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

About the New USCIS memo

I want to make other comments about this new USCIS Memo. It says that name check is a very important part of the FBI investigation and etc and etc, but does it allow FBI or USCIS to put these cases in a blackhhole and forget it forever. I mean that if there is somebody who has or could do harm to this country and you are holding his case and letting him live here freely, is that going to protect American people. Is it not dangerous for the country if anyone who could harm it, is living freely. So, what they really need to do(if they are sincere and really wanna protect this country) is to check all these name checks and find people who are really a threat to this country and kick them out. It should not happen that we all have to suffer forever for no reason or just because we have "Hit" in this blackhole called the name check.
I am saying this because I just aclled USCIS and spoke to a Information officer( He was the first one I have seen so far who was very courteaous and nice). Actually, up till now, I had been gone several times to my local office and called several times and nobody was even able to tell me what type of check/s is still pending. This officer has finally told me that the only thing pending is the FBI name check and the initial information was sent from USCIS to FBI on March 10, 2004. Almost three years. How about those people who got their citizenship who filed even two years later than all of us here.
Anyway, I think this memo is just to scare some people who want to go to the court because they are really frustrated by all these lawsuits and I also think that nobody should get scared from this memo. I just wanted to share this with you folks. Thanks.
 
gmlvsk said:
When, after filing opposition to motion to dismiss can one file for summary judgment?
Thanks
Click to expand...

I saw several cases where Plaintiff filed in the same document Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Cross Motion for Summary Judgement. Deducing from this, I believe that you can file any time a motion for summary judgement after defendants filed a motion to dismiss and you opposed that.

However, make sure that your case qualifies for summary judgement. Read what are the requirements for summary judgement in the FRCP and in the N.Cal. Pro Se handbook.
 
sksharma76 said:
Ok i know this issue has been discussed here many times but i served the summons on 02/05/2007 via USPS certified mail but filed the summons return papers with court yesterday and today when i looked at pacer clerk of court put them as served 02/21/2007 and answer due 03/13/07.
I know the answer is not due till 60 days in court as this is a goverment defendant. and the 60 days should start from the day defendants got the summons ie 02/05/2007 not 02/21/2007 the day i filed the return proof in court right .Should i call the clerk and ask her to fix it or this is something they are going to take care of
thanks
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's your duty to try to correct the answer due date. I'm almost sure that AUSA will complain about this, because they know that they should have 60 days to answer your complaint after they were served.
 
paz1960 said:
I don't think that it's your duty to try to correct the answer due date. I'm almost sure that AUSA will complain about this, because they know that they should have 60 days to answer your complaint after they were served.
Click to expand...

thanks paz for quick reply what about the beginning of 60 days isnt it from the day summons were served ie 5th feb and not the day i filed return of servicec ie 21 feb
 
sksharma76 said:
thanks paz for quick reply what about the beginning of 60 days isnt it from the day summons were served ie 5th feb and not the day i filed return of servicec ie 21 feb
Click to expand...

Here are the rules for time to respond


Rule 12(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that the United States, an
agency of the United States, or an officer or employee of the United States sued in an official
capacity must file a written response to the complaint within sixty days after the United States
Attorney is served.
Rule 12(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that an officer or
employee of the United States sued in an individual capacity for acts or omissions occurring in
connection with the performance of duties on behalf of the United States must file a written
response to the complaint within sixty days after he or she was served, or within sixty days after
the United States Attorney is served, whichever is later.



Now in may case looks like USattorney used 12(a)(3)(B) in calculating time and used when last defendent was served as start of 60 days. I think it is wrong I mentioned in my case all officials are sued in Official capacity not in indivitual capacity

Looks like he made mistake in calculating time. I am not sure it is wise to mention this in motion to opposition or not.
 
From what i understand summary judgment possible when there are no
disputed facts. I think majority of Mandamus v. USCIS qualify.
Also if summary judgment rejected case not lost but converted to regular one

paz1960 said:
I saw several cases where Plaintiff filed in the same document Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Cross Motion for Summary Judgement. Deducing from this, I believe that you can file any time a motion for summary judgement after defendants filed a motion to dismiss and you opposed that.

However, make sure that your case qualifies for summary judgement. Read what are the requirements for summary judgement in the FRCP and in the N.Cal. Pro Se handbook.
Click to expand...
 
wenlock said:
Remember this also put pressure on Justice department too they will fight these cases but if they lose they will have to pay Attorney fees and every thing. So it can also back fire at them.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, so I guess they will only expedite name check for those cases which have high risk to lose in the court. That also reduced their pay attonery fee to low risk level. I noticed recently here, less case were approved compared to one or two months ago. Is that the effection of this new policy?
 
wenlock said:
Remember this also put pressure on Justice department too they will fight these cases but if they lose they will have to pay Attorney fees and every thing. So it can also back fire at them.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest effect is things will take even longer.. I mean now where we can think of WOM after 15 months to 2 years.. and then take 3-4 months for an answer it will add another 6 months as they will be harder on these cases.. more arguments on both side and more waste of time.

In the end they can not just forget about a lawsuit.
 
personal opinion

This is my personal opinion

1- The USCIS's statement will discourage 70% of the people who were thinking about filing a lawsuit from going ahead with it because they think it won't work anymore
2- The motion to dismiss after 60 days will discourage 20% of the remaining plaintifss who decide to stop at that
3- USCIS will have to pay to expedite the process to the remaining 10% of the plaintiffs ONLY who are fightng till the end...

