You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
will_get_there1
Registered Users (C)
Who Pays Federal AUSA
Not relevant for immediate struggle but how much CIS or FBI need to pays for AUSA's time (if at all) compared to what they are paying for name check.
Not relevant for immediate struggle but how much CIS or FBI need to pays for AUSA's time (if at all) compared to what they are paying for name check.
You pay both your Attorney and AUSA with taxes and 1 of them wins but both keep the money
will_get_there1 said:Not relevant for immediate struggle but how much CIS or FBI need to pays for AUSA's time (if at all) compared to what they are paying for name check.
travelinbrits
New Member
Great Info
I am really excited to have found this website! I have ALOT of reading to do and I may even pluck up the courage to file a lawsuit oneday but I just wanted to say Hi, I thought I was the only one waiting for years for my name check to clear!
I am really excited to have found this website! I have ALOT of reading to do and I may even pluck up the courage to file a lawsuit oneday but I just wanted to say Hi, I thought I was the only one waiting for years for my name check to clear!
travelinbrits said:I am really excited to have found this website! I have ALOT of reading to do and I may even pluck up the courage to file a lawsuit oneday but I just wanted to say Hi, I thought I was the only one waiting for years for my name check to clear!
Yaa..that's was my impression was too until I found this web-site..Really it's great..So when I called this lawyer to ask about filing a law suite (My N-400 appl has been stuck in name check for approx 2 yrs now), he recommended filing WOM..but after educating myself through these posts, I knew he was wrong..We need to file 1447 (b)..
It indeed is great forum - with lots of ppl providing with some helpful information.
So good luck for everything!
Letters before filing lawsuit
btw..I was wondering if someone has any copies of letters to write to congressman, senator, first lady, FBI, USCIS, etc before filing a lawsuit. I am looking for specific format I can update and send second/3rd round of letters..
If anyone is kind enuf to post their letters or provide format, would be great!
Thanks
btw..I was wondering if someone has any copies of letters to write to congressman, senator, first lady, FBI, USCIS, etc before filing a lawsuit. I am looking for specific format I can update and send second/3rd round of letters..
If anyone is kind enuf to post their letters or provide format, would be great!
Thanks
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
A BREAKTHROUGH?
From: @ic.fbi.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:17 AM
To: Caseworker, Immigration (Chambliss)
Subject: BUSHMASTER
Areview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Program database concerning BUSHMASTER revealed that the request was received from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 07/31/2003. This submission was processed and completed by the FBI on 12/18/2006. The results were forwarded to the USCIS Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
I trust this information will assist you in responding to your constituent in the event that you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs at (202) 324-XXXX
Sincerely,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hi John –
I just wanted to let you know that I received a call from the Atlanta CIS today. They said that they received a response from the FBI regarding your name check and now your file has been given to the CIS officer that handles military cases to be expedited as quickly as possible. I asked whether she had a copy of the letter from your commander and she said she did. I thought that it was important to point out that you are scheduled to be deployed any day. I emphasized the fact that it is your strong desire to be sworn in as a U.S. Citizen before you are sent to Iraq and she told me that they were “busting their butts” to get several of their military cases approved before they are deployed. At least you are out of the FBI status and on to the next step – I hope this will help make your day better. Please let me know if there’s anything further I can do to assist with this matter. Take care John – and thank you for your service to our country. And thank you for sending the article – it’s a great story!
Constituent Services Representative
U.S. SENATOR JOHN THUNE - (R-SD)
Rapid City, SD 57701
FBI Name check for a SERVICEMEMBER in the UNITED STATES ARMY: 3 years, 4 months, 18 days... and that is the only check number ONE! There are 2 other checks also submitted in 2004 and 2005. What is next? GOD BLESS AMERICA I GUESS!
