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

[nasman]

Anyone has any suggestions?

In my case in Norfolk Virginia my back ground check cleared in response to lawsuit but US Atorney filed motion to dismiss, then I appeal and they filed Rebuttal. Wednesday I called court house and specially requested to ask to case manager who informed me to wait since Judge has been informed now. Yesterday I recieved a letter from CIS for a second N400 interview. But in this blog I have read some cases where CIS was already ordered by the judge to make it quick. So you might even be getting your oath any time now or interview date again like mine. Good luck

 

[micahel1008]

Hello Everybody,

I want to thank eveybody for their help and support.
Finally, after 7 months of filing my lawsuit I had my second hearing today and the Judge ordered.
I still did not get it in writting , but The judge remanded my case back to USCIS with 60 days. he actually said That it is tempted to grant my citizenship today but he would like to give uscis their last chance.

I guess iam over with this case , but i will not feel reliefed till I get my oath letter.

For all the people that are Frustrated and hesitating to file a lawsuit I will say, Let your frustration overcome your fear and stand up for your rights and sue these people , because your only way out from this backlog.
Just stick with this forum, do a lot reading. my case was a rollercoaster. it took 7 months wich a long time compared to other cases, but with the help of this forum I was able to fight and get where i needed to be.

I will so happy to answer any questions that you may have about my case and I will try my best to help in anyway

For the parets of the " Danilov" , here goes another round.

Thank a lot

I have to said that I admire your spirit and encouragment. to be honest with you, I came here with some kind thought that if you filed WOM, they will automatically solve your problem. I know I am wrong. USCIS will never treat us with respect if all of us are bounch of silent lambs. I am not afarid of fight now. We have to stand up and fight for our right and it is the only way you can relief your pain. we will win, at least, the justice system is still working for our case, but we have to carry your spirit and fight to last step, thank you.

 

[huxf]

Congratulations.
I feel so happy for you, and the encourages that your case will bring to many many victims who are or will be fighting with this damn system and those lazy and stupid persons.

Hello Everybody,

I want to thank eveybody for their help and support.
Finally, after 7 months of filing my lawsuit I had my second hearing today and the Judge ordered.
I still did not get it in writting , but The judge remanded my case back to USCIS with 60 days. he actually said That it is tempted to grant my citizenship today but he would like to give uscis their last chance.

I guess iam over with this case , but i will not feel reliefed till I get my oath letter.

For all the people that are Frustrated and hesitating to file a lawsuit I will say, Let your frustration overcome your fear and stand up for your rights and sue these people , because your only way out from this backlog.
Just stick with this forum, do a lot reading. my case was a rollercoaster. it took 7 months wich a long time compared to other cases, but with the help of this forum I was able to fight and get where i needed to be.

I will so happy to answer any questions that you may have about my case and I will try my best to help in anyway

For the parets of the " Danilov" , here goes another round.

Thank a lot

 

[wenlock]

I am the lucky guy who will be video tapped next month. Been married to a US Citizen for 9 years now. Have two kids together. She is a US Navy officer. I have already passed Citizenship test in 2004. Now they are asking for a second interview next month even though after filling lawsuit my back ground check cleared in November, 2006. They still want to Video tape me??. My only explanation why they choose to video tape me is so when all the department of homeland security employees get together at Michael Chertoffs house and they are drunk and having parties they can watch video tapes of “Department of Homeland Security’s Funniest Videos” to get a good laugh so they can make fun of a desperate guys like me. Lets hope they don’t ask me to sing saying “what can you do for your would be country”?.

Here is the trend I have always seen video tape interview in cases where plaintiff is married to US citizen. They scrutanize these cases real hard due to marriage fraud but if you have two kids just take Birth certificate copies and I am sure it will cut down there doubt.

Some times they say that Plaintiff might have another spouse in home country so they make sure you are clean before giving citizenship. I ran across case on pacer where some one was cleared of interview and every thing they filed mandamus and USCIS went through plaintiff history and found he was married some where in US before his current marriage and he did not showed that in his application and they denied him and put him in deportation proceedings.

I am not trying to scare you but just giving you examples why they conduct second interview so if you have nothing to hide DO NOT WORRY. you will be fine.

