My AUSA lied to me all the time.
She told me she needs to hear back from USCIS but was preparing motion to dismiss
She told me she needs to hear back from USCIS but was preparing motion to dismiss
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Fingure prints 3rd time
Well today I went for fingers prints for 3rd time in over 3 years. First off all CIS messed up and instead of sending me notice for N400 fingers prints they send me for I-90 which I believe is for extending green card. So the punk teenager at front desk tried to turn me back by saying "YOU made a mistake and should not have asked for I-90 since my green card does not expire for another 6 years". So I forcefully demanded an officer since I did not want to explain my over three year ordeal to this chump. Officer was nice and recognized my name and was kind enough to realize the mistake and let me fingers printed for N400 and signed on the receipt. While I was waiting for an hour I could see one officer in his office playing a “VIDEO GAME” from 10:30AM to 11:30AM so I doubt he was on his lunch break. After waiting for 1 hour my turn for fingers prints came and the girl was busy talking to her friend about her hair color and messed up my A# and address which I luckily noticed. She moved on to next screen while still yapping with her friend and I had to remind her twice that she messed up. Upon going back two pages she realized she screwed up and fixed it.
It is really scary how CIS functions and I understand why they take so much time and why they give us poor hard working folk’s hard time who work their butts off instead of working like these federal employees who have gotten way too comfortable at their jobs. Only way we can change this reckless, unprofessional and non hard working attitude is by LAW SUIT.
Well today I went for fingers prints for 3rd time in over 3 years. First off all CIS messed up and instead of sending me notice for N400 fingers prints they send me for I-90 which I believe is for extending green card. So the punk teenager at front desk tried to turn me back by saying "YOU made a mistake and should not have asked for I-90 since my green card does not expire for another 6 years". So I forcefully demanded an officer since I did not want to explain my over three year ordeal to this chump. Officer was nice and recognized my name and was kind enough to realize the mistake and let me fingers printed for N400 and signed on the receipt. While I was waiting for an hour I could see one officer in his office playing a “VIDEO GAME” from 10:30AM to 11:30AM so I doubt he was on his lunch break. After waiting for 1 hour my turn for fingers prints came and the girl was busy talking to her friend about her hair color and messed up my A# and address which I luckily noticed. She moved on to next screen while still yapping with her friend and I had to remind her twice that she messed up. Upon going back two pages she realized she screwed up and fixed it.
It is really scary how CIS functions and I understand why they take so much time and why they give us poor hard working folk’s hard time who work their butts off instead of working like these federal employees who have gotten way too comfortable at their jobs. Only way we can change this reckless, unprofessional and non hard working attitude is by LAW SUIT.
According to new expedite criteria CIS will expedite checks if "There is a compelling reason provided by requesting office". This looks subjective. Also a mere mandamus 'filing' no more falls into this category but a court order should definitly fall in this category. Any ideas on what else could fall into this ? like AUSA pressure, possiblity of a court order or discovery order etc ? I know its hard to speculate but would give us some idea of the threshold. I guess only time will tell.
Not to worry, its only 2nd time. I just went today to get finersprinted for 3rd time
. You would think after 9/11 CIS would start working faster to protect this beautifull country yet they choose to go other way and taking longer and longer on every single step.The decision is made by USCIS General Counsel Office, it is not necessary that USCIS tell everthing to AUSA unless AUSA push hard. AUSA wouldn't know what order they will get. It is normal when you see they perpare for the Motion of Dismiss: they have to get ready for the worst. From the legal standard, they are on your oppesite (I hate to use enenmy), but they dont have any obligation to tell you everthing. Don't be discouraged by AUSA's attitude, you also need perpare for the worst.
I served My summons about same time as yours and according to AUSA they expediated my name check around end of Nov 06. I do not know that information is correct or not but that is what he told me. I have reason to believe him as he mentioned on motion to extend time that Agencies indicated that name check can be completed make above caption matter moot. He him self trying hard to settle instead or pleading. He hinted FBI has now queue of expediated name check requests too so that is why it started getting slow now but it all depends on case by case.
Yea my US Attorney also lied to me in a way I guess. I called her in December and she said my back ground is clear now so I should be hearing back soon and two weeks later I get a motion to dismiss from them. I called her back and she appologied alot and said the order came from higher up.
Last Update
Hello All
First all let me take this opportunity to thank:
1. Allah (god) for guided me to this web page to fight for my right.
2. The persons who is keeping this website running, Thank you
3. Publicus,JohnnyCash,paz1960, bashar82 and all others who helped directly or indirectly for answering questions to me or others.
5/22/06 filed my lawsuit 1447b (132 days after the interview)
2/13/07 the USCIS want to settle the case if i dismiss the case and the they will adjudicate my application within 30 days
2/16/07 got my oath letter.
I wish all the best to all of us.........
Hello All
First all let me take this opportunity to thank:
1. Allah (god) for guided me to this web page to fight for my right.
2. The persons who is keeping this website running, Thank you
3. Publicus,JohnnyCash,paz1960, bashar82 and all others who helped directly or indirectly for answering questions to me or others.
