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"!
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.)
It is very possible that we may be dealing with a "education" issue and the necessity to point out to the judge all contemprory opinions of the name check delay (administrative economy, interest of national security) (ombudman report, other congressional oversight reports if any etc) and use 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,..” to drive home the point that congressional intent is in fact not being served in these delayed beyond 120 to 180 day cases.
The question is where do we do this ? In the initial complaint or the MTD ? As riz786 case shows if we dont do it in the complaint, then it may be late since the judge renders a decesion not even waiting for an answer from the defendents. The question is can one really put all thi sin the complaint ? I guess you can if it is a 1447b+WOM, but I have not seen any such complaint.