Thanks for the tips
! I will take up the gym advice. I learned first hand not to drink alone or depressed. -ipoh.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Thanks for the tips
! I will take up the gym advice. I learned first hand not to drink alone or depressed. -ipoh.
Thanks for the tips
-ipoh.
The wise ones advice against the gym! It has to be open air.
Good luck!
snorlax
What is connection between this article and your husband? Is he illegal immigrant??? "a path to citizenship that would give illegal immigrants — the ones who wait and prove they deserve it"....
First of all illegal immigrants should apply for Green Card and then 5 years later apply to citizenship. I believe u did not understand this article at all.
Hi akram,
You can find about the judge assigned to your case by going onto pacer and checking his ruling on 890 cases. In any way, who is judge do not make difference any more, be ready to fight till the end.
You can find out about the AUSA assigned to your case by calling the AUSA office and talking to civil process clerk. In my case AUSA was assigned just next day of serving summons to AUSA office but different districts are different.
Good luck
Hi ipoh,
I understand what you are talking about, my self going through the same situation. It has been 4 month passed, I am unable to sleep. Doctors want me to use antidepressant but I refused to use them. As compared to indoor, outdoor sports is a very good help in this kind of situation. I will suggest jogging and bicycling, that what I am doing too.
Good luck
Thank you
I took the article' words, "With a new Congress and a new comprehensive immigration bill", at a face value:"comprehensive" synonyms are: "complete, inclusive, all-inlusive, broad, full, reaching,.." (-English Thesaurus). So unless the word, "comprehensive" in this bill acquired an extra meaning, (of which, -you are correct, I am not aware), I guess my interpretation IS logical, i.e. to assume that it applies to ALL immigrants, (not just illegal ones).
As for my husband's status, I believe you did not really follow the forum as I provided his information quite COMPREHENSIVELY a few pages back
.IMHO I undestand that the article mostly focused on implications for the illegals, my question is, IS this bill THE SAME NEW LAW THAT OTHER MEMBER (not you, Kefira!), MENTIONED A FEW PAGES BACK?? And Kefira, if you do not know the answer you don't have to reply to this post.
If someone (Paz, other pros?) know what this bill is about, please, comment. My concern (again) is, should we (-who have not filed yet but working on it) be worried that something might change within a few wks from today.
Shvili
I took the article' words, "With a new Congress and a new comprehensive immigration bill", at a face value:"comprehensive" synonyms are: "complete, inclusive, all-inlusive, broad, full, reaching,.." (-English Thesaurus). So unless the word, "comprehensive" in this bill acquired an extra meaning, (of which, -you are correct, I am not aware), I guess my interpretation IS logical, i.e. to assume that it applies to ALL immigrants, (not just illegal ones).
As for my husband's status, I believe you did not really follow the forum as I provided his information quite COMPREHENSIVELY a few pages back
IMHO I undestand that the article mostly focused on implications for the illegals, my question is, IS this bill THE SAME NEW LAW THAT OTHER MEMBER (not you, Kefira!), MENTIONED A FEW PAGES BACK?? And Kefira, if you do not know the answer you don't have to reply to this post.
If someone (Paz, other pros?) know what this bill is about, please, comment. My concern (again) is, should we (-who have not filed yet but working on it) be worried that something might change within a few wks from today.
Shvili
I think that Shvili's interpretation of "comprehensive" is correct. Although I didn't follow closely the fate of the immigration reform bill (see at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611), it is likely that it has many provisions and is dealing not only with illegal immigrants. So, in my opinion, it is possible that contains some changes, which can affect these lawsuits (and for some reason, I suspect that it will not make them easier). However, it seems unlikely that such a controversial bill will fly through both houses in few days/weeks and will be also signed by the president. But because I don't have specific knowledge, these remarks should be considered only general and I'll stop speculating more on this.
