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

tomshen99a said:
Thanks..I will check pacer regularly after filing cert of services

Hopefully my AUSA won't be an As*hole.

:)
With very few exceptions, the experience of the members of this forum is that AUSAs are professional, courteous persons who can make a difference in these cases, having access to the FBI and USCIS General Counsel Offices.

It is worth to try to build a good working relationship with your AUSA.
 
Success in houston TX

Note to Paz. I stand by my previous statements and proof of my successful 1447b conclusion. If you find them harmful and non constructive you are wrong- but unwilling to grow from the experience. People are going to accept your facts as gospel b/c they don't know better and you are willing to feed them with help but you should not try to practice law on this forum with out a ommission of error. (Will you be responsible for your mistakes and good intent) The fact you supplied and with those interpretations does not make them lawful correct.
I will reiterate: Dual residency is acceptable and is not fraud. There is no
reason you can not have more than one mailing address for business or
other purpose. Please consult an attorney for confirmation and you will
get many interpretations. Again for that particular case I quoted for it was worth the risk.

For most people in the forum it is difficult to file the basic of the lawsuit and procedure. However, there are many complexities that are simplify, once
you go thru the system successfully. Until Mr. Paz you've succeeded in your filing, its the blind leading the blind. Will people want to listen to me who have succeed or someone who thinks he knows it all.

I am not looking for popularity in this forum nor gain noriety from confrontation, but when I here B.S. I will speak up whether it is rude and direct. Again I do have a busy life outside this forum and can not spend full time effort in helping others on this forum, I wish everyone the best for the holiday season.
 
Name Check Vs. Security Check ?

Never heard about security check.
Any one heard about security check ?


mermaid06 said:
Hi! Does anyone know what "security check" means? Was told during infopass (December 11, 2006) that name check cleared (mid October 2006), but security check is pending. It's been 16 months since the interview...
Anyone in a similar situation please post!
 
My 2 cents

No one on this forum is practicing law. People are using this forum to help others and provide what they knew and what they experienced. It is up to myself to decide if I want to adopt other people's opinion. So I believe sharing knowledge, thoughts and experiences ARE NOT HARMFUL at all. But again, it is your own responsibility to utilitze others' opinion.

Sharing knowlege, thoughts and experiences are always welcome. I really want to thank some of active members on this forum.

Just my 2 cents !!

milena said:
Note to Paz. I stand by my previous statements and proof of my successful 1447b conclusion. If you find them harmful and non constructive you are wrong- but unwilling to grow from the experience. People are going to accept your facts as gospel b/c they don't know better and you are willing to feed them with help but you should not try to practice law on this forum with out a ommission of error. (Will you be responsible for your mistakes and good intent) The fact you supplied and with those interpretations does not make them lawful correct.
I will reiterate: Dual residency is acceptable and is not fraud. There is no
reason you can not have more than one mailing address for business or
other purpose. Please consult an attorney for confirmation and you will
get many interpretations. Again for that particular case I quoted for it was worth the risk.

For most people in the forum it is difficult to file the basic of the lawsuit and procedure. However, there are many complexities that are simplify, once
you go thru the system successfully. Until Mr. Paz you've succeeded in your filing, its the blind leading the blind. Will people want to listen to me who have succeed or someone who thinks he knows it all.

I am not looking for popularity in this forum nor gain noriety from confrontation, but when I here B.S. I will speak up whether it is rude and direct. Again I do have a busy life outside this forum and can not spend full time effort in helping others on this forum, I wish everyone the best for the holiday season.
 
This is not nice, not nice!

Nobody in this forum is trying to practice laws. We all know that we should take others' advice with a grain of salt. Most of members here know what kind of people they should appreciate and you're definitely not in the position to tell them which one it is (your horrible English didn't help your own cause at all). And the fact that you've succeeded in your own lawsuit does not make you any better than others!

milena said:
Note to Paz. I stand by my previous statements and proof of my successful 1447b conclusion. If you find them harmful and non constructive you are wrong- but unwilling to grow from the experience. People are going to accept your facts as gospel b/c they don't know better and you are willing to feed them with help but you should not try to practice law on this forum with out a ommission of error. (Will you be responsible for your mistakes and good intent) The fact you supplied and with those interpretations does not make them lawful correct.
I will reiterate: Dual residency is acceptable and is not fraud. There is no
reason you can not have more than one mailing address for business or
other purpose. Please consult an attorney for confirmation and you will
get many interpretations. Again for that particular case I quoted for it was worth the risk.