USCIS MUST BE THINKING: GENIUS IDEA... WE ISSUE A ONE PAGE STATEMENT IN THE MEDIA AND CUT DOWN OUR COSTS BY 90% !!!!!

IN CONCLUSION:

FIGHT TILL THE END !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS YOUR RIGHT !
 
Ibrahim Vs. Chertoff.

paz1960 said:
I also think that you missed something. If you read the stipulation and order of the court, you will see that this case was dismissed after BOTH parties agreed, i.e., the case was resolved by USCIS before the stipulation was entered. The opposition of the motion to dismiss was written by one of the most known immigration lawyers in Michigan. I saw many cases represented by him, although I didn't read this case, so I can't speak for the quality of this particular opposition.
Click to expand...

Paz, or anyone:

Can you please post the Ibrahim vs. Chertoff response to Motion to Dismiss?

Thank you,:)
 
U.S. Senators and the Name Check Process

Hiram said:
zl2007, can you please post yours once it is completed.

FYI:

I talked to a lawyer and he told me that there is an intention from USCIS/FBI to put an end for WOM to expedite namecheck through congressional voting... This is way more dangerous than the internal guidelines set by the USCIS last January to no longer automatically expedite namechecks when a mandamus suite is filed

so if you're still hesitant... file before April 2007
Click to expand...


This is interesting. My name check is completed and evidently on the way back to USCIS.
Nonetheles, I contacted my Senator several weeks ago and received the standard letter from his staff. However, what was interesting was an attachment by the Senator's office staff called "USCIS CASE STUCK IN FBI PULGATORY?". Certain passages were highlighted, in particular the criteria for the expedite name check (which evidently still exists). One staff member highlighted as one of the five criteria:
"Writ of Mandamus - lawsuit pending in Federal Court." So it seems that, as U.S. Congressmen and Senators cannot according to the FAQ National Name Check Program pamphlet, which was laso attached to the letter from both my Senator and the Congressman ("Because each customer agency determines which name checks are expedited contatcting Congressional representatives, the FBI's Office of Congressional Affairs, or the NNCP will only further tie up vital resources and will not contribute to the expediting of a name check.") expedite the case, Congressional representatives (or their staff) list the lawsuits as an opprotunity.
However, I believe when you write the WoM it is helpful to list that you were active in the attempt to get the matter resolved (letter to the Congressional representatives etc) even though the outcome is questionable.
I thought it was very interesting receiving a letter from a U.S. Senator that clearly and explicitky indicates the lawsuit as a way to expedite the name check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sksharma76 said:
Sorry that was the motion.my bas i will find the response and post it later
thanks
Click to expand...

Ok finally here is it i just got it of pacer.The PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS in Ibrahim VS Chertoff case in Eastern district of Michigan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you please post this attachment from your senator office? It might be interesting.
Thanks,
Z.

P.S. I actually received a list of criteria for FBI Name Check Expedite from USCIS Officer during one of my Info Pass visits. This list clearly stated Writ of Mandamus as a criterion for NC expedition. However, as it was posted here today, USCIS removed Writ of Mandamus from the expedition criteria list as February 20, 2007. It does not mean Writ of Mandamus won't work anymore. It means that cases won't be expedited automatically.


Saarlaender said:
This is interesting. My name check is completed and evidently on the way back to USCIS.
Nonetheles, I contacted my Senator several weeks ago and received the standard letter from his staff. However, what was interesting was an attachment by the Senator's office staff called "USCIS CASE STUCK IN FBI PULGATORY?". Certain passages were highlighted, in particular the criteria for the expedite name check (which evidently still exists). One staff member highlighted as one of the five criteria:
"Writ of Mandamus - lawsuit pending in Federal Court." So it seems that, as U.S. Congressmen and Senators cannot according to the FAQ National Name Check Program pamphlet, which was laso attached to the letter from both my Senator and the Congressman ("Because each customer agency determines which name checks are expedited contatcting Congressional representatives, the FBI's Office of Congressional Affairs, or the NNCP will only further tie up vital resources and will not contribute to the expediting of a name check.") expedite the case, Congressional representatives (or their staff) list the lawsuits as an opprotunity.
However, I believe when you write the WoM it is helpful to list that you were active in the attempt to get the matter resolved (letter to the Congressional representatives etc) even though the outcome is questionable.
I thought it was very interesting receiving a letter from a U.S. Senator that clearly and explicitky indicates the lawsuit as a way to expedite the name check.
Click to expand...
 
hhk2005 said:
My name check has been pending from April 2005. Today, I received the appointment notice for second fingerprint. My first fingerprint expired in Nov 2006. Is it usual for USCIS to issue the second fingerprint appointment after the first fingerprint expires or is it a sign that my name check might have been cleared. Thanks everyone.
Click to expand...

I don't think that we can tell with high confidence. I saw reports that 2nd FP invitation was a sign of cleared name check and also reports when USCIS sent another FP letter automatically when 15 months expired. Let's be optimistic and hope that you are getting close now.
 
Hi, I m trying to help a friend with the proof of service, we served the state Attorney general personally we went to his office and deliver , How can we add this action to the proof of service package?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top