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

[paz1960]

Hi paz and other seniors of this board,

I submitted my proof of service forms today in person. Since I cannot find my case in PACER, I asked the clerk how long it takes for a case to show up in PACER, the clerk said that there are lots of cases like mine these days, so it may take one or two weeks.

Another question: Should I send my summons and complaint to both the US Attorney's office in my district as well as the US Attorney's Office in the division that my city belongs to? For example, Northern District of California has three divisions (San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose), Central District of California has three divisions (Western, Eastern and Southern divisions).

I understand that the US attorney's offices are government defendants' legal counsels, they are not defendants, but I listed the US attorney's office on my "notice of interested parties" form. I delivered the summons and complaints to both US attorney's offices in my district as well as my division. But I don't know which office the AUSA will come from. When I asked the court clerk which office will provide the AUSA to interact with me and deal with my case, whether it's the district AUSA or the AUSA in my division, the clerk said she doesn't know. Any ideas? Thanks!

In some district courts a judge will review the complaints filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs to make sure that satisfies the formal requirements and it is not obviously frivolous before even issueing the summonses. Depending on the case load, this can take a while (I don't know how much).

My district is smaller, and there was a clear instruction of the US Attorney's web page, where the civil cases are handled. Because the law specifies that you have to serve the US Attorney's Office, Civil Process Clerk, if you do that, you should be fine. In rest it is their internal problem how they divide the cases and where will be physically located the AUSA assigned to your case.

 

[paz1960]

Congratulations! I think you only need to put a closure. By law, once the 1447b lawsuit is filed, the court has jurisdiction over your naturalization application. Since all your requirements are met, why cannot the court grant you the citizenship? By giving the case back to USCIS to adjudicate, you have to agree to dismiss your case first, right? But what if USCIS takes forever to schedule you the oath ceremony?

In 1447(b) lawsuits only in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court is clear that the court has exclusive jurisdiction after the lawsuit was filed. (see US v. Hovsepian). In other jurisdictions the circuit courts didn't rule on this, as far as I know. So in many cases filed outside the 9th, USCIS considers that they have concurrent jurisdiction and they approve (and in some rare cases, deny) applications even after the applicants filed a complaint in the district court. If the adjudication is approval, I think that nobody would complain (I saw only one exception, where the issue was related to attorney's fees) but if the adjudication is denial, that should be fought vigurously, based on case law and interpretation of the statue.

 

[micahel1008]

Dear Snorlax and other members,

what I am wondering are future obstacles once the Name Check makes it out of the FBI administration. Is it normal that the USCIS in DC reviews the "background check" and then refers it to the District Office for adjudication? That sounds long and time consuming. My AUSA (I filed a 1447b WoM) just provided me with that info (see below) . I start to feel like a perpetrator (one arrest for a DUI which was nolled in court) or is this standing operation procedure???

"I spoke with Mr. K. of USCIS in J. on Friday, and he has
advised that your background check was released by the FBI to the USCIS
Washington DC office for review. Once they have completed their review,
the background check will be forwarded to the J. Office via
registered/certified mail for adjudication.

RR
AUSA"

If the "Name Check" is done with" positive", FBI will sent it back to USCIS regional center for adjudication; but if came back with "some nagative" which they are not sure, they will foward it to General Counsel Offfice of USCIS in Washington D.C. to let upper level guys decide. I dont think it is too bad sign; the worst case is if FBI really think you have some type of serious problem, they will start their indenpendent investigation. Don't worry, General Counsel Office will make their decison soon.

 

[ncblackhole]

Hi There,
Looks to me what happened on query page, you click the case summary link. You need to click "docket report" this page will leads to all the filings.
My case showed up on pacer in just one day but it is goes by district but one week I think is the most. If you want to see your case docket, see the DUDE post, he motioned a link.
Thank you

Thanks you were right, I got it...

Now there is one thing, when you go to decket report. there were few things like 1 -- orginal coplaint and 2 -- show case, notice ...

