Please find attached two files which contain a comprehensive description of the name check process. You can find some addresses and phone numbers in these files, although I think that some of them may be outdated. E.g., now the Section Chief for the NNCP is Michael Cannon. These files were written by a previously active member of this forum (I believe); I don't remember where did I find them (here or somewhere else on the Internet).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Please find attached two files which contain a comprehensive description of the name check process. You can find some addresses and phone numbers in these files, although I think that some of them may be outdated. E.g., now the Section Chief for the NNCP is Michael Cannon. These files were written by a previously active member of this forum (I believe); I don't remember where did I find them (here or somewhere else on the Internet).
hopeforall2
Registered Users (C)
Unfortunately, yes. See, e.g., the Southern District of Texas, Houston division.
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt dismissed several cases immediately after filing, stating that the 120 day clock didn't start if the name check is not complete, so the court has no jurisdiction. One example is Siddiqul v. Chertoff, case 4:06-mc-00350 (S.D.TX, Aug. 24, 2006)
Other judges in the same district didn't have the same problem. See, e.g., Torok v. Chertoff, case 4:06-mc-00345 (S.D.TX, Sept. 25, 2006), judge Lynn N. Hughes.
Thanks paz for your help , in the coming days I will let you all know of the outcome of my lawsuit.
Best wishes .
Some new answers & stats from NNCP to congressional oversight about name check delays. Confirms that as of Nov 2006, backlog is at 302,016 names. Out of these 106011 are over 1 year old, (44000 Naturalization, 50000 AOS, rest others) More answers:
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/Muellerresponses050206.pdf
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/Muellerresponses050206.pdf
hi, Paz, wenlock and all the friends here,
I m prepairing my OPP, and it almost done.
according to the imforation i got from this forum, that when My NC is done, it maybe or maybe not known by AUSA. I email my AUSA, and he told me that no update on my case by Friday evening. If i decide to file my OPP next week, should I make a infopass to find out if my NC clear or not from INS or just go ahead to file my OPP?
I got some information from other forum that even someone's NC cleared and forward to Washington DC, AND IT still show no update from AUSA side. I don't how AUSA work with INS and FBI, but i think there must be some gap among them, and before i File my OPP, I just want make sure that my NC still pending.
I would suggest you that instead of wasting your time for an info pass, if you just wanna know the status of your b.g check, just call the 800 number, and you will get the same answer that you can get from an infopass. They all have the same system. Also, I think you are aware that INS no longer exists anymore. It's USCIS now. Best of luck to you, regards, dude
Thanks DUDE and all friends for your kind help and participation:
Here is one issue that is bothering me and could not find answer to it -
In the same court can different judges have different interpretation of the 1447 (b) law in assuming jurisdiction and applying the 120 days rule??
In other words, in the same court, can one judge agree on jurisdiction while other judge does not agree??
Thank you.
Yes, it is possible that one judge agress and other does not. Good luck to you, regards, dude
Zevs
How did you get to talk to an FBI agent?
Were they helpful?
Thanks,
Since almost one year, FBI is no longer answering the indivdual inquries about the name check either by phone, email, fax or in writing. You can verify this by opening these files that Paz just posted and the number is one of the numbers listed there. FBI will work if you file a lawsuit and office of general cousel initates expediate processing of your b.g check. I know it is sad. I think FBI got exhausted becuse alot of people were calling them and they off course do not have enough people to handle those calls. Good luck to you and to all of us.regards, dude
Last edited by a moderator:
I got the oath letter!
I got the oath letter the second day my case has been dismissed. So fast! But if they always do things like this, I do not need to sue them at all.
Thanks to everyone in this forum.
I got the oath letter the second day my case has been dismissed. So fast! But if they always do things like this, I do not need to sue them at all.
Thanks to everyone in this forum.
Congratulation, sfbayarea, you got what you wanted. I think that you will get your decision (hopefully approval) in less than 30 days, so in my opinion is safe to sign the stipulation. To make absolutely sure that you cover all the bases, I would propose AUSA to add the following sentence:
"If Plaintiff's N-400 application is not adjudicated within 30 days from the date of the order, this Court will reopen this instant case."
