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

[kefira]

Hi folks,

I filed WOM (AOS) Pro Se in Jan 2007, and just got an envelop today containing:
1. MTD (Defendants's Response to order to show cause)
2. Declaration of Gerald McMahon
3. Declaration of Michael A. Cannon

In "ARGUMENT" section of MTD, there are two arguments:
A. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant plaintiff's request for mandamus under 28 U.S.C. 1361.
B. The APA precludes this court from reviewing plaintiff's claim because it concerns action that is committed to agency discretion.

In "Conclusion" section of MTD, it reads:
For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully ask this court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Questions:
1. How many days do I have to respond?
2. What should be the title or subject of my response?
- Response and Opposition to motion to dismiss ....?
3. How soon does the court/judge have to make decision after filing of my response?
4. Can anybody share any successful "opposition to MTD" I can use references?

My I-485 was filed in April 2004, and it's almost 3 years. I need to fight hard and win this case, I don't want to set a bad precedent.

By the way, I'm in SF bay area. Not sure how many people here have similar situation as mine, but we probably should get together to make our response more efficient and strong.

Thanks

Just read carefully last 20 pages of this forum and you will find an answer and examples for Opposition for I485 cases.
I had only 14 days to response, some people have 20 days to response. After filing your Opposition it might take another 2 month before u know the judge decision (also it might include initial hearing that last 2 minutes). Good luck.

 

[shvili]

Just read carefully last 20 pages of this forum and you will find an answer and examples for Opposition for I485 cases.
I had only 14 days to response, some people have 20 days to response. After filing your Opposition it might take another 2 month before u know the judge decision (also it might include initial hearing that last 2 minutes). Good luck.

Bsus,
Like Kefira said, the last ~20 pages have lots of cases posted to fight MTD with very good reasoning points.

Again, I suggest to carefully read Legal Advisory re. Fed. Jurisdiction with RIDA-it talks specifically of non-discretionary duty to act, i.e., to provide a decision in WOM cases. And here's another (previously posted) case-reply to amend WOM decision (-granted). It also refers to RIDA but again brings points on WOM cases.

Good luck!

 

[shvili]

Unfortunately, the jurisdiction in naturalization cases is also an issue. See Danilov v. Aguirre and several other decisions which followed this line of arguments. If the judge buys the government twisted interpretation of the word "examination", which according to them includes also the name check, the court will decline jurisdiction and dismiss the case. And the Danilov case wasn't a singular one. So you can't simply affirm, that Jurisdiction question is NOT an issue in naturalization cases.

Paz,

Thank you for your reply. It seems and it was descussed here in the last few days, that nowadays Danilov's argument is no longer an issue, because overwhelming number of later (-this year and last fall's) cases never ruled that "examination=investigation" per Danilov's ruling.

I also read that even the recent MTD texts avoided using this argument again. It is especially true to the 9th Circuit orders. I may be wrong as I still have to subscribe to Pacer and read the local cases not posted here, but unless you can find any recent ruling which effectively used the Danilov's argument, I think I am correct.

I believe what replaced Danilov's problem in current rulings is the tendency to just remand cases back to USCIS wihout timelimits, as RIz' case showed us. So I would focus on building argument on "unreasonable delay" together with Mandamus.

Snorlax, Lotechguy, and other 9th Circuit members, have you stumbled upon recent Danilov's argument? It would be really important to prove me right or wrong.

Thank you.

 

[ipoh]

Pacer inconsistency !

The Answer is the document which is required from the Defendants. In this they admit or deny paragraph-by-paragraph the allegations of the Plaintiff. AUSA has an obligation to serve the Plaintiff (or his/her counsel) with a copy of the Answer, this may be done electronically, depending on the local rules. I'm surpised that you can't access this document on PACER...

