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

[Roomi1967]

Foia

HI PAZ1960

Thank you for quick response. Now in your cases, I am sure you were successful in the end? I mean you got your oath letter after 1447b monkey business.

It my lawyer who started the FOIPA before filling the 1447b petition

thanks
Roomi

 

[LuckyPiggy]

Well, I probably wasn't clear enough with my question. My case (as many others on this forum) is not adjudicated solely because the full criminal background check, as mandated by Congress in the FY98 Spending Bill, is not completed.

So why do you think, that asking defendants to produce any evidence, which would stop them to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1446 and adjudicate my application in max. 120 days after the examination would lack relevance? USCIS invariantly claims that due to the increased security threats they have to be really cautious and do a very careful investigation of any applicant. If the lack of this full criminal background check is the sole reason why an application was not adjudicated in the prescribed timeframe, I thought that requesting defendants to produce this document (the result of the background investigation) has absolute relevance to my complaint, to the case. If this document is produced and presented at the trial, USCIS would be left with no arguments why not to adjudicate the application. If nothing wrong, application approved, if something bad, application denied. But if courts would follow the US v. Hovsepian 9th circuit court decision, USCIS could not either deny or approve an application as soon as a 1447(b)-based lawsuit is filed with the district court, for the simple fact that the court gains exclusive jurisdiction and USCIS can adjudicate (i.e., approve or deny) the application only after the case is dismissed or remanded, so they regain jurisdiction. Some judges would follow this logic, some not. Of course, USCIS can deny the application as soon as the judge remands the case to them. After this would follow the administrative appeal and only after a definite decision is made, one could file an another complaint with the district court based this time on 8 U.S.C. 1421(c).

But I admit, I didn't study enough the rules related to discovery and evidence. It would be a great help if you can enlighten us, what is in your opinion, the best strategy in the discovery phase, what is relevant to such complaint and can be asked defendants to produce.

I didn't read the US v. Hovsepian case you mentioned. However, though not reading it, I am sure that no MANDAMUS court will adjudicate your case and to approve your case in court. It goes to the fundamental principle of seperation of powers. You may want to look up federal rules of evidence for the relevancy test courts apply. I believe those are not relevant.

 

[lotechguy]

Well, I probably wasn't clear enough with my question. My case (as many others on this forum) is not adjudicated solely because the full criminal background check, as mandated by Congress in the FY98 Spending Bill, is not completed.

So why do you think, that asking defendants to produce any evidence, which would stop them to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1446 and adjudicate my application in max. 120 days after the examination would lack relevance? USCIS invariantly claims that due to the increased security threats they have to be really cautious and do a very careful investigation of any applicant. If the lack of this full criminal background check is the sole reason why an application was not adjudicated in the prescribed timeframe, I thought that requesting defendants to produce this document (the result of the background investigation) has absolute relevance to my complaint, to the case. If this document is produced and presented at the trial, USCIS would be left with no arguments why not to adjudicate the application. If nothing wrong, application approved, if something bad, application denied. But if courts would follow the US v. Hovsepian 9th circuit court decision, USCIS could not either deny or approve an application as soon as a 1447(b)-based lawsuit is filed with the district court, for the simple fact that the court gains exclusive jurisdiction and USCIS can adjudicate (i.e., approve or deny) the application only after the case is dismissed or remanded, so they regain jurisdiction. Some judges would follow this logic, some not. Of course, USCIS can deny the application as soon as the judge remands the case to them. After this would follow the administrative appeal and only after a definite decision is made, one could file an another complaint with the district court based this time on 8 U.S.C. 1421(c).

But I admit, I didn't study enough the rules related to discovery and evidence. It would be a great help if you can enlighten us, what is in your opinion, the best strategy in the discovery phase, what is relevant to such complaint and can be asked defendants to produce.