For most people in the forum it is difficult to file the basic of the lawsuit and procedure. However, there are many complexities that are simplify, once
you go thru the system successfully. Until Mr. Paz you've succeeded in your filing, its the blind leading the blind. Will people want to listen to me who have succeed or someone who thinks he knows it all.

I am not looking for popularity in this forum nor gain noriety from confrontation, but when I here B.S. I will speak up whether it is rude and direct. Again I do have a busy life outside this forum and can not spend full time effort in helping others on this forum, I wish everyone the best for the holiday season.
 
sfdurrani said:
Hi Snorlax
Can you please elaborate further on this? It has been more than a week now and I have not yet received the green return slips. If I understand it correctly, I can go the local USPS and get a copy of the green slip. My question is would it have the receiver's signature at Washington DC? Also would it be acceptable to the court. I appreciate your input. I am concerned as I was thinking of going ahead and contacting my AUSA but I have not received the slips yet.
thanks
Shakeel
Hi Shakeel,
My experience is rather limited as I have not filed anything yet - still building my case. Yes, you can go to local USPS with your receipt and obtain a copy of the never-received green slip. It may or may not have the receiver's signature on it, but should still be acceptable to the court as the proof of service as it should be signed by the postman. I know of at least two (not immigration-related) cases where the served defendant refused to sign the slip, so it was signed by the postman and later accepted by the court clerk. My understanding that it is actually the signature of the one who makes the delivery, not necessarily the defendant, what makes the slip valid proof of service.
Best of luck,
snorlax
 
Practicing Law Proof

Proof of Mr. Paz pseudo law practice which he wrote to me directly, if this isn't I don't know what is? If it is an mere opinion he wants to sound authoritive

"'For immigration purposes you can have only one residence: where you live. I didn't invent this, it is required by INA.

INA Section 265(a) reads,

"Each alien required to be registered under this title who is within the United States shall notify the Attorney General in writing of each change of address and new address within ten days from the date of such change and furnish with such notice such additional information as the Attorney General may require by regulation."

INA Section 266(b) states

"Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265, shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful."

..it is irresponsible to suggest a "solution" for which the person who follows your advice, can be deported if (s)he is caught.


I rest my case. .(As to my english... excuse my french, literally) Have a good day.
 
is infopass necessary?

I'm ready to file Pro Se under 1447(b). I've never done infopass to find out the status of my case. I've told my background check is pending and decision can not be made during my interview on 6/16. Is it necessary or important to have at least one infopass to show as exhibit when filing 1447(b)? Thanks.
 
NO, you dont need infopass..

As long as you passed 120 days after interview, you have the right to sue USCIS. BUt getting infopass is FYI only.

junzhe said:
I'm ready to file Pro Se under 1447(b). I've never done infopass to find out the status of my case. I've told my background check is pending and decision can not be made during my interview on 6/16. Is it necessary or important to have at least one infopass to show as exhibit when filing 1447(b)? Thanks.
 
security check

Hi It seems security check and background check and name check are interchangeable terms used to say you are still under some kind of check

tomshen99a said:
Never heard about security check.
Any one heard about security check ?
 
This is a simple but tricky issue, pls help

I know that, by rule of thumb, a person needs to stay with his/her current employer for at least 6 months after getting Green Card.

In my case, Company A sponsored my H1b, Labor Cert and I140. I left Company A using AC21 (I140 approved and I485 pending for more than 6 months) to join Company B. Company B sponsored H1b transfer, but it has nothing to do with my Labor Cert, I140 and I485.

My question is, if I get Green Card approved while working at Company B, do I still have to stick around for 6 months, or I can left right away since Company B is NOT my Green Card Sponsoring Company?

Thank you very much!
 
tomshen99a said:
Never heard about security check.
Any one heard about security check ?
Hello tomshen99a,

Please find attached an USCIS Fact Sheet, which describes in details what kind of security checks are performed before a petition or application can be adjudicated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
junzhe said:
I'm ready to file Pro Se under 1447(b). I've never done infopass to find out the status of my case. I've told my background check is pending and decision can not be made during my interview on 6/16. Is it necessary or important to have at least one infopass to show as exhibit when filing 1447(b)? Thanks.
If we stick to the language of the statue, you don't need anything to prove that you tried to get information about your pending application. More than 120 days passed since your interview, USCIS didn't adjudicate your application, so according to 1447(b) you can file a complaint with the federal district court where you reside. However, if this is not impractical or too difficult, I would get some sort of case status (either using infopass or by writing directly to your interviewing officer; mine answered my inquiries both times in about a week) from USCIS and attach this as an exhibit to my complaint. It is not required, but probably makes your case somewhat stronger.
 