From: @ic.fbi.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:17 AM
To: Caseworker, Immigration (Chambliss)
Subject: BUSHMASTER
Areview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Program database concerning BUSHMASTER revealed that the request was received from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 07/31/2003. This submission was processed and completed by the FBI on 12/18/2006. The results were forwarded to the USCIS Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
I trust this information will assist you in responding to your constituent in the event that you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs at (202) 324-XXXX
Sincerely,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hi John –
I just wanted to let you know that I received a call from the Atlanta CIS today. They said that they received a response from the FBI regarding your name check and now your file has been given to the CIS officer that handles military cases to be expedited as quickly as possible. I asked whether she had a copy of the letter from your commander and she said she did. I thought that it was important to point out that you are scheduled to be deployed any day. I emphasized the fact that it is your strong desire to be sworn in as a U.S. Citizen before you are sent to Iraq and she told me that they were “busting their butts” to get several of their military cases approved before they are deployed. At least you are out of the FBI status and on to the next step – I hope this will help make your day better. Please let me know if there’s anything further I can do to assist with this matter. Take care John – and thank you for your service to our country. And thank you for sending the article – it’s a great story!
Constituent Services Representative
U.S. SENATOR JOHN THUNE - (R-SD)
Rapid City, SD 57701
FBI Name check for a SERVICEMEMBER in the UNITED STATES ARMY: 3 years, 4 months, 18 days... and that is the only check number ONE! There are 2 other checks also submitted in 2004 and 2005. What is next? GOD BLESS AMERICA I GUESS!
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks good
Bushmaster said:A BREAKTHROUGH?
From: @ic.fbi.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:17 AM
To: Caseworker, Immigration (Chambliss)
Subject: BUSHMASTER
Areview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Program database concerning BUSHMASTER revealed that the request was received from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 07/31/2003. This submission was processed and completed by the FBI on 12/18/2006. The results were forwarded to the USCIS Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
I trust this information will assist you in responding to your constituent in the event that you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs at (202) 324-XXXX
Sincerely,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hi John –
I just wanted to let you know that I received a call from the Atlanta CIS today. They said that they received a response from the FBI regarding your name check and now your file has been given to the CIS officer that handles military cases to be expedited as quickly as possible. I asked whether she had a copy of the letter from your commander and she said she did. I thought that it was important to point out that you are scheduled to be deployed any day. I emphasized the fact that it is your strong desire to be sworn in as a U.S. Citizen before you are sent to Iraq and she told me that they were “busting their butts” to get several of their military cases approved before they are deployed. At least you are out of the FBI status and on to the next step – I hope this will help make your day better. Please let me know if there’s anything further I can do to assist with this matter. Take care John – and thank you for your service to our country. And thank you for sending the article – it’s a great story!
Constituent Services Representative
U.S. SENATOR JOHN THUNE - (R-SD)
Rapid City, SD 57701
FBI Name check for a SERVICEMEMBER in the UNITED STATES ARMY: 3 years, 4 months, 18 days... and that is the only check number ONE! There are 2 other checks also submitted in 2004 and 2005. What is next? GOD BLESS AMERICA I GUESS!
Saarlaender
Registered Users (C)
Waiting game!
Dear paz1960 and other users!
this is an uodated version of my WoM developemt from PACER:
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-XXXXX
WXXXXXX v. Gonzales et al
Assigned to: Senior Judge John H. Moore, II
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Howard T. Snyder
Cause: 08:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Date Filed: 11/09/2006
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
DCW
Ph.D. represented by DCW
XXX Rd.