Paz,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. Other cases in my district which have an Answer do have the documents. May be the clerk takes a while to post the actual files. Either way the last day for filing all dispositive motions is Apr 1st.
Is an Answer considered dispotive or non-dispositive motion?
Also the the judge ordered that all dispotive motions must accompany summary of judgement in my district.
Does that mean my case might never goto trial. He also set a trial date Apr 26. I thought filing Summary Judgement will prevent a case from going to trial. Looks like I don't have this right. Can you shed your openions/possibilities of the turns ahead?

 

[786riz]

Paz,

Thank you for your reply. It seems and it was descussed here in the last few days, that nowadays Danilov's argument is no longer an issue, because overwhelming number of later (-this year and last fall's) cases never ruled that "examination=investigation" per Danilov's ruling.

I also read that even the recent MTD texts avoided using this argument again. It is especially true to the 9th Circuit orders. I may be wrong as I still have to subscribe to Pacer and read the local cases not posted here, but unless you can find any recent ruling which effectively used the Danilov's argument, I think I am correct.

I believe what replaced Danilov's problem in current rulings is the tendency to just remand cases back to USCIS wihout timelimits, as RIz' case showed us. So I would focus on building argument on "unreasonable delay" together with Mandamus.

Snorlax, Lotechguy, and other 9th Circuit members, have you stumbled upon recent Danilov's argument? It would be really important to prove me right or wrong.

Thank you.

Hi shvili,
AUSA still using Danilov's argument plus these four more cases in my district Michigan when they are filing motions

Kassemi v. DHS, 06-1010, 2006 US Dist LEXIS 74516 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2006)
Walji v. Gonzales, 06-1163 (S.D. Tex. dismissed Oct. 6, 2006)
Damra v. Chertoff, No. 05-929, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45563 (N.D. Ohio 2006)
Abdelkhaleq v. BCIS Dist. Dir., No. 06-427, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50949 (N.D. Ind. 2006)
Martinez v. Gonzales, No. 06-378, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86537 (E.D. Va. 2006)

AUSA use to ask for case to be dismissed but now they are asking for either to dismiss or remand. Additional to it they are also showing that how hard FBI and USCIS is working on individual cases to resolve them and adding testimonies from different agents. By showing this they can get sympathy from judge in some district. It is true you can show 20 different cases in which jurisdiction confirmed but proving jurisdiction is still issue in some district and among some judges.

 

[JOE77]

pending case

well its almost three Years -6months ( 3 YRS-6 MONTHS) my pending case is pending at USCIS.l want to file WOM lawsuite to my District Newark,NJ,l need a good lawyer in nj with his or her price is not too much. or anyone can help me file myself and where l can get those document from court. my contact is jomens77@msn.com [FONT="Arial"][/FONT]

 

[bsus]

Bsus,
Like Kefira said, the last ~20 pages have lots of cases posted to fight MTD with very good reasoning points.

Again, I suggest to carefully read Legal Advisory re. Fed. Jurisdiction with RIDA-it talks specifically of non-discretionary duty to act, i.e., to provide a decision in WOM cases. And here's another (previously posted) case-reply to amend WOM decision (-granted). It also refers to RIDA but again brings points on WOM cases.

Good luck!

Thanks Shvili for the info. I actually did read more than last 20 pages. There are some really good references Opposition to MTD. Do you know which are successful ones?

Thanks

 

[paz1960]

Paz,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. Other cases in my district which have an Answer do have the documents. May be the clerk takes a while to post the actual files. Either way the last day for filing all dispositive motions is Apr 1st.
Is an Answer considered dispotive or non-dispositive motion?
Also the the judge ordered that all dispotive motions must accompany summary of judgement in my district.
Does that mean my case might never goto trial. He also set a trial date Apr 26. I thought filing Summary Judgement will prevent a case from going to trial. Looks like I don't have this right. Can you shed your openions/possibilities of the turns ahead?

The Answer is not a motion. A motion can (and should) be opposed by the non-moving party, an Answer can't be opposed. If a Motion is filed before the Answer to the original complaint is due, the Court will rule first on the motion and the Defendants (supposed that they filed a motion) don't have to answer your complaint till the motion is decided.

