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

[kefira]

Useful I485 WOM cases for opposing MTD

Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt 105 F.3d. 502, 507 (9th Cir 1997) - Relief under mandamus and the APA are virtually equivalent when a petitioner seeks to compel an agency to act on a nondiscretionary duty.

Norton, 542 U.S. at 65 ("a court can compel an agency to act, but has no power to specify what the action must be")

 

[kefira]

Questions:
Defendants motion for summary judgment - what is it? Did somebody go so far?
Plaintiff opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment?
Defendants opposition to the cross-motion?

My AUSA proposed this and it means real hearing will be delayed for another 3 month at least. Should I agree? Or I do not have other choice but agree?

 

[shvili]

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.

I'm afraid Paz was right: they are taking advantage of the fact you're pro se and therefore harmless. THey just use your inability to aggressively pursue this, (like a trial attorney would do in such case). Whoever advised you to bring records was right, in my opinion. You should press AUSA +the judge on your next hearing.

Do you have a magistrate or a district judge (i forgot)? CA Pro se handbook actually says you can request your case to be heard by a district judge if a magistrate judge was assigned. Is it too late to do it in your case (if your judge is magistrate)?

 

[kefira]

I'm afraid Paz was right: they are taking advantage of the fact you're pro se and therefore harmless. THey just use your inability to aggressively pursue this, (like a trial attorney would do in such case). Whoever advised you to bring records was right, in my opinion. You should press AUSA +the judge on your next hearing.

Do you have a magistrate or a district judge (i forgot)? CA Pro se handbook actually says you can request your case to be heard by a district judge if a magistrate judge was assigned. Is it too late to do it in your case (if your judge is magistrate)?

I am ready to cry. My initial teleconference was with magistrate judge that could not do anything..
Now I have a district judge (that I met twice already) that also probably playing some games with me. I really confused.. I need to sign paper today with AUSA and submit it to the court, but I do not want anymore any summary judgements and oppositions to write. It is just a joke... Judge already ruled that he has jurisdiction in WOM case and now AUSA sent me a new schedule with new days. Now I have to sign it and then we will have another case management (third one) with this judge. Ridiculos

 

[lazycis]

Questions:
Defendants motion for summary judgment - what is it? Did somebody go so far?
Plaintiff opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment?
Defendants opposition to the cross-motion?

My AUSA proposed this and it means real hearing will be delayed for another 3 month at least. Should I agree? Or I do not have other choice but agree?

Did you also file motion for summary judgment (which is to resolve the case without a trial)? If not, you should do that. Federal rules call it "motion for judgment on the pleadings". You do not have to agree with AUSA extensions.

You can check this link for outline of a civil action:

http://faculty.washington.edu/tomcobb/civil_case/

 

[netrin]

Mtd

oops! AUSA today filed a supporting material to support her motion to dismiss. She cited a very recent case in which the court supported the motion to dismiss. Here is the case: Grinberg v. Swacina, No. 06-22593-CIV, 2007 WL 840109 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007). In this case plaintiff's case has been pending for 5 years. AUSA said that my case has been pending for only 18 months. She argues that 18 months waiting is not unreasonable. I hate this kind of arguments. So we have to dig out a very recent case in which the Judge denied AUSA's motion to dismiss.

I knew of a recent case in Southern Texas of Houston division in which the Judge denied MTD. check out the case Wang v. Chertoff.

Let's get united and find out more recent cases to rebut AUSA.

 

[kefira]

Did you also file motion for summary judgment (which is to resolve the case without a trial)? If not, you should do that. Federal rules call it "motion for judgment on the pleadings". You do not have to agree with AUSA extensions.

You can check this link for outline of a civil action:

http://faculty.washington.edu/tomcobb/civil_case/

This is the problem. I DO want the trial. I did not file motion for summary judgement and I do not want to do it, but my AUSA sent me a schedule with proposed dates. I need to sign it or can I not sign it?

 

[lotechguy]

oops! AUSA today filed a supporting material to support her motion to dismiss. She cited a very recent case in which the court supported the motion to dismiss. Here is the case: Grinberg v. Swacina, No. 06-22593-CIV, 2007 WL 840109 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007). In this case plaintiff's case has been pending for 5 years. AUSA said that my case has been pending for only 18 months. She argues that 18 months waiting is not unreasonable. I hate this kind of arguments. So we have to dig out a very recent case in which the Judge denied AUSA's motion to dismiss.

