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

ipoh said:
Paz,
I spoke to my attorney this morning. He received the copy of Answer. He said its not different from others he has seen.
He has several cases WOM in 2 states he practices and he said the naturalizations cases are getting through without much of a litigation as compared to the AOS ones, so good for most of the folks in this forum. Also he told me that the judge assigned to my case is conservative :(. He is also preparing to file a motion before the Apr 1st, I will have to talk to him what kind of motions a plaintiff can file when there is no motion from the AUSA.


Joyeia,
Paz was talking about my specific case's last day (Apr 1st) to file motions.
Click to expand...

Ipoh, your attorney most likely will file a Motion for Summary Judgement. My general recommendation would be to trust your lawyer. Unless you have bad experience with him/her (in that case you should look for another one), it is a matter of personal trust, like a patient-doctor relationship. You certainly should not do things behind his/her back, like contacting AUSA by yourself, without your attorney's knowledge. There was a forum member is such situation and s/he was told rightfully by AUSA that it is unethical for him/her to talk to a Plaintiff who is represented by a counsel.
 
arguments for Timeline for 1447b remand cases

shvili, snorlax, paz,others,
There was a post about issue of comming up with arguments for a timeline on 1447b remand cases. I think we need to brainstorm this and come up with some points. One point is that the ombudman report 2005 and 2006 both say that delays in name check are bad for the agency and national securtiy. The 2005 report says "Not only do delays in processing times require additional security checks when they expire, but each additional check adds extra financial burdens to USCIS" and the 2006 report says "Thus, delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence (albeit in an interim status) in the United States while the check is pending. In that sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by prolonging the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.

Can this be used as an argument to ask the court to expedite long pending N400 applications ?
 
Manzoor v. Chertoff

Another quick thought about the order in this case.

There is no indication that, in enacting § 1447(b), Congress intended to expedite the background investigation part of the application process. And the court has no desire to make the filing of a lawsuit a means for a naturalization applicant to “jump to the front of the line.” wrote the judge in the opinion and order.

In my opinion, there is a problem with this. When this statue was enacted (1990) there was no "full criminal background check" mandated, which includes the extended name check, as this was introduced only in November 2002. If Plaintiff shows that USCIS is processing same type of applications filed XX months AFTER his/her application, Plaintiff can't be reasonably suspected that s/he wants to "jump to the front of the line". According to FBI officials, only 1% of the total name check requests require more than 6 months of processing (check the 6 months, I may not remember correctly). So waiting twice as much as the normal processing time and being in the minuscule 1% minority with unfinished name check certainly doesn't make you a "line jumper" if you ask the Court to intervene, at least not in my interpretation. But I am not the judge...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lotechguy said:
shvili, snorlax, paz,others,
There was a post about issue of comming up with arguments for a timeline on 1447b remand cases. I think we need to brainstorm this and come up with some points. One point is that the ombudman report 2005 and 2006 both say that delays in name check are bad for the agency and national securtiy. The 2005 report says "Not only do delays in processing times require additional security checks when they expire, but each additional check adds extra financial burdens to USCIS" and the 2006 report says "Thus, delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence (albeit in an interim status) in the United States while the check is pending. In that sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by prolonging the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.

Can this be used as an argument to ask the court to expedite long pending N400 applications ?
Click to expand...

Certainly yes, but this is not (much) stronger than you would cite John Doe's opinion about this issue. The Ombudsman's opinion doesn't have any legislative autority and he doesn't speak officially for USCIS, so I don't believe that this can persuade much a judge who is from the beginning against solving these type of cases. You certainly can't appeal a negative decision with the argument that the Court didn't take into account the Ombudsman's opinion about this issue...
 
paz1960 said:
This case, in my opinion will take over the infamous Danilov v. Aguirre and I predict that we will see referenced by the Government in many of the future cases. It is really bad!!!

This order has essentially the same consequence as in 786riz case. The court would refuse to instruct FBI to complete the name check in a finite timeframe, Plaintiff would have to wait till FBI does its job (if ever) and this lawsuit would be not more and not less than a $350 reminder for USCIS to do its job AFTER the name check is completed by FBI, whenever they want. Bad, really bad...
Click to expand...
Horrible… Lady judge, again. What is wrong with her? Failed career in medicine? This one is a courtesy of G. Bush senior: http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2225 to us immigrants.