If the document filed by AUSA was indeed the Answer to your complaint (you should be able to get a copy contacting AUSA, s/he filed it most likely electronically, so it wouldn't be a big deal for her/him to forward you a copy by e-mail), the ball is with the Court. The judge may decide the case based only on the complaint and the answer (unlikely), or may order a case management conference or pre-trial hearing or something like that and ultimately can order a hearing (trial). After April 1st nobody is allowed to file any motion, so if AUSA doesn't file a Motion to Dismiss till that time, you will be heading most likely to a hearing in front of the judge, which I think is good, because it is less likely that your case wuld be simply dismissed. I don't have any hard statistics, but I got the impression reading many reports and court cases, that when actually a hearing happens, Plaintiff has a good chance to get some meaningful relief. If the judge is not sympatetic to your case, it is most likely that will decide (negatively) your case solely based on the filed documents. This gives me some hope that Kefira's case will also be resolved positively for her.

 

[paz1960]

Hi shvili,
AUSA still using Danilov's argument plus these four more cases in my district Michigan when they are filing motions

Kassemi v. DHS, 06-1010, 2006 US Dist LEXIS 74516 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2006)
Walji v. Gonzales, 06-1163 (S.D. Tex. dismissed Oct. 6, 2006)
Damra v. Chertoff, No. 05-929, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45563 (N.D. Ohio 2006)
Abdelkhaleq v. BCIS Dist. Dir., No. 06-427, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50949 (N.D. Ind. 2006)
Martinez v. Gonzales, No. 06-378, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86537 (E.D. Va. 2006)

AUSA use to ask for case to be dismissed but now they are asking for either to dismiss or remand. Additional to it they are also showing that how hard FBI and USCIS is working on individual cases to resolve them and adding testimonies from different agents. By showing this they can get sympathy from judge in some district. It is true you can show 20 different cases in which jurisdiction confirmed but proving jurisdiction is still issue in some district and among some judges.

Somebody (sorry, I forgot who) either posted here or sent me privately a recent Motion to Dismiss or Remand from the Washington District where AUSA was still using the same recycled Danilov arguments completed with some newer stuff, but still the same point that examination is not a single event but a process and the name check is part of it. So please don't take this issue lightly, although you don't have to address this in detail in your original complaint, but you should be prepared that in opposing a motion to dismiss or remand you may need to defend your case against such type of arguments.

But in general, I agree. It is still, in my opinion, the most difficult and critical issue in such cases is to convince the judge to remand the matter to the Service with meaningful "appropriate instructions".

 

[shvili]

Hi shvili,
AUSA still using Danilov's argument plus these four more cases in my district Michigan when they are filing motions

Kassemi v. DHS, 06-1010, 2006 US Dist LEXIS 74516 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2006)
Walji v. Gonzales, 06-1163 (S.D. Tex. dismissed Oct. 6, 2006)
Damra v. Chertoff, No. 05-929, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45563 (N.D. Ohio 2006)
Abdelkhaleq v. BCIS Dist. Dir., No. 06-427, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50949 (N.D. Ind. 2006)
Martinez v. Gonzales, No. 06-378, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86537 (E.D. Va. 2006)

AUSA use to ask for case to be dismissed but now they are asking for either to dismiss or remand. Additional to it they are also showing that how hard FBI and USCIS is working on individual cases to resolve them and adding testimonies from different agents. By showing this they can get sympathy from judge in some district. It is true you can show 20 different cases in which jurisdiction confirmed but proving jurisdiction is still issue in some district and among some judges.

786Riz,

Thank you for the information. What I understand, AUSA use Danilov's argument in these four cases in Michigan. Do you know of any RULING where Danilov's argument persuaded the judge?

What I understand from CA, even AUSAs don't bring it up any more because courts never really agree with it. And Paz, Wenlock and other seniors, do you know in how many cases in the last two years judges AGREED to the Danilov's argument? (That would be a blow if they still take it seriously.) Also, how many TOTAL rulings (after Danilov) agreed that "examination=investigation"? I can hardly think any.