5/22/06 filed my lawsuit 1447b (132 days after the interview)
2/13/07 the USCIS want to settle the case if i dismiss the case and the they will adjudicate my application within 30 days
2/16/07 got my oath letter.
I wish all the best to all of us.........
Last edited by a moderator:
My I-485 Approved After WoM
My wife and mine I-485 were approved two days ago. I want to thank every posters in the forum, especially Paz, Wenlock, and other active members for their time and valuable experience. I have two lawyers working for me on my WoM, but I feel I trust this forum better.
I want to share with everyone my experience during the WoM, the following is my timeline:
NC Request Submitted by USCIS: Jan, 2004
WoM Filed in Central CA: Oct 3, 2006
AUSA Filed 30-day Extension: Dec. 8, 2006
AUSA Filed Answer: Jan. 8, 2007
AUSA Filed Amended Answer: Feb. 7, 2007
I-485 Approved via Email: Feb. 22, 2007
In Central District of CA, there are a lot of immigration-related lawsuits and AUSAs are generally very busy and not nice. They are very unaccessible, even for my lawyers. I was totally in dark until a month ago that I was told the NC expediate was sent before Dec. 21. Having a nice AUSA is more important than having a good lawyer, but this is pure luck that we cann't control.
Looking back, what happened was that the government did not intend to fight me because my I-485 application is a very straight forward case. But there is a line even for NC expediate, so when my NC was still pending, they had to keep filing something to buy more time. At same time, AUSAs really do not care this kind of lawsuits so they want to spend as little time as possible. My strong advise is that, if you are Pro Se, you should communication with your AUSA and establish good relationship with him as early as appropriate.
Good luck everyone.
My wife and mine I-485 were approved two days ago. I want to thank every posters in the forum, especially Paz, Wenlock, and other active members for their time and valuable experience. I have two lawyers working for me on my WoM, but I feel I trust this forum better.
I want to share with everyone my experience during the WoM, the following is my timeline:
NC Request Submitted by USCIS: Jan, 2004
WoM Filed in Central CA: Oct 3, 2006
AUSA Filed 30-day Extension: Dec. 8, 2006
AUSA Filed Answer: Jan. 8, 2007
AUSA Filed Amended Answer: Feb. 7, 2007
I-485 Approved via Email: Feb. 22, 2007
In Central District of CA, there are a lot of immigration-related lawsuits and AUSAs are generally very busy and not nice. They are very unaccessible, even for my lawyers. I was totally in dark until a month ago that I was told the NC expediate was sent before Dec. 21. Having a nice AUSA is more important than having a good lawyer, but this is pure luck that we cann't control.
Looking back, what happened was that the government did not intend to fight me because my I-485 application is a very straight forward case. But there is a line even for NC expediate, so when my NC was still pending, they had to keep filing something to buy more time. At same time, AUSAs really do not care this kind of lawsuits so they want to spend as little time as possible. My strong advise is that, if you are Pro Se, you should communication with your AUSA and establish good relationship with him as early as appropriate.
Good luck everyone.
I do not have anything else. Where did you find about Attachment C?
Class Actions' Consequences?
I already mentioned a phone call I got from the SF ACLU rep. who collected my husband's info and said they'll be in touch in about a month about decla-n to court to be included into the class action (-at least that's my take on what she meant).
After sharing thoughts through private e-mails with a couple of CA members I wanted to address all of you:
Has anyone thought of the implications these class actions may bring to the situation?
Both CA law suits state in the Prayer for Relief:
4. Order defendants to properly adjudicate, in a time period not to exceed 90 days, the currently pending applications for naturalization of all members of the proposed class, other than the named Plaintiffs;
5. Order Defendants to adjudicate, within 120 days of the date of the naturalization examination, all applications for naturalization that shall be submitted in the future by members of the proposed class, as required by governing law;
6. Order Defendants to conduct all "name checks" within 90 days of the submission of naturalization applications by members of the proposed class, in the event that Defendants have implemented or shall implement a new practice or policy of conducting "name checks" prior to the naturalization examination; (-excerpts from LA class action filed Aug./06)
The request to speed up is really impossible to implement given the current state of affairs in FBI and CIS. Together with the recent SF Class action prayer to implement a procedure for "identifying unreasonably delayed applications" (while the existing name checks stockpiled) they may backfire, causing Congress to implement an amendment to lift ANY time limits on "security-warranted" clearances of applicants. In alternative, the government can issue an order allowing CIS & FBI to take much longer, or indefinite time on all pending name checks while enforcing the newer policy of not conducting exams without completed name checks (which again, without total reorganization of the process, would take years to wait).
That's what I think may happen. Paz and other seniors, have you seen any outcome from the earlier Class actions, (I remember there was one in Chicago), or do you have any thoughts on this issue?
The other, seemingly illogical thing is, the ACLU lady mentioned declaration to court as a next step for us while according to their prayer, we should be automatically included in the proposed class (-after I voiced the hope to be included, instead of asking the right question: "how they expect their action to progress?")