 

[wenlock]

Thanks for your reply ...
That's a lot of work to be done! All this effort is needed to prove to the judge that I suffered enough to gain his sympathy!!!

Unfortunatily if your interview is not done you are not entitled for 1447b so you have to meet all the requirements for Mandamus.

You have to prove that you explored every avenue possible before filling law suit. I am aware this is a lot of work but I have done it and I am sure you can do it too. Sitting back and hoping some one will process you application at there own is not reality.

Remember to USCIS each and every one of our file is just a FILE. It is there daily job it does not matter to them if some one's file is sitting from one month or 5 years it is just a file for them period. No one gives you special treatment just because you are waiting for 5 years.

Infect my experiance is once you are out of there normal processing time then some one just look at your waiting queue once a month if your case has made any progress or not. Filling Law suit compel them to pay attention to your case.

I am watching this forum since Jan 2006 I was silent member before but started taking more part activily since I filled my complaint.

I was prepared back in March 2006 to file law suit but I was waiting for enough time to get to a point where I can have better chances in winning my case.

My case is unique because I did not got interview. My case was dropped in interview queue on May 27th 2006 at the same time USCIS issues internal memo about not conductiing interviews untill name check is finished so they never called me for interview.

 

[wenlock]

Hi everyone,

about videotaped second interview for some cases, I wonder that if there is no limit of how many N400 interviews can be conducted, then CIS can simply defend all 1447b cases by saying more interviews may be needed, therefore that 120-day statutory limit is a clock that can be reset. All they have to do is to schedule you another interview on the 119 days after your previous interview. I know this is getting unreasonable, but is there a law that codifies how many interviews a naturalization process can have?

By the way, wenlock, which district are you think? I was scheduled and then descheduled around May 2006 also, but out of the blue, I was rescheduled in Sept. 2006, and I am still waiting for my oath letter due to pending background check. Either CIS ignored the interoffice memo when I was re-scheduled, or my background was cleared but somehow the result fell through the cracks.

There is no concept of second interview triggering 120 days. Your 120 days starts after first interview. Even if they need more evidence it should be done within 120 days including any further interview needs. They have to make decision with 120 days approval or denial.

My district is Atlanta. I know for few indivitual they have rescheduled interview because of another memo that said that if you schedule some one for interview do not deschedule it cost more money to deschedule and then reschdule again it came around september 2006. So if some one scheduled you accidently they kept it going even though your name check was pending.

 

[aka808]

I'm so happy for you, aka808. After going through that terrible experience being videotaped during your interview (did they put a strong light in your eyes? ) you really deserved this. Congratulations!

An important info for me is that it is possible for USCIS to schedule an oath ceremony very soon after the approval. I don't know what are they waiting in my case. The approval stamp on my N-400 form is dated January 9, 2007, and I still didn't receive anything from USCIS. AUSA was also unsuccessful today to get an oath date.

I'm really curious what will happen now. He sent me a joint stipulation for a motion to dismiss, I asked him to add one more sentence, but it was already late, he probably left or he could not get an apporval from the DHS/USCIS general counsel's office, because I didn't get any answer. The deadline for AUSA to file something with the court was today. We'll see what happens tomorrow...

Thanks Paz1960. One thing i have learned from this is that the AUSA most of the time does not know what the USCIS does. For example, i got the officer's phone number during my second interview and kept calling her for information along with sending emails for request to the AUSA. This way atleast i knew what both of them were doing.
Fromwhat i am seeing, if Jan 9th it was approved, you should get your oath the second week of Feb. As i had mentioned earlier, when the District DO approves the case it has to go to HO to get a final nod due to the lawsuit.
So rest assured my friend, you will soon be on the other side .

