Paz,
I really appreciate your comments, Thank you very much!
My question is, most of my remarks are very close to the original statues, so I don't understand your logic when you disagreed with some of them.
I placed my remarks under your remarks in the text, would you mind reviewing them again? I guess either I have major misunderstanding of something or perhaps you misunderstood my points, in that case, I definitely have to change them!
About my husband's story, it's vanilla flavor 1447(b), interview passed in May 2004, nc pending ever since, Reside in California.
Thank you again!
Shvili
As I see it, there is one main source for the difference between your interpretation and mine. Although the problem is only 'academic' in your husband's case, because as you wrote, he already had his interview, it is still worth to clarify this for the benefit of others who may want to use your document.
You state that "4) USCIS must process these applications within reasonable and specified time". I believe that you are implicitely think about the phase AFTER the interview. For that phase it is true: according to 1447(b) USCIS has 120 days to adjudicate the application, after that applicant can file a complaint in the district court where s/he resides for a judiciar review.
But more generally, there is no mandatory timeframe how long USCIS can conduct an investigation and do all the other things they do BEFORE they call you for an interview. This is the interval between filing the N-400 application and the interview. That's why I disagreed with you at this point. If they interviewed the applicant, they triggered their 120 day limit (if the judge doesn't buy USCIS' argument that "examination" is a process, rather than a single event and contains also the name check). But if USCIS didn't interview the applicant (like in wenlock's case), the only remaining argument to attack their inaction is the mandamus act and APA and in this case you have to demonstrate the well known 3 things, which is more complicated, because what is unreasonable, is discretionary.
And arguing that USCIS can interview the applicant only after they conducted the full criminal background check doesn't really help. They will admit that they interviewed the applicant "to work ahead the curve", but they are right when they claim that they can't adjudicate the applicant's case before the full criminal background check is not done, because Congress mandated this in the FY98 autorization act.
So, returning to your husband's specific case, all what you wrote is correct, but with these specifications: USCIS has to adjudicate (instead of process) the application in 120 days after the examination, the district court gains exclusive jurisdiction because you are in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction and there is the US v. Hovsepian decision which is law in this jurisdiction. And you will need to make your case that the interview was the examination; the name check is not part of the examination, it is part of the investigation what USCIS conducts on each applicant.
These things seem like I'm splitting the hair, but in legal matters even small differences in the wording make large difference in the meaning and final output.
