Great News! If the AUSA gets you some evidence of approvalor something, then you are through. Even otherwise I dont know if you have a lot of choice other than dismissing it with appropriate language
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
Great News! If the AUSA gets you some evidence of approvalor something, then you are through. Even otherwise I dont know if you have a lot of choice other than dismissing it with appropriate language
Hi paz1960,Snorlax, this is great news! You are very close now, I don't believe that AUSA is lying, usually they are very professional people.
The reason why she is right is US v. Hovsepian. You are in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court and that case made a law of the 9th Circuit that filing a lawsuit stips USCIS from concurrent jurisdiction, i.e., the court has exclusive jurisdiction. Because your name check is complete now, USCIS has no interest to challenge subject matter jurisdiction based on the "examination is a process which contains among other things the name check" argument.
Just make sure that the joint stipulation has enough assurance that you cover your back. If what AUSA already wrote you (USCIS will adjudicate your case in 3 weeks from the date of order and in case of approval, they will issue you in 1 week an oath letter) is incorporated in the joint stipulation, in my opinion, is safe to sign it.
Many thanks for your message. I just thought that USCIS would normally continue working on the case and it was only the AUSA who knew about the Hovsepian. If I will not receive some USCIS letter in the mail later this week I will probably schedule INFOPASS appointment and see where my case is.
Attached is the stipulation/order draft that came from the AUSA this morning. It is not exactly what she said to me over the phone and certainly there is not enough “back coverage” you mentioned. I have to work on it, so any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
I am really tempted to send her my draft of case management documents including the discovery schedule that I have been working on – but that would probably be a hostile and unnecessary move on my part at this point.
Thanks a lot for your great support of this forum!
Best of luck everybody!
snorlax
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your message. I have yet to see any evidence that the USCIS is moving with my case, so I am a little hesitant to celebrate yet. And you are absolutely right about the language – I have to work on it. Hopefully I won’t produce a flop at this stage. Any suggestion will be highly appreciated.Great News! If the AUSA gets you some evidence of approvalor something, then you are through. Even otherwise I dont know if you have a lot of choice other than dismissing it with appropriate language
Best of luck everybody!
snorlax
I don't think FP has anything to do with NC. I did my third FP a couple weeks ago and nothing happened so far. Pretty much every fifteen months, I will get a letter about FP.
Do you really think that "an additional FPs appointment was a sign for the NC clearance"? I got second FP done in Feb. 2007. It was because that I filed wom and I got second FP notice one week after I filed the complaint. Moreover, I did not get any information about my NC clearance. my first FP was expried for 5 months.
filing WOM
guys can you please confirm the below:
I have 4 defendants
For the court:
2 copies of civil cover sheets
2 copies of Complaints with exhibits
2 copies of all four summons (page 1 and 2) completed but need to be submitted with the USPS green card.. (to be filed with court at a later date)
For the AUSA:
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
2 copies of each of the defendants summons first page only (2 copies x 4 defendants = 8)
For Each defendant
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of his summon page 1
For myself
1 copy of civil cover sheet
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of all summons page 1
would u please confirm the above?
and also, would I need to file a copy of the summons page 2 with the AUSA with the proof of service at a later date?
Thank you so much guys !!!
guys can you please confirm the below:
I have 4 defendants
For the court:
2 copies of civil cover sheets
2 copies of Complaints with exhibits
2 copies of all four summons (page 1 and 2) completed but need to be submitted with the USPS green card.. (to be filed with court at a later date)
For the AUSA:
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
2 copies of each of the defendants summons first page only (2 copies x 4 defendants = 8)
For Each defendant
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of his summon page 1
For myself
1 copy of civil cover sheet
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of all summons page 1
would u please confirm the above?
and also, would I need to file a copy of the summons page 2 with the AUSA with the proof of service at a later date?
Thank you so much guys !!!
I wrote a letter to the First Lady Laura Bush in January 2007 complaining the name check delay of my naturalization application. Today I got a letter from FBI Michael A. Cannon, section chief of the name check program. The letter says my name check is finalized and the results were sent to USCIS headquarters in Washington DC about 3 weeks ago.
What should I do about this letter? I want to forward this letter to USCIS but I think it has lost jurisdiction of my case after I filed the 1447b lawsuit in early March. Should I forward this letter to AUSA? but I don't know his/her name or email. PACER only shows a general AUSA email address for an AUSA who represents the defendants in my case.