 

[aka808]

I have posted few times here and tried helping others as much as I could. Now I need help I was interviewd for N400 in February 2004 which I passed and it was pending decision on back ground check. October of 2006 I filed a law suit since I never heard back from INS and all I was told was good old back ground check has not been recieved from FBI. November 2006 US Attorney informed me my back ground check is clear now and next week they sent me Motion to dismiss saying that law suit I filed is for INS/CIS to make decision in 120 days after Interview/examination and they consider back ground check which for me cleared in November 2006 so the law suit in invalid. I filled an appeal inresponse to motion to dismiss and US attorney responded back with Rebuttal. I called court house yesterday and they told me now its waiting for Judge to make a move. Today I gotta a letter from INS/CIS that I need to appear next month for Interview for N400. Interview will last for 2 hours and it will be video tapped. I need to bring all travel documents, proof of residency of Virginia, militery id (my wife is militery), wife's move order (since we have to move to MD in August). Any idea what I should expect in this second interview after 3 years of passing interview?? please respond.

Nasman,
I went through the same ordeal. Nothing to worry about, Just make sure you take all the documentation that they request (can't hurt to take more). Show it when asked for, answer all the questions and ensure that what you say matches what you put on your application.

Good Luck and soon you will be seeing the end of this.

 

[paz1960]

the next chapter of my story

Yesterday, after I agreed with my AUSA that he will send me for review the draft of the Joint stipulation for the motion to dismiss, before he files with the court, he sent me the draft, at 5:01 pm, claiming that was a pdf attachement. Turned out that it was some Wordperfect file, it took me about 5 minutes till I could open.

To my unpleasant surprise, it contained the following:

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The parties stipulate and agree that the above captioned matter should be dismissed, with prejudice, because Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application for Naturalization was adjudicated and approved on January 9, 2007. A copy of the Form N-400 is attached and incorporated by this reference.

I tried to call him immediately, but the receptionist was already gone (it was about 5:06 pm) and I could not get through. I sent him an e-mail, requesting to add one more sentence:

"Defendant USCIS agrees to schedule Plaintiff's Oath Ceremony as soon as possible but not later than 15 days after this order".

I also explained in the e-mail why I think that this should be included:
-past bad experience with USCIS, see the story with the oath scheduling of my wife, 5 months after the approval and holding my application for two years, with no good reason, as ultimately my cleared name check proved;
-my pending job application with a national nuclear physics laboratory, where I will need security clearence (US citizenship is a prerequisite)

He didn't answer my e-mail, but yesterday in the evening I saw on PACER that he filed the stipulation and the proposal for the order without any change, adding that Plaintiff gave him his electronic signature authorization on Jan. 24; when in fact, I explicitely requested that I want to review and comment the proposed stipulation before he files it, and he agreed. (I had the e-mails saved as proof).

I was so upset and felt betrayed. I wrote him a rather strongly worded e-mail, in which I requested to arrange till today 4:00 pm an oath date, otherways I will file by the end of today a Memorandum with the court explaining how AUSA misused my electronic signature, without waiting for my approval of the wording of the Stipulation and also I would request that the Court should administer the oath ceremony, instead USCIS.

Today morning I tried to call him, and he is out of office. Spoke to his assistant, and explained the situation. She realised that his boss can get in serious trouble because of the misuse of my electronic signature and she called him immediately on his cell phone. After some phone tag, we managed to speak. He promised that he is going to solve this issue, and he was evidently relieved when I told him that fortunately, I found out that there are two days next week when there are oath ceremonies at the Gerald Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, MI. AUSA was traveling in Chicago, he called his assistant and gave her instructions.

About half an hour ago I got a call from USCIS, telling me to be on Tuesday next week at the Ford Museum for my oath ceremony. After about 15 minutes, AUSA's legal assistant also called me to make sure that I received the message and I am satisfied and not going to file anything with the court.

Because I got what I wanted, I'm obviously not going to work all day today to draft a memorandum and run with it to the district court.

Morale:
1. You have to stand up for yourself, because nobody else will do.
2. When they feel the heat, they can act really quickly.

 

[Bou]

CONGRATULations, paz!!!

DEAR PAZ,

I joined the forum only recently, but I'm reading this forum whenever I find time and preparing my case too. I read your story and others, what a VICTORY, I'm sure many many people on this forum feel very happy for you!

And also the importance of information sharing, you actually guided those lazy do-nothings and told them you even went the distance to find out what dates are available for oath ceremony thanks to another member (sorry I forgot your name, I work hard during day and prepare my case at night, sleep starving...) !!! This is the way we going to fight, Publics is right, silence won't protect you.

