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

[united2007]

where I can find the Michael Cannon's declaration

United,

I remember this on page 8 of the class action in SF allegations: (see the link)

Other than that, check the FBI (Cannon/Garrity) declarations for clues. I remember the post but don't remeber any more details, sorry!

I checked Garrity's Declaration, and didn't find it over there. I searched this forum, and found one of PAZ's posting regarding this topic. According to PAZ, it seems this is from Michael Cannon's Declaration. However, I wonder if anyone can point me how to get a copy of Michael Cannon's Declaration.

From a PAZ's previous post
"As far as I know from Michael Cannon's declaration, the name check was part of the full criminal backround check (which is mandated by Congress since the FY98 budget authorization bill) even before 9/11. The problem begun in November 2002 when USCIS specifically requested a change in this name check procedure. Till that time, the name check was run only on the "main" file system, so you got a hit only if you were arrested/convicted (i.e., FBI had a file about you, with your name on it). This type of name check is essentially identical with the FOIPA request. So, if I understand correctly, if you get a "no record" answer to your FOIPA request, that means that there is no file under your name in the main file system. Your name still can show up in somebody else's file, this is the so called "reference file system" search. After the Nov. 2002 change in the name check procedure, FBI extended the name check to the reference files system, which creates a large number positive hits, most of them turns out to be false. But in order to verify these potential derogatory information, a live person (an FBI agent) has to do manual checks. This program not being funded adequately, they don't have the necessary manpower to perform these manual verifications in a timely manner. "

 

[786riz]

In listing defendents for the 1447b suit I have seen some attorneys list only

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigations;
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Others also include :

The local USCIS director and Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General.

What is the correct listing ? Are they pro-cons of each of the above approaches?

I seen this myself too but I do not see any harm of adding those two folks. Attorney’s general department is responsible for administering oath.

 

[akram88]

Congrats 786riz

Congratulations for your victory.

Hi Team,
Here is the big news that I was waiting for anxiously. With the concurrence of Mighty Allah and the help of this forum my citizenship application has been approved as of March 30th and I am scheduled for oath on April 30th in Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan. My AUSA is unaware that my citizenship application is approved, per her that my name was not expedited but she spoke to USCIS and FBI about my case. I do not know this is happened due to my law suit or itself. It took less than two months for my case to get resolved.
Here is my timeline.
Application sent to USCIS: Mid December 06
Name check initiated: 1/9/06
Finger print: 3/2/06
Finger print cleared: 3/2/06
Interview: 5/17/06, passed name check pending
Filed law suit: 2/1/07
Application approved: 3/30/07
Oath: 4/30/07

This forum is something that I can not believe. We are helping each other like we belong to each other. Please continue to help each other and I will do the same.
Folks who are still fighting and folks who are planning to fight, please read, read and read. Do not give up, this forum is big help continue to ask each other.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for helping me in my case and encourage me to fight this battle.

Sajjad

 

[kefira]

Update on my case. My case was not dismissed by judge and now he ordered THIRD initial hearing (plus I had ADR teleconference). It means it is already 180 days since I originally filed my complain (WOM I485). On every hearing the only questions that I was asked is my first and last name. But Judge was asking AUSA how long she thinks it might take to resolve my case and every time she was saying 30-60 days. Probably she will say same b.s. again and since it is again not real hearing Judge won't give them again any timeframe to finish my NC. It is ridiculous and frustrating. Somebody gave me advise to order recordings from the previous hearings and show to judge and ask him for how long AUSA will continue with their lies? What do you think about it? I never heard that it can take so long time for so straight forward issue. I again very suspicious that if I would go with the attorney, then INS would never do such things, since at the end they would have to pay all bills.