Jacksonville, FL 32224
904/XXX-XXX
Fax: 904/XXX-XXX
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Attorney General represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
U.S. Attorney's Office
300 N. Hogan St., Suite 700
Jacksonville, FL 32202
904/301-6300
Fax: 904/301-6310
Email: roberto.rodriguez3@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Michael Chertoff
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Emilio T. Gonzalez
Ph.D., Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
11/09/2006 1 Pro Se PETITION for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 USC 1447(b), against Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller, III (Filing fee $350 receipt number J24420), filed by DCW.(SPW) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
11/13/2006 Summons Issued as to Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller, III, and the U.S. Attorney. (SPW) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
11/28/2006 2 RETURN of service by service on the Local U.S. Attorney on 11/14/06 and PROOF of service as to Alberto Gonzales (cannot read date), Michael Chertoff (no return receipt attached), Emilio T. Gonzalez (return receipt not complete), and Robert S. Mueller, III (no return recipt attached) by DCW (MGG) Modified on 1/22/2007 to modify docket text (sms). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
12/06/2006 3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 1. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 12/6/2006. (VMF) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
12/12/2006 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DCW re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 1 (SJW, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
12/12/2006 5 PROOF of service by DCW as to Michael Chertoff (MGG) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
01/19/2007 6 PROOF of service by DCW (Titled: Delivery confirmation of summons in civil case) (MGG) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
01/31/2007 7 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Complaint for Writ of Mandamus by all defendants. (Rodriguez, Roberto) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
02/01/2007 8 ENDORSED ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Government shall have up to and including February 15, 2006, to respond to Plaintiff's mandamus complaint. Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 2/1/2007. (ACD) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Now my question is as my AUSA has been very conservative for an enlargement of the deadline (mid February-around the corner) I would assume that by that time the name check still has not been cleared.
Is there a rule of thumb when I should become a little bit more recalcitrant. ie. opposed the motion of the AUSA to file for an enlargement of the time line.
Again, my understanding is that it is extremely unlikely to see a judge grant my motion w/o the FBI name check. However, what is an unrasonablke delay, i.e when should I start to really fight??? My AUSA is really nice guy so what is yiour advice.
Best
D.
Interview N-400: July 5, 2006
WoM: November 17, 2006
Expiration of deadline for the defendants to respond (according to USA): January 16, 2007
Extension of deadline: February 16, 2007.
paz1960 said:Rather than just waiting, you can read similar cases either on this forum or on PACER and try to prepare an Opposition to the motion to dismiss what AUSA may file at the end of the 60 days. You can hope that your case will be solved earlier but if not, you will have already a more or less ready opposition to their motion.
Dear paz1960 and other users!
this is an uodated version of my WoM developemt from PACER:
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-XXXXX
WXXXXXX v. Gonzales et al
Assigned to: Senior Judge John H. Moore, II
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Howard T. Snyder
Cause: 08:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Date Filed: 11/09/2006
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
DCW
Ph.D. represented by DCW
XXX Rd.
Jacksonville, FL 32224
904/XXX-XXX
Fax: 904/XXX-XXX
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Attorney General represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
U.S. Attorney's Office
300 N. Hogan St., Suite 700
Jacksonville, FL 32202
904/301-6300
Fax: 904/301-6310
Email: roberto.rodriguez3@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Michael Chertoff
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Emilio T. Gonzalez
Ph.D., Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation represented by Roberto H. Rodriguez, Jr.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
11/09/2006 1 Pro Se PETITION for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 USC 1447(b), against Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller, III (Filing fee $350 receipt number J24420), filed by DCW.(SPW) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
11/13/2006 Summons Issued as to Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller, III, and the U.S. Attorney. (SPW) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
11/28/2006 2 RETURN of service by service on the Local U.S. Attorney on 11/14/06 and PROOF of service as to Alberto Gonzales (cannot read date), Michael Chertoff (no return receipt attached), Emilio T. Gonzalez (return receipt not complete), and Robert S. Mueller, III (no return recipt attached) by DCW (MGG) Modified on 1/22/2007 to modify docket text (sms). (Entered: 11/28/2006)
12/06/2006 3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 1. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 12/6/2006. (VMF) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
12/12/2006 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DCW re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 1 (SJW, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
12/12/2006 5 PROOF of service by DCW as to Michael Chertoff (MGG) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
01/19/2007 6 PROOF of service by DCW (Titled: Delivery confirmation of summons in civil case) (MGG) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
01/31/2007 7 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Complaint for Writ of Mandamus by all defendants. (Rodriguez, Roberto) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
02/01/2007 8 ENDORSED ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Government shall have up to and including February 15, 2006, to respond to Plaintiff's mandamus complaint. Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 2/1/2007. (ACD) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Now my question is as my AUSA has been very conservative for an enlargement of the deadline (mid February-around the corner) I would assume that by that time the name check still has not been cleared.
