Hello Snorlax,
Thank you very much, and I will be in and out this site, now my mind is clear so I can work, but I will do my best to share my thought with you guys sometimes….
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Hello Snorlax,
Thank you very much, and I will be in and out this site, now my mind is clear so I can work, but I will do my best to share my thought with you guys sometimes….
Snorlax, Lotechguy, or anyone:
Could you please re-post the link to the memo Lotechguy mentioned?
For some reason I can't find the original link (and the option to see Lotechguy's post doesn't work)
Thank you!
Shvili
Congratulations, Zevs! So WOM still work too! Could you remind where you filed?
Thank you,
Shvili
Interesting… The post was on the previous page, but it is not there now. Is this forum being censored? May be this interoffice memo is Confidential? There is no visible stamp on it...
Please see attached. How long is this one gonna stay?
snorlax
Thank you!
Thank you Dear. I got it now. Ya, you are right. I am also shocked what happened to that post.
Thank you Dear. I got it now. Ya, you are right. I am also shocked what happened to that post.
If you have HIGH expectations about hearing or trial and you r fighting PerSe, then u r wrong. All hearing takes 2 minutes, where u say your name and then HisHonor tell u, that he will be thinking about u for the next 2 weeks. What did he do before it - I have no idea. I would prefer to receive judge answer without coming to the court for 2 minutes of b.s. and 4 hr of drive.
ncblackhole
Registered Users (C)
case number
Registered Users (C)
of course, i will love to help
my citizenship is based on marriage. i applied for N-400 on May 2005, i was fingerprinted on March 2006. i was interviewed for citizenship on June 2006. the interview went fine (mainly paperwork). after the interview i was given the magical form that stated the fact that i passed the English and the government exam, however, a decision cannot be made since my name check was pending. the officer provided me with the info that my name was pending since June 2005. i waited for a miracle until the end of October after that i filed the lawsuit. at the end of December my AUSA filed a motion to dismiss my case for lack of jurisdiction, etc. i filled my Opposition in January. At the end of January AUSA filed another motion to dismiss my case stating that my application was approved. i followed up with a Rebuttal Notice asking AUSA to strenghten some of his facts that were eroneous stated and i asked particularly the judge to do not dismiss my case without a date set for the naturalization ceremony. in February, i received my oath letter for today March 16. i was # 61 out of 62 i think i force added my naturalization ceremony . coincidently the judge that was presiding over my lawsuit case was presiding today over the ceremony . this is in big lines my citizenship experience. if you have any particular questions that you may think i can help you with, please ask me. i will be more than happy to give back things that i have learned here. i wish you good luck with your case, patience and confidence
Congratulations case number, but please don't leave without providing the details of the interview. You atleast owe that to this forum.
my citizenship is based on marriage. i applied for N-400 on May 2005, i was fingerprinted on March 2006. i was interviewed for citizenship on June 2006. the interview went fine (mainly paperwork). after the interview i was given the magical form that stated the fact that i passed the English and the government exam, however, a decision cannot be made since my name check was pending. the officer provided me with the info that my name was pending since June 2005. i waited for a miracle until the end of October after that i filed the lawsuit. at the end of December my AUSA filed a motion to dismiss my case for lack of jurisdiction, etc. i filled my Opposition in January. At the end of January AUSA filed another motion to dismiss my case stating that my application was approved. i followed up with a Rebuttal Notice asking AUSA to strenghten some of his facts that were eroneous stated and i asked particularly the judge to do not dismiss my case without a date set for the naturalization ceremony. in February, i received my oath letter for today March 16. i was # 61 out of 62
i think i force added my naturalization ceremony . coincidently the judge that was presiding over my lawsuit case was presiding today over the ceremony . this is in big lines my citizenship experience. if you have any particular questions that you may think i can help you with, please ask me. i will be more than happy to give back things that i have learned here. i wish you good luck with your case, patience and confidenceSo the whole post by lotechguy has dissappeared? Where did you get the memo, Lotechguy? was it an underground channel sort of thing and we should not have access to it? In that case, wow, there IS actually a sensorship working on this forum, how impressive! But I will use it any way if need comes,
. Thank you, Lotechguy!Shvili
Did anyone get this type of argument from AUSA?