Paz,
In the discovery stage, if the trial goes to that stage, I believe you can submit to the defendants a list of questions and they can submit to you a list of questions relevant to the case. At least thats the way it works in state courts, I am not sure about federal. Now If you know of 14447b cases that went to discovery, you maybe able to obtain what was requested by either parties and filed. At this stage It seems to make sense to ask defendants to produce any evidence, which would stop them to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1446 and adjudicate. They may not provide it citing security concerns in which case the judge may have to order a closed session viewing of that evidence if any. If they dont have anything, then that may go to plaintiff favour.
I am not sure if this has happened in any case yet.

 

[case number]

notice from the Deputy Clerk

hi everybody. I hope that my impatience is not going to cost me ! I filed today around 4 p.m. my "Opposition Response To Defendants Motion to Dismiss/Remand. I just looked on PACER to see if the clerk had time to introduce my response in the computer and surprinsingly i found something else a NOTICE from the Deputy Clerk stating as following: " This case is before the Court pursuant to defendant`s Motion to Dismiss filed December 28, 2006. The Court will give plaintiff (20) days from the date of this NOTICE to submit any further counter-affidavits or other relevant evidence contradicting, explaining or avoiding defendant`s evidence. Both sides are advised that if documents or affidavits outside the pleadings are submitted by either party, any remaining motion (s) to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Federal Civil Procedure may be considered as motion (s) for summary judgement under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Federal Civil Procedure. If plaintiff does not respond to defendants` pleadings, the court will assume that plaintiff has lost interst in the case, and/or that plaintiff agrees with the defendants state in their responsive pleadings. If plaintiff wishes to continue with the case, it is necesary that plaintiff respond in appropriate fashion. Plaintiff may wish to respond with counter-affidavits or other additional evidence as outlined above. HOWEVER, IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FILE SOME RESPONSE WITHIN THE (20) DAY PERIOD, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. (issued today, 9th of January, 2007).
I gues that the clerk is going to introduce tomorrow my "Opposition." However, i see that this deputy wants "counter-affidavits"....just my lack with my own rights. What do you think guys? thanks for your time

 

[sksharma76]

Alright now that we are clear that FBI is not expediting name checks any more as per new rule is it still beneficial to file WOM ? My name check is pending for 18 months and i am in the process of writing to congressman and creating paper-Trail.I wanted to go ahead and File WOM by mid February .I have checked Pacer for WOM cases in my district and all of them didnt even go to trial and USCIS expedited name checks.I beleive my case is strong as my application is based on military and also my conditional green card has expired so i dont have any way to travel or show my work authorization or get comissioned as an officer in armed forces which requires citizenship.Also i might end up getting deployed to Iraq in few months as per old uscis memo they would expedite your name check if u are deploying.But who should i contact for that if i get deployed any idea?

 

[paz1960]

HI PAZ1960

Thank you for quick response. Now in your cases, I am sure you were successful in the end? I mean you got your oath letter after 1447b monkey business.

It my lawyer who started the FOIPA before filling the 1447b petition

thanks
Roomi

Hi Roomi, no, my application is not adjudicated yet, I am in the middle of the 30 day extension AUSA requested to answer my complaint.

 

[786riz]

Hello DUDE,
I am in Michigan. Someone can argue which is better WOM or 1447b but the way I understood if you interviewed for citizenship then 1447b is better, however I have seen so many WOM suit were filed for citizenship cases too.
Here in this forum several folks are from New York they may help you. You have waited too long; you must file the suit while ago. If you didn’t read the thread please read it. So many folks attached sample of 1447 and WOM use them as starting point and prepare your complain, if you need help post in the forum.
Thank you.

hi Dear!
Are you in Virginia? I am asking this because there was a very good thread from 2005 and they were discussing that in virginia, it is better to file WOM than 1447b because almost all the cases of wom were cleared. I am going to find that thread and send it to you. Thank you!!! And by the way, I am pllaning to file 1447b in new york city area, if you or anyone have any helpful information, please share. I applied in 2004 and was interviwed and passed everthing in May 2005. Still waiting for the stupid security clearnce!
Thanks again!! Bye

 

[paz1960]

I didn't read the US v. Hovsepian case you mentioned. However, though not reading it, I am sure that no MANDAMUS court will adjudicate your case and to approve your case in court. It goes to the fundamental principle of seperation of powers. You may want to look up federal rules of evidence for the relevancy test courts apply. I believe those are not relevant.