From several posts in this forum, looks like writing to first lady does help, so, is there anyone has a template of the letter and the address? Thanks in advance.
Hi Wenlock,
Do you think if I can use this case decision in my opposition to MTD in WOM?
Thanks.
Yes you can use this but mostly this decision base every thing from Lazli's courts finding. But no harm in mentioning.
Infact I ran across another case in Fourth District court where court found Jurisdiction proper under 1331 and APA. It is certainly good for Fourth District court litigants because it is little conservative because most of the bad decisions comes under this district. Like famous Danilov
I am attaching this decision
united2007
Registered Users (C)
my TOC
I think you should interpret the laywer's comments ("you usually won't win, but the lawsuit would make USCIS to start to work on your case.") in a positive way. In fact it is true that almost all of this type of cases end up with a joint dismiss, which from the normal legal perspective is not a "win" to the plaintiff. However, from the sense of your getting what your want (GC or Citizenship), you indeed win.
Because of the personal information in my Opp, and the fact that I don't have time to remove the information one by one from my Opp before my posting it in this forum, please pardon me not sharing it with you.
Here I share my TOC with you. I structured my defence in this way based on (1) the facts in my case, and (2) the strategy in the MTD. Therefore, each one should re-design their defence framework.
=========
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
ARGUMENT
A. This Court does have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §1361, or the combination of APA and §1331, if not both.
1. Adjudicating Plaintiff's AOS application is Defendants' non-discretionary duty.
2. Congress has explicit intention to request Defendants to adjust immigration applications, such as Plaintiff's AOS application, within a reasonable time period.
3 The delay in adjudicating Plaintiff's AOS application is unreasonable.
(a) Plaintiff's AOS application is very simple and typical in nature, and Plaintiff did not cause any delay in the whole process.
(b) The delay is because Defendants have not been doing their requested job.
(c) The long delay period in Plaintiff's application itself has been considered by many courts as unreasonable.
4. Plaintiff has no other remedy to seek his relief, and is constantly suffering from Defendants' unreasonable delay to adjudicate his application.
5. Both law and a majority of courts support that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint.
B. Defendants inappropriately interpreted the statutes, and misunderstood the nature of the Plaintiff's Complaint.
1. 8 U.S.C. §1252 (g) is not applicable to Plaintiff's case.
2. 8 U.S.C. §1252 (a)(2)(B) is not applicable to Plaintiff's case.
3. The APA limitations defined in the Norton case are not applicable to Plaintiff's Complaint. Instead, opinion in the Norton case supports Plaintiff's Complaint.
4. Defendants cited cases that are so factually distinguishable from Plaintiff's case that their citations hardly have any positive contribution to Defendants' legal argument.
CONCLUSION
Hi, united2007:
Thank you for your email. What you have experienced is what I am doing now. Just I am trying to find time and trying to find a relatively short cut. My status is very similar to yours. I just got my 2nd FP and MTD. i-485 has been pending for 3 years. I am reading whenver I have time, but with working and taking care of a 2-year-old, this is really not easy. I talked to lawyer today, who said " you usually won't win, but the lawsuit would make USCIS to start to work on your case." which is discouraging, but I still want to win the case. I wonder if you can share your opposition to MTD with us. I know that I still need to read and study carefully, maybe with the most recent example, it will save me some time.
Thanks a lot! it is totally understandable if you don't want to.
I think you should interpret the laywer's comments ("you usually won't win, but the lawsuit would make USCIS to start to work on your case.") in a positive way. In fact it is true that almost all of this type of cases end up with a joint dismiss, which from the normal legal perspective is not a "win" to the plaintiff. However, from the sense of your getting what your want (GC or Citizenship), you indeed win.
Because of the personal information in my Opp, and the fact that I don't have time to remove the information one by one from my Opp before my posting it in this forum, please pardon me not sharing it with you.
Here I share my TOC with you. I structured my defence in this way based on (1) the facts in my case, and (2) the strategy in the MTD. Therefore, each one should re-design their defence framework.
=========
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
ARGUMENT
A. This Court does have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §1361, or the combination of APA and §1331, if not both.
1. Adjudicating Plaintiff's AOS application is Defendants' non-discretionary duty.
2. Congress has explicit intention to request Defendants to adjust immigration applications, such as Plaintiff's AOS application, within a reasonable time period.