Is there a rule of thumb when I should become a little bit more recalcitrant. ie. opposed the motion of the AUSA to file for an enlargement of the time line.
Again, my understanding is that it is extremely unlikely to see a judge grant my motion w/o the FBI name check. However, what is an unrasonablke delay, i.e when should I start to really fight??? My AUSA is really nice guy so what is yiour advice.
Best
D.
Interview N-400: July 5, 2006
WoM: November 17, 2006
Expiration of deadline for the defendants to respond (according to USA): January 16, 2007
Extension of deadline: February 16, 2007.
Dear Bushmaster,Bushmaster said:A BREAKTHROUGH?
From: @ic.fbi.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:17 AM
To: Caseworker, Immigration (Chambliss)
Subject: BUSHMASTER
Areview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Name Check Program database concerning BUSHMASTER revealed that the request was received from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 07/31/2003. This submission was processed and completed by the FBI on 12/18/2006. The results were forwarded to the USCIS Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
I trust this information will assist you in responding to your constituent in the event that you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs at (202) 324-XXXX
Sincerely,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hi John –
I just wanted to let you know that I received a call from the Atlanta CIS today. They said that they received a response from the FBI regarding your name check and now your file has been given to the CIS officer that handles military cases to be expedited as quickly as possible. I asked whether she had a copy of the letter from your commander and she said she did. I thought that it was important to point out that you are scheduled to be deployed any day. I emphasized the fact that it is your strong desire to be sworn in as a U.S. Citizen before you are sent to Iraq and she told me that they were “busting their butts” to get several of their military cases approved before they are deployed. At least you are out of the FBI status and on to the next step – I hope this will help make your day better. Please let me know if there’s anything further I can do to assist with this matter. Take care John – and thank you for your service to our country. And thank you for sending the article – it’s a great story!
Constituent Services Representative
U.S. SENATOR JOHN THUNE - (R-SD)
Rapid City, SD 57701
FBI Name check for a SERVICEMEMBER in the UNITED STATES ARMY: 3 years, 4 months, 18 days... and that is the only check number ONE! There are 2 other checks also submitted in 2004 and 2005. What is next? GOD BLESS AMERICA I GUESS!
I'm so glad that seems that you also can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Great news!
According to the last two lines of your post, defendants asked for an extension of 30 days, which is standard, in many cases (my AUSA also asked for 30 day extension). If AUSA asks for another 30 day, I would agree, but not before a discussion with him and telling him that you really need this case solved before the end of the second extension, because you want to...(your reason why you need this so badly). The judge probably would grant the second extension even if you would oppose it, so why not to show some goodwill and collaboration.Saarlaender said:Dear paz1960 and other users!
Now my question is as my AUSA has been very conservative for an enlargement of the deadline (mid February-around the corner) I would assume that by that time the name check still has not been cleared.
Is there a rule of thumb when I should become a little bit more recalcitrant. ie. opposed the motion of the AUSA to file for an enlargement of the time line.
Again, my understanding is that it is extremely unlikely to see a judge grant my motion w/o the FBI name check. However, what is an unrasonablke delay, i.e when should I start to really fight??? My AUSA is really nice guy so what is yiour advice.
Best
D.
Interview N-400: July 5, 2006
WoM: November 17, 2006
Expiration of deadline for the defendants to respond (according to USA): January 16, 2007
Extension of deadline: February 16, 2007.
Ultimately, it may happen that even by the end of the second extension the case is still not solved, so AUSA will be forced to file an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss or Remand, but let's worry about that only if comes. Of course, in the meantime, please continue to prepare for the fight.
Here is my latest assesment looking at the pacer from the month of Oct-Nov filling. It looks like 80-100 days after serving USattorney is still the average time of case closing with positive result. Very few cases goes above 90 days and most of them are due to late serving to AUSA or some other problems in serving summons.
