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

gmlvsk said:
i use linux, not sure if windows has this command - wget, it will suck all files
Click to expand...
I do not know if Windows has it – probably not. Have you gotten all files in one folder? Does Linux have the capability of searching inside the files? Yeah, I have fond WGET for Windows, but it is a GNU utility - not a part of Windows.

Cheers,
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
snorlax said:
I do not know if Windows has it – probably not. Have you gotten all files in one folder? Does Linux have the capability of searching inside the files? Yeah, I have fond WGET for Windows, but it is a GNU utility - not a part of Windows.

Cheers,
snorlax
Click to expand...
I opened at least 30-40 cases. None of them was WOM and basically all of them were already judges decisions. I found only one case for 1447(b)
 
Update on my case

Dear paz and all friends

Today I received a copy of dependents " Response " to my complain , 5 pages in total , the same old argument that court lacks Jurisdiction e.t.c , but two responses struck me and that is when they said :

1.Defendants lack sufficient information to either admit or deny plaintiff's allegation as to where he resides.

I have been in the same address ( both Home and Job addresses ) for the last 7 years.

2. ,because the examination process required by 8 U.S.C 1446 has not been completed and because USCIS is not yet in position to conclude that plaintiff has good moral character, a statutory prerequisite for naturalization.

I had a citation, before even I got my green card and that charge was dismissed. I did mentioned it in the N400 form and attached the courts disposition letter to confirm the dismissal. Never arrested , never finger printed just a citation and was dismissed.


What do you guys make of this kind of reply?

Thanks
 
lazycis said:
This is my opinion that all of us who filed a lawsuit before February 20th, 2007 and did not get FBI name check expedited have a very good cause of violaton of Equal Protection Clause (Amendment V of the Constitution) because USCIS expedited name check for some people who filed WoM but not for others. This is a very serious cause.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional, unequal, and arbitrary application of the expedition policy state a valid cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause." Read attached opinion pages 50-60 (all opinion is interesting, although the facts are a bit different overall, but very similar regarding equal protection).

So my recommendation would be to file "motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings" and add new facts (USCIS changed policy on 2/20/2007) and another cause of action - violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...


Hi, Lazycis:

I think you need to be careful a little a bit. In my opinion, this argument can be easily used by AUSA to be against you. He can argue that: you wanna equal protection, then why you ask for being treated differently (expediting)? Let's keep your case in the normal queue for most people who has a NC hit.

My AUSA has told me similar argument like "jump in the line is not fair for others ..." , and I answered to him that "Fine, whatever you said does not change the fact that this case is unreasonalbly delayed!"

Best,

CrazyMark
 
hopeforall2 said:
2. ,because the examination process required by 8 U.S.C 1446 has not been completed and because USCIS is not yet in position to conclude that plaintiff has good moral character, a statutory prerequisite for naturalization.
Click to expand...

Are they trying to say FBI name checks are part of the interview?
 
About 1447(b) cases...

This Tuesday, God willing, I am planning to have a meeting with my lawyer who will file the 1447. Since Jan-Feb time period, are there any unfavorable decisions that would set the precedent nationwide in these cases?
 
One more question...

Have any of you heard about an "emergency hearing" before the federal judge? Last time I talked to my lawyer, he said he would file for an emergency hearing but I don't know what that is. I have only ONE MONTH left before I deploy. My friend Screaming Eagle said that for an emergency hearing the judge needs to be satisfied with the reason and allow it.
 
lazycis said:
This is my opinion that all of us who filed a lawsuit before February 20th, 2007 and did not get FBI name check expedited have a very good cause of violaton of Equal Protection Clause (Amendment V of the Constitution) because USCIS expedited name check for some people who filed WoM but not for others. This is a very serious cause.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional, unequal, and arbitrary application of the expedition policy state a valid cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause." Read attached opinion pages 50-60 (all opinion is interesting, although the facts are a bit different overall, but very similar regarding equal protection).

So my recommendation would be to file "motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings" and add new facts (USCIS changed policy on 2/20/2007) and another cause of action - violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...

Yes. this case is causing a problem. AUSAs in other district started using this case. I think the best advice for anyone getting a unfavourable decision is to file for amending the decision so others are not affected.
 
Bushmaster said:
One more question...