May be I am too optimistic, so please tell me if you think I am wrong.

At the same time, Paz, we have your great argument to use if our MTD will bring it up again!

Group, please, comment on this!

 

[shvili]

Somebody (sorry, I forgot who) either posted here or sent me privately a recent Motion to Dismiss or Remand from the Washington District where AUSA was still using the same recycled Danilov arguments completed with some newer stuff, but still the same point that examination is not a single event but a process and the name check is part of it. So please don't take this issue lightly, although you don't have to address this in detail in your original complaint, but you should be prepared that in opposing a motion to dismiss or remand you may need to defend your case against such type of arguments.

But in general, I agree. It is still, in my opinion, the most difficult and critical issue in such cases is to convince the judge to remand the matter to the Service with meaningful "appropriate instructions".

Paz,

thank you for your input. The fact AUSA still uses it is probably part of the game when AUSA who knows he has a really weak argument still uses even the idiotic thing like that AFTER so many courts explained and re-explained that Danilov's is horribly flawed. So they bring it hoping to get an idiot for a judge or simply the judge who hates granting anything to immigrants. Or just to buy time? But in that case, a MTD that someone posted was more sensible: where AUSA simply denied every allegation in the complaint without bothering to explain why. (Really makes more sense than to bring an idiotic explanation.)

 

[wenlock]

List of Successful Mandamus Actions

I am creating list of successful Mandamus actions here are the ones in my list please add any more that you are aware of this will give us good collection at one place.

Mandamus Actions

Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12,2007)

Elkhatib v. Bulter, No. 04-22407, 2005 US Dist. Lexis 22858 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2005)

Aboushaban, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076

Singh v. Still No. C-06-2458-EMC (N.D Cal 2006)

Agbemaple v. INS No. 97 C 8547, WL 292441 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 1998)

Galvez v. Howerton, 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)

(holding a six-month delay unreasonable)

Paunescu v. INS, 76F. Supp. 2d 896, 901-02 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

(holding a ten-month delay unreasonable)

Yu, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 932 (holding a two-and-a-half year delay unreasonable).

Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 186 F. Supp. 2D 1244, 1252 (2002) rev'd on other grounds,
323 F. 3d 906 (11th Cir. 2003)

Iddir v. I.N.S 166 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1258, 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002)

Razaq v. Poulos No. 06-2461-WDB (N.D. Cal 2006)



1447(b)

U.S.A. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004)
Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
Castracani v. Chertoff, 377 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2005)
El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679 (W.D. Pa. 2005)
Aslam v. Gonzales, No. 06-614, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91747 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2006)
Shamsai v. Gonzales, No. 06-0882, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76613 (N.D. Ga. 2006)
Ji v. Gonzales, No. 06-1174, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85925 (E.D. Mo. 2006)
Alhassan v. Gonzales, No. 06-1571, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89018 (D. Colo. 2006)
Eng v. Chertoff, No. 06-1302, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63042 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
Shalabi v. Gonzales, No. 06-866, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77096 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006)
Said v. Gonzales, No. 06-986, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67750 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2006)
Meyersiek v. USCIS, No. 05-398, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37255 (D.R.I. 2006)
Daami v. Gonzales, No. 05-3667, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37539 (D.N.J. 2006)
Zhang v. Chertoff, No. 05-72121, 2006 U.S Dist. LEXIS 45313 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
Khan v. Chertoff, No. 05-560, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48937 (D. Ariz. 2006)
Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales, No. 05-1584 (D. Ore. Mar. 22, 2006) (unpublished)
Shalan v. Chertoff, No. 05-10980, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253 (D. Mass. 2006)
Saidi v. Jenifer, No. 05-71832, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35466 (E.D. Mich. 2005)
Essa v. USCIS, No. 05-1449, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38803 (D. Minn. 2005)
El-Daour v. Chertoff, No. 04-1911, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18325 (W.D. Pa. 2005)
Angel v. Ridge, No. 04-4121, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10667 (S.D. Ill. 2005)
Sweilem v. USCIS, No. 05-125, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19630 (N.D. Ohio 2005)


Please Add more to the List if you are aware of any thing that I did not listed.

