Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Update on my case.
AUSA said that she will never sing my proposed case management statement, since I asked for discovery, trial and moved days. She told me that if I will be so persistent, then INS will deny my I485 application in a week timeframe and it will be end of the story and I will need to reapply from the beginning for everything (new I485, new I130, new EAD, etc.). I do not think it is legal to do and I told it to her, since INS cannot make a decision without receiving an answer from FBI-it contradicts on their procedure of handling of I485 applications. She did not reply. But at the same time USCIS do not want push FBI for expedition of my case.
I asked her, so if they do not want the trial, then how come Judge can rule in my favor and give 30 days to FBI to clear my name. She said - that he won't be able to do it.
Please just do not tell me that I am overreacting.
AUSA said that she will never sing my proposed case management statement, since I asked for discovery, trial and moved days. She told me that if I will be so persistent, then INS will deny my I485 application in a week timeframe and it will be end of the story and I will need to reapply from the beginning for everything (new I485, new I130, new EAD, etc.). I do not think it is legal to do and I told it to her, since INS cannot make a decision without receiving an answer from FBI-it contradicts on their procedure of handling of I485 applications. She did not reply. But at the same time USCIS do not want push FBI for expedition of my case.
I asked her, so if they do not want the trial, then how come Judge can rule in my favor and give 30 days to FBI to clear my name. She said - that he won't be able to do it.
Please just do not tell me that I am overreacting.
I would hire a lawer at this point if I were you. Everything you did is lawfully, I can hardly imagine if she dares to repeat that kind of BS to a lawer. Obviously she is taking advantage of the fact that you are a pro se plaintiff.
I have e-mailed you the edits, but it is probably a little late.
Yes, USCIS can deny you application and that would make your case moot. But than they have to give the reason for denial and you will be eligible for USCIS hearing – that would be at least some motion with your application.
May be the AUSA is trying to help and poking her too much is not that necessary? I think you have gotten her worried as doing discovery would be extremely burdensome and costly to her office. She might now think that you have gotten legal advice or in the process of hiring a lawyer. I bet, after barking at you she went on the phone with USCIS and barked at them too.
My guess is to avoid extremes, but keep pushing them, to be tacky, viscous - negotiate. Ask what version of the document AUSA would agree to? May be limited discovery? I know how difficult this is psychologically, but venting anger and burning bridges rarely get people where they want to end up.
Best of luck!
snorlax
Last edited by a moderator:
nc-pending
Registered Users (C)
Need contact info for good Lawyers in San Jose / Bay area
Hi,
I am planning to file law suit (1447(b)) but I do not have time to do it myself. I would appreciate if someone could provide me contact info of some lawyers in San Jose / San Francisco area who have some experience with this type of cases.
N-400 file on 01/12/06
FP on 03/23/06
Interview Passed on 05/22/06
Was told my case is pending because of FBI name check.
Hi,
I am planning to file law suit (1447(b)) but I do not have time to do it myself. I would appreciate if someone could provide me contact info of some lawyers in San Jose / San Francisco area who have some experience with this type of cases.
N-400 file on 01/12/06
FP on 03/23/06
Interview Passed on 05/22/06
Was told my case is pending because of FBI name check.
I would recommend Kip Steinberg (415-453-2855). I talked to him today, he is an attorney of the famous Hovsepian case and also my friend just filed with him I485 and case was resolved in a matter of weeks.
Great references, thanks a lot! I wonder if we can find stuff like that specifically for Northern California Courts...
Cheers,
snorlax
Cool! Similar forms from NorCal - http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/f...2011633eaededba088256d4a0058f1ff?OpenDocument
Cheers,
snorlax
GC-Pending
Registered Users (C)
Summary Judgement or Trial
Kefira,
I am trying to catch up with the discussion on your case. What is the benefit of "trial" over "summary judgement"? It seems that you are pushing for trial and trying to avoid summary judgement. On the other hand, I have seen other cases being resolved much faster with summary judgement.
Kefira,
I am trying to catch up with the discussion on your case. What is the benefit of "trial" over "summary judgement"? It seems that you are pushing for trial and trying to avoid summary judgement. On the other hand, I have seen other cases being resolved much faster with summary judgement.
few recent favorable cases for 1447(b) (naturalization)
Smirnov v. Chertoff, No. 06-10563 (D. Mass.Jan. 18, 2007),
Shalan v. Chertoff, No. 05-10980, 2006 WL 3307512 (D.Mass. Nov. 14, 2006)
SIMONOVSKAYA v. CHERTOFF No. 06-11745 ((D. Mass. Jan. 26, 2007)
(suit filed 121 day after interview and plaintiff prevailed!)