Again, I feel very very happy for you!!! Waiting you tell us more about your oath next tuesday!!!

Yesterday, after I agreed with my AUSA that he will send me for review the draft of the Joint stipulation for the motion to dismiss, before he files with the court, he sent me the draft, at 5:01 pm, claiming that was a pdf attachement. Turned out that it was some Wordperfect file, it took me about 5 minutes till I could open.

To my unpleasant surprise, it contained the following:

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The parties stipulate and agree that the above captioned matter should be dismissed, with prejudice, because Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application for Naturalization was adjudicated and approved on January 9, 2007. A copy of the Form N-400 is attached and incorporated by this reference.

I tried to call him immediately, but the receptionist was already gone (it was about 5:06 pm) and I could not get through. I sent him an e-mail, requesting to add one more sentence:

"Defendant USCIS agrees to schedule Plaintiff's Oath Ceremony as soon as possible but not later than 15 days after this order".

I also explained in the e-mail why I think that this should be included:
-past bad experience with USCIS, see the story with the oath scheduling of my wife, 5 months after the approval and holding my application for two years, with no good reason, as ultimately my cleared name check proved;
-my pending job application with a national nuclear physics laboratory, where I will need security clearence (US citizenship is a prerequisite)

He didn't answer my e-mail, but yesterday in the evening I saw on PACER that he filed the stipulation and the proposal for the order without any change, adding that Plaintiff gave him his electronic signature authorization on Jan. 24; when in fact, I explicitely requested that I want to review and comment the proposed stipulation before he files it, and he agreed. (I had the e-mails saved as proof).

I was so upset and felt betrayed. I wrote him a rather strongly worded e-mail, in which I requested to arrange till today 4:00 pm an oath date, otherways I will file by the end of today a Memorandum with the court explaining how AUSA misused my electronic signature, without waiting for my approval of the wording of the Stipulation and also I would request that the Court should administer the oath ceremony, instead USCIS.

Today morning I tried to call him, and he is out of office. Spoke to his assistant, and explained the situation. She realised that his boss can get in serious trouble because of the misuse of my electronic signature and she called him immediately on his cell phone. After some phone tag, we managed to speak. He promised that he is going to solve this issue, and he was evidently relieved when I told him that fortunately, I found out that there are two days next week when there are oath ceremonies at the Gerald Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, MI. AUSA was traveling in Chicago, he called his assistant and gave her instructions.

About half an hour ago I got a call from USCIS, telling me to be on Tuesday next week at the Ford Museum for my oath ceremony. After about 15 minutes, AUSA's legal assistant also called me to make sure that I received the message and I am satisfied and not going to file anything with the court.

Because I got what I wanted, I'm obviously not going to work all day today to draft a memorandum and run with it to the district court.

Morale:
1. You have to stand up for yourself, because nobody else will do.
2. When they feel the heat, they can act really quickly.

 

[paz1960]

Hi everyone,

about videotaped second interview for some cases, I wonder that if there is no limit of how many N400 interviews can be conducted, then CIS can simply defend all 1447b cases by saying more interviews may be needed, therefore that 120-day statutory limit is a clock that can be reset. All they have to do is to schedule you another interview on the 119 days after your previous interview. I know this is getting unreasonable, but is there a law that codifies how many interviews a naturalization process can have?

By the way, wenlock, which district are you think? I was scheduled and then descheduled around May 2006 also, but out of the blue, I was rescheduled in Sept. 2006, and I am still waiting for my oath letter due to pending background check. Either CIS ignored the interoffice memo when I was re-scheduled, or my background was cleared but somehow the result fell through the cracks.

I think that the answer is in the following citation from an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:

Further, 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(b) provides that USCIS may continue the initial examination on an application; however, in such case, the reexamination "shall be scheduled within the 120-day period after the initial examination" (emphasis added). An applicant may only request a "postponement of the second examination to a date that is more than 90 days after the initial examination" if the applicant agrees to waive the requirement that USCIS "render a determination on the application within 120 days from the initial interview." 8 C.F.R. § 312.5(b) (emphasis added). If the examination were an ongoing process, there would be no need for USCIS to continue it, to reschedule it, or to obtain a waiver of the 120-day period. The examination would simply continue until complete, at which time the 120-day period would commence.