 

[shvili]

Thanks Shvili for the info. I actually did read more than last 20 pages. There are some really good references Opposition to MTD. Do you know which are successful ones?

Thanks

bsus,

Unfortunately, I don't remember which are the ones that even got to the order stage, I have to review them to tell. Except Acosta case (I reposted yesterday), it was quoted several times but I forgot if it was granted or not. May be Seniors know? And here I found the original WOM order in ElKhatib (1st attac-t). Also ohter orders and the famous Castarcani decision used a lot that ensures courts jurisdiction (that's for natu-n cases but you may find it useful.)

 

[paz1960]

786Riz,

Thank you for the information. What I understand, AUSA use Danilov's argument in these four cases in Michigan. Do you know of any RULING where Danilov's argument persuaded the judge?

What I understand from CA, even AUSAs don't bring it up any more because courts never really agree with it. And Paz, Wenlock and other seniors, do you know in how many cases in the last two years judges AGREED to the Danilov's argument? (That would be a blow if they still take it seriously.) Also, how many TOTAL rulings (after Danilov) agreed that "examination=investigation"? I can hardly think any.

May be I am too optimistic, so please tell me if you think I am wrong.

At the same time, Paz, we have your great argument to use if our MTD will bring it up again!

Group, please, comment on this!

Shvili, the cases cited by 786riz are not from Michigan, as you can see from the citations, and they are 5 not 4. And in these cases not only AUSA used Danilov; the court actually ruled against plaintiff's complaint, being persuaded by the Danilov type arguments. Would you finally believe that this is still not a trivial issue?

Besides these five cases, there are a couple of more in the S.Tex. district, all originated from the same judge. I read somewhere that there is a class action appeal in work against these decisions in Houston. I don't know details what is the outcome of this action.

There are no easily available centralised statistics (besides USCIS Genergal Counsel, who certainly have all the cases and outcome against USCIS, but I have a feeling that you would have hard time to get this information from them) so it is difficult to answer your questions about how many cases in the past two years where judges bought the Danilov argument and how many where they didn't. A good approximation is wenlock's list posted above and 786riz's negative list also posted above. I don't have a better one.

 

[hopeforall2]

Hello every one, here is my journey:

Applied for Citizenship and was interviewed in August 2006, I passed the test but the officer requested more evidence, which I mailed the next day.

During the interview, after I finished answering the questions in the N400 form, the Officer questioned me from his computer more questions and had me sign on the print out of the questions and answers, I did not know that those extra questions are voluntary in nature until I was half way in the questioning when he mentioned it. I did not want to argue in fear of any negative outcome with him. At the end of the interview He had me sign the application and Photos and gave me the N652, which stated that I passed the test and that I need to provide more evidence.

Since then no news, Tried following:

1) Called numerous times to the National Customer line. Outcome was that my file is now with Supervisory review.
2) Contacted My congressman who requested information from USCIS, outcome was that my file is with Supervisory review.
3) Numerous Info passes, outcome was " wait " , your file is with Supervisory Review.

I know for fact that my background check was completed (as per 1-800 IIO) somewhere in April 2006.

I filed (with a help on an attorney) a lawsuit based on 1447 (b) in Jan 2007,
Answer due 26 Mar 2007 (Court gave defendants 60 days to reply).

Until today have not received or heard any news from the defendants.

Is this normal, what should I expect and why they did not reply yet???

Thank you.

 

[786riz]

I am creating list of successful Mandamus actions here are the ones in my list please add any more that you are aware of this will give us good collection at one place.