I believe it is encouraging even though "no automatic name check expediate' news is up in the wild but still cases are getting adjudicated after filling WOM or 1447(b).
I believe it is encouraging even though "no automatic name check expediate' news is up in the wild but still cases are getting adjudicated after filling WOM or 1447(b).
I-485 Name Check Pending - Advice?
Hello all,
I realize this thread is dedicated mostly to N-400 lawsuits (and some to I-485 WOM's), but I know from your posts that you guys have a lot of experience (individually and collectively) fighting USCIS. I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Here is my case (family-based immigration):
I-130/I-485 Rec'd: 10/17/03 in Detroit District Office
FP: Grand Rapids ASC on 08/13/2004
Interview: Detroit District Office on 12/14/04
At the interview was told otherwise eligible, but cannot approve b/c bgrd checks not completed. Officer gave her name/address to inquire about status. Sent numerous requests via cust. service (every 6 mos., last one 8/24/06). Sent mail to adjudicating officer, district director, USCIS director of internal audit, received only boilerplate answer from district director. 1/10/06 requested Senator's assistance, he contacted CIS and FBI and confirmed name check was requested and is pending in FBI, but said he cannot expedite security checks.
I understand from your postings that suing USCIS and FBI may be helpful in expediting the name checks, but also see postings saying CIS no longer requests an expedite for a WOM lawsuit. I have requested FOIA from FBI and CIS (received a "NO RECORD" response from FBI), plan to do the following:
- contact other senator & congressman
- e-mail and call FBI's NNCP
- write to the Records management division
- write to Senate Judiciary sub-committee on immigration and house judiciary committee
- contact local FBI office in Detroit
- request a fingerprint check (FD-258)
- write to USCIS ombudsman, USCIS director, and/or Homeland Security Secretary
I believe doing the above will provide proof I have exhausted all administrative remedies, should I decide to file a WOM suit. Anything else I could do???
Also, does anyone know how many WOM cases are dismissed or remanded back to CIS with unclear/useless instructions (such as "adjudicate within 30 days of bgrd checks being completed")? Are there any cases where courts have complelled FBI or other agencies to furnish results of check w/in a specified time?
Thanks so much!
Hello all,
I realize this thread is dedicated mostly to N-400 lawsuits (and some to I-485 WOM's), but I know from your posts that you guys have a lot of experience (individually and collectively) fighting USCIS. I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Here is my case (family-based immigration):
I-130/I-485 Rec'd: 10/17/03 in Detroit District Office
FP: Grand Rapids ASC on 08/13/2004
Interview: Detroit District Office on 12/14/04
At the interview was told otherwise eligible, but cannot approve b/c bgrd checks not completed. Officer gave her name/address to inquire about status. Sent numerous requests via cust. service (every 6 mos., last one 8/24/06). Sent mail to adjudicating officer, district director, USCIS director of internal audit, received only boilerplate answer from district director. 1/10/06 requested Senator's assistance, he contacted CIS and FBI and confirmed name check was requested and is pending in FBI, but said he cannot expedite security checks.
I understand from your postings that suing USCIS and FBI may be helpful in expediting the name checks, but also see postings saying CIS no longer requests an expedite for a WOM lawsuit. I have requested FOIA from FBI and CIS (received a "NO RECORD" response from FBI), plan to do the following:
- contact other senator & congressman
- e-mail and call FBI's NNCP
- write to the Records management division
- write to Senate Judiciary sub-committee on immigration and house judiciary committee
- contact local FBI office in Detroit
- request a fingerprint check (FD-258)
- write to USCIS ombudsman, USCIS director, and/or Homeland Security Secretary
I believe doing the above will provide proof I have exhausted all administrative remedies, should I decide to file a WOM suit. Anything else I could do???
Also, does anyone know how many WOM cases are dismissed or remanded back to CIS with unclear/useless instructions (such as "adjudicate within 30 days of bgrd checks being completed")? Are there any cases where courts have complelled FBI or other agencies to furnish results of check w/in a specified time?