I think that AUSA and USCIS will agree 1. because they already know that your case is adjudicated they need to regain jurisdiction (you are in the 9th Circuit Court, where the distict court has exclusive jurisdiction on your case from the moment you filed your complaint) 2. because AUSA is proposing to dismiss the case without prejudice, which means that you can sue defendants agin, for exactly the same reason.
Shvili, your husband's 41 months waiting time for the name check completion is a very strong case to be considered unreasonable. You should go with the 1447(b) (to show that the court has jurisdiction) and WOM to show that the Governement has a non-discretionary duty to process timely the application.
It is clear that the Government has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate your application in a reasonable timeframe, the problem is that there is no prescribed time limit for processing the name check. You have to rely on the judge's opinion, what is reasonable and what is not.
Because I didn't use the WOM arguments and I didn't study that legislation, I don't know what is worth to include in your complaint and what should be left for an Opposition.
Paz, Lotechguy,
Thank you for your replies.
Lotech, I'll try to include very briefly the points why the delay is unreasonable. And Paz, I agree, the problem is that it's entirely up to your judge to rule if nc delay of 41+mo. is unreasoable or not, and since time frame and duty is prescribed only for USCIS actions, will the judge even hold FBI responsible for the delay.
So I'll have to search most current local cases and will open a Pacer account for that. As Paz pointed, even the same district judges contradict each other in their rulings, in this situation the lack of uniform approach is really frustrating. But that's a consequence of somewhat unclear laws and totally broken government system.
I think we do need to research laws and caselaw and come up with a strong and clear argument re. FBI (and any agency performing a background check) and their responsibility to applicants stuck in CIS cases.
I'll post if I come with more ideas on this. I couldn't work on this case at all during the weekend, so now will do some catch up.
Thank you again,
Shvili
Hello Friends:
I think most of use are indeed stuck in FBI's name check. If we can successfully justify FBI should be compeled to finish its unreasonably delayed work, we are directly targeting the core of the issue (instead of working around the issue with CIS). If we do successfully estabilish this point, many AUSA defense will become meaningless, and our problem can be solved quick.
The logic in my mind is as follows:
Since currently CIS claim in all cases:
(1) If FBI background check is not clear, CIS can't adjudicate the case, and
(2) If FBI background check is clear, CIS can move forward to adjudicate the case.
These statement indeed makes FBI a necessary (may even a sufficient dondition in some context) condition for CIS adjudiation.
Because CIS adjudication (ie. Attorney General in DJ) is required by law (in many application types), and FBI is a necessary condition for the adjudication, and FBI is a branch in DJ, FBI should have a derivitive non-discretionary duty to finish the name check within a reasonable timeframe.
* Can we find laws to justify each turn of the logic reasoning?
The related laws that I can find are:
Executive Order 10450, and 8 U.S.C. § 1105(b),
but neither provision obligates the FBI to conduct a name check investigation in connection with AOS application.
* I need your input and comments to make the whole logic sounds more straightforward.
United2007,
Great comment!
is this what you're referring to?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-I-1105.html
Also, please provide the link for the Executive order 10450.
I agree with your approach, we just need a section which pins down that FBI "shall" assist USCIS in providing nc/background checks results for immigration applicants. For that purpose, a general "background checks" would do, because nc is interpreted as a part of a "security/background cheks" nowadays.
I'll work on this later today and also post if find something.
Good luck!
Some new answers & stats from NNCP to congressional oversight about name check delays. Confirms that as of Nov 2006, backlog is at 302,016 names. Out of these 106011 are over 1 year old, (44000 Naturalization, 50000 AOS, rest others) More answers:
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/Muellerresponses050206.pdf
Lotechguy,
on p. 125 (p.#127 of the PDF file), it says:
"The policy of FBI's NNCP is to process oldest name checks first", (as Cannon also testified in some cases posted).
We can build argument on their average speed to finish " an oldest nc", times total number of stalled nc-s and come up with the total time needed to finsih nc stalled beyond 120 days right now. I am sure that provided they really follow this policy (oldest processed first) we would not have this problem now. So either they lie or CIS lies (-about their reason not to adjudicate) or both.