 

[aka808]

Yesterday, after I agreed with my AUSA that he will send me for review the draft of the Joint stipulation for the motion to dismiss, before he files with the court, he sent me the draft, at 5:01 pm, claiming that was a pdf attachement. Turned out that it was some Wordperfect file, it took me about 5 minutes till I could open.

To my unpleasant surprise, it contained the following:

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The parties stipulate and agree that the above captioned matter should be dismissed, with prejudice, because Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application for Naturalization was adjudicated and approved on January 9, 2007. A copy of the Form N-400 is attached and incorporated by this reference.

I tried to call him immediately, but the receptionist was already gone (it was about 5:06 pm) and I could not get through. I sent him an e-mail, requesting to add one more sentence:

"Defendant USCIS agrees to schedule Plaintiff's Oath Ceremony as soon as possible but not later than 15 days after this order".

I also explained in the e-mail why I think that this should be included:
-past bad experience with USCIS, see the story with the oath scheduling of my wife, 5 months after the approval and holding my application for two years, with no good reason, as ultimately my cleared name check proved;
-my pending job application with a national nuclear physics laboratory, where I will need security clearence (US citizenship is a prerequisite)

He didn't answer my e-mail, but yesterday in the evening I saw on PACER that he filed the stipulation and the proposal for the order without any change, adding that Plaintiff gave him his electronic signature authorization on Jan. 24; when in fact, I explicitely requested that I want to review and comment the proposed stipulation before he files it, and he agreed. (I had the e-mails saved as proof).

I was so upset and felt betrayed. I wrote him a rather strongly worded e-mail, in which I requested to arrange till today 4:00 pm an oath date, otherways I will file by the end of today a Memorandum with the court explaining how AUSA misused my electronic signature, without waiting for my approval of the wording of the Stipulation and also I would request that the Court should administer the oath ceremony, instead USCIS.

Today morning I tried to call him, and he is out of office. Spoke to his assistant, and explained the situation. She realised that his boss can get in serious trouble because of the misuse of my electronic signature and she called him immediately on his cell phone. After some phone tag, we managed to speak. He promised that he is going to solve this issue, and he was evidently relieved when I told him that fortunately, I found out that there are two days next week when there are oath ceremonies at the Gerald Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, MI. AUSA was traveling in Chicago, he called his assistant and gave her instructions.

About half an hour ago I got a call from USCIS, telling me to be on Tuesday next week at the Ford Museum for my oath ceremony. After about 15 minutes, AUSA's legal assistant also called me to make sure that I received the message and I am satisfied and not going to file anything with the court.

Because I got what I wanted, I'm obviously not going to work all day today to draft a memorandum and run with it to the district court.

Morale:
1. You have to stand up for yourself, because nobody else will do.
2. When they feel the heat, they can act really quickly.

Paz congrats...I am very happy for you and now that we are both almost out of this black hole.
Once again....congrats to you and your family. Knowing the process and figthing to get your rights - that is what it's all about.

 

[aka808]

Hello aka808, I begin to think that the second interview is a way for CIS to get back to those who sued. I have nothing to hide, but sometimes the interviewer could ask some really personal questions.

Best wishes and remember to vote.

You are correct...it is a way for them to re-instate the fear factor. But when you know the law, the processes and regardless have been honest throughout there is nothing to worry about.

I will still encourage people to file regardless of the new memo from cis circulating.

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

Interview Videotaped

I am the lucky guy who will be video tapped next month. Been married to a US Citizen for 9 years now. Have two kids together. She is a US Navy officer. I have already passed Citizenship test in 2004. Now they are asking for a second interview next month even though after filling lawsuit my back ground check cleared in November, 2006. They still want to Video tape me??. My only explanation why they choose to video tape me is so when all the department of homeland security employees get together at Michael Chertoffs house and they are drunk and having parties they can watch video tapes of “Department of Homeland Security’s Funniest Videos” to get a good laugh so they can make fun of a desperate guys like me. Lets hope they don’t ask me to sing saying “what can you do for your would be country”?.

