In California, I found cases as recent as those closed in March 2007 with precise timetables in judges' orders. 30 to 60 days for USCIS to adjudicate or naturalize.
In my prayer, I asked that as an alternative, the court needs to compel the agencies to finish their work immediately. If I got a order like what 786riz received from the judge, I would file a motion to amend by asking the court to outline a precise timetable. My reasons would be as follows:
1) FBI told my senator's office to wait for 90 days for a follow-up inquiry,
2) CIS asked ombudsman to wait for 45 days for a response,
3) One CIS officer wrote to me to wait for another 120 days to contact the agency again
4) Another CIS officer wrote to me to wait for another 180 days.
Without a precise timetable, I wouldn't know when to get a resolution.
Riz786, Whatsnamecheck and Paz,
I am sorry on your desicion, Riz, but at the same time, I think there's " "light in the end", somewhat like Whatsnamecheck said. Here is why:
As you can add now the Motion to Amend the Judgement, you can say in PAZ words almost, that without "specific instructions" this order to remand is meaningless, and the instrucions are the timelimit to finish your namecheck followed by prompt adjudication from CIS.
Then you will appeal and we all should try to help anyway we can, because your case will concern all of us (who filed and still not filed yet). And I think, this may mean a dealy of up to 6 months in your decision, but you will win within 6 months. Because the judge still used 'Prompt" and when you petition or appeal for further inaction, beyond 6 month is not prompt (Hope they'd agree).
The other main point i tried to make in private and to Snorlax on forum before is: the reason I think we should use WOM TOGETHER with our 1447(b) is, we want to avoid this precise scenario: remand without timelimit. What must be shown immediately, you want not only jusrisdiction of court, but you need to show the judge that (s)he needs to compel FBI to finish that nc within a timelimit, and without this order the whole complaint of yours become meaningless.
So Riz, did you ask for WOM in your order or simply requested deadlines without WOM complaint? Of course, you still can do it now, but perhaps it would be more effective if it was done together with 1447.
My other thought: as Paz and everyone many others commented, WOM is harder than the clear 1447, (it's just you still need it to compel FBI to act). You have to show you exhausted other options, you have to show you are owed this (-and you are if you apply for N-400) and you have to have jurisdiction (which doesn't seem to be an issue any more). So in N-400 casses WOM may not be so hard as in AOS cases.
The other thought is Riz had less than a year since his interview passed when he filed his 1447. So as I agree with Paz, that the judge's decision is hardly rushed and just badly thought of, but the judge has simply considered the time passed not large enough to be
considered unreasonable. So perhaps by the time you lose your Amended Motion (Still some little chance you win, though) and then you wait for a 60 days to go back to court (if again no action, but there may be), and by then you have more time elapsed, more "unreasonable delay" may be shown.
In your Amend please see the argument about unreasonableness from hardship in Singh and Razak orders: judges said in both places unreasonable is more persuasive if hardship is involved (you can't get a right job, you can't travel, can't petition your relatives, etc). These two decisions also have agreat points on non'discretionary duty to act and also guidelines one of the judges listed in deciding on "ureasonable time", I think. Also please talk to seniors and others you like so that they can help you. You need all the help you can get and you need it NOW.
But I really think you will win and time is within 6-8 months at most.
Good luck! Please let us know what help you need.