This argument is worth using on the Opposing MTD stage.
Zevs
How did you get to talk to an FBI agent?
Were they helpful?
Thanks,
I actually used one of the phone #s, indicated in the primer posted by Paz. It was posted on this forum long time ago.
You can only get an information about the status of your fingerprints. I tried to get a status of my name check, however all people I spoked, referred me back to UCSIS and told me that FBI NNCP no longer responds for personal E-mails or phone inquires...
Lotechguy,
on p. 125 (p.#127 of the PDF file), it says:
shvilli,
What we need is legal terminology, precedents that implies the following :
"A legally mandated deadline for a task for one government agency applies to other government agency subtasks that are required for that task, regardless of which government entity implements that subtask. ie When a government agency enters into agreement with another govt. agency to complete
a task with a legally mandated deadline, the third agency is implicitly bound by that deadline as a matter of contract for not doing so would render the original legally mandated deadline meaningless."
May be if we look into some rulings on transitity of contracts or judgements where it was ruled that legally mandated government deadlines for a tasks are implicit in contracts for subtasks for that tasks. eg: If one needs to file taxes by april 15 then business he has worked with need to provide him with 1099s by that date to make the april 15 date meaningful.
Since as pro-se you will go nowhere investing this argument it should be
extarcted from precedents.
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
hi, guys, i need some help on this point.
Generally, “no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.”
Here, Plaintiff has not received a decision on adjustment application because the FBI name check has not been completed. Therefore, Plaintiff should not be considered to have exhausted administrative remedies.
but i really did. all the exhibit show that i v contacted with USCIS,fbi,congress man,4 ead in the past 5 years......lost one ead in mail,lost drive lisence, lost job and health insurance......what else they want?
what is the standard of exhaused? before mentally collapse? is any case for a good example to fight agaist this point?
hi, guys, i need some help on this point.
Generally, “no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.”
Here, Plaintiff has not received a decision on adjustment application because the FBI name check has not been completed. Therefore, Plaintiff should not be considered to have exhausted administrative remedies.
but i really did. all the exhibit show that i v contacted with USCIS,fbi,congress man,4 ead in the past 5 years......lost one ead in mail,lost drive lisence, lost job and health insurance......what else they want?
what is the standard of exhaused? before mentally collapse? is any case for a good example to fight agaist this point?
hi, guys, i need some help on this point.
Generally, “no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.”
Here, Plaintiff has not received a decision on adjustment application because the FBI name check has not been completed. Therefore, Plaintiff should not be considered to have exhausted administrative remedies.
but i really did. all the exhibit show that i v contacted with USCIS,fbi,congress man,4 ead in the past 5 years......lost one ead in mail,lost drive lisence, lost job and health insurance......what else they want?
what is the standard of exhaused? before mentally collapse? is any case for a good example to fight agaist this point?
Plaintiff has infact exhausted all administrative remedies available to the plaintiff before requesting judicial review of his petition by the honorable court. Specifically, plaintiff has :
<itemize all you did>
In testimony before senate judiciary commitee(http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/Muellerresponses050206.pdf) (may 2 2006) director xyz
stated "..Customer agencies, such as USCIS, may request expedited handling of specific name checks. The criteria used to determine which name checks will receive expedited handling are established by the submitting agency, including USCIS, and are not developed or evaluated by the FBI." Clearly only USCIS can expdite the processing of the plaintiff's background check with FBI and the plaintiff has repeatedly requested USCIS to expedite the adjudicate his application in the past without any results. Consequetly plaintiff has been forced to request judicial review of his petetion by this honorable court.
united2007
Registered Users (C)
Some laws to request FBI to work on the name check
I learned about the Executive Order 10450 from the AUSA's MTD of the WA's Zhe Deng case.
The citation is as follows:
<<<
Accordingly, USCIS requests name checks through the FBI’s national name check program, which “has its genesis in Executive Order 10450, issued during the Eisenhower Administration. This executive order addresses personnel security issues and mandates National Agency Checks (‘NACs’) as part of the pre-employment vetting and background investigation process.” In addition to the background name checks that USCIS may request from the FBI’s National Name Check Program Section, this section directs the FBI to provide USCIS’s predecessor agency, the Immigration and Nationalization Service, information from its National Crime Information Center files “for the purpose of determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a criminal history record indexed in any such file.” 8
U.S.C. § 1105(b).