3 The delay in adjudicating Plaintiff's AOS application is unreasonable.
(a) Plaintiff's AOS application is very simple and typical in nature, and Plaintiff did not cause any delay in the whole process.
(b) The delay is because Defendants have not been doing their requested job.
(c) The long delay period in Plaintiff's application itself has been considered by many courts as unreasonable.
4. Plaintiff has no other remedy to seek his relief, and is constantly suffering from Defendants' unreasonable delay to adjudicate his application.
5. Both law and a majority of courts support that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint.
B. Defendants inappropriately interpreted the statutes, and misunderstood the nature of the Plaintiff's Complaint.
1. 8 U.S.C. §1252 (g) is not applicable to Plaintiff's case.
2. 8 U.S.C. §1252 (a)(2)(B) is not applicable to Plaintiff's case.
3. The APA limitations defined in the Norton case are not applicable to Plaintiff's Complaint. Instead, opinion in the Norton case supports Plaintiff's Complaint.
4. Defendants cited cases that are so factually distinguishable from Plaintiff's case that their citations hardly have any positive contribution to Defendants' legal argument.
CONCLUSION
united2007
Registered Users (C)
some recent good cases
Most of the cases I used were posted on this forum. Here are some of the most recent ones. Reading these cases are very helpful for me to prepare my Opp.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL 3041086, (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Singh v. Still No. C-06-2458-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Elkhatib v. Bulter, No. 04-22407, (S. D. Fla. June 2005)
Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12,2007)
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461-WDB, (N.D. Cal 2006)
Haidari v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-3215 (DWF/AJB) (D. Minn. December 2006)
Wang v. Chertoff, Case Number H-06-3477, (S.D. Tex. Jan 2007)
United, since you have already prepared the motion .. do you mind sharing it on the forum. I think there are many here who are doing the same thing.. even if you don't want to share the whole thing.. can you just tell which AOS cases you have cited in yout opposition. Cases which you think are strong to oppose AUSA's rather standard arguments in AOS WOM cases.
Thanks
Most of the cases I used were posted on this forum. Here are some of the most recent ones. Reading these cases are very helpful for me to prepare my Opp.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL 3041086, (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Singh v. Still No. C-06-2458-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Elkhatib v. Bulter, No. 04-22407, (S. D. Fla. June 2005)
Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12,2007)
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461-WDB, (N.D. Cal 2006)
Haidari v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-3215 (DWF/AJB) (D. Minn. December 2006)
Wang v. Chertoff, Case Number H-06-3477, (S.D. Tex. Jan 2007)
At least, it was in my case... I remember that somebody else posted the info that things started to move after the additional FPs. My 1st FPs were expired more than 1 year ago. During the InfoPAss appointment I asked USCIS officer why the agency won't schedulue another appointment for the second FPs. The officer replied that they won't send me anything until my NC is clear because it will be a waste of time and money for me and for the agency. Anyway, when I received the letter for the FP appointment, I called AUSA and he confirmed that my NC was cleared. A week later after the FPs I received the approval letter from the DIstrict Director of USCIS, in the next 2 weeks -I received a Welcome notice, indicating the record for my residency was created, and today -I received 4 E-mails stating that the actual card was ordered for me and I should expect it in the mail within 30 days.
If I were you, I would call AUSA and ask about the progress of your case and the status of your NC. You can also call FBI directly and check on status of your FPs (there is a customer service for this).
In addition, I was not saying that additional FPs is a definite sign (or proof) for the NC clearance. But for several people including me it was true.
If I were you, I would call AUSA and ask about the progress of your case and the status of your NC. You can also call FBI directly and check on status of your FPs (there is a customer service for this).
In addition, I was not saying that additional FPs is a definite sign (or proof) for the NC clearance. But for several people including me it was true.
Do you really believe that "an additional FPs appointment was a sign for the NC clearance"?! I got second FP done in Feb. 2007. It was because that I filed wom and I got second FP notice one week after I filed the complaint. Moreover, I did not get any information about my NC clearance. my first FP was expried for 5 months before I filed the case.
3. The APA limitations defined in the Norton case are not applicable to Plaintiff's Complaint. Instead, opinion in the Norton case supports Plaintiff's Complaint.
4. Defendants cited cases that are so factually distinguishable from Plaintiff's case that their citations hardly have any positive contribution to Defendants' legal argument.