Now 1 was not clickable.. meaning I can't see what orginal complaint was filed but 2 was clickable which was the notice that defendents have been served...

So does this happen quite often??

Thanks again for your time

 

[ncblackhole]

Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 by U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL):


"In addition, the CPA would strengthen our national security by providing for greater accountability in the system of conducting background checks on naturalization applicants. Many naturalization applicants have experienced lengthy waiting times during their application processing because these checks are not completed in a timely manner. The bill generally would require the FBI to complete those background checks within 90 days, and impose documentation and Congressional reporting requirements on the FBI if background check delays for specific applicants extend beyond that period. The CPA also would mandate a comprehensive Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the FBI's background checks procedures."

I have quoted some part of the bill...

Do you think we should send support letters to the senator, will that add weight ??? What do you all think??

I am not sure when and if it will ever be immplemented... But may be writing to senator supporting him will help?? Just expressing my opinion..

Please this is an appeal to all.. I am giving a link, go there and sign this petition.. do not have to give any private information.. Many people are signing it and it will be forwarded to senators and congressmen.

You can also send a letter of support separate than this to your local senators and congress persons..

word doc is attached and see the link and see how many people have signed it in last 24 hours. Please spread it to everyone who is interested..

Many people have put in a lot of efforts into this and please don't let their effort go waste.

If you don't like it, please disregard my posting and do not keep any hard feelings.

PS: Senator Obama will be reading it to the congress (this is the information given by senator's office) So, please do not use any offensive language or any angry comments...

Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/nc082505/petition.html

 

[zoro3]

Great Job! Please all sign the petition and forward it to as many people as you can.

Please this is an appeal to all.. I am giving a link, go there and sign this petition.. do not have to give any private information.. Many people are signing it and it will be forwarded to senators and congressmen.

You can also send a letter of support separate than this to your local senators and congress persons..

word doc is attached and see the link and see how many people have signed it in last 24 hours. Please spread it to everyone who is interested..

Many people have put in a lot of efforts into this and please don't let their effort go waste.

If you don't like it, please disregard my posting and do not keep any hard feelings.

PS: Senator Obama will be reading it to the congress (this is the information given by senator's office) So, please do not use any offensive language or any angry comments...

Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/nc082505/petition.html

 

[Mingjing]

Why not just object to AUSA MTD?

I am curious why not just to file an objection to AUSA's MTD, instead of asking trying to find ways to give another extension? I am thinking if plaintiff has already given agreement to at least one extension, and AUSA has not proved any progress has been made before extension expires, why we stillt think giving another extension will help? Isn't time to push the suit to the court hearing now? Thanks.

yvesliu, I totally agree with you, I am in dark totaly, my extension is almost over, but I have no clue what AUSA is doing. However, it seems to have another extension for AUSA is best choice currently.

 

[Saarlaender]

Due Process

If the "Name Check" is done with" positive", FBI will sent it back to USCIS regional center for adjudication; but if came back with "some nagative" which they are not sure, they will foward it to General Counsel Offfice of USCIS in Washington D.C. to let upper level guys decide. I dont think it is too bad sign; the worst case is if FBI really think you have some type of serious problem, they will start their indenpendent investigation. Don't worry, General Counsel Office will make their decison soon.

So does this mean that my negative hit - which will come up to to a DUI arrest (cleared later on)- will automatically send it to the USCIS headquarters in DC instead of straight to the field office?

Thanks so much?

 

[Mingjing]

Sign the Letter in support of Sen. Barack Obama's Bill

Someone from amechecktracker@yahoogroups.com just set up a petition letter in support of this Obama bill. I have already signed it. As I understand, the bill should help both naturalization and green card cases stuck in name check.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nc082505/petition.html

URGENT AND TIME SENSITIVE: PETITION TO SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA'S BILL
Posted by: "unique.ways" unique.ways@yahoo.com unique.ways
Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:33 pm (PST)
Dear All:

Whether your citizenship has finally been approved, your case is pending or you are getting started, you know the need for reform in the stalling process that can take for years. Many of you are already aware of the "Citizenship Promotion Act" introduced by Senator Obama on March 7, 07. This bill limits the increase in the immigration fees, but most importantly delineates time frames for FBI name check, which has a backlog of 300,000 and are reviewing cases "manually". I have started a petition in support of the bill. WE ALL NEED TO SIGN IT AND ALSO PASS IT ON TO ALL OF THE FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN ENTANGLED BY THE OVERDUE IMMIGRATION PROCESSES. THE MORE SIGNATURES WE HAVE, THE MORE WE WILL BE ABLE TO OBTAIN ADVOCACY FOR THE BILL BY THE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS.

PLEASE SIGN AND PASS FORWARD FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE TO SEE.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nc082505/petition.html

BITA

Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 by U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL):


"In addition, the CPA would strengthen our national security by providing for greater accountability in the system of conducting background checks on naturalization applicants. Many naturalization applicants have experienced lengthy waiting times during their application processing because these checks are not completed in a timely manner. The bill generally would require the FBI to complete those background checks within 90 days, and impose documentation and Congressional reporting requirements on the FBI if background check delays for specific applicants extend beyond that period. The CPA also would mandate a comprehensive Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the FBI's background checks procedures."

I have quoted some part of the bill...

Do you think we should send support letters to the senator, will that add weight ??? What do you all think??

I am not sure when and if it will ever be immplemented... But may be writing to senator supporting him will help?? Just expressing my opinion..

 

[DUDE12190]

I am curious why not just to file an objection to AUSA's MTD, instead of asking trying to find ways to give another extension? I am thinking if plaintiff has already given agreement to at least one extension, and AUSA has not proved any progress has been made before extension expires, why we stillt think giving another extension will help? Isn't time to push the suit to the court hearing now? Thanks.

IT IS BECAUSE IN MOST OF THE CASES, EVEN IF YOU OPPOSE THE EXTENSION, JUDGE WILL GRANT IT. SO, THIS IS A SORT OF A TACTIC THAT YOU CAN USE BECAUSE WHY NOT GIVE AUSA A CHANCE AGAIN. YOU ARE RIGHT IN A WAY THAT AUSA SHOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR MANY EXTENSIONS. I THINK THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS IS THAT AUSA MAY HAVE MANY CASES ASSIGN TO HIM/HER, AND HE/SHE CAN NOT HANDLE ALL OF THEM. GOOD LUCK, REGARDS, DUDE

 

[swimfitness]

Thank you Paz

Paz:

Much appreciation for your input. I certainly understand the distinction between a simple "Answer" and "MTD".

I hope the name check clear soon and this nightmare is over. Expeditious name check was requested on 12/18. With the back-log, it is taking more than 90 days...

Thank you,

Please do not make confusions. If the AUSA filed a Response (or sometimes is called Answer), although he put in his Prayer that your complaint should be dismissed, this doesn't constitute a motion. So using MTD (motion to dismiss) is inappropriate term in this case. A motion has its own rules and is asking something to do from the court. If a motion is filed, the defendant doesn't have to answer your complaint till the court decides the motion. The motion to dismiss can (and should) be opposed by the non-moving party. You can't oppose an Answer. Here is a citation from the N.Cal. district Pro Se handbook (I posted probably at least 5 times already)

"Once the answer is filed, does the plaintiff have to file a response to it?
There is no such thing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a “Response to an Answer.” Even if you strongly disagree with the statements in the answer, there is no need to file a response. Under Rule 8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all statements in an answer are automatically denied by the other parties to the lawsuit."

Next in your case can be a conference between you AUSA and possibly the judge. This is not necessarily is the trial (or hearing), this can be an ADR or an Initial Case Management conference or something similar. Ultimately all of this doesn't matter, because there is no chance that your case would be solved at this level (except if the name check is finished and your application adjudicated, but that is independent from the ADR, ICM or whatever is called).