 

[akram88]

Hope?

last week, the day after I spoke to my AUSA, I sent her an email asking about her mentioning in our conversation that I qualify for an expedited name check request. She replied the same day with "At my request the USCIS has requested that the FBI expedite your name check"
I was happy reading this but at the same time skeptical and didn't want to post it here before making sure.
yesterday, she replied, to a follow up email, that there is no news on the name check.

what do you guys think? can the USCIS be lying about this? or you think there is hope.

is there a way to verify that indeed there was a expedited name check request? and if there is one do you know how long it's taking nowadays for it to clear?
I scheduled an infopass appointment on friday, you think they would know if I ask. the appointment is very early so I'm going to ask to be sent to the citizenship floor.

Good luck all.

 

[786riz]

I checked Garrity's Declaration, and didn't find it over there. I searched this forum, and found one of PAZ's posting regarding this topic. According to PAZ, it seems this is from Michael Cannon's Declaration. However, I wonder if anyone can point me how to get a copy of Michael Cannon's Declaration.

From a PAZ's previous post
"As far as I know from Michael Cannon's declaration, the name check was part of the full criminal backround check (which is mandated by Congress since the FY98 budget authorization bill) even before 9/11. The problem begun in November 2002 when USCIS specifically requested a change in this name check procedure. Till that time, the name check was run only on the "main" file system, so you got a hit only if you were arrested/convicted (i.e., FBI had a file about you, with your name on it). This type of name check is essentially identical with the FOIPA request. So, if I understand correctly, if you get a "no record" answer to your FOIPA request, that means that there is no file under your name in the main file system. Your name still can show up in somebody else's file, this is the so called "reference file system" search. After the Nov. 2002 change in the name check procedure, FBI extended the name check to the reference files system, which creates a large number positive hits, most of them turns out to be false. But in order to verify these potential derogatory information, a live person (an FBI agent) has to do manual checks. This program not being funded adequately, they don't have the necessary manpower to perform these manual verifications in a timely manner. "

Attached is Declaration of Michael Cannon.
Thank you.

 

[786riz]

last week, the day after I spoke to my AUSA, I sent her an email asking about her mentioning in our conversation that I qualify for an expedited name check request. She replied the same day with "At my request the USCIS has requested that the FBI expedite your name check"
I was happy reading this but at the same time skeptical and didn't want to post it here before making sure.
yesterday, she replied, to a follow up email, that there is no news on the name check.

what do you guys think? can the USCIS be lying about this? or you think there is hope.

is there a way to verify that indeed there was a expedited name check request? and if there is one do you know how long it's taking nowadays for it to clear?
I scheduled an infopass appointment on friday, you think they would know if I ask. the appointment is very early so I'm going to ask to be sent to the citizenship floor.

Good luck all.

Hi akram & others,
I want to tell you about the level of info of an AUSA. I called the AUSA and asked her that where I am standing, is my name was expedited? She said I know that your name was not expedited but I have told you earlier that it is not me who decided whose name to be expedited, I only can request. She told me that if someone’s name is expedited then USCIS informed me. She looked my file and said I did not get any updates from USCIS means nothing has happened in your case.
I hang up the phone and called the USCIS 800 number and they told me that my case has been approved as of 3/30.
So you can see the level of awareness of an AUSA but if USCIS is not telling the AUSA then they continue to repeat what they know.
Best wishes.

 

[lazycis]

Update on my case. My case was not dismissed by judge and now he ordered THIRD initial hearing (plus I had ADR teleconference). It means it is already 180 days since I originally filed my complain (WOM I485). On every hearing the only questions that I was asked is my first and last name. But Judge was asking AUSA how long she thinks it might take to resolve my case and every time she was saying 30-60 days. Probably she will say same b.s. again and since it is again not real hearing Judge won't give them again any timeframe to finish my NC. It is ridiculous and frustrating. Somebody gave me advise to order recordings from the previous hearings and show to judge and ask him for how long AUSA will continue with their lies? What do you think about it? I never heard that it can take so long time for so straight forward issue. I again very suspicious that if I would go with the attorney, then INS would never do such things, since at the end they would have to pay all bills.

Why don't you hire an attorney? He may not need to do anything, just enter the court on your behalf and AUSA will stop doing that.