The other question I didn't see addresed here is: how legal or permitted is it to plagiarize other's petitions/motions, has anyone asked any attorney a permission to use his/er texts?
Meanwhile I am going to prepare my petionion, heavily "relying" on the available 1447-s filed and at the same time waiting for the answer from ACLU. But I will try to file in a month, before April.
Good luck to everyone,
Shvili
I already mentioned a phone call I got from the SF ACLU rep. who collected my husband's info and said they'll be in touch in about a month about decla-n to court to be included into the class action (-at least that's my take on what she meant).
After sharing thoughts through private e-mails with a couple of CA members I wanted to address all of you:
Has anyone thought of the implications these class actions may bring to the situation?
Both CA law suits state in the Prayer for Relief:
4. Order defendants to properly adjudicate, in a time period not to exceed 90 days, the currently pending applications for naturalization of all members of the proposed class, other than the named Plaintiffs;
5. Order Defendants to adjudicate, within 120 days of the date of the naturalization examination, all applications for naturalization that shall be submitted in the future by members of the proposed class, as required by governing law;
6. Order Defendants to conduct all "name checks" within 90 days of the submission of naturalization applications by members of the proposed class, in the event that Defendants have implemented or shall implement a new practice or policy of conducting "name checks" prior to the naturalization examination; (-excerpts from LA class action filed Aug./06)
The request to speed up is really impossible to implement given the current state of affairs in FBI and CIS. Together with the recent SF Class action prayer to implement a procedure for "identifying unreasonably delayed applications" (while the existing name checks stockpiled) they may backfire, causing Congress to implement an amendment to lift ANY time limits on "security-warranted" clearances of applicants. In alternative, the government can issue an order allowing CIS & FBI to take much longer, or indefinite time on all pending name checks while enforcing the newer policy of not conducting exams without completed name checks (which again, without total reorganization of the process, would take years to wait).
That's what I think may happen. Paz and other seniors, have you seen any outcome from the earlier Class actions, (I remember there was one in Chicago), or do you have any thoughts on this issue?
The other, seemingly illogical thing is, the ACLU lady mentioned declaration to court as a next step for us while according to their prayer, we should be automatically included in the proposed class (-after I voiced the hope to be included, instead of asking the right question: "how they expect their action to progress?")
The other question I didn't see addresed here is: how legal or permitted is it to plagiarize other's petitions/motions, has anyone asked any attorney a permission to use his/er texts?
Meanwhile I am going to prepare my petionion, heavily "relying" on the available 1447-s filed
and at the same time waiting for the answer from ACLU. But I will try to file in a month, before April. Good luck to everyone,
Shvili
zlp6945835
New Member
I got FBI letter indicated that my name check cleared on Jan 30 2007, and they forward this informaion to USCIS in DC. but I haven't get any information from USCIS yet, I went to local office by inforpass, I was told my security check is not finishd yet, I called USCIS customas service, they do not have upgrated information either. my question is how long I need wait after name check? Thanks
Liping
Liping
In our cases, the only email we got was the I-485 approval email. We do not know when our NC was cleared.
I would not trust customer people at all, they are a butch of minimum wage earners who do not know the basics. Info pass is more helpful but their system sometime is not updated. For instance, I have seen a few posts saying that their NC expediate was sent but Info Pass system could not confirm it. A letter from FBI should be the most reilable evidence that your NC is clear. I would not worry.
From what I see in this forum, it should take less that 1 month for you to get the approval, if NC is the only hurdle pending.
Good luck.
zlp,
Who did you address the letter to? Can you send me any information on how I can get the FBI to give me a status on my name check request.
I have a WOM filed, my attorney didn't include the FBI in the defendants list.
It would be really handy in case AUSA files any motions as an exhibit.
Thanks.
congratulations!!!!
Though there are less and slower WoM good news, you keep us in hope
Though there are less and slower WoM good news, you keep us in hope
Based on above relief I do not see any favourable results. I am sure Judge will not rule on some thing like this. If he did I bet USCIS will contact congress and have emergency bill passed to counter that. It is just not possible that they will get name check clear in 90 days.
System is broken. Until USCIS and FBI start using risk based approach in targeting criminals and bad people numbers will always outgrow system capacity to handle load period.
Judges understand this and they will not rule some thing that will cause system to fail all together plus who is benefiting from the process and ruling immigrants not us citizens.
Congratulation finaly after few days we got good news in this forum. I saw few cases on pacer those were pending more then 9 months and they finaly got settled with plaintiff got applications adjudicated.
I agree that even expediated name check requests are getting delayed due to queue.
Paz,
If I already responded to defendants motion to dismiss can I still file a motion to strike parts of their motion to dismiss that I found incorrect?
Thanks
(f) Motion To Strike.
Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
If I already responded to defendants motion to dismiss can I still file a motion to strike parts of their motion to dismiss that I found incorrect?
Thanks
(f) Motion To Strike.
Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.