Ultimately either the judge will order a hearing where both parties can present their side of the story or one of the parties will file a motion. This can be a motion to dismiss filed by the AUSA or a motion for summary judgement, filed by you. If the motion filing happens before the hearing, the judge will rule first on the motion, either only based on the documents filed or based on a hearing. Usually, these cases will end at this stage, so they will not advance to the discovery phase and to a real trial. Everybody's interest is to end the case without going too much down on the litigation process.

You can read about ADR at http://www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov/adr/welcome.nsf/docs

 

[786riz]

I am curious why not just to file an objection to AUSA's MTD, instead of asking trying to find ways to give another extension? I am thinking if plaintiff has already given agreement to at least one extension, and AUSA has not proved any progress has been made before extension expires, why we stillt think giving another extension will help? Isn't time to push the suit to the court hearing now? Thanks.

Hi Team,
I spoke to AUSA after filing my case on the same topic. She told me that she’ll wait for 60 days then file for an extension and then MTD. I told here if name expedite is not there then why wait that long, you just go ahead and file MTD ASAP and I file my counter motion, In this way case will be resolve quick. She said I can not do that, I have to follow the directions set by General Counsel. I can just start doing things my own. Also, names are still expediting depending case to case. I will try to resolve your case without MTD but if no choice then I will go for MTD.

 

[sambocico2]

Filed for I -485 in August 2005. Had first code 3 fingerprint in Oct 2005. Name check was pending for a long time. Filed WOM in Feb 6, 2007. Judge gave the government 20 days to respond. Received a second code 3 fingerprint appointment. Had the fingerprints today morning. Does any one know how long it takes the I-485 to get approved after second fingerprint? I am FED UPPPPPPPPPPP.

Thanks

 

[wenlock]

Filed for I -485 in August 2005. Had first code 3 fingerprint in Oct 2005. Name check was pending for a long time. Filed WOM in Feb 6, 2007. Judge gave the government 20 days to respond. Received a second code 3 fingerprint appointment. Had the fingerprints today morning. Does any one know how long it takes the I-485 to get approved after second fingerprint? I am FED UPPPPPPPPPPP.

Thanks

No hard and fast rules. We have some examples where things got resolved after second finger printing and in some examples it just indicated they are working on your case but no further progress till name check clears.

 

[micahel1008]

So does this mean that my negative hit - which will come up to to a DUI arrest (cleared later on)- will automatically send it to the USCIS headquarters in DC instead of straight to the field office?

Thanks so much?

My answer is yes, the reason is you have pending WOM, they are some legal issues and has to be reviewed by General Counsel Office (they handle all WOM case including background check "hit". but don't worry, DUI record shouldn't affect your approval. As your WOM is pending in Federal Court and It shouldn't take General Counsel Office long time to make decision. I noticed some other cases were post before and ended up with General Counsel Office Approval, but one case I remembered (1447b) was dennied by USCIS but approved by court later for some bad record. My suggestion to you is contact your AUSA regularily for status update and you should have a answer very soon. Good Luck!

 

[yvesliu]

No hard and fast rules. We have some examples where things got resolved after second finger printing and in some examples it just indicated they are working on your case but no further progress till name check clears.

hi wenlock, any updates on your case?

 

[angtus]

Case Transferred after WOM

Dear All,

I am a new comer to this thread. I have a question related to my I-485 WOM (Pro Se), which I filed on Feb 6, 2007, by then my employment based I-485 has been pending for 43 months. About two days after the USCIS VSC received my summons, the cases of mine and my wife's got transferred to TSC from VSC. I wonder under this circumstance should I send an additional summons to the TSC center or not, since my case is no longer with VSC? Also my wife, as a derivative beneficiary declared in the complaint and exhibit document of the WOM, was not listed as a plaintiff there. Shall we file additional amendment to add her in the plaintif list? If so, shall I also shall send new summons to each defendants?

Thank you very much for any advices!