Thanks so much!
Salute to a soldier for no giving up
Hi Dear Bushmaster,
That is really a good news, finally you name check is cleared and case is about to be finalize. I have been seeing you in this forum for long time and read all of your posts. It was a very long voyage but your consistent struggle and patient prevailed this to be happened and that what only a solider can do.
I salute you for no giving up, constant fighting and made this to be happened.
Good bless you and your family.
Thank you.
Hi Dear Bushmaster,
That is really a good news, finally you name check is cleared and case is about to be finalize. I have been seeing you in this forum for long time and read all of your posts. It was a very long voyage but your consistent struggle and patient prevailed this to be happened and that what only a solider can do.
I salute you for no giving up, constant fighting and made this to be happened.
Good bless you and your family.
Thank you.
Bushmaster said:A BREAKTHROUGH?
FBI Name check for a SERVICEMEMBER in the UNITED STATES ARMY: 3 years, 4 months, 18 days... and that is the only check number ONE! There are 2 other checks also submitted in 2004 and 2005. What is next? GOD BLESS AMERICA I GUESS!
goldin03 said:Hello all,
I realize this thread is dedicated mostly to N-400 lawsuits (and some to I-485 WOM's), but I know from your posts that you guys have a lot of experience (individually and collectively) fighting USCIS. I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Here is my case (family-based immigration):
I-130/I-485 Rec'd: 10/17/03 in Detroit District Office
FP: Grand Rapids ASC on 08/13/2004
Interview: Detroit District Office on 12/14/04
At the interview was told otherwise eligible, but cannot approve b/c bgrd checks not completed. Officer gave her name/address to inquire about status. Sent numerous requests via cust. service (every 6 mos., last one 8/24/06). Sent mail to adjudicating officer, district director, USCIS director of internal audit, received only boilerplate answer from district director. 1/10/06 requested Senator's assistance, he contacted CIS and FBI and confirmed name check was requested and is pending in FBI, but said he cannot expedite security checks.
I understand from your postings that suing USCIS and FBI may be helpful in expediting the name checks, but also see postings saying CIS no longer requests an expedite for a WOM lawsuit. I have requested FOIA from FBI and CIS (received a "NO RECORD" response from FBI), plan to do the following:
- contact other senator & congressman
- e-mail and call FBI's NNCP
- write to the Records management division
- write to Senate Judiciary sub-committee on immigration and house judiciary committee
- contact local FBI office in Detroit
- request a fingerprint check (FD-258)
- write to USCIS ombudsman, USCIS director, and/or Homeland Security Secretary
I believe doing the above will provide proof I have exhausted all administrative remedies, should I decide to file a WOM suit. Anything else I could do???
Also, does anyone know how many WOM cases are dismissed or remanded back to CIS with unclear/useless instructions (such as "adjudicate within 30 days of bgrd checks being completed")? Are there any cases where courts have complelled FBI or other agencies to furnish results of check w/in a specified time?
Thanks so much!
As far as I know, as of today, there is no official Memo or statemnet from USCIS that that they are not expediating the name check for the WOM cases. Actually, some people on the forum got a letter from AUSA about it (Paz, please correct me if I am wrong here).
It does not, howeever, mean that they are goona expediate the name check immidiately after you file a WOM. you will most likely have to fight. I agree with you that if you have done all the above remedies, you should be able to defend in the court that there is nothing you can do now. I think you should have done some of the above because your case is very old. But please remember to send everything through the certified mail with the return recipet, so you have the proof to show in the court. If you send some letters with regular mail before, send them again with certified mail. I would recommend you do all of the above in the next two months and if you do not get any response, file a WOM in April.
I know how stupid it is!! These pople just do not care. They do not understand the stress that each one of us has to go through. We have to stand up for ourselves. You can ask any question on this forum. People here are very very helpful and it is a good idea to go through other posts in this thread. Good luck to you!!