I think that you are mixing the Writ of Mandamus lawsuits and the Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). In a WOM case the court certainly lacks power to adjudicate the application and make the Plaintiff US citizen. The only thing what the judge can do, is to compel the Defendant to act, i.e., FBI to finish the background check and USCIS to adjudicate the application.

"Congress has removed naturalization from the courts and vested the Attorney General with “sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States,” in INA § 310(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) (as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990 (“ImmAct 90"), Pub. L. No. 101-649, Title IV, 104 Stat. 4978, 5038-48 (Nov. 29, 1990)); see also id. § 1421(d) (“A person may only be naturalized as a citizen of the United States in the manner and under the conditions prescribed in this subchapter.”); INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 883-84 (1988) (courts lack “the power to make someone a citizen” except to the extent authorized by Congress).

However, Congress has reserved two specific points at which United States district courts may exercise jurisdiction to review aliens’ naturalization applications. The first is where United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) has issued an administratively final denial of a naturalization application, in which case the disappointed naturalization applicant may seek judicial review of the denial in an appropriate district court, pursuant to INA § 310(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The second is where the agency has failed to render a decision on an application within 120 days of the completion of the applicant’s naturalization examination, in which case the applicant may apply to an appropriate district court either to decide the application itself, or remand it to the CIS with instructions, pursuant to INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). " (from the Immigration Litigation Bulletin, Oct. 2005, p.3)

I remember that actually I saw a 1447(b) case, when the judge ultimately granted citizenship to Plaintiff. I'll look up this case tomorrow and will post it here.

But this power to "determine the matter" is rarely exercised, and never when the background check is not finished yet. Usually, judges choose the second option conferred them by 1477(b) and remand the matter to the Service, with appropriate instructions. The key issue is, in my opinion, what are these appropriate instructions, if any.

Because the US v. Hovsepian case is so important in arguing these lawsuits and it is the only upper level (9th Circuit Court) decision dealing with this issue, I will repost it below.

 

[LuckyPiggy]

I think that you are mixing the Writ of Mandamus lawsuits and the Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). In a WOM case the court certainly lacks power to adjudicate the application and make the Plaintiff US citizen. The only thing what the judge can do, is to compel the Defendant to act, i.e., FBI to finish the background check and USCIS to adjudicate the application.

"Congress has removed naturalization from the courts and vested the Attorney General with “sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States,” in INA § 310(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) (as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990 (“ImmAct 90"), Pub. L. No. 101-649, Title IV, 104 Stat. 4978, 5038-48 (Nov. 29, 1990)); see also id. § 1421(d) (“A person may only be naturalized as a citizen of the United States in the manner and under the conditions prescribed in this subchapter.”); INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 883-84 (1988) (courts lack “the power to make someone a citizen” except to the extent authorized by Congress).

However, Congress has reserved two specific points at which United States district courts may exercise jurisdiction to review aliens’ naturalization applications. The first is where United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) has issued an administratively final denial of a naturalization application, in which case the disappointed naturalization applicant may seek judicial review of the denial in an appropriate district court, pursuant to INA § 310(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The second is where the agency has failed to render a decision on an application within 120 days of the completion of the applicant’s naturalization examination, in which case the applicant may apply to an appropriate district court either to decide the application itself, or remand it to the CIS with instructions, pursuant to INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). " (from the Immigration Litigation Bulletin, Oct. 2005, p.3)

I remember that actually I saw a 1447(b) case, when the judge ultimately granted citizenship to Plaintiff. I'll look up this case tomorrow and will post it here.

But this power to "determine the matter" is rarely exercised, and never when the background check is not finished yet. Usually, judges choose the second option conferred them by 1477(b) and remand the matter to the Service, with appropriate instructions. The key issue is, in my opinion, what are these appropriate instructions, if any.

Because the US v. Hovsepian case is so important in arguing these lawsuits and it is the only upper level (9th Circuit Court) decision dealing with this issue, I will repost it below.

All right, I got it. I thought people are all filing WOM here.

So you are not filing WOM. That'd be totally different.