“And the court has no desire to make the filing of a lawsuit a means for a naturalization applicant to “jump to the front of the line.”” Argument worthy in the course of a quarrel at a farmers market, not in the court of law. Where are the references to the appropriate statues? Yet she went typing at length to create this toxic waste. Just read the comments here: http://www.therobingroom.com/RatingListing.aspx?ID=1517 and see where it all comes from. She is rated among 10 worst judges in the country: http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx!

No surprise that AUSAs love this. The only hope that we can come up with a decent text to rebut this garbage and real judges will be able to see through and apply the law.

Best of luck!
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
snorlax said:
Horrible… Lady judge, again. What is wrong with her? Failed career in medicine? This one is a courtesy of G. Bush senior: http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2225 to us immigrants.

“And the court has no desire to make the filing of a lawsuit a means for a naturalization applicant to “jump to the front of the line.”” Argument worthy in the course of a quarrel at a farmers market, not in the court of law.
Best of luck!
snorlax
Click to expand...

My AUSA used the same expression in my MTD “jump to the front of the line.” I disagreed and asked het to explain to me and to judge why other similar cases to mine, filed in/about same day when I filed WOM, with the NC pending for the same time as mine but with attorneys already resolved. Why INS and FBI expedited their NC and I am still waiting already for another 5 month after my original WOM. I know that it is not strong and probably irrelevant, but I was naiive and thought that it will cautch judge attention that WOM cases exists and if they r represented by attorneys, then they treated differently then PerSe. Yes, I was naiive and judge did not bother to read at least first page of my case at all.
 
snorlax said:
Horrible… Lady judge, again. What is wrong with her? Failed career in medicine? This one is a courtesy of G. Bush senior: http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2225 to us immigrants.

“And the court has no desire to make the filing of a lawsuit a means for a naturalization applicant to “jump to the front of the line.”” Argument worthy in the course of a quarrel at a farmers market, not in the court of law. Where are the references to the appropriate statues? Yet she went typing at length to create this toxic waste. Just read the comments here: http://www.therobingroom.com/RatingListing.aspx?ID=1517 and see where it all comes from. She is rated among 10 worst judges in the country: http://www.therobingroom.com/Default.aspx!

No surprise that AUSAs love this. The only hope that we can come up with a decent text to rebut this garbage and real judges will be able to see through and apply the law.

Best of luck!
snorlax
Click to expand...

This is unbelievable. The worst thing is that she is cheif judge. Thanks god I am not in this district.
 
“jump to the front of the line.”

kefira said:
My AUSA used the same expression in my MTD “jump to the front of the line.” I disagreed and asked het to explain to me and to judge why other similar cases to mine, filed in/about same day when I filed WOM, with the NC pending for the same time as mine but with attorneys already resolved. Why INS and FBI expedited their NC and I am still waiting already for another 5 month after my original WOM. I know that it is not strong and probably irrelevant, but I was naiive and thought that it will cautch judge attention that WOM cases exists and if they r represented by attorneys, then they treated differently then PerSe. Yes, I was naiive and judge did not bother to read at least first page of my case at all.
Click to expand...

The logic of this “jump to the front of the line.” is like:
If one of your leg was cut off by a criminal, you simply have no right to go to court to seek justice, because I know another guy whose both legs were cut off by the same criminal has started a lawsuit yet.

Unreasonable delay is unreasonable delay. Its nature will not change no matter whether there exists a longer unreasonable delay or not.
 
united2007 said:
The logic of this “jump to the front of the line.” is like:
If one of your leg was cut off by a criminal, you simply have no right to go to court to seek justice, because I know another guy whose both legs were cut off by the same criminal has started a lawsuit yet.

Unreasonable delay is unreasonable delay. Its nature will not change no matter whether there exists a longer unreasonable delay or not.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We just need to come up with some “legalese” and dig up some set of statues/precedents to deliver this message to the judges.

Best of luck!
snorlax
 
WOM Attorney Recommendation for CA Central district

Hi All,

I did not had the guts to go Pro se (Kudos for all going pro se) but now I am realizing my mistake, I need to dump my attorney for AOS WOM currently pending at CA Central district, my current attorney is too unrsponsive; was a mistake to hire and do not even know enough about WOM . I will appreciate your help in answering -

1. How bad is to change the attorney during the case ?
2. Your recommendation for attorney for California Central District.