I agree with DUDE, all the proposed actions (besides the ones you already did) will prove that you did everything possible to avoid a lawsuit.goldin03 said:Hello all,
....
Also, does anyone know how many WOM cases are dismissed or remanded back to CIS with unclear/useless instructions (such as "adjudicate within 30 days of bgrd checks being completed")? Are there any cases where courts have complelled FBI or other agencies to furnish results of check w/in a specified time?
Thanks so much!
And yes, there are many cases where the Courts ordered FBI/USCIS to complete the name check/adjudication in XX days. I lised about 12 such cases in the draft Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss or Remand, attached to the post #8477.
Last edited by a moderator:
US Attorney filed Motion of Dismiss to my I-485 WOM
Paz and other heros,
I need your urgent advice on how to proceed with my I-485 (green card) WOM. I followed the examples posted on this forum and filed my WOM pro se on 10/23/2006 at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On 12/22/2006, the Assistant US Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with the following arguements:
1. The district court does not have jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC §§ 1391
2. THe disctrict court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, because Plaintiff is not eligible for mandamus relief
3. The court lacks jurisdiction to review my complaint under APA, 5 USC §§ 701 et seq
4. I am not entitled to an order of declaratory judgement under 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202
5. The district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary administrative determinations pursuant to REAL ID Act, 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
I called the Assistant US Attorney who handles my case, and she told me that she did not ask the USCIS to expedite my case because I have to wait even my name check has been pending since March 2003.
The following is the brief of my case:
08/25/2001, I-485 (family based) received by Washington DC District Office
01/14/2003, First FP
03/26/2003, AOS Interview at Washington DC District Office, was told case could not be proved due to name check pending
05/25/2005, Second FP
07/25/2005, Files moved to Dallas District Office due to relocation
10/23/2006 WOM Filed at Northern District Court of Texas
12/23/2006, US Attorney filed Motion to Dismiss
I have tried InfoPass appointments, congress/senator inquiries numerous times before I filed WOM, and now the US Attorney does not show any mercy and filed the Motion to Dismiss.
I have bee very depressed since I received the Motion to Dismiss. I seek for your advice on how to proceed. Do you recommend me to hire a lawyer or not? Do you have a sample letter for opposing the Motion to Dismiss?
Olin
Paz and other heros,
I need your urgent advice on how to proceed with my I-485 (green card) WOM. I followed the examples posted on this forum and filed my WOM pro se on 10/23/2006 at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On 12/22/2006, the Assistant US Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with the following arguements:
1. The district court does not have jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC §§ 1391
2. THe disctrict court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, because Plaintiff is not eligible for mandamus relief
3. The court lacks jurisdiction to review my complaint under APA, 5 USC §§ 701 et seq
4. I am not entitled to an order of declaratory judgement under 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202
5. The district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary administrative determinations pursuant to REAL ID Act, 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
I called the Assistant US Attorney who handles my case, and she told me that she did not ask the USCIS to expedite my case because I have to wait even my name check has been pending since March 2003.
The following is the brief of my case:
08/25/2001, I-485 (family based) received by Washington DC District Office
01/14/2003, First FP
03/26/2003, AOS Interview at Washington DC District Office, was told case could not be proved due to name check pending
05/25/2005, Second FP
07/25/2005, Files moved to Dallas District Office due to relocation
10/23/2006 WOM Filed at Northern District Court of Texas
12/23/2006, US Attorney filed Motion to Dismiss
I have tried InfoPass appointments, congress/senator inquiries numerous times before I filed WOM, and now the US Attorney does not show any mercy and filed the Motion to Dismiss.
I have bee very depressed since I received the Motion to Dismiss. I seek for your advice on how to proceed. Do you recommend me to hire a lawyer or not? Do you have a sample letter for opposing the Motion to Dismiss?