It amazes me there is such a law like that. It is certainly arguable that court should remand with instructions (it is not a surprise to me that courts refrain from granting citizenship themselves but for under extreme circumstances). You do have a case here. But to win, you need to make very good statutory interpretation arguments to convince the court that remanding without instruction is contrary to congressional intent. For that end, you would want to look up for the legislative history of that law, i believe you will find very interesting things there. I think your case will hinge on the success of that arugment, not the discovery you want to conduct. If you are not in 9th Cir. you don't have to worry about that case a lot.

 

[ThreeYears?]

Approaching 3 years. What should I do?

Approaching 33 months (and 3 years of waiting) and still stuck in the name check. Should I file for a Freedom of info Act FOIPA to see is my name is somewhere i dont know of? My attorney suggested threatning to sue CIS.
I moved my post to another more appropriate thread.. if u want to read my case go here (look for posting by 'ThreeYears?'): http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=136848&page=196&pp=15

 

[wenlock]

I filled MOW for 485 pending 2 years (family based) in mid Dec. I called my US Attorny office today, they forwarded me to an answer machine. I thought no hope... But she called me back in 3 hours and told me she recieved my complain and forwarded to CIS and FBI. And since there are so many complains, there's a policy change, fbi will not expedite name check which comfirmed the bad news. So she said let us wait. My MOW's answer is due in mid Feb. I asked her if I can call her up once a week for following up. She said she's not sure if she will get some news in a week plus she has lots of things to do but then she said sure call her anytime. She told me even if we don't get any answer from FBI CIS, she will fill "something" on deadline. I'll keep you guys updated and hope I'll get some good news in the end.

Do you know when she asked FBI for expediated request it was before 12/22/06 or after that? I am just curious to know what happened to requests that were place before 12/22/06.

 

[pearlgal]

thanks paz, hopefully i'll hear a extension by Friday...

have you have any experience with ADR? will that help me with the initial case conference? thanks,

pearl

Because the name check is still pending, USCIS can't adjudicate your application. Because the deadline to answer your complaint is the coming Friday, AUSA will need to file something. Usually, this can be one of the following three things:
1. An answer to your complaint
2. A motion to extend (usually by 30 days)
3. A motion to dismiss

If AUSA has info that they are working on your case and there is a good chance that the case can be solved soon, (s)he would go for an extension.

Usually, the judge grants the first (and in many cases, even the second extension) even if Plaintiff opposes it, so the best you can do is to agree with the extension if AUSA asks for your agreement (probably this will happen Friday).

If AUSA files a motion to dismiss, you will need to come up with a strong Opposition to the Defendants Motion to dismiss. You will need to file that in certain number of days after AUSA filed the Motion to dismiss. The exact number of days and format is regulated by the local rules, i.e., can be different in each district. In mine is 28 days.

If AUSA files an answer, you don't have to file a reply to that. In this case the judge will schedule an initial case management conference, or something like this. However, you still need to prepare your case, because it is more likely that you can end up in an oral hearing, trial, and you will need to be able to defend your case, i.e., to oppose the jurisdiction challenge, etc.

N. Cal. district court is known that it is one of the most liberal districts, so your chances are good if you reach a judge. But the US Attorney's Office is a separate entity, is not part of the district court, they are representing the government and by such, they are acting more in line with the general, nationally valid policy. Usually the AUSA does whatever the DHS (or USCIS) General Counsel instructs him/her. And this is not necessary friendly...

 

[boondi]

Have you heard anything after your 2nd FP from the AUSA or USCIS?

No I have not. I am waiting for my attorney to return from vacation on 15th to get more info. As of now, my case seems it is taking a break LOL

 

[nasman]

My assistant US attorney has just asked the judge to remand the case back to the USCIS, and I already filed an oposition, and I am getting myself ready for court if need be.