Back in 1999 when I applied for GC, I had to submit at the beginning my medical exam record. So I don't know the answer to your question. But the fact that they sent you something, probably means that they are dealing with your case. At least is not somewhere at the bottom of a drawer, collecting only dust...
MidofFighting
Registered Users (C)
My case story and question
Hi, Paz, sf, Wenlock, and all other pros
This is an incredible thread, I wish I knew this before I sent my lawsuit (I-485 filed in Aug. 2003, WOM filed in Dec. 2006). But even now it is still helping me a lot in the ongoing battle.
Here is my case story. The attorney filed a motion for dismiss (MD) two weeks ago. I am writing the oppossition and expect to file it within a couple of days. Interestingly, several days after the MD, I received a letter from the court asking us to deveop a proposed discovery plan, and submit joint status report. The judge also mentioned the MD and said "if the parties do not find it necessary to conduct discovery to support or oppose this motion, the Court will stay discovery pending its ruling on the motion." Of course I like to have the discovery and JSR.
Here is my dilemma. Reading through the thread, I find flaws in my original comlaint: 1. I did not include FBI in the defendant list; - now I want to add it 2. I request in the prayer that "defendant provide Plaintiff with notice of approval" - now I want to get rid of this item of request.
So I want to make motion to amend complaint. But if I do so, I am afraid I am back to square one, is that true? Will the judge's order of discovery plan and JSR still be valid? I appreciate the collective brains on the forum very much. Could you share your thoughts and advice with me? Should or shouldn't I amend complaint?
I will keep you posted on future progress.
Hi, Paz, sf, Wenlock, and all other pros
This is an incredible thread, I wish I knew this before I sent my lawsuit (I-485 filed in Aug. 2003, WOM filed in Dec. 2006). But even now it is still helping me a lot in the ongoing battle.
Here is my case story. The attorney filed a motion for dismiss (MD) two weeks ago. I am writing the oppossition and expect to file it within a couple of days. Interestingly, several days after the MD, I received a letter from the court asking us to deveop a proposed discovery plan, and submit joint status report. The judge also mentioned the MD and said "if the parties do not find it necessary to conduct discovery to support or oppose this motion, the Court will stay discovery pending its ruling on the motion." Of course I like to have the discovery and JSR.
Here is my dilemma. Reading through the thread, I find flaws in my original comlaint: 1. I did not include FBI in the defendant list; - now I want to add it 2. I request in the prayer that "defendant provide Plaintiff with notice of approval" - now I want to get rid of this item of request.
So I want to make motion to amend complaint. But if I do so, I am afraid I am back to square one, is that true? Will the judge's order of discovery plan and JSR still be valid? I appreciate the collective brains on the forum very much. Could you share your thoughts and advice with me? Should or shouldn't I amend complaint?
I will keep you posted on future progress.
This is part of this proposed bill
SEC. 531. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.
Section 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:`(i) Requirement for Background Checks- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until appropriate background and security checks, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been completed, and the information provided to and assessed by the official with jurisdiction to grant or issue the benefit or documentation, on an in camera basis as may be necessary with respect to classified, law enforcement, or other information that cannot be disclosed publicly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, or any court may not--`(1) grant or order the grant of adjustment of status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;`(2) grant or order the grant of any other status, relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under the immigration laws; or`(3) issue any documentation evidencing or related to such grant by the Secretary, the Attorney General, or any court.`(j) Requirement To Resolve Fraud Allegations- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until any suspected or alleged fraud relating to the granting of any status (including the granting of adjustment of status), relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under this Act has been investigated and resolved, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General may not be required to--`(1) grant or order the grant of adjustment of status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;`(2) grant or order the grant of any other status, relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under the immigration laws; or`(3) issue any documentation evidencing or related to such grant by the Secretary, the Attorney General, or any court.`(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts.'.
SEC. 531. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.