I knew of a recent case in Southern Texas of Houston division in which the Judge denied MTD. check out the case Wang v. Chertoff.

Let's get united and find out more recent cases to rebut AUSA.

Is this a 1447b or WOM ?

 

[shvili]

This is the problem. I DO want the trial. I did not file motion for summary judgement and I do not want to do it, but my AUSA sent me a schedule with proposed dates. I need to sign it or can I not sign it?

Kefira,
have you checked the Pro se handbook, a lot of times it explaines what you may/may not do to reply a specific legal step?

Other than that, I don't have an answer Perhaps senior members have an opinion.

Good luck and don't despair! I really think you will win and hope it won't be too long.

 

[lazycis]

This is the problem. I DO want the trial. I did not file motion for summary judgement and I do not want to do it, but my AUSA sent me a schedule with proposed dates. I need to sign it or can I not sign it?

If they are not disputing any facts from your complaint, I do not see how you can proceed to trial. The judge does not want trial, he/she will make a decision and rule on AUSA motion for summary judgment.

 

[netrin]

this is WOM!

Is this a 1447b or WOM ?

 

[Bushmaster]

You know, USCIS Liaison lady asked me not to file a lawsuit in February because the name checks have already been completed. So I emailed the attorney I was intending to hire and told him that CIS made a move and approval is coming soon, therefore I will not utilize his services for now.

I now feel like a jackass to go back to the same attorney but I will. Furthermore, CIS might have made this into retaliation, since I mentioned I was about to sue their asses, now they are getting back at me, they think?

My question here is, once the FBI name checks are complete, can you still file for 1447? What are the possibility for direct instructions for CIS? Because look at this, all the name checks are completed, the applicant is a service member serving honorably, most likely already deployed war, no criminal background, etc, STILL NO DECISION, still dragging their feet.

I just want to drive to the lawyers office tomorrow but my wife is holding me back for an answer from senators office. Senators office told her "I understand his
frustration and only hope they will come through for him soon. The last email I sent was very direct - if I don't hear back this week, I will call her. The last thing he needs to worry about when fighting for our country is his citizenship. "

I wish I get a patriotic judge and get the naturalization approved in the court. Though I don't think that will ever happen.

 

[lazycis]

You know, USCIS Liaison lady asked me not to file a lawsuit in February because the name checks have already been completed. So I emailed the attorney I was intending to hire and told him that CIS made a move and approval is coming soon, therefore I will not utilize his services for now.

I now feel like a jackass to go back to the same attorney but I will. Furthermore, CIS might have made this into retaliation, since I mentioned I was about to sue their asses, now they are getting back at me, they think?

My question here is, once the FBI name checks are complete, can you still file for 1447? What are the possibility for direct instructions for CIS? Because look at this, all the name checks are completed, the applicant is a service member serving honorably, most likely already deployed war, no criminal background, etc, STILL NO DECISION, still dragging their feet.

I just want to drive to the lawyers office tomorrow but my wife is holding me back for an answer from senators office. Senators office told her "I understand his
frustration and only hope they will come through for him soon. The last email I sent was very direct - if I don't hear back this week, I will call her. The last thing he needs to worry about when fighting for our country is his citizenship. "

I wish I get a patriotic judge and get the naturalization approved in the court. Though I don't think that will ever happen.

Of course, you can use 1447(b), your case just became stronger. It will be easier for the court to make you a citizen since court does not have to guess about your name check results.

 

[Bushmaster]

Of course, you can use 1447(b), your case just became stronger. It will be easier for the court to make you a citizen since court does not have to guess about your name check results.

Yes, ain't that right? We have a name check result and we don't have an approval. However, I have to note, they said FBI name check results came back POSITIVE meaning there was something, and more than likely the results made it OK from the USCIS HQ in DC and were resolved and therefore sent to field office. Well, yes I was brought in on an overstay visa which INS already overlooked for millions, and is that why I am waiting still? The purpose of FBI name checks should BE to find out if one has any terrorism links, and they have been on watchlists, terrorist organizations etc, not your INS record... Even the checks resulted positive, USCIS liasion said this “The officer who processes the military N-400s has spoken with this applicant quite extensively - and so have I. His options were explained to him, and will be explained to him again. Once we receive the updated RAP sheet, an officer will call him and he will be given the option to come in and fill out a form stating he does not wish a name change and he can be sworn in an administrative ceremony that day.”