My question to you is: How can I get a copy of a case if it is too old, and not posted on Pacer anymore, the government has asked the judge to refer to the case of Sze et al v. INS et al, Pacer only lists the docket dates, and doesn't offer an option to download the actual documents. I would like to study the case before I go to court (if I went to court), do you have any suggestions on how to get a copy of the complaint, and the other documents in that case??
Here is the header as listed by Pacer:

3:97-cv-00569-SC Sze, et al v. INS, et al
Samuel Conti, presiding
Date filed: 02/18/1997
Date terminated: 07/24/1997 Date of last filing: 10/22/1998

I just have a feeling that this case might not be similar to mine, since it was filed in 1997 before the writ of mandamus law was ever created.

I would realy appreciate any help in that.
Here are my details:
N400 RD 11/17/05
ID: 4/21/06
1447: 8/28/06
USA served same day
10/26/06 request for extension of time
granted by judge in few days
11/21/06 motion to remand back to USCIS based on above case
oposition filed on 11/22/06
Response due by defendants: 12/14/06
AUSA contacted me last week, and requested that I file for an emergency motion to remand because they will POSSIBLY schedule my oath ceremony on 12/15/06, however, stopped returning my calls when I emailed him and called him and requested that any motion to remand or dismiss should be singned by both parties, and should contain firm dates, he aparently won't do that, so, I assume he was lying, just wanting to get rid of me. So, I am getting ready for court
Please advise

I guess I might have a similar case like yours. I am in 4th Circuit (Norfolk Virginia). When I filed law suit they asked for a motion to dismiss. They said 120 period starts from the day FBI back ground check is cleared. In my case back ground check cleared in November 2006 in response to this Law suit. So I replied back saying several cases in 9th circuit and several other states consider 120 start from the day you pass your Interview for Citizenship which I did in February 2004. So I apealed to dismiss the motion to dismiss. Yesterday sadly after two weeks they (US Attorney) sent a Rebutal still sticking to their point (second motion to dismiss) that court has no juridiction in this case and the case be remanded back to CIS. I really want to fight back but running out of logic. I guess I will send them same appeal back. I am asuming if I wait 120 day from November 2006 and file a lawsuit again than I will have to pay another $400 (including summons and photo copies).

 

[nasman]

Rebuttal???

Ok my beloved US Attorney (Norfolk Virginia) instead of making their lives easier and ordering CIS to send me Oath so they won’t have to hear my name have chosen to "Rebuttal". At least one good thing came out of my law suit that my back ground check finally cleared after 3 years in November, 2006. In December they send a motion to dismiss to my law suit on the grounds of “120 days start from the day back ground check has cleared not from the day I passed my citizenship interview in February, 2004”. So I filed a motion to motion to dismiss stating several cases in country where court rules in favor of plaintiff that 120 days start from the day you pass your initial interview which I did in February, 2004. Now yesterday I received a “Rebuttal” that court has no jurisdiction in this case and this case be remanded back to USCIS. I really want to fight back on the grounds of how other states have granted Oath and Norfolk Virginia is denying that rule. I guess I am open for ideas that should I fight back right away or wait till 120 days time limit is over and file another lawsuit in March 2007. But I would hate to pay another $400 (including summons and photocopies) again. If I do fight back how do I do it? Just send the same appeal to dismiss motion to dismiss?

 

[zlin]

I don't know.

Do you know when she asked FBI for expediated request it was before 12/22/06 or after that? I am just curious to know what happened to requests that were place before 12/22/06.

 

[paz1960]

Ok my beloved US Attorney (Norfolk Virginia) instead of making their lives easier and ordering CIS to send me Oath so they won’t have to hear my name have chosen to "Rebuttal". At least one good thing came out of my law suit that my back ground check finally cleared after 3 years in November, 2006. In December they send a motion to dismiss to my law suit on the grounds of “120 days start from the day back ground check has cleared not from the day I passed my citizenship interview in February, 2004”. So I filed a motion to motion to dismiss stating several cases in country where court rules in favor of plaintiff that 120 days start from the day you pass your initial interview which I did in February, 2004. Now yesterday I received a “Rebuttal” that court has no jurisdiction in this case and this case be remanded back to USCIS. I really want to fight back on the grounds of how other states have granted Oath and Norfolk Virginia is denying that rule. I guess I am open for ideas that should I fight back right away or wait till 120 days time limit is over and file another lawsuit in March 2007. But I would hate to pay another $400 (including summons and photocopies) again. If I do fight back how do I do it? Just send the same appeal to dismiss motion to dismiss?