 

[lotechguy]

1447b Prayer

I am looking for some feedback to this prayer for a 1447b suit :

Wherefore, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, Plaintiff respectfully prays that upon due consideration:
I.This Honorable Court will accept and maintain continuing jurisdiction of this action;
II.This Honorable Court will hear Plaintiff’s case and adjudicate Plaintiff’s N-400 application based on the facts presented;

III. As an alternative, Honorable Court enter an order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s Naturalization application including all background checks and to complete the processing of Plaintiff’s naturalization application within 60 days from the date of the order of this Honorable Court.

IV.In addition, Plaintiff prays for such further relief including fees and costs, as maybe deemed just, lawful and proper.

Any opinions, suggestions ? Do I have have to use "remand with instructions" as an alternative or can I just say "enter an order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s Naturalization application" ?

 

[Bushmaster]

786riz, congrats. You filed in mid December 2005, correct?

Unfortunately, this citizenship nonsense doesn't end with name check clearance for everyone, one more month I will be filing the lawsuit too through my lawyer.

 

[Bushmaster]

last week, the day after I spoke to my AUSA, I sent her an email asking about her mentioning in our conversation that I qualify for an expedited name check request. She replied the same day with "At my request the USCIS has requested that the FBI expedite your name check"
I was happy reading this but at the same time skeptical and didn't want to post it here before making sure.
yesterday, she replied, to a follow up email, that there is no news on the name check.

what do you guys think? can the USCIS be lying about this? or you think there is hope.

is there a way to verify that indeed there was a expedited name check request? and if there is one do you know how long it's taking nowadays for it to clear?
I scheduled an infopass appointment on friday, you think they would know if I ask. the appointment is very early so I'm going to ask to be sent to the citizenship floor.

Good luck all.

Last November, I submitted a memorandum from the US Army to the CIS that I was facing imminent deployment, which I am, and I did this submission through congressman's office. The USCIS liaison reported back to congressman saying that name check expedite has been requested. It took a month or so for the results come back.

 

[lazycis]

I am looking for some feedback to this prayer for a 1447b suit :

Wherefore, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, Plaintiff respectfully prays that upon due consideration:
I.This Honorable Court will accept and maintain continuing jurisdiction of this action;
II.This Honorable Court will hear Plaintiff’s case and adjudicate Plaintiff’s N-400 application based on the facts presented;

III. As an alternative, Honorable Court enter an order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s Naturalization application including all background checks and to complete the processing of Plaintiff’s naturalization application within 60 days from the date of the order of this Honorable Court.

IV.In addition, Plaintiff prays for such further relief including fees and costs, as maybe deemed just, lawful and proper.

Any opinions, suggestions ? Do I have have to use "remand with instructions" as an alternative or can I just say "enter an order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s Naturalization application" ?

I do not see the difference between proposed text and "remand with instructions". Maybe just change "60 days" to "30 days".
I'd say "attorney fees and costs of court" instead of just "fees and costs". You cannot be compensated for the time you've lost while reading thru these posts

 

[CrazyMark]

Hi akram & others,

I hang up the phone and called the USCIS 800 number and they told me that my case has been approved as of 3/30.
So you can see the level of awareness of an AUSA but if USCIS is not telling the AUSA then they continue to repeat what they know.
Best wishes.

Hi, 786riz:

Did you speak to sb. in person by calling that number? That 800 number is not informative to me at all, it gives me the same automated message which can be also found on USCIS case status online.

 

[786riz]

Hi, 786riz:

Did you speak to sb. in person by calling that number? That 800 number is not informative to me at all, it gives me the same automated message which can be also found on USCIS case status online.

Hi CrazyMark,
It could be the selection that you are making. Here what I did, called 1-800-375-5283 then select 1 then 2 then 2 and then 6, entered my application number and afterward it transferred to a live person who was unable to find me in the system. She transferred me to an officer who told me about my cases.
I hope this will help.
Thank you.

