh.
just type complaints, add any exhibits you want to add, and when you get to the court you can ask for a civil cover sheeet , and quickely check the box marks, put your name , who is you suing, and you done.
the civil cover is also available on any federal court website, the one thing you really need is the local civil rule, you can get that from the clerk, make you rread through it
 
Balto said:
First, congratz! and second, you have to share with us one more time your timeline, and write about your ordeal so we learn from your experience. Otherwise we all are going to hunt you down :D and bug you for the rest of your life. Yes, I do share your view about this thread and all the people who have extended a helping hand to each other. I am grateful for all the help and knowledge that I gained here. Filed my 1447 5/10/2006, on the 126th day after the interview. and I am preparing for the ultimate fight if it comes to that point, and as you said, I am not alone and I will not give up!

Congratulations again and good luck with your wife's GC!

Balto.
Click to expand...

I say qim better write and publish a book. We require nothing less than that! :) Kidding of course. :)

Congrats and enjoy living in peace, knowing that you'll never have to deal with this type of stuff again!
 
I want to thank everyone who is building this topic and keeps it going. I am awaiting my GC and I may be all ok, but who knows...just in case I ever need to file WOM, I read it all. Especially useful when people post samples of their documents - it really helps to understand.
 
summary table

I put together some of the cases in this table. It's divided by 1447 or WOM. The names are sorted alphabetically. Please modify/update/add yours.

User name District Interview Filing Oath1447
Alaskan Bear
backues Southern Ohio
balto Baltimore, MD 1/4/06 5/10/06
bashar82 Eastern VA 6/8/05 1/4/06 5/5/2006
breezyemily Greenbelt, MD 1/10/06 5/12/06
delfo SF, CA 4/7/06 5/9/2006
egyptiancastle San Jose, CA 5/18/2006
It1GM
maryland Greenbelt, MD 3/8/04 12/27/05 4/14/2006
Mr LA LA, CA 1/10/05 5/15/06
ournyla Houston 1/3/06 5/9/06
ournyla Houston 1/3/06 5/9/06
publicus 10/29/05 1/9/2006
qim 4/5/06 2/6/06 5/12/2006
realsuperK 8/9/05 3/9/06
sam1973 9/13/05 4/27/06
sfaizullah
SyedNaqvi 10/24/05 4/7/06
Vmlnj 1/30/06 4/10/2006
waitinginDallas 5/8/06

WOM
andrew2006 Southern NY 5/8/06
eastbayer
greencard12 4/6/06
haddy 4/6/06
kenny485 Houston
maayseventh2003 3/10/06
mattraj 3/30/06
miumiu1977 4/7/06
mohamedmohamed 2/1/05 4/20/06
tsa3400 MA 12/27/05
 
A Q

Hello all
Is this is correct:

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Washington, DC 90258 :confused:

This is California zip code NOT DC ….. :)

Thanks for your help.
 
i AM PRETTY SURE IT'S 20528

Mr LA said:
Hello all
Is this is correct:

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Washington, DC 90258 :confused:

This is California zip code NOT DC ….. :)

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
I am in Maryland, close to DC,,, plus, I filed 2 days ago :cool:

Balto
 
Sorry about the format. Here is a better one:
Code: 
User name       District        IV              Filing		Oath
1447				
Alaskan Bear				
backues		Southern Ohio			
balto		Baltimore, MD	1/4/06		5/10/06	
bashar82	Eastern VA	6/8/05		1/4/06		5/5/2006
breezyemily	Greenbelt, MD	1/10/06		5/12/06	
delfo		SF, CA				4/7/06		5/9/2006
egyptiancastle	SJ, CA						5/18/2006
It1GM				
maryland	Greenbelt, MD	3/8/04		12/27/05	4/14/2006
Mr LA		LA		1/10/05		5/15/06	
ournyla		Houston		1/3/06		5/9/06		
publicus					10/29/05	1/9/2006
qim				4/5/06		2/6/06		5/12/2006
realsuperK			8/9/05		3/9/06	
sam1973				9/13/05		4/27/06	
sfaizullah				
SyedNaqvi			10/24/05 	4/7/06	
Vmlnj						1/30/06		4/10/2006
waitinginDallas					5/8/06	
WOM				
andrew2006	Southern NY			5/8/06	
eastbayer				
greencard12					4/6/06	
haddy						4/6/06	
kenny485	Houston			
mayseventh2003					3/10/06	
mattraj						3/30/06	
miumiu1977					4/7/06	
mohamedmohamed			2/1/05		4/20/06
tsa3400		MA				12/27/05
 
Very nice. I updated my district
Code: 
User name       District        IV              Filing		Oath
1447				
Alaskan Bear				
backues		Southern Ohio			
balto		Baltimore, MD	1/4/06		5/10/06	
bashar82	Eastern VA	6/8/05		1/4/06		5/5/2006
breezyemily	Greenbelt, MD	1/10/06		5/12/06	
delfo		SF, CA				4/7/06		5/9/2006
egyptiancastle	SJ, CA						5/18/2006
It1GM				
maryland	Greenbelt, MD	3/8/04		12/27/05	4/14/2006
Mr LA		LA		1/10/05		5/15/06	
ournyla		Houston		1/3/06		5/9/06		
publicus					10/29/05	1/9/2006
qim				4/5/06		2/6/06		5/12/2006
realsuperK	Eastern MO	8/9/05		3/9/06	
sam1973				9/13/05		4/27/06	
sfaizullah				
SyedNaqvi			10/24/05 	4/7/06	
Vmlnj						1/30/06		4/10/2006
waitinginDallas					5/8/06	
WOM				
andrew2006	Southern NY			5/8/06	
eastbayer				
greencard12					4/6/06	
haddy						4/6/06	
kenny485	Houston			
mayseventh2003					3/10/06	
mattraj						3/30/06	
miumiu1977					4/7/06	
mohamedmohamed			2/1/05		4/20/06
tsa3400		MA				12/27/05
 
RealSuperK, look at this.