Mandamus Actions

Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12,2007)

Elkhatib v. Bulter, No. 04-22407, 2005 US Dist. Lexis 22858 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2005)

Aboushaban, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076

Singh v. Still No. C-06-2458-EMC (N.D Cal 2006)

Agbemaple v. INS No. 97 C 8547, WL 292441 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 1998)

Galvez v. Howerton, 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)

(holding a six-month delay unreasonable)

Paunescu v. INS, 76F. Supp. 2d 896, 901-02 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

(holding a ten-month delay unreasonable)

Yu, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 932 (holding a two-and-a-half year delay unreasonable).

Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 186 F. Supp. 2D 1244, 1252 (2002) rev'd on other grounds,
323 F. 3d 906 (11th Cir. 2003)

Iddir v. I.N.S 166 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1258, 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002)

Razaq v. Poulos No. 06-2461-WDB (N.D. Cal 2006)



1447(b)

U.S.A. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004)
Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
Castracani v. Chertoff, 377 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2005)
El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679 (W.D. Pa. 2005)
Aslam v. Gonzales, No. 06-614, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91747 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2006)
Shamsai v. Gonzales, No. 06-0882, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76613 (N.D. Ga. 2006)
Ji v. Gonzales, No. 06-1174, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85925 (E.D. Mo. 2006)
Alhassan v. Gonzales, No. 06-1571, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89018 (D. Colo. 2006)
Eng v. Chertoff, No. 06-1302, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63042 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
Shalabi v. Gonzales, No. 06-866, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77096 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006)
Said v. Gonzales, No. 06-986, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67750 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2006)
Meyersiek v. USCIS, No. 05-398, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37255 (D.R.I. 2006)
Daami v. Gonzales, No. 05-3667, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37539 (D.N.J. 2006)
Zhang v. Chertoff, No. 05-72121, 2006 U.S Dist. LEXIS 45313 (E.D. Mich. 2006)
Khan v. Chertoff, No. 05-560, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48937 (D. Ariz. 2006)
Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales, No. 05-1584 (D. Ore. Mar. 22, 2006) (unpublished)
Shalan v. Chertoff, No. 05-10980, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253 (D. Mass. 2006)
Saidi v. Jenifer, No. 05-71832, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35466 (E.D. Mich. 2005)
Essa v. USCIS, No. 05-1449, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38803 (D. Minn. 2005)
El-Daour v. Chertoff, No. 04-1911, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18325 (W.D. Pa. 2005)
Angel v. Ridge, No. 04-4121, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10667 (S.D. Ill. 2005)
Sweilem v. USCIS, No. 05-125, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19630 (N.D. Ohio 2005)


Please Add more to the List if you are aware of any thing that I did not listed.

Hi Team,
Here are some more very recent successful cases that I am citing in my motion.


Qazi v. Gonzales, No. H-06-1574, 2007 WL 446040 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 6, 2007) (ordering Gonzalez to direct the FBI to complete the required background check within the next 120 days and deliver to CIS. CIS ordered to make prompt determination. Case administratively closed with Plaintiffs right to reinstatement upon notification); Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12, 2007) (Gonzales ordered to instruct FBI to complete checks within 90 days; CIS ordered to complete checks within 90 days; and CIS ordered to adjudicate naturalization application within 120 days and file copy of adjudication with Court within 5 business days of adjudication); Aarda v. USCIS, et. al., No. 06-1561 RHKJAJB, 2007 WL 465220 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2007) (CIS and defendants ordered to complete all background checks as necessary to process naturalization application and that the required action be completed within 120 days of said order. Court will retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance); Hussein v. Gonzales, No. 306-CV-497J-32MCR, 2007 WL 328691 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2007) (FBI and CIS are directed to act on Plaintiffs naturalization application no later than March 26, 2007); Manzoor v. Chertoff, et. al., No. 2:06cv455, 2007 VL 413227 (E.D. Va. February 8, 2007) (CIS directed to make a decision within 120 days of order); Bahran Mechanic v. DHS, et. al., No. 4-06-3524, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1154 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2007) (ordered to complete investigation as expeditiously as possible, case administratively closed, but Plaintiff may reinstate if further review proves necessary)

 

[786riz]

Please review and comment

Hi Team,
With the help of you and especially lotech, paz and couple of attorneys I am able to come up with the attached draft for my Motion to Alter or Amend. Please review and pass your comments.
Again thank you so much for your help in this matter.