I am a new comer. I filed a WOM and got a MTD last week. The following is from the AUSA's MTD:
"Although Plaintiff claims that Defendants have caused him damage, he identifies no interest of which he has been deprived that is protected by the Constitution or a federal statute. Plaintiff’s failure to identify any protected interest is not surprising because there is none. An alien seeking lawful permanent resident status cannot show “that [his] interest is one protected by the Constitution or created by statute.”
Almario v. Att’y Gen’l, 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Menezes v. INS, 601 F.2d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 1979) (no denial of equal protection when U.S. citizen’s alien spouse was denied adjustment of status); Azizi v. Thornburgh, 908 F.2d 1130, 1134 (2d Cir. 1990)(alien “ha[s no] inherent property interest in an immigrant visa”); Olegario v. United States, 629 F.2d 204, 223-24 (2d Cir. 1980) (naturalization statute did not confer “vested right to citizenship”; “[a]t most, the statute provided . . . an opportunity to become a citizen”), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 980 (1981).
Because Plaintiff identifies no protected interest of which he has been deprived, 28 U.S.C. 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. "
Does anyone know how to respond to this type of arguments? Any hint is greatly appreciated!
I am a new comer. I filed a WOM and got a MTD last week. The following is from the AUSA's MTD:
"Although Plaintiff claims that Defendants have caused him damage, he identifies no interest of which he has been deprived that is protected by the Constitution or a federal statute. Plaintiff’s failure to identify any protected interest is not surprising because there is none. An alien seeking lawful permanent resident status cannot show “that [his] interest is one protected by the Constitution or created by statute.”
Almario v. Att’y Gen’l, 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Menezes v. INS, 601 F.2d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 1979) (no denial of equal protection when U.S. citizen’s alien spouse was denied adjustment of status); Azizi v. Thornburgh, 908 F.2d 1130, 1134 (2d Cir. 1990)(alien “ha[s no] inherent property interest in an immigrant visa”); Olegario v. United States, 629 F.2d 204, 223-24 (2d Cir. 1980) (naturalization statute did not confer “vested right to citizenship”; “[a]t most, the statute provided . . . an opportunity to become a citizen”), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 980 (1981).
Because Plaintiff identifies no protected interest of which he has been deprived, 28 U.S.C. 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. "
Does anyone know how to respond to this type of arguments? Any hint is greatly appreciated!
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks...
I don't know whether I have a lot of information to share... I filed AOS-based WOM in the end of January 2007. Until the initial hearing (which was a week ago) I did not have any AUSA assigned to my case. However, during the initial hearing I learned that finally somebody was assigned to my case. I should mention that the initial hearing was set before the 60-day deadline for the Defendants. During the hearing the Judge indicated that she is very sympathetic to my case, and she asked AUSA to act on my case and provide the answer on my complaint during the second hearing (she set it in the beginning of April).
I think that this info might be very useful for people who will have their hearing. When I went there I didn’t really have an idea how it works… I just studied my case and statutes of USC I used in my complaint, and was prepared to speak for myself. In reality it was like movie or TV news… It was a huge Court Room full of the people; basically bunch of lawyers in the expensive suits (by the way the suit or business-like dress–a MUST rule in our court)… One huge corporation suing another huge corporation, etc… When your case is called, you have to stand up and go in front of the Judge, greet his/her Honor, introduce yourself and state why you are here. After that AUSA introduced himself. The Judge asked whether AUSA has some answers to my complaint. He said that he’s just got an assignment and therefore has nothing to say. The Judge asked him to act on my complaint and to report back in 30 days. She asked us (AUSA and I) whether we agree with this decision. I said that I agree with that, but I want to get some specific details on my name check. The Judge said that I have a right to do so. We thank the Judge and that was the end of the story. In the total the hearing took about 5-7 minutes.