Significantly, nothing in section 1105 or any other statute requires the FBI to
conduct a name check investigation regarding an I-485 application, nor does any statute prescribe a deadline for completing I-485 name checks.
>>>>
From the recent Manzoor v Chertoff 6-455 case order, I did find the law that binds name check with the Naturalization. cited as follows:
<<<<
See also Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L.
No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448-49 (1997) (explaining
that “during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none
of the funds appropriated . . . to [CIS] shall be used to complete
adjudication of an application for naturalization unless [CIS] has
received confirmation from the [FBI] that a full criminal
background check has been completed”); Fingerprinting Applicants
and Petitioners for Immigration Benefits; Establishing a Fee for
Fingerprinting by the Service; Requiring Completion of Criminal
Background Checks Before Final Adjudication of Naturalization
Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12,979, 12,981 (Mar. 17, 1998) (amending
the administrative regulations to codify “[INS] policy that [INS]
must receive confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) that a full criminal background check has been completed on
applicants for naturalization before final adjudication of the
application”).
>>>>>
Of course, both of these arguments were used to agaist us. However, if we can properly use them to bind FBI with CIS, we have a reason to force FBI to work on our name check faster.
I learned about the Executive Order 10450 from the AUSA's MTD of the WA's Zhe Deng case.
The citation is as follows:
<<<
Accordingly, USCIS requests name checks through the FBI’s national name check program, which “has its genesis in Executive Order 10450, issued during the Eisenhower Administration. This executive order addresses personnel security issues and mandates National Agency Checks (‘NACs’) as part of the pre-employment vetting and background investigation process.” In addition to the background name checks that USCIS may request from the FBI’s National Name Check Program Section, this section directs the FBI to provide USCIS’s predecessor agency, the Immigration and Nationalization Service, information from its National Crime Information Center files “for the purpose of determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a criminal history record indexed in any such file.” 8
U.S.C. § 1105(b).
Significantly, nothing in section 1105 or any other statute requires the FBI to
conduct a name check investigation regarding an I-485 application, nor does any statute prescribe a deadline for completing I-485 name checks.
>>>>
From the recent Manzoor v Chertoff 6-455 case order, I did find the law that binds name check with the Naturalization. cited as follows:
<<<<
See also Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L.
No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448-49 (1997) (explaining
that “during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none
of the funds appropriated . . . to [CIS] shall be used to complete
adjudication of an application for naturalization unless [CIS] has
received confirmation from the [FBI] that a full criminal
background check has been completed”); Fingerprinting Applicants
and Petitioners for Immigration Benefits; Establishing a Fee for
Fingerprinting by the Service; Requiring Completion of Criminal
Background Checks Before Final Adjudication of Naturalization
Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12,979, 12,981 (Mar. 17, 1998) (amending
the administrative regulations to codify “[INS] policy that [INS]
must receive confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) that a full criminal background check has been completed on
applicants for naturalization before final adjudication of the
application”).
>>>>>
Of course, both of these arguments were used to agaist us. However, if we can properly use them to bind FBI with CIS, we have a reason to force FBI to work on our name check faster.
United2007,
Great comment!
is this what you're referring to?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/8usc/www/t8-12-I-1105.html
Also, please provide the link for the Executive order 10450.
I agree with your approach, we just need a section which pins down that FBI "shall" assist USCIS in providing nc/background checks results for immigration applicants. For that purpose, a general "background checks" would do, because nc is interpreted as a part of a "security/background cheks" nowadays.
I'll work on this later today and also post if find something.
Good luck!
Last edited by a moderator:
united2007 said:Of course, both of these arguments were used to agaist us. However, if we can properly use to bind FBI with CIS, we have a reason to force FBI to work on our name check faster.
I do not agree with you. The main point of our case (mine at least AOS) that I want to force USCIS to work on my application. What does it mean? I do not really care who and what they ask to do, or whatever needs to be done (they can contact FBI, my neighbors, etc.), BUT they should control time and output from this people/organizations. It should be some guideline if they send a request to FBI, then they should check periodically what is going on with these requests. And this part is missing.