 

[Mr.Forever485]

Finaly we got approval letters!!!

Today we got approval letters from Newark local office!!!

"Your application for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident has been approved. You should receive your resident alien card by mail in about 6 months. If you wish to obtain a temporary alien card, you must appear IN PERSON with the original of this letter ......."

We waited more than 2300 days. Name check was pending more than 4 years.

I was going through this thread few hours every day. I was planning to file WOM soon.

This is a great forum. I know how much you guys are suffering. This is big pain...... We must fight against this unjust and unfair system.

I did so many things ( writing to congressman, fbi,foipa,senator,first lady, making infopass appointments, etc). I will put everything in big thread hoping that this will help others.

Thats all for today.

 

[paz1960]

Hello every one, here is my journey:

Applied for Citizenship and was interviewed in August 2006, I passed the test but the officer requested more evidence, which I mailed the next day.

During the interview, after I finished answering the questions in the N400 form, the Officer questioned me from his computer more questions and had me sign on the print out of the questions and answers, I did not know that those extra questions are voluntary in nature until I was half way in the questioning when he mentioned it. I did not want to argue in fear of any negative outcome with him. At the end of the interview He had me sign the application and Photos and gave me the N652, which stated that I passed the test and that I need to provide more evidence.

Since then no news, Tried following:

1) Called numerous times to the National Customer line. Outcome was that my file is now with Supervisory review.
2) Contacted My congressman who requested information from USCIS, outcome was that my file is with Supervisory review.
3) Numerous Info passes, outcome was " wait " , your file is with Supervisory Review.

I know for fact that my background check was completed (as per 1-800 IIO) somewhere in April 2006.

I filed (with a help on an attorney) a lawsuit based on 1447 (b) in Jan 2007,
Answer due 26 Mar 2007 (Court gave defendants 60 days to reply).

Until today have not received or heard any news from the defendants.

Is this normal, what should I expect and why they did not reply yet???

Thank you.

AUSA usually files something (an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss or Remand) in the last moment, sometimes literally 5 minutes before 5 pm in the last day. They can file electronically. So be patient, you will get something on March 26.

 

[joyeia]

april 1 st motion

Sorry Paz,
I am confused about this April 1st isssue. What it is? does that mean we can not file opposition to motion to dismiss either after april 1st?

Thanks,

Joyeia
-----------

The Answer is not a motion. A motion can (and should) be opposed by the non-moving party, an Answer can't be opposed. If a Motion is filed before the Answer to the original complaint is due, the Court will rule first on the motion and the Defendants (supposed that they filed a motion) don't have to answer your complaint till the motion is decided.

If the document filed by AUSA was indeed the Answer to your complaint (you should be able to get a copy contacting AUSA, s/he filed it most likely electronically, so it wouldn't be a big deal for her/him to forward you a copy by e-mail), the ball is with the Court. The judge may decide the case based only on the complaint and the answer (unlikely), or may order a case management conference or pre-trial hearing or something like that and ultimately can order a hearing (trial). After April 1st nobody is allowed to file any motion, so if AUSA doesn't file a Motion to Dismiss till that time, you will be heading most likely to a hearing in front of the judge, which I think is good, because it is less likely that your case wuld be simply dismissed. I don't have any hard statistics, but I got the impression reading many reports and court cases, that when actually a hearing happens, Plaintiff has a good chance to get some meaningful relief. If the judge is not sympatetic to your case, it is most likely that will decide (negatively) your case solely based on the filed documents. This gives me some hope that Kefira's case will also be resolved positively for her.