Smirnov v. Chertoff, No. 06-10563 (D. Mass.Jan. 18, 2007),
Shalan v. Chertoff, No. 05-10980, 2006 WL 3307512 (D.Mass. Nov. 14, 2006)
SIMONOVSKAYA v. CHERTOFF No. 06-11745 ((D. Mass. Jan. 26, 2007)
(suit filed 121 day after interview and plaintiff prevailed!)
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
Good going lazycis, do you have court order to post.
If you don't have luck with Kefira's great attorney contact, I also spoke (a year ago) to SF attorney Jim Burne: (415) 777-4444. At that time, he quoted $500 to file petition (not sure, if he meant 1447 or WOM). And if case went to court, it would be another $3000.
Correction:
Jim Burne asked $500 "to talk to the judge", not to sue INS. My memory was wrong. Perhaps he has very well-established contact with judges because he said, he expected the case to be resolved after it, and sueing CIS would be unnecessary...
Kefira,
So you are expecting! Of course you must be exhausted and now I understand your pessimism much better!
I think the advise to hire a lawyer on this point is wise, if you can afford it. On the other hand, if you have enough energy to fight, I think there must be some very good grounds to have additional complaint based on extreme hardship in your case. And you should be able to address your complaint not only against CIS/other defendants but against your judge, and the whole management of your case! Just think of it-they make your drive for 3 hrs. just to hear a 10-min. remark! WHy on earth not to schedule a phone conference!
I'd say, I would be mad in your place and I'd sue them for punitive damages!
But really, talk to your lawyer if you can. (And if he is really good, he may find way to get you some money out of your ordeal).
Good luck and try to focus on your more important task, you don't want your baby to be nervous as a result of your nervous state.
United2007,
Thank you for the document. It gives great points to quote in opp to MTD, I think. Can you explain what you mean by "two-blade knife"?
Actually two of the cases were resolved because USCIS expedited processing.
Here is the order for
Shalan v. Chertoff, No. 05-10980, 2006 WL 3307512
what do you think about this?
I could not sleep this night so I came up with some crazy ideas about how to show that FBI & USCIS dropped the ball on name checks.
I believe FBI does the same exact checks for other state agencies. Department of state comes to mind, when somebody applies for a student/professor visa or immigrant visa abroad. I doubt that any student or professor is waiting for a few years to get a visa so that he/she can start a new semester. For that very reason (professors could not back in time to teach students, etc.) Mr. Garrity was called to testify before the Congress.
So if we can get statistics from FBI showing that requests from Dep. of State are not pending for years, we will be able to dispute all that BS about "lack of resources", "processing requests in the order they've been received", "it can take years to resolve a name check".
I also believe Dep of State has much better computer system than USCIS (consulate cannot rely on shipping magnetic tapes to FBI from (no offence) the middle of nowhere).
I also know for sure the same check is run when somebody applies for a sensitive government position. There is a form called "FBI Name Check Waiwer" which has to be signed by somebody who is applying fo such a position. Do you think any of those applicants are waiting more than a month?
I could not sleep this night so I came up with some crazy ideas about how to show that FBI & USCIS dropped the ball on name checks.
I believe FBI does the same exact checks for other state agencies. Department of state comes to mind, when somebody applies for a student/professor visa or immigrant visa abroad. I doubt that any student or professor is waiting for a few years to get a visa so that he/she can start a new semester. For that very reason (professors could not back in time to teach students, etc.) Mr. Garrity was called to testify before the Congress.
So if we can get statistics from FBI showing that requests from Dep. of State are not pending for years, we will be able to dispute all that BS about "lack of resources", "processing requests in the order they've been received", "it can take years to resolve a name check".
I also believe Dep of State has much better computer system than USCIS (consulate cannot rely on shipping magnetic tapes to FBI from (no offence) the middle of nowhere).
I also know for sure the same check is run when somebody applies for a sensitive government position. There is a form called "FBI Name Check Waiwer" which has to be signed by somebody who is applying fo such a position. Do you think any of those applicants are waiting more than a month?