Have any of you heard about an "emergency hearing" before the federal judge? Last time I talked to my lawyer, he said he would file for an emergency hearing but I don't know what that is. I have only ONE MONTH left before I deploy. My friend Screaming Eagle said that for an emergency hearing the judge needs to be satisfied with the reason and allow it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is possible and you have a good reason for emergency hearing.
As for 1447, I posted opinion for Shalan v Chertoff a few pages back. Judge has a good point there, saying that the law mentions "date of examination", i.e. it's a specific date and not a process, as AUSA tries to argue. Check also Kaplan v Chertoff that I posted today, there judge explains while FBI is obligated by Congress to perform your background check.
 
lazycis said:
So my recommendation would be to file "motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings" and add new facts (USCIS changed policy on 2/20/2007) and another cause of action - violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Could you give us a reference on the policy change? I heard one about stop default-expediting cases with lawsuit, but that one became effective on Dec 22nd last year, not Feb. 20 this year.

Best,
CrazyMark
 
CrazyMark said:
Hi, Lazycis:

I think you need to be careful a little a bit. In my opinion, this argument can be easily used by AUSA to be against you. He can argue that: you wanna equal protection, then why you ask for being treated differently (expediting)? Let's keep your case in the normal queue for most people who has a NC hit.

My AUSA has told me similar argument like "jump in the line is not fair for others ..." , and I answered to him that "Fine, whatever you said does not change the fact that this case is unreasonalbly delayed!"

Best,

CrazyMark
Click to expand...


Thanks, Mark. I know that. Sometimes it's just hard to keep emotions in check. Believe me, I have a lot of patience, but I just cannot wait indefinitely.
I personally believe the whole name check process is screwed up big time. I think it is not fair if person have a common name (not my case) that he/she will wait forever for check to clear. I would like to get a set of rules FBI uses to search their database, but it's probably unreal.
I also have a feeling that process is biased so that USCIS could get more money for EAD, AP, GC extensions. I have two friends (we came to the US together) who are waiting for AOS, they are primary applicants (employment) and all family members passed FBI checks except primary applicants. The same with me, What is the probability of this happening by chance?
 
Lazycis, lotechguy and friends,

Do I have to follow these cases and decisions you mention and provide those to my attorney? Now that the FBI is out of the picture since name check results have been submitted to the CIS, who would be the defendant, only CIS?

Well, does emergency hearing mean that we are not bound by the 30, 60 whatever days of wait to get AUSA prepare??
 
Hi gmlvsk: Sounds great. Could you please tell where I can find the case Changzheng Wang v. Chertoff? Or could you please post herein? Do you know other favorable WOM decisions as well? Thanks.

gmlvsk said:
This is partially what i came up with for supplemental materials, any comments?

1.In support for his case two recent, similar to Plaintiff's cases, are attached in which Petitioners filed for Mandamus relief for I-485 applications. The Defendants claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction over the cases . Hoverer the court has found that “the Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiff's I-485 Application within a reasonable period of time” Changzheng Wang v Michael Chertoff (Case No C 06 -7636 JF, NDC, March 2007) and ordered the Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs I-485 application within 60 days.
2.To show the current spirit of the Congress related to timely completion of background checks, the Petitioners wants to quote two of proposed bills before the Congress 1) Citizenship Promotion Act “With respect to a request submitted to the Attorney General by the Secretary of Homeland Security for a background check on an applicant for temporary or permanent residence or citizenship of the United States, the Attorney General shall make a reasonable effort to complete a background check on such applicant not later than 90 days after the Attorney General receives such request from the Secretary of Homeland Security” 2) Strive Act (new Comprehensive Immigration Bill) “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an inter agency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed”
Click to expand...
 
Bushmaster said:
One more question...

Have any of you heard about an "emergency hearing" before the federal judge? Last time I talked to my lawyer, he said he would file for an emergency hearing but I don't know what that is. I have only ONE MONTH left before I deploy. My friend Screaming Eagle said that for an emergency hearing the judge needs to be satisfied with the reason and allow it.
Click to expand...