Angtus

 

[shvili]

Update form ACLU SF assitant atty. lady

Snorlax and everybody filing (especially preparing to file) for N-400 cases:

Just got an update from the ACLU lady. A brief history behind it: may be you remember, I posted a few wks ago that I contaced ACLU+left messages that my husband is a potentual plaintiff for their class-action law suit filed in CA. The assistant atty called me back and said, they'd call us to make a declaration to court, as I understodd, not only to include my husband as a class action member ('cause by their definition, any one with same status is a class action member)-but to add him as a plaintiff.

Well, I was wrong. Ms Quan (the attorney asst.) told me today they have no plans to add any more plaintiffs and the declaration is only to include as a class member. I asked, how would that benefit us since the LA law suit was dismissed with no relief to their proposed class action members, only plaintiffs benefited from it. She said, that in no way they expect speedy results but perhaps evetually they hope all class members get adjudicated. So to my q-n, there would be no benefit for us to wait. I explained that I prepare to file pro se and she replied, it is a good idea and by no means don't wait for them. She said, they would still call to get a declaration and I should let them know of any update, but that we should file.

So for every one preparing to file and for information for Snorlax, and all who have filed, there's no point waiting for ACLU SF law suit, most likely there will be no direct results and eventually they would have to change the procedure anyway as too many lawsuits stockpiled so far.

So good luck to us all and let's get busy!

Shvili

 

[sambocico2]

Name check was cleared

Originally Posted by sambocico2
Filed for I -485 in August 2005. Had first code 3 fingerprint in Oct 2005. Name check was pending for a long time. Filed WOM in Feb 6, 2007. Judge gave the government 20 days to respond. Received a second code 3 fingerprint appointment. Had the fingerprints today morning. Does any one know how long it takes the I-485 to get approved after second fingerprint? I am FED UPPPPPPPPPPP.

Thanks

No hard and fast rules. We have some examples where things got resolved after second finger printing and in some examples it just indicated they are working on your case but no further progress till name check clears.

Forgot to tell you that we got to know that name check got cleared and received by CIS.

 

[snorlax]

Snorlax and everybody filing (especially preparing to file) for N-400 cases:

Just got an update from the ACLU lady. A brief history behind it: may be you remember, I posted a few wks ago that I contaced ACLU+left messages that my husband is a potentual plaintiff for their class-action law suit filed in CA. The assistant atty called me back and said, they'd call us to make a declaration to court, as I understodd, not only to include my husband as a class action member ('cause by their definition, any one with same status is a class action member)-but to add him as a plaintiff.

Well, I was wrong. Ms Quan (the attorney asst.) told me today they have no plans to add any more plaintiffs and the declaration is only to include as a class member. I asked, how would that benefit us since the LA law suit was dismissed with no relief to their proposed class action members, only plaintiffs benefited from it. She said, that in no way they expect speedy results but perhaps evetually they hope all class members get adjudicated. So to my q-n, there would be no benefit for us to wait. I explained that I prepare to file pro se and she replied, it is a good idea and by no means don't wait for them. She said, they would still call to get a declaration and I should let them know of any update, but that we should file.

So for every one preparing to file and for information for Snorlax, and all who have filed, there's no point waiting for ACLU SF law suit, most likely there will be no direct results and eventually they would have to change the procedure anyway as too many lawsuits stockpiled so far.

So good luck to us all and let's get busy!

Shvili

Many thanks for the update, Shvili!
That is what I thought – better to fight this individually. Messiah never comes (well, not very often).

Legislation seems to work. In two weeks after filing I have received a second PF notice saying “Your fingerprint card (FD-258) was recently rejected by the FBI because it was “Unclassifiable” (could not be read or processed). In order for the USCIS to continue processing your application, it will be necessary to have your fingerprints re-taken.”

Excellent sample of bureaucratic doublespeak. Does not one feel guilty!? “Your fingerprint card” not the “USCIS fingerprint card”. No one has ever even seen the FD-258 card, but most certainly is responsible if there is something wrong with it. My 15 months have not expired yet, so my FPs should have been acceptable if they were taken properly.

Bottom line – if you fight – there is a chance to move you case, otherwise you are at the mercy of some petty bureaucrats.

Best of luck to all!
snorlax