Thanks,

Paz1960: I have been a silent reader of your comments, I appreicate your efforts in this forum and wish you all the luck in future (hopefully it will make up for the trouble that all of us had to endure).
 
drm_ks said:
Interesting forum!

I just wanted to share my story and to encourage everyone to proceed with necessary steps, whenever necessary, the sooner the better. :) Pro se for 1447 is SIMPLE, please do not be affraid.

Dec 7, 2005: my N-400 application received.
March 3, 2006: fingerprinted.
May 4, 2006: interview passed, but name check pending.....
January 5, 2007: sent a 30-day warning to defendants, plus the US district attorney.
February 7, 2007: filed 1447, pro se at the US district court in San Jose, CA.
March 7, 2007: called Us district attorney office, politely inquired about my case. I was told that the day before (sic) they sent an expedite request to FBI.
March 14, 2007: received a call back, USCIS confirmed through the US district attorney's office, they are ready to adjudicate. They wanted me to drop the case first, by signing mutual stipulation. I refused to do so without a firmed up Oath date.
March 15, 2007: they called back.Proposed that stipulation says that the Oath will be scheduled,if thereis a space (??), some time in April. I rejected such text. They then found a spot for March 21 and they faxed me N-445 with that date on it. It was included into the stipulation. I accepted the stipulation.
March 21, 2007 (TODAY): I am happily staring at my brand new Certificate of Naturalization as I am typing this for you. :)

The only mistake I made since my interview: I should have sent them a 30-day warning in September 2006, after I called the National Service center and after I was told at the InfoPass that they don't care about 120 days... And then, I should have sued them in October.

The courts work, especially when you are up against bureaucratical free-riding on taxpayers monies, such as "USCIS long FBI name checks".
This is the gratest country in the world, checks and ballances in favor of all THE PEOPLELIVING IN AMERICA (citizens and citizens-to-be, The Bill of Rights). That's why we all dream about the day to become citizens. So as I said: go for it, the sooner the better! :)

All the best!

MANY thanks to all the bloggers.:) Very helpfullstuff here... :cool:
Click to expand...

Congraturalions, drm_ks!
 
Hi everybody,

I filed my lawsuit 20 days ago and still no summonses issued for the case... Has anyone had this problem before, or am I the only "Lucky" one... I realize that they are checking the case, but how long does it take to read through 4 pages... Is there anything I can do about it?
 
paz1960 said:
Another quick thought about the order in this case.

There is no indication that, in enacting § 1447(b), Congress intended to expedite the background investigation part of the application process. And the court has no desire to make the filing of a lawsuit a means for a naturalization applicant to “jump to the front of the line.” wrote the judge in the opinion and order.

In my opinion, there is a problem with this. When this statue was enacted (1990) there was no "full criminal background check" mandated, which includes the extended name check, as this was introduced only in November 2002. If Plaintiff shows that USCIS is processing same type of applications filed XX months AFTER his/her application, Plaintiff can't be reasonably suspected that s/he wants to "jump to the front of the line". According to FBI officials, only 1% of the total name check requests require more than 6 months of processing (check the 6 months, I may not remember correctly). So waiting twice as much as the normal processing time and being in the minuscule 1% minority with unfinished name check certainly doesn't make you a "line jumper" if you ask the Court to intervene, at least not in my interpretation. But I am not the judge...
Click to expand...


Paz, Lotechguy and all concerned:

I find this logic totally crooked: when your application is not finished while people who applied a year or more later than you are getting adjudicated, HOW ON EARTH it is YOU JUMP IN FRONT OF THEM WHEN YOU ASK FOR YOUR CASE TO BE COMPLETED???

On the opposite, when AUSA (and some not objective judges) argue that you should not be allowed to "jump in front of the line", what line are we talking about"? It is them jumping in front of YOUR LINE because YOUR case should have been completed first as they claim, it's "first-come-first-serve basis"! :mad:

So This twisted logic should be argued.

Also, Lotech, Paz, and others,

Here are the points I'd like to point on for 'Unreasonable delay"

1)Per agencies guidelines, the Fingerprint check expires in 15 months. This is although indirest, but reasonable to conclude, that the CIS expects all your background checks to finish within 15 months, so they won't need to repeat Fingerprint and waste taxpayers' money.