When I filed my original complaint, the clerk asked me if I want an emergency hearing. I didn't want that, just the normal process. But I assume that if I had a real compelling reason I could ask for one. In my opinion getting deployed in a month to Iraq qualifies for a good reason why to ask for an emergency hearing. And as a general advice, if you decided to hire a lawyer, trust him/her, they know a lot more about how the courts are functioning than we know. The lawyer-client relationship has to be close to the patient-doctor relationship; you need to trust them, otherways the chances of failure are much greater. Unfortunately, I know that there are not so few lawyers who don't deserve our trust, but at least, give him/her the benefit of initial trust.
 
paz1960 said:
When I filed my original complaint, the clerk asked me if I want an emergency hearing. I didn't want that, just the normal process. But I assume that if I had a real compelling reason I could ask for one. In my opinion getting deployed in a month to Iraq qualifies for a good reason why to ask for an emergency hearing. And as a general advice, if you decided to hire a lawyer, trust him/her, they know a lot more about how the courts are functioning than we know. The lawyer-client relationship has to be close to the patient-doctor relationship; you need to trust them, otherways the chances of failure are much greater. Unfortunately, I know that there are not so few lawyers who don't deserve our trust, but at least, give him/her the benefit of initial trust.
Click to expand...

I don't have any other option here Paz, I know what you mean, and I am going to trust this guy, in a recent email conversation he said this;

John – thank you for contacting me yesterday by phone and today via e-mail. As I mentioned, I will be happy to help you. Based on section 329 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, I feel confident we can achieve the result desired. Although you most likely are aware of it already, I have copied that section below.

I admire your desire to become a US citizen, and I hope we can accomplish this as quickly as possible. I will wait to hear from you.

I hope this thing will be figured out in one month, and even if I get my approval later, I can be naturalized in Iraq, which would be special!
 
lazycis said:
Thanks, Mark. I know that. Sometimes it's just hard to keep emotions in check. Believe me, I have a lot of patience, but I just cannot wait indefinitely.
Click to expand...


Put my shoes on here, I am about to bear arms in a combat zone to defend the constitution these suckers talk all over the place. And yet, they are digging and dragging for what... My final realization came yesterday once they sent the oath letter to my friend from my platoon who is originally from Trinidad. There is prejudice and discrimination on their part, and I hope my lawyer will also argue that, he got his citizenship in 6 months, and I have been waiting for 18, despite completed FBI name checks. I will extremely enjoy filing this lawsuit, and rest assured will say a very few important words during my ceremony on CIS's behalf, to whoever I see.
 
hopeforall2 said:
Dear paz and all friends

Today I received a copy of dependents " Response " to my complain , 5 pages in total , the same old argument that court lacks Jurisdiction e.t.c , but two responses struck me and that is when they said :

1.Defendants lack sufficient information to either admit or deny plaintiff's allegation as to where he resides.

I have been in the same address ( both Home and Job addresses ) for the last 7 years.

2. ,because the examination process required by 8 U.S.C 1446 has not been completed and because USCIS is not yet in position to conclude that plaintiff has good moral character, a statutory prerequisite for naturalization.

I had a citation, before even I got my green card and that charge was dismissed. I did mentioned it in the N400 form and attached the courts disposition letter to confirm the dismissal. Never arrested , never finger printed just a citation and was dismissed.


What do you guys make of this kind of reply?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I saw couple of cases where defendants challenged Plaintiff residence, however these were WOM cases for AOS. There they argued that a non-resident alien can't claim a residence in the US. In your case I would not be too concerned about this, because it will be trivial to prove your residence (driver licence, recent utility bill, mortgage/rental papers, bank/credit card account, even some recent correspondence from USCIS sent to you to your home address)

The "full criminal background check" mandated by the FY98 autorization bill, indeed verifies that you have or not a good moral character, i.e., it is not only a security check. In order to be eligible for naturalization you should have good moral character (in some USCIS documents, found on their web site, it is described in detail what this means. Just to give you an example: if you had a relationship with a married person, which caused the break up of the marriage of that person, you are considered that you don't have a good moral character and you N-400 application will be denied). There can be many reasons why your name check (part of the "full criminal background check") got stuck, most likely it is a false positive hit, considering the fact that you didn't have any problem with the law before.

The misinterpretation of the statue by defendants is that they are considering the "full criminal background check" part of the examination, not part of the investigation. You will need to convince the judge that your interview was the "examination" and this triggered the 120 day clock. It is not your fault that they interviewed you before the "full criminal background check" was completed, violating by this their own regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top