 

[WINTERTIME]

Need Lawyer to file a Lawsuit.

hello,
any one know a good lawyer in Phoenix-Arizona, I want to file a lawsuit against USCIS, waiting for my Oath since June/2004.
and any Idea how much will cost?

Thanks

 

[ipoh]

Upate on my case:
Both my attorney and AUSA filed Motion for S/J on the last day its due. The judge said he would rule on the S/J and there is no need for trial. As per local rules we had to sign Affidavits and briefs supporting the S/J. Also sited 5 cases including Iddir vs INS (7th circuit court), we are in the 7th circuit.
So the ball's in THE court, keeping every thing crossed.
Any thoughts guys?

 

[Mingjing]

Kefira,

What do mean this is "not real hearing"? What is the difference bewteen "intial hearing" and any other type of hearing?

AUSA propsed June 15th (12 weeks after filing MTD) to be date for motion hearing. Is this considered in your language the "real hearing", or just an "initial hearing" where I should expect only my frist and last name be asked?

Guys, is it an option here to file a motion for summary judgement to push the case forward?

Update on my case. My case was not dismissed by judge and now he ordered THIRD initial hearing (plus I had ADR teleconference). It means it is already 180 days since I originally filed my complain (WOM I485). On every hearing the only questions that I was asked is my first and last name. But Judge was asking AUSA how long she thinks it might take to resolve my case and every time she was saying 30-60 days. Probably she will say same b.s. again and since it is again not real hearing Judge won't give them again any timeframe to finish my NC. It is ridiculous and frustrating. Somebody gave me advise to order recordings from the previous hearings and show to judge and ask him for how long AUSA will continue with their lies? What do you think about it? I never heard that it can take so long time for so straight forward issue. I again very suspicious that if I would go with the attorney, then INS would never do such things, since at the end they would have to pay all bills.

 

[Mingjing]

Useful I485 WOM cases for opposing MTD

Hi, guys,

I am attaching the list of 485 WOM cases that are useful for reference in drafting opposition to Motion To Dismiss. The useful languages can be in directly in the Opposition to MTD or in Judge's Order/Opinion papers of these cases.

I tried to focus on relatively recent cases.

I'd like to ask if you know other cases I missed, please post them too.

Thanks.

 

[shvili]

Hi Team,
Here is the big news that I was waiting for anxiously. With the concurrence of Mighty Allah and the help of this forum my citizenship application has been approved as of March 30th and I am scheduled for oath on April 30th in Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan. My AUSA is unaware that my citizenship application is approved, per her that my name was not expedited but she spoke to USCIS and FBI about my case. I do not know this is happened due to my law suit or itself. It took less than two months for my case to get resolved.
Here is my timeline.
Application sent to USCIS: Mid December 05
Name check initiated: 1/9/06
Finger print: 3/2/06
Finger print cleared: 3/2/06
Interview: 5/17/06, passed name check pending
Filed law suit: 2/1/07
Application approved: 3/30/07
Oath: 4/30/07

This forum is something that I can not believe. We are helping each other like we belong to each other. Please continue to help each other and I will do the same.
Folks who are still fighting and folks who are planning to fight, please read, read and read. Do not give up, this forum is big help continue to ask each other.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for helping me in my case and encourage me to fight this battle.

Sajjad

Congratulations 786Riz!

Very likely your judge's remand without timelimet DID somehow work this time!

I don't think CIS would move on your case without this order.

Can you say if anything happened after you submitted your "motion to reconsider"?

Have a happy naturalizaiton ceremony and celebrate it well, you worked for it big time!

Shvili

 

[shvili]

It's better to list more defendants, it's much harder to add a party aftewards.
The only cons is you have to make extra copies of your complaint and spend more $$ to mail it to additional defendants. Since you have to send a copy to US AG anyway, you may as well include him as a defendant

lazycis,

Thank you for the posted links (on FBI/CIS policies).

I meant the declaration by Cannon posted by Riz on today.

Also, on adding a party-I agree, it makes sense to add them right away.