2)For N-400 cases: the 120-days after interview is a very clear guideline that ALL matters associated with your naturalization must be completed within this time. After that applicant has a right to sue CIS.This also applies to the name check which was supposed to be received BEFORE the interview. But if it's not finished, here is 120 days to complete it. SO although they can say, CIS was not even supposed to interview before receiving nc results, we can argue, CIS EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THE NC RESULTS within 120 days, that is why they called for interview in advance. So by that, 120 days after interview is reasonable time.

3) What I intend to write in my 1447+WOM petition: "If no time limit was meant to be imposed on background checks ordered by USCIS in relation to naturalization applications then statues 8 C.F.R. §335.3(a), 1446(d), and others lose their meaning and the intent of these and other related law articles become unclear."

4) Congress intentions expressed in 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b):
“It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application,..” (but here I twist my logic as I argue before, that Naturalization is NOT a benefit (meaning not discretionary benefit),it is a right upon fulfilling statutory requirements.)
 
Ninyte said:
Hi everybody,

I filed my lawsuit 20 days ago and still no summonses issued for the case... Has anyone had this problem before, or am I the only "Lucky" one... I realize that they are checking the case, but how long does it take to read through 4 pages... Is there anything I can do about it?
Click to expand...


This is normal. Some times it takes long time. I had to wait almost 4 weeks. Hang in tight as long as your case is valid you will get summons.
 
DUDE12190 said:
If you have a Pacer account, you can check any update on your case. Because you are not filing Pro Se, as most people on this forum, AUSA can not answer you directly, but do not worry, AUSA will need to file something by the due date. It could be a request for extension though!! Good Luck, regards, dude
Click to expand...

Thanks DUDE , I don't have any experience in lawsuits before , it is kind of scary feeling,

Hopping for the best to all .

Regards
 
How the process goes?

Hi Shvili,

Thanks for all the advices and information provided to me. Can you help me to understand what are the next possible steps following the MTD? It looks like this:
1. Receive MTD
2. I file Opposition to MTD within 20 days.
3. Wait for judge decision?
4. To select ADR process?
5, Have case management conference?

I searched the this thread and trying to get an idea of how PRO SE process goes step by step, and what are the key actions I need to take, but I have found anything yet.

Thanks
 
How the process goes?

Hi Shvili,

Thanks for all the advices and information provided to me. Can you help me to understand what are the next possible steps following the MTD? It looks like this:
1. Receive MTD
2. I file Opposition to MTD within 20 days.
3. Wait for judge decision?
4. To select ADR process? Which ADR process is the best?
5, Have case management conference?

I searched the this thread and trying to get an idea of how PRO SE process goes step by step, and what are the key actions I need to take, but I have found anything yet.

Thanks
 
paz1960 said:
Certainly yes, but this is not (much) stronger than you would cite John Doe's opinion about this issue. The Ombudsman's opinion doesn't have any legislative autority and he doesn't speak officially for USCIS, so I don't believe that this can persuade much a judge who is from the beginning against solving these type of cases. You certainly can't appeal a negative decision with the argument that the Court didn't take into account the Ombudsman's opinion about this issue...
Click to expand...

Paz,
I agree with you, but there is a very real possiblity that these judges, not being involved too much into this issue of name check delays other than what is presented to them by AUSA and plaintiffs and press do not know what the real opinions are of congressional oversight institutions like the ombudsman. It is natural for someone like that , for example a congressional aide to think that the plaintiff is just complaining because he wants to get his things done faster than the next guy. So may be if we get other authoritative cotemprory opinions on this delay included the judge may browse through it....
 
Legal Citation Formality

Hello My Friends (espeically those Vets and Gurus, like PAZ):

Please please please spend a few minutes help me on the formality of the legal citations!! (Or you can point me to a place where I can study the answer by myself).

I posted similar question a few days ago. Later, I saw another person also posted similar question.

I my MTD's Autorities section, the AUSA lists Supreme case as:

Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004).

However, in the text of the MTD, he used something like:
<<<There is no "discrete agency action which it is required to take," 542 U.S. at 64; there is no action which has been "unlawfully withheld;" nor, therefore, can it be said that the agency's action has been "unreasonably delayed." 542 U.S. at 63 n.1.>>>

I am confused here, because I am not sure the "542 U.S at 64" refers to the listed Supreme Norton case above, or something else.

Meanwhile, I also have question on the general meaning of the different part of the legal citation, such as

Paunescu v. INS, 76 F.Supp.2d 896.

what's the the meaning of the part of "F.Supp.2d".

Please help me, or piont me to a place where I can learn it. It is very critical to my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top