Olin
Unfortunately, it is too late. I just checked your Local Rules:Olin said:Paz and other heros,
I need your urgent advice on how to proceed with my I-485 (green card) WOM. I followed the examples posted on this forum and filed my WOM pro se on 10/23/2006 at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On 12/22/2006, the Assistant US Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with the following arguements:
1. The district court does not have jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC §§ 1391
2. THe disctrict court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, because Plaintiff is not eligible for mandamus relief
3. The court lacks jurisdiction to review my complaint under APA, 5 USC §§ 701 et seq
4. I am not entitled to an order of declaratory judgement under 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202
5. The district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary administrative determinations pursuant to REAL ID Act, 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
I called the Assistant US Attorney who handles my case, and she told me that she did not ask the USCIS to expedite my case because I have to wait even my name check has been pending since March 2003.
The following is the brief of my case:
08/25/2001, I-485 (family based) received by Washington DC District Office
01/14/2003, First FP
03/26/2003, AOS Interview at Washington DC District Office, was told case could not be proved due to name check pending
05/25/2005, Second FP
07/25/2005, Files moved to Dallas District Office due to relocation
10/23/2006 WOM Filed at Northern District Court of Texas
12/23/2006, US Attorney filed Motion to Dismiss
I have tried InfoPass appointments, congress/senator inquiries numerous times before I filed WOM, and now the US Attorney does not show any mercy and filed the Motion to Dismiss.
I have bee very depressed since I received the Motion to Dismiss. I seek for your advice on how to proceed. Do you recommend me to hire a lawyer or not? Do you have a sample letter for opposing the Motion to Dismiss?
Olin
LR 7.1. e:
Time for Response and Brief. A response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 20 days from the date the motion is filed.
This means that you would have to file a Response of this Motion to Dismiss by 1/13/2007. Sometimes filing a lawsuit and just wait and hope that this will solve your problem, is not enough. I'm not sure that anything can be done at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Olin said:Paz and other heros,
I need your urgent advice on how to proceed with my I-485 (green card) WOM. I followed the examples posted on this forum and filed my WOM pro se on 10/23/2006 at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On 12/22/2006, the Assistant US Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with the following arguements:
1. The district court does not have jurisdiction of this case under 28 USC §§ 1391
2. THe disctrict court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, because Plaintiff is not eligible for mandamus relief
3. The court lacks jurisdiction to review my complaint under APA, 5 USC §§ 701 et seq
4. I am not entitled to an order of declaratory judgement under 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202
5. The district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary administrative determinations pursuant to REAL ID Act, 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
I called the Assistant US Attorney who handles my case, and she told me that she did not ask the USCIS to expedite my case because I have to wait even my name check has been pending since March 2003.
The following is the brief of my case:
08/25/2001, I-485 (family based) received by Washington DC District Office
01/14/2003, First FP
03/26/2003, AOS Interview at Washington DC District Office, was told case could not be proved due to name check pending
05/25/2005, Second FP
07/25/2005, Files moved to Dallas District Office due to relocation
10/23/2006 WOM Filed at Northern District Court of Texas
12/23/2006, US Attorney filed Motion to Dismiss
I have tried InfoPass appointments, congress/senator inquiries numerous times before I filed WOM, and now the US Attorney does not show any mercy and filed the Motion to Dismiss.
I have bee very depressed since I received the Motion to Dismiss. I seek for your advice on how to proceed. Do you recommend me to hire a lawyer or not? Do you have a sample letter for opposing the Motion to Dismiss?
Olin
I am kind of surprised why you did not stayed on top of your case. If you would have replied with in 20 days of your alloted time we would have for sure helped you.
Did Judge ruled on your case yet like dismissed it or not?
Some times I know Judges rule after defendents file motion to dismiss. Like Plaintiff have ___ date to respond or case will be dismissed. But some times if judges are busy court clerk send out hand out to plaintiff with local rule specially if you are pro se.
I would contact court clerk and explain it to him that I am pro se and I was not aware of this rule. You can file motion with court to consider giving some more time to Plaintiff to respond as he is pro se and trying to seek legal help. Usually Judges are not strick. they have authority to tell court clerk to make Doc changes so I think there might be some light in the tunnel. try it let us know.