CONCLUSION
Thanks for sharing! Indeed, I was surprised that my AUSA (well, it's not AUSA himself, his assitant) cited many irrelevant cases and even quoted laws incorrectly. And Norton case definitely is in support of our position, not theirs.
I also agree that there is something in defending your position as pro se. Attorneys hardly understand what we are going thru.
as above[Hiram]guys can you please confirm the below:
I have 4 defendants
For the court:
2 copies of civil cover sheets
2 copies of Complaints with exhibits
2 copies of all four summons (page 1 and 2) completed but need to be submitted with the USPS green card.. (to be filed with court at a later date)
set of Copy1 needs to be attached to a stamped copy of complaint each and mailed to defendants. Make sure you identify "all" the defendants in the box where is says <you> vs <list all defendants> and only the one you are sending this to, in the box below. The other set of copies needs to be filed with proof of service back to court. Both have to be original.
For the AUSA:
1 copy of complaint with exhibits + 1 summons addressed to AUSA
2 copies of each of the defendants summons first page only (2 copies x 4 defendants = 8) Dont need to do this. When you file proof of service with court, just file a copy of that with AUSA.
For Each defendant
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of his summon page 1 (I send both pages)
For myself
1 copy of civil cover sheet
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of all summons page 1
would u please confirm the above?
and also, would I need to file a copy of the summons page 2 with the AUSA with the proof of service at a later date?
Thank you so much guys !!![/Hiram]
I also think that it is a great news! I agree with Paz and others that you should sigh joint stipulation adding a sentence which gives you some assurance for naturalization (timetable, etc). I don't see any point for AUSA to lie in this situation, and if everything he said is true he would not against your addition to stipulation.
I also did not know whether I should trust AUSA words, but so far everything is going exactly as he said. Good luck!
I also did not know whether I should trust AUSA words, but so far everything is going exactly as he said. Good luck!
AUSA called this morning – she said that my name check has been cleared and USCIS is ready to adjudicate in 3 weeks. She wanted me to sign joint stipulation to dismiss. I politely declined – said I would like to get that in writing from USCIS and better yet – the Oath letter. She said that I have to dismiss the case first as USCIS currently does not have jurisdiction over my case and therefore can not adjudicate it, but if naturalization is granted they would schedule the Oath in a week. I agreed to look at the draft of the stipulation she promised to e-mail me in a few days.
Sounds a little fishy. Lack of jurisdiction is a cornerstone of most MTDs these days, and AUSA herself says that USCIS can not adjudicate the case until the lawsuit is dismissed?
Best of luck,
snorlax
guys can you please confirm the below:
I have 4 defendants
Thank you so much guys !!!
For the court:
2 copies of civil cover sheets
2 copies of Complaints with exhibits
Those are filed with court and stay there
3 copies of all four summons (page 1 and 2) completed +
You will need summons for your AUSA and US AG (if he is not a defendant). If possible, print double-sided summons form.
One set are to be served to defendants.
Second set goes to AUSA along with his summons.
Third set are to be filed with court as the Return of service (green cards attached). You will need to send a copy of what you filed with court to AUSA.
For the AUSA:
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of each of the defendants summons first page only (1 copies x 4 defendants = 4) + summons for AUSA
For Each defendant
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of his summon page 1
For myself
1 copy of civil cover sheet
1 copy of complaint with exhibits
1 copy of all summons page 1
Hi paz1960,
Many thanks for your message. I just thought that USCIS would normally continue working on the case and it was only the AUSA who knew about the Hovsepian. If I will not receive some USCIS letter in the mail later this week I will probably schedule INFOPASS appointment and see where my case is.
Attached is the stipulation/order draft that came from the AUSA this morning. It is not exactly what she said to me over the phone and certainly there is not enough “back coverage” you mentioned. I have to work on it, so any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
I am really tempted to send her my draft of case management documents including the discovery schedule that I have been working on – but that would probably be a hostile and unnecessary move on my part at this point.
Thanks a lot for your great support of this forum!
Best of luck everybody!
snorlax
I read the proposed joint stipulation to dismiss. I think that you are safe, and technically you could not ask more than to compel USCIS to adjudicate your application, not to approve it. However, I would try to negotiate with AUSA to add one more sentence: "In case of approval of Plaintiff's naturalization application, USCIS will issue the oath letter within 7 days after the date of the adjudication for the next available oath ceremony."
parsfalcon
Registered Users (C)
case page numbers
Would you be kind to send me the page number for these cases or post it here, my email address is: aamirich@yahoo.com
greatly appreciated...