In order to help you, please post the EXACT title of the documents what the parties (you and AUSA) filed.

Once defendants are served with a complaint, they have a limited amount of time (60 days in these cases) to file a written response to the complaint. That written response must eventually be an answer. However, they can also choose to file one of the motions specified in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If they file one of those motions, they do not need to file their answer until after the court decides their motion.

Most frequently in these types of cases, AUSA files a Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this type of motion the defendants argue that the court does not have the legal authority to hear the kind of lawsuit that the plaintiff filed. Specifically, they argue that the 120 days start only after the full criminal background check is complete, because that is part of the examination.

Usually, the following things occur when a motion is filed. First, one side files a motion explaining what they want the court to do and why the court should do it. The party who files a motion is referred to as the “moving party.” Next, the opposing party files an opposition brief explaining why it believes the court should not grant the motion. Then the moving party files a reply brief in which it responds to the arguments made in the opposition brief. At that point, neither side can file any more documents about the motion without first getting permission from the court. Once all of the papers relating to the motion are filed, the court can decide the motion based solely on the arguments in the papers, or it can hold a hearing. If the court holds a hearing, each side has an opportunity to talk to the court about the arguments in their papers. The court then has the option of announcing its decision in the courtroom (ruling from the bench), or to further consider the motion (taking the motion under consideration) and send the parties a written decision. (from the N.California District Pro Se handbook, p. 50)

What I suspect, is that Defendants (the moving party) filed the Motion to dismiss, you filed an Opposition to this Motion and defendants filed the Reply brief to your Opposition. The case now reached that stage, when the judge will step in and decide the motion. It is unlikely that the judge will order a hearing, most likely (s)he will decide based solely on the arguments in the papers.

 

[huxf]

update:

My 2nd FP was done two weeks ago and was also told by infopass that name check cleared and evertyhing was in order for process. was anxious and then called the NSC this morning, but was very disappointed with the answer.
I was told it is still "in process" for both USCIS and FBI and name check was not cleared!!! The lady told me they and me (they send/forward) should get "name check cleared notice" if FBI finishes the job. this is the first time that I heard CIS would send applicants notice if name check cleared. Anybody had similar experience before?
Now I am so disappointed today since I need this D*** card to move ahead to accept my new job with better opportunity and 50% pay rise. I don't know who is telling the truth, the infopass or the NSC.

 

[ThreeYears?]

Advice needed

Hi guys, I have been waiting for my name check to clear for 33 months. The Green Card/Perm Residence is pending on that Name Check, and naturally I can only apply for citizenship after the GC,, so everything is being delayed.

Please see my time line and please post your advice on what I should do next, here:
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=136848&page=196&pp=15

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge!

 

[wenlock]

update:

My 2nd FP was done two weeks ago and was also told by infopass that name check cleared and evertyhing was in order for process. was anxious and then called the NSC this morning, but was very disappointed with the answer.
I was told it is still "in process" for both USCIS and FBI and name check was not cleared!!! The lady told me they and me (they send/forward) should get "name check cleared notice" if FBI finishes the job. this is the first time that I heard CIS would send applicants notice if name check cleared. Anybody had similar experience before?
Now I am so disappointed today since I need this D*** card to move ahead to accept my new job with better opportunity and 50% pay rise. I don't know who is telling the truth, the infopass or the NSC.

I would trust Info pass more then NSC. I was always provided wrong information by Customer service on phone. Even now when I call them they tell me that every thing is fine in your file and you are in interview queue. When I ask them about name check they say name check comes after interview. I asked him atleast three different times they always respond same. Real story came out by senator inquiry and at my infopass. They told me that name check is pending and they will not schedule interview till name check is done.

If you are informed by infopass that name check is done it is good news. I am not aware of any one getting any written notice that you name check is complete that is total BS. Best resource to know about your case status is US attorney ask him what is the hold-up.

Do you know where is your case file? local office or at service center.