I don’t know whether the actual hearing and Judge position (in my favor) stimulated the Name Check completion. As I said earlier, that it’s ironic that my name was cleared the day after hearing. I don’t know whether it’s a coincidence or clear reality that the agency won’t move a finger until they will have a call from Attorney General.
The judge has complete freedom to decide if s/he wants to rule on the motion based on the documents filed with the court or s/he can order an oral hearing, ask for more documents, whatever. In cases where there is no disputed factual allegation and the case is merely about an interpretation of the law, it is rather common that the judge will rule based solely on the papers filed.
So the whole post by lotechguy has dissappeared? Where did you get the memo, Lotechguy? was it an underground channel sort of thing and we should not have access to it? In that case, wow, there IS actually a sensorship working on this forum, how impressive! But I will use it any way if need comes,
Shvili
I don't believe that some censor removed lotechguy's post with the interoffice memo. There were several other interoffice memos posted before, which I believe that are still accessible on this forum. My guess is that for some reason the poster removed completely that post from the forum. And we should respect his right to do so, without any explanation. (Not that I wouldn't be interested for the reason...)
Sorry Guys, the source that gave me the memo requested I dont post it. Not sure why, but maybe because this is part of his case in progress and his attorney used some procedure to get it (again not sure what)...So if you need a copy please PM me. I dont believe there is any censorship on this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, s/he can. The judge can dismiss the case the very moment one have filed it.
I think it is in our best interest to try to push the case into the discovery phase, when USCIS and FBI will have to produce your files, supporting documents, testimonies, etc. AUSAs hate the very thought of going into the discovery phase as it creates huge workload and sure embarrassment for them. Once threatened with such possibility AUSAs put whatever pressure they can on the USCIS and FBI to accelerate the adjudication.
All the best,
snorlax
It is hard to come up with a generic argument, because the answer would depend on your personal circumstances. Do you have any family issues like elderly or sick family members that you would need to sponsor to get them into the USA?
Any job problems caused by luck of status or citizenship? Need to change a job/company to improve your career or move to a different state because of family issues or spouse employment? For example, I had a number of job related issues because of my inability to travel to EU and Japan on a short notice. I also can not apply for Government jobs, for which I would be a perfect match because of luck of clearance for which citizenship is a prerequisite.
Best of luck,
snorlax
Last edited by a moderator:
james_gmail
Registered Users (C)
An LUD after file law suit
An LUD after file law suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I filed the law suit and served the summon to district attoney on March 12. Then I got a LUD on March 15 on my 485. Is this a good sign?
Anyone get a LUD on March 15? I got another LUD on March 12 due to transfer from CA to NE.
An LUD after file law suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I filed the law suit and served the summon to district attoney on March 12. Then I got a LUD on March 15 on my 485. Is this a good sign?
Anyone get a LUD on March 15? I got another LUD on March 12 due to transfer from CA to NE.
Snorlax, Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate it. I filed a WOM for my I-485 Application, which was filed in October 2004. It is pending in the name check for about 30 months now. My situation is quite typical I guess. I do not have the problelms you mentioned. I graduated in 2002 and now work in a decent university. Just try to get my green card for myself ...
The AUSA cited quite a few cases, tryin to show that an alien seeking permanent resident status can not show that his interest is one protected by the Consitituion or created by statue. Is this really the case? Can anyone give me a hint of any interest that is protected by the Constitution and is endangered because of the lack of Status?
I am happy to hear that everything is great for you - no real hardship at all. As to protected interests - I can only think of family, property/business and jobs.
Can you not travel freely and that stalls your research, conference attendance/presentation and scientific career? Do not you desperately want to get married and have 5 children that you can not afford on your university salary and therefore have to go work in the industry?
May be senior members can comment?
All the best,
snorlax