I will try explain in simple example. I/We submitted some kind of application to another organization and WE (through infopass, congressmans, etc.) checking what is going on with our application. If it was received, accepted, checks were cleared...
And what did do USCIS during last 2 years(again in my case) after sending a request to FBI and not receiving an answer - basically nothing - but just ignored our requests with standard answer "pending NC".
It means that USCIS did nothing and that is why we ask court to force them to do something.
I do not agree with you. The main point of our case (mine at least AOS) that I want to force USCIS to work on my application. What does it mean? I do not really care who and what they ask to do, or whatever needs to be done (they can contact FBI, my neighbors, etc.), BUT they should control time and output from this people/organizations. It should be some guideline if they send a request to FBI, then they should check periodically what is going on with these requests. And this part is missing.
I will try explain in simple example. I/We submitted some kind of application to another organization and WE (through infopass, congressmans, etc.) checking what is going on with our application. If it was received, accepted, checks were cleared...
And what did do USCIS during last 2 years(again in my case) after sending a request to FBI and not receiving an answer - basically nothing - but just ignored our requests with standard answer "pending NC".
It means that USCIS did nothing and that is why we ask court to force them to do something.
Technically, the argument CIS presents is, "your case is out of our hands because FBI processes your nc and we have no control of their processing times. Also, you don't belong to our "expedite" category so we won't request FBI to expedite your nc." That was the argument given to my husband by his CIS officer. Also, when I contacted FBI in Sacramento, a guy (very politely) said that FBi doesn't have an answer on nc either, because CIS is the agency that requested it and we should address all questions to CIS...
This "circular reasoning" was criticised by one judge in his order (may be Alkenani vs...but not sure)
So CIS blames FBI, and there's no clearly stated timelimit legally imposed on FBI-very convenient for CIS...
But you are right that once you submitted your application to CIS for processing, you don't care about who CIS had to contract to work on it-they are still responsible. We just need to present it convincingly in court that CIS timelimits/duty to act don't disappear just because FBI is now involved. FBI and any agency contracted by CIS to finish background checks should obide by the same timelimits...
Like United2007 mentioned in prior post,
"FBI should have a derivitive non-discretionary duty to finish the name check within a reasonable timeframe."
And Lotechguy is right:
"A legally mandated deadline for a task for one government agency applies to other government agency subtasks that are required for that task, regardless of which government entity implements that subtask. ie When a government agency enters into agreement with another govt. agency to completea task with a legally mandated deadline, the third agency is implicitly bound by that deadline as a matter of contract for not doing so would render the original legally mandated deadline meaningless."
We need to check precedents in contractual agreement cases.
I learned about the Executive Order 10450 from the AUSA's MTD of the WA's Zhe Deng case.
The citation is as follows:
<<<
Accordingly, USCIS requests name checks through the FBI’s national name check program, which “has its genesis in Executive Order 10450, issued during the Eisenhower Administration. This executive order addresses personnel security issues and mandates National Agency Checks (‘NACs’) as part of the pre-employment vetting and background investigation process.” In addition to the background name checks that USCIS may request from the FBI’s National Name Check Program Section, this section directs the FBI to provide USCIS’s predecessor agency, the Immigration and Nationalization Service, information from its National Crime Information Center files “for the purpose of determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a criminal history record indexed in any such file.” 8
U.S.C. § 1105(b).
Significantly, nothing in section 1105 or any other statute requires the FBI to
conduct a name check investigation regarding an I-485 application, nor does any statute prescribe a deadline for completing I-485 name checks.
>>>>
From the recent Manzoor v Chertoff 6-455 case order, I did find the law that binds name check with the Naturalization. cited as follows:
<<<<
See also Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L.
No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448-49 (1997) (explaining
that “during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none
of the funds appropriated . . . to [CIS] shall be used to complete
adjudication of an application for naturalization unless [CIS] has
received confirmation from the [FBI] that a full criminal
background check has been completed”); Fingerprinting Applicants
and Petitioners for Immigration Benefits; Establishing a Fee for
Fingerprinting by the Service; Requiring Completion of Criminal
Background Checks Before Final Adjudication of Naturalization
Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12,979, 12,981 (Mar. 17, 1998) (amending
the administrative regulations to codify “[INS] policy that [INS]
must receive confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) that a full criminal background check has been completed on
applicants for naturalization before final adjudication of the
application”).