Nasman and others,

I was also one of the "lucky ones" to be subjected to a three hour interview in Atlanta, GA, which was videotaped and in which three USCIS officers (one was from DC) questioned me about my whole life. They never even bothered to tell me it would be taped or take so long. I went in thinking it would be a "standard" interview like my first one. I am former Army who served in Iraq and was honorably discharged. Never been arrested, clean background. Married to a US citizen for over 8 years and have 4 kids who are citizens. They were so nice to me during the interview, joking with me. I was relaxed as I had nothing to hide.
The shock came later when I found they denied my application and asked case to be dismissed (both in same day). They gave no indication there was any problem at all and purposely waited until the dismisal was filed to mail me the denial letter. It was all due to a question they asked me which I answered truthfully and it didn't match with my military records. They claimed I lied under oath. As soon as I found out about the denial, I contacted the army and was able to get proof I was tellling the truth. I have already filed my appeal and God only knows how long that will take. My advice, be very careful what you say, they extensively review the tapes looking for anything they can use. Don't trust them, no matter how friendly they are.

 

[zlin]

Some shocking discovey about Danilov's case.

I was shocked to find out Seiguei Danilov's case in Pacer and googled it!
Danilov filed his 1447 in Feb., 2005, at the same time, USA found his immigration fraud on labour certificate and sued him in April, 2005. Danilov pleaed guity and lost his VA lawyer's license bar in June, 2006 and sent to jail for 46 months. I was thinking maybe it's not the same person, but the address on revoke of law license and his 1447 is aiming to the same person.

My explaination is that Danilov was suspected by USCIS but his 1447 has to be answered in 2 months. During that time his fraud was not proved, (in fact after 1 year, the fraud was proved) So they had to use some other excuse such as "EXAM" to continue to check his Citizen application then reject it. Since Danilov's case is biased, so this case can not be repeatly used for CIS as weapon. So if they quote it again, argue it back. Take it easy.

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

Here is the trend I have always seen video tape interview in cases where plaintiff is married to US citizen. They scrutanize these cases real hard due to marriage fraud but if you have two kids just take Birth certificate copies and I am sure it will cut down there doubt.

Some times they say that Plaintiff might have another spouse in home country so they make sure you are clean before giving citizenship. I ran across case on pacer where some one was cleared of interview and every thing they filed mandamus and USCIS went through plaintiff history and found he was married some where in US before his current marriage and he did not showed that in his application and they denied him and put him in deportation proceedings.

I am not trying to scare you but just giving you examples why they conduct second interview so if you have nothing to hide DO NOT WORRY. you will be fine.

I am married to a US citizen, however I filed my N400 under having served in combat, not due to being married to a citizen. They still videotaped my second interview with 3 officers questioning me. They asked very little about my wife.

 

[case number]

Close to victory !

Hei guys, i want to update you on my case. After i filed my "Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Remand" with the court AUSA filed "Defendants` Motion to Dismiss for Mootness" stating the following: 1. The plaintiff filed this law suit in which she complains that CIS has improperly denied her naturalization because her FBI background check has not been timely completed. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, mandamus and injunctive relief against the defendants requiring that she be naturalized without the FBI check required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. and
2. Counsel for the defendants represents to the court that the CIS has received the plaintiff`s FBI check, and has approved her application for naturalization. A naturalization date will be set. 3. There are no other issues of fact or law to be decided by the court. THEREFORE, the plaintiff`s case should be dismissed as moot.
What do you think? first of all AUSA `s conclusions expresed on numer 1 are totally wrong. i never filed a lawsuit because my naturalization was denied and i have not stated anywhere that i should be naturalized without the background name check. i do not know where he comes from with these aberations. However, I have to come up with something to the court until January 31, 2007 otherwise my case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. what do you suggest i should do since "a date for naturalization" is not set yet and i cannot trust these people any longer. thank you and good luck to everyone on this journey.

 

[akram88]

My warmest congrats Paz. The US will be a better place with citizens like you in it.
BTW I see that you're a nuclear physics scientist right? my dad is also a scientist in that field maybe you came across each others work at some point.