SOOOO? What is the freaking hold up? I WILL DEFINITELY USE THIS EMAIL TRANSMISSION IN MY 1447!!!

 

[Mingjing]

How do you search in Pacer cases by "105 F.3d. 502, 507 " and by "Norton, 542 U.S. at 65"? I know how to by searching case number, but the descriptions above are not case numbers. Thanks.

Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt 105 F.3d. 502, 507 (9th Cir 1997) - Relief under mandamus and the APA are virtually equivalent when a petitioner seeks to compel an agency to act on a nondiscretionary duty.

Norton, 542 U.S. at 65 ("a court can compel an agency to act, but has no power to specify what the action must be")

 

[786riz]

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.

Hi Mingjing,
Please remove Manzoor v. Chertoff, et. al., No. 2:06cv455, 2007 VL 413227 (E.D. Va. February 8, 2007) from the list. It is not a good case.
Thank you

 

[786riz]

oops! AUSA today filed a supporting material to support her motion to dismiss. She cited a very recent case in which the court supported the motion to dismiss. Here is the case: Grinberg v. Swacina, No. 06-22593-CIV, 2007 WL 840109 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007). In this case plaintiff's case has been pending for 5 years. AUSA said that my case has been pending for only 18 months. She argues that 18 months waiting is not unreasonable. I hate this kind of arguments. So we have to dig out a very recent case in which the Judge denied AUSA's motion to dismiss.

I knew of a recent case in Southern Texas of Houston division in which the Judge denied MTD. check out the case Wang v. Chertoff.

Let's get united and find out more recent cases to rebut AUSA.

Hi netrin,
If you have these cases, could you please post them, so we can understand the court ruling.
Thank you.

 

[Mingjing]

Looking for both favorable and unfavorable I485 WOM MTD Orders

I posted earlier list of recent I485 WOM cases with good opposition to MTD and/or court rejected MTD. I have seen a few more since and will update the list in next day or two (attached is an identical copy of what I posted earlier)

1. Anybody has seen additional recent favorable I485 WOM cases, please post.

2. Anybody has seen RECENT unfavorable I485 WOM cases, please post too. The GRINBERG v. SWACINA is a bad one - the judge argues unfavorably to plaintiff while the case facts and quoted legal facts are similar to many other favorable I485 WOM cases. GRINBERG just appealed, and hope plaintiff will win.

oops! AUSA today filed a supporting material to support her motion to dismiss. She cited a very recent case in which the court supported the motion to dismiss. Here is the case: Grinberg v. Swacina, No. 06-22593-CIV, 2007 WL 840109 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007). In this case plaintiff's case has been pending for 5 years. AUSA said that my case has been pending for only 18 months. She argues that 18 months waiting is not unreasonable. I hate this kind of arguments. So we have to dig out a very recent case in which the Judge denied AUSA's motion to dismiss.

I knew of a recent case in Southern Texas of Houston division in which the Judge denied MTD. check out the case Wang v. Chertoff.

Let's get united and find out more recent cases to rebut AUSA.

 

[kefira]

How do you search in Pacer cases by "105 F.3d. 502, 507 " and by "Norton, 542 U.S. at 65"? I know how to by searching case number, but the descriptions above are not case numbers. Thanks.

This is not from the Pacer, but from Lexis. I personally did not read this cases, but it was in Judge answer to defendants.

 

[Mingjing]

I really focus on I485 WOM cases. The Manzoor v. Chetoff seems to be a naturalization case, so I did not scrub anything there.

Anyway, without reading the details of that case, what is wrong with the case? The comment I copied from some other post says ") (CIS directed to make a decision within 120 days of order)".

Thanks.

Hi Mingjing,
Please remove Manzoor v. Chertoff, et. al., No. 2:06cv455, 2007 VL 413227 (E.D. Va. February 8, 2007) from the list. It is not a good case.
Thank you