>>>>>
Of course, both of these arguments were used to agaist us. However, if we can properly use them to bind FBI with CIS, we have a reason to force FBI to work on our name check faster.
Well, this FY98 Appropriation Act is indeed the legal basis what USCIS is using to explain that they can't adjudicate your N-400 application till a "full criminal background check" is complete. The main problem is that nowhere (at least I couldn't find it and the CIS Ombudsman couldn't help) is defined precisely what this "full criminal background check" means. Apparently, between 1998 and 2002 the name check part was done only running the applicans' names in the main file system (like they do when you request FOIPA). They changed the procedure in Nov. 2002, when FBI added in common agreement with USCIS, the reference file search and that's what screwed up the process, at least for a non-negligible part of the applicants' pool. I still would be interested if you or anybody else could point us to the legal basis and precise definition of this extended name check, part of the Congress mandated "full criminal background check". I have a very strong suspicion, that they are using the same vague congressional authorization by changing the rules without specific congressional mandate.
An analogous situation would be like this: Congress mandates that you can drive a car only if you have proper documentation. At the beginning the drivers licence was the only thing required, but at a certain point somebody in the Government had the idea that you can drive a car only if you carry with you besides the drivers licence, your birth certificate, vaccination proof, passport and membership card to the local country club. Oh, and BTW, there is no mandated timeline how soon can you get the country club membership card and without that they can't issue you a drivers licence...
Last edited by a moderator:
springbranch
Registered Users (C)
Informative document
Man, this document made me sick to my stomach. FBI is aware of the problem, and they know what to do but they don't do it at the expense of over 300k people's future plans. But still they got the audacity to say "first come first service".
I really would like to see FBI agents to question these over 300K people, if these people are threat to our national security. Since they are not doing it, I am having a hard time believing in that somebody with sound mind will back this process up.
Time to take an anger management course, I guess.
Some new answers & stats from NNCP to congressional oversight about name check delays. Confirms that as of Nov 2006, backlog is at 302,016 names. Out of these 106011 are over 1 year old, (44000 Naturalization, 50000 AOS, rest others) More answers:
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/Muellerresponses050206.pdf
Man, this document made me sick to my stomach. FBI is aware of the problem, and they know what to do but they don't do it at the expense of over 300k people's future plans. But still they got the audacity to say "first come first service".
I really would like to see FBI agents to question these over 300K people, if these people are threat to our national security. Since they are not doing it, I am having a hard time believing in that somebody with sound mind will back this process up.
Time to take an anger management course, I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
hopeforall2
Registered Users (C)
Well, this FY98 Appropriation Act is indeed the legal basis what USCIS is using to explain that they can't adjudicate your N-400 application till a "full criminal background check" is complete. The main problem is that nowhere (at least I couldn't find it and the CIS Ombudsman couldn't help) is defined precisely what this "full criminal background check" means. Apparently, between 1998 and 2002 the name check part was done only running the applicans' names in the main file system (like they do when you request FOIPA). They changed the procedure in Nov. 2002, when FBI added in common agreement with USCIS, the reference file search and that's what screwed up the process, at least for a non-negligible part of the applicants' pool. I still would be interested if you or anybody else could point us to the legal basis and precise definition of this extended name check, part of the Congress mandated "full criminal background check". I have a very strong suspicion, that they are using the same vague congressional authorization by changing the rules without specific congressional mandate.
An analogous situation would be like this: Congress mandates that you can drive a car only if you have proper documentation. At the beginning the drivers licence was the only thing required, but at a certain point somebody in the Government had the idea that you can drive a car only if you carry with you besides the drivers licence, your birth certificate, vaccination proof, passport and membership card to the local country club. Oh, and BTW, there is no mandated timeline how soon can you get the country club membership card and without that they can't issue you a drivers licence...
paz, Your argument makes a lot of sense .