Section 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:`(i) Requirement for Background Checks- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until appropriate background and security checks, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been completed, and the information provided to and assessed by the official with jurisdiction to grant or issue the benefit or documentation, on an in camera basis as may be necessary with respect to classified, law enforcement, or other information that cannot be disclosed publicly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, or any court may not--`(1) grant or order the grant of adjustment of status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;`(2) grant or order the grant of any other status, relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under the immigration laws; or`(3) issue any documentation evidencing or related to such grant by the Secretary, the Attorney General, or any court.`(j) Requirement To Resolve Fraud Allegations- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until any suspected or alleged fraud relating to the granting of any status (including the granting of adjustment of status), relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under this Act has been investigated and resolved, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General may not be required to--`(1) grant or order the grant of adjustment of status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;`(2) grant or order the grant of any other status, relief, protection from removal, or other benefit under the immigration laws; or`(3) issue any documentation evidencing or related to such grant by the Secretary, the Attorney General, or any court.`(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts.'.
Is this S9: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 ? if it is the status on this says:
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
What is the timeline for this bill to be passed ?
I meant to say it's part of 2006 bill that did not pass, but I think it won't change that much. You can see it prohibits mandamus. For a pending suit, if this one passes, will it be governed by new or old law?
I think when it comes up for hearing the judge will have to give any order based on the law at the time. So I dont really think it matters when you file. In the worst case even if it does, the AUSA may plead for dismissal since the case is now moot under new laws.
Thank you, lotechguy and gmlvsk, for your comments. At least N-400 applicants may have some time
according to time frame and past history. I remember successfull argument (which was reflected in the judge's order, probably in Yu case, but not sure), that the amendment to law should not be retroactive to already pending cases. But probably you are right, they will attempt to use it against us and will probably succeed. Hence the end to Mandamus.
Here is the main point, which may be hard to argue in AOS cases:
as I understand, AOS is a discretionary act, i.e., applicant has no right to the status, and it is a benefit, not a right, but naturalization appl-nt has a right to apply and a right to receive it (if he complied with all rules).
I'll post some more ideas in the next post.
The S9 Comprehensive Immigration Bill as introduced in Jan by Sen.Reed (D).Thank you, lotechguy and gmlvsk, for your comments. At least N-400 applicants may have some time
The current expectation is that if it is not pushed through by august then it is also dead. There in an article in this week Time Magazine on this. Can someone post the content of this S9 bill here ? I cannot get the whole text of the proposed bill that was introduced in the Senate in Jan.
Thank you, lotechguy and gmlvsk, for your comments. At least N-400 applicants may have some time
I remember successfull argument (which was reflected in the judge's order, probably in Yu case, but not sure), that the amendment to law should not be retroactive to already pending cases. But probably you are right, they will attempt to use it against us and will probably succeed. Hence the end to Mandamus.
Here is the main point, which may be hard to argue in AOS cases:
as I understand, AOS is a discretionary act, i.e., applicant has no right to the status, and it is a benefit, not a right, but naturalization appl-nt has a right to apply and a right to receive it (if he complied with all rules).
I'll post some more ideas in the next post.
I disagree I think Mandamus is some thing that no law can stop. It is extreme measure by court system to compel some one to do some thing. We use federal question register with APA to enforce jurisdiction. No immigration law change will effect this measure. So WOM is always available as long as you can convince the judge that waiting time is unreasonable.
They might close loop hole of 1447b and add some thing in the language that Attorney Journal can withhold adjudication if background check are pending and courts does not have jurisdiction if background check is the reason for delay.
I do not think that WOM applicant has any thing to worry about at this point.
Paz, thank you for your comment.
I wrote a legal framework part in my 1447 petition which I wanted to show you. The reason I think it is good within the text is it provides (or at least attempts to ) the clear basis for your complaint and hopefully eliminates some stupid arguments about no venue/jurisdiction/etc. If anyone finds some ideas useful feel free to use them!
I'd appreciate your comments on this.
Shvili