Would you be kind to send me the page number for these cases or post it here, my email address is: aamirich@yahoo.com
greatly appreciated...
Most of the cases I used were posted on this forum. Here are some of the most recent ones. Reading these cases are very helpful for me to prepare my Opp.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL 3041086, (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Singh v. Still No. C-06-2458-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Elkhatib v. Bulter, No. 04-22407, (S. D. Fla. June 2005)
Lazli v. USCIS, No 05-CV-1680-BR, 2007 WL 496351(D. Or. Feb. 12,2007)
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461-WDB, (N.D. Cal 2006)
Haidari v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-3215 (DWF/AJB) (D. Minn. December 2006)
Wang v. Chertoff, Case Number H-06-3477, (S.D. Tex. Jan 2007)
Thanks again, paz1960.I read the proposed joint stipulation to dismiss. I think that you are safe, and technically you could not ask more than to compel USCIS to adjudicate your application, not to approve it. However, I would try to negotiate with AUSA to add one more sentence: "In case of approval of Plaintiff's naturalization application, USCIS will issue the oath letter within 7 days after the date of the adjudication for the next available oath ceremony."
I scheduled an INFOPASS appointment to see if there is anything they can tell me about the status of my case. It looks like the stipulation text is standard - at least it looks identical to the stipulation received by sfbayarea, message #9730, back in March this year. I am thinking of adding something like:
If Plaintiff's petition for naturalization is not adjudicated within 30 days from the date of the Court order, and if the naturalization is approved, but the Oath is not scheduled within 15 days from the date of approval - this Court will reopen this instant case.
Best of luck!
snorlax
At least, it was in my case... I remember that somebody else posted the info that things started to move after the additional FPs. My 1st FPs were expired more than 1 year ago. During the InfoPAss appointment I asked USCIS officer why the agency won't schedulue another appointment for the second FPs. The officer replied that they won't send me anything until my NC is clear because it will be a waste of time and money for me and for the agency. Anyway, when I received the letter for the FP appointment, I called AUSA and he confirmed that my NC was cleared. A week later after the FPs I received the approval letter from the DIstrict Director of USCIS, in the next 2 weeks -I received a Welcome notice, indicating the record for my residency was created, and today -I received 4 E-mails stating that the actual card was ordered for me and I should expect it in the mail within 30 days.
If I were you, I would call AUSA and ask about the progress of your case and the status of your NC. You can also call FBI directly and check on status of your FPs (there is a customer service for this).
In addition, I was not saying that additional FPs is a definite sign (or proof) for the NC clearance. But for several people including me it was true.
zevs is right. I saw many reports earlier on this forum about the correlation between the 2nd FP and name check complete. It happened in my case also. I even saw an exhibit in a lawsuit, which was a response letter from USCIS to the Plaintiff, explaining the same thing what zevs just reported above.
However, I agree with her again, that not in ALL cases 2nd FP is a sign of the completed NC. And beside this, a finished NC by FBI doesn't necessary mean that your journey is over. Your name check report from FBI can contain some potentially derogatory info, which needs to be further investigated by USCIS, so the adjudication may not come shortly after your name check was done.
Remember, FBI is not "clearing" anybody's name. They just provide a report. It is similar with a credit reporting agency. The bank where you applied for a loan asks for a credit report and the bank (not the credit reporting agency) makes the decision based on this report if they approve or not your loan application.
Thanks again, paz1960.
I scheduled an INFOPASS appointment to see if there is anything they can tell me about the status of my case. It looks like the stipulation text is standard - at least it looks identical to the stipulation received by sfbayarea, message #9730, back in March this year. I am thinking of adding something like:
If Plaintiff's petition for naturalization is not adjudicated within 30 days from the date of the Court order, and if the naturalization is approved, but the Oath is not scheduled within 15 days from the date of approval - this Court will reopen this instant case.
Best of luck!
snorlax
snorlax,
sounds a liitle involved. Maybe go with:
This Court may reopen this instant case if either (a) Plaintiff's application is not adjuducated within 30 days from the date of the Court order
or (b) If application is approved, the Oath is not scheduled within 15 days from the date of approval.