RealSuperK said:
Ok, AUSA's answer is what I expected it to be. It is attached to this post, but the short summary is this "Blah blah blah, background check is still pending, blah blah blah, please throw his case out". I didn't realize I asked for another Infopass appointment. No mentioning of Danilov or anything like that.

I also don't think they are questioning court's jurisdiction. They do deny that they failed to properly follow the statue and regulations. I think DOJ memo will take care of that. Overall, it sounds like their only defense on this is that the background check is still pending, FBI got a backlog of name check, there is nothing you can do. Or am I missing something?

I guess now I need to figure out how to get my A file and how to file a response to this.

Any help would be appreciated...
Click to expand...

RealSuperK, I found this to be the best "PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" filed by an attorney in Seattle. I believe this is what YOU NEED. This guy is good.
 
Mr LA said:
Hello all
Is this is correct:

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Washington, DC 90258 :confused:

This is California zip code NOT DC ….. :)

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

It should be 20528

Based on the fact that I sent it there and got the "green card" back, they accepted my complaint at that address.
 
namecheck_limbo said:
RealSuperK, I found this to be the best "PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" filed by an attorney in Seattle. I believe this is what YOU NEED. This guy is good.
Click to expand...

Wow! This is some strong stuff. I'll definitely use some of it. THANK YOU!

Although it might be an over kill in my case. I don't think they question the judrisdiction or the 120 day rule itself. The AUSA in my district court thinks that her opinion that the delay is reasonable due to the FBI backlog is enough of a reason for the judge to throw out my case. In fact, she is trying to turn the case into whether or not it's reasonable to have a long name check delay. That's not gonna fly with me. Stick to the topic, please.
 
Advices please

Hello all.
Thank you for every helpful info. Ireally appreciated all of you for the time,effort and cares. Thank you,

I have some concerns regarding dismissal my case. I didn't get approve yet but as far as it goes they won't try to get me to the court. They will approve my case as predicted. I want to have an explanation at lest one. Can I in any way ask these goverment to give me the reason why? How? did I stucked for so long. I know that I never done anything bad, my name is very uncommon. i want every documentations and anything at all that have my name involved on thier systems Which law will assist and allow me.

I think is so wrong for them to have me stucked for years and then approved me simply because I filed a law auit against them. i would careless that They don't care about what have I gone throgh over these years, I just want an explanation. i want every person(s) name who have touch my case USCIS, FBI everyone of them. CAN I?

M ybrief story;
I married to a USC and submitted appl.on sep 07 03.
FP on Oct. 07,2003
Interview on May 12 2004
Oct. 12,2004 Inq. via E-mail to FBINNCP
Dec. 23 ,2004 FBINNCP respond stated that a review of the FBI's name check database does not indicated that a request has ever been received from the USCIS. David M. Hardy signed.
June 24, 2005 Michel A. Cannon replied FBI received the name check request on Oct. 22 ,2003 and Jan. 19 ,2005 and went on with post 9/11 and 99.9% crabs.
Contact Senetor , Congeesman
2nd FP Dec,2006

Thank you in advance,
~Cindy
 
RealSuperK said:
Does my response to their "answer" (if you can call what they wrote "an answer") have to be in a spefic format? Does it have to have the "legalise" they used in their answer?

Imail too?
Click to expand...
it sound like you got it all covered, just make sure you floow their answer paragraph by paragraph, use simple and clear language, gather your exhibits (previous cases, reports, ..) and at the end recite your prayers, and clarify that the court should toss their aswer since it lack the support supporting documents, and reduce the statute to what the US attorney think,and you should be good.
 
cuties said:
Hello all.
Thank you for every helpful info. Ireally appreciated all of you for the time,effort and cares. Thank you,



M ybrief story;
I married to a USC and submitted appl.on sep 07 03.
FP on Oct. 07,2003
Interview on May 12 2004
Oct. 12,2004 Inq. via E-mail to FBINNCP
Dec. 23 ,2004 FBINNCP respond stated that a review of the FBI's name check database does not indicated that a request has ever been received from the USCIS. David M. Hardy signed.
June 24, 2005 Michel A. Cannon replied FBI received the name check request on Oct. 22 ,2003 and Jan. 19 ,2005 and went on with post 9/11 and 99.9% crabs.
Contact Senetor , Congeesman
2nd FP Dec,2006

Thank you in advance,
~Cindy
Click to expand...
1st of all you shouldnt dimiss your case utill you get something i writing sayinh when they will apporove your case.
i think that you can get a copy of your file, under the freesdon if information act, i just dont know what that will include, but from a realistic point of view, this are the governement, and i think them apporving your case is imlying some appology, and admission of wrongdoing, even if they didnt say that literally.
shasing who and who didnt touch your case, is a lttle more tricky business, it is uncomon for the governemet to sheild themself from anything like , by the "national security , cassified information" banner, so unless you have a lot of time, and resources, and a very experienced, willing lawyer, or team of lawyers, to stand with you in this issue, i would say you should be happy you got your case resolved, yes it is not right, but it hard to "have it all", so you know yourself and how much effort, money and time, and everything else you can afford to spend on like this, but when you decide to go down that road,it is not gonna be a picnic.
about two or three years ago, i have few immigration agent ganged on me in on the airport, and called me liar, and threatened me, i reprted them to the office of homeland security inspector general, they started investigation, and send a letter "saying that for protection of their employee, they dont disclose the result of their investigation" basically just you will never find out if even did anything or not, and am expecting that any answer you get from them wont be any different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top