New rule advance notice for background checks

Yesterday USCIS put out rule change advance information prior to implementation. They are basically going to count the security checks as "examination" and wriggle out of the 120 day limit for adjudication. There is no time limit for security checks either. So technically one could be in the twilight zone for their life time!

Here it is:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11dec20060800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ua061211/ua061009.txt


1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC
1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland
Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload
of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions
over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case
management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any
pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is
ongoing and background and security checks are still pending
completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS
may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline
for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This
interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of
naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination
will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or
judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Act). The interim rule also requires that background and security
checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an
alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization
and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of
the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case
adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration
or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or
required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction
of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration
benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose
a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07
Interim Final Rule Comment
Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86
 
I hope AILA or somebody objects to this rule during the comment period. On the flip side if they include something like "security checks pending for a year or more" as a criteria to expedite checks most will be ok with this rule.
 
Hi All:
Does anyone know when does this become the law? Will it impact new I485 applications only or can USCIS apply it to old AOS applications as well which are stuck in FBINC black hole? IF they can apply it retroactively to old applications or these suggested changes don't get rejected, I think all unlucky people like us will be out of options and luck.....

Thanks!

brb2 said:
Yesterday USCIS put out rule change advance information prior to implementation. They are basically going to count the security checks as "examination" and wriggle out of the 120 day limit for adjudication. There is no time limit for security checks either. So technically one could be in the twilight zone for their life time!

Here it is:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11dec20060800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ua061211/ua061009.txt


1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC
1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland
Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload
of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions
over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case
management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any
pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is
ongoing and background and security checks are still pending
completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS
may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline
for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This
interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of
naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination
will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or
judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Act). The interim rule also requires that background and security
checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an
alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization
and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of
the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case
adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration
or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or
required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction
of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration
benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose
a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07
Interim Final Rule Comment
Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86
 
THIS IS a BIG NEWS

This is a big news !!! Is this rule going to be effective on 01/01/2007... What about people who already filed 1447b ?

brb2 said:
Yesterday USCIS put out rule change advance information prior to implementation. They are basically going to count the security checks as "examination" and wriggle out of the 120 day limit for adjudication. There is no time limit for security checks either. So technically one could be in the twilight zone for their life time!

Here it is:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11dec20060800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ua061211/ua061009.txt


1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC
1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland
Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload
of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions
over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case
management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any
pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is
ongoing and background and security checks are still pending
completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS
may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline
for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This
interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of
naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination
will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or
judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Act). The interim rule also requires that background and security
checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an
alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization
and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of
the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case
adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration
or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or
required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction
of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration
benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose
a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07
Interim Final Rule Comment
Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86
 
tomshen99a said:
This is a big news !!! Is this rule going to be effective on 01/01/2007... What about people who already filed 1447b ?

It says comment period ends 03/07 so I guess once they get comments they will analyse and ammend and adopt the rule, possibly sometime in April or May 2007. That is my understanding
 
Talked to AUSA yesterday

I filed 1447b on 12/4/2006. After one week, I had a chance to talk to AUSA who is working on my case. She is very nice. She will talk to DO to check status and expedite the processing. Hopefully I will hear sth good from her.

This new rule is going to hurt lots of people. Sue them before it becomes law !!

lotechguy said:
It says comment period ends 03/07 so I guess once they get comments they will analyse and ammend and adopt the rule, possibly sometime in April or May 2007. That is my understanding
 
tomshen99a said:
I filed 1447b on 12/4/2006. After one week, I had a chance to talk to AUSA who is working on my case. She is very nice. She will talk to DO to check status and expedite the processing. Hopefully I will hear sth good from her.

This new rule is going to hurt lots of people. Sue them before it becomes law !!

AUSAs already seem to use this as a defence and various courts have rejected this jurisdiction argument and when "examination" is over. So unless congress ammends the law, I dont know if DHS adopting a rule changes the court standing since the court uses the statute in the law rather than the DHS interpretation. So Guys please comment on what you think. Also someone needs to get this to ACLU's notice.
 
Top