Yesterday, after I agreed with my AUSA that he will send me for review the draft of the Joint stipulation for the motion to dismiss, before he files with the court, he sent me the draft, at 5:01 pm, claiming that was a pdf attachement. Turned out that it was some Wordperfect file, it took me about 5 minutes till I could open.

To my unpleasant surprise, it contained the following:

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The parties stipulate and agree that the above captioned matter should be dismissed, with prejudice, because Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application for Naturalization was adjudicated and approved on January 9, 2007. A copy of the Form N-400 is attached and incorporated by this reference.

I tried to call him immediately, but the receptionist was already gone (it was about 5:06 pm) and I could not get through. I sent him an e-mail, requesting to add one more sentence:

"Defendant USCIS agrees to schedule Plaintiff's Oath Ceremony as soon as possible but not later than 15 days after this order".

I also explained in the e-mail why I think that this should be included:
-past bad experience with USCIS, see the story with the oath scheduling of my wife, 5 months after the approval and holding my application for two years, with no good reason, as ultimately my cleared name check proved;
-my pending job application with a national nuclear physics laboratory, where I will need security clearence (US citizenship is a prerequisite)

He didn't answer my e-mail, but yesterday in the evening I saw on PACER that he filed the stipulation and the proposal for the order without any change, adding that Plaintiff gave him his electronic signature authorization on Jan. 24; when in fact, I explicitely requested that I want to review and comment the proposed stipulation before he files it, and he agreed. (I had the e-mails saved as proof).

I was so upset and felt betrayed. I wrote him a rather strongly worded e-mail, in which I requested to arrange till today 4:00 pm an oath date, otherways I will file by the end of today a Memorandum with the court explaining how AUSA misused my electronic signature, without waiting for my approval of the wording of the Stipulation and also I would request that the Court should administer the oath ceremony, instead USCIS.

Today morning I tried to call him, and he is out of office. Spoke to his assistant, and explained the situation. She realised that his boss can get in serious trouble because of the misuse of my electronic signature and she called him immediately on his cell phone. After some phone tag, we managed to speak. He promised that he is going to solve this issue, and he was evidently relieved when I told him that fortunately, I found out that there are two days next week when there are oath ceremonies at the Gerald Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, MI. AUSA was traveling in Chicago, he called his assistant and gave her instructions.

About half an hour ago I got a call from USCIS, telling me to be on Tuesday next week at the Ford Museum for my oath ceremony. After about 15 minutes, AUSA's legal assistant also called me to make sure that I received the message and I am satisfied and not going to file anything with the court.

Because I got what I wanted, I'm obviously not going to work all day today to draft a memorandum and run with it to the district court.

Morale:
1. You have to stand up for yourself, because nobody else will do.
2. When they feel the heat, they can act really quickly.

 

[zlin]

It's the same person. I think Danilov's case is totally biased, should not be used as "text book" by USCIS at all. On the other hand, people can argue that Name check took so slow, so long, that if it's faster, Danilov's fraud could have been caught earlier and lots of immigration frauds could be prevented. Further more, I assumed that Danilov's fraud was found after they did the expedit FBI check on him since he sent his 1447 in Feb 2005 and fraud law suit against him was filled in April 2005.

http://usaomd.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_usaomd_archive.html#114321713072135818

it seems Danilov is an immigration lawyer himself. If it's the same guy as the Danilov in the Danilov vs USCIS case, then it seems he "rocked the boat" by filing a 1447b for his own citizenship.

 

[zlin]

You are right... I look at the blog again. But I couldn't tell how this thing came out of water, I don't think slow FBI name check did anything to help to find the truth and helped to prevent any damage that caused.

Hello zlin, I think it's the contrary. The Danilov case and his subsequent jail sentencing made a very strong argument in favor of the defendants why the CIS/FBI need more than 120 days to investigate an applicant, and therefore, FBI background check is part of the examination.

If you read through the blog I posted, Danilov was accused of exploiting the vulnerability of the immigration system. Perhaps that 120 day hard limit is deemed as one of those "vulnerabilities" from now on.