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

[AL11]

Hello,
just a quick question to everyone.
if the above stuff is true, then what happens if the US attorney doesen't respond within the 60 days, and there's no extension of the period? does the judge call the parties for trial then? (where the judge cannot make a judgement by default!)
i don't remember anything addressing that in this forum.
thank you all.

Hi Kabi24, I have a question for you, did you send the USCIS in Seattle and US attorney a demand letter before you filed with the court?

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

Why do you want to call the Judge, and don't file directly the motion for Default Judgment, if the due date passes

Suzy,

Even if I file the motion for default judgment, it is up to the judge discrition to accept or deny it. Besides, the DA office is next to the judge office and he might talk to the judge and file any B.S. as an on-time response.

I wanted to make it clear to the judge that they do not even respect his court of law.

I found a WOM case in my district which was filed a few weeks after mine (resopnse is due on 6/5/2006).
From what I read, the judge is aware that INS should not conduct the interview before the name check is cleared.

He ordered USCIS to respond to the WOM (within 60 days) and present a reasonable due date of the name check as well as the reason why the plaintif under went an interview before the clearance of his FBI name check.

Too bad he is not going to be my judge (but he is the refence Magistrate judge for my case).

 

[Suzy977]

Suzy,

Even if I file the motion for default judgment, it is up to the judge discrition to accept or deny it. Besides, the DA office is next to the judge office and he might talk to the judge and file any B.S. as an on-time response.

I think you're a little bit oversuspicious.
Don't live with the impression that the US Attorney will conspire with the Judge against you.
If the 60 day period passes is crystal clear that your are entitled to file for a default judgment.
Yes, the judge may deny it, but I bet my life on this, a Judge in his right minds, if s/he denies it I'm 100% sure s/he is going to give USCIS a specific date to respond, no if, or but, or...any B.S.

And I find impossible to believe that US Attorney is going to file an answer after your motion, pre-dated as his timely response to your original complaint...not to mention that the clerk also has to record it before your motion, and they had to send you a copy in a timely manner, and the Judge has to be party to this "conspiracy"...that is never going to happen.

Neither the US Attorney or the District Judge play such b.s. tricks....USCIS, maybe, but is not up to them anymore.

My concern is that if you don't file the motion you'll look weak, unprofessional and unprepared to the Judge...you don't negotiate feelings here, is strictly business, the letter of the law: They don't respond in 60 days=motion to enter default judgment, period, no comments.

 

[Suzy977]

I wanted to make it clear to the judge that they do not even respect his court of law.

By filing a motion to enter a default judgment is the clearest way to show the Judge that they didn't respect his/hers court rules.

 

[mohamedmohamed]

Suzy,

Even if I file the motion for default judgment, it is up to the judge discrition to accept or deny it. Besides, the DA office is next to the judge office and he might talk to the judge and file any B.S. as an on-time response.

I wanted to make it clear to the judge that they do not even respect his court of law.

I found a WOM case in my district which was filed a few weeks after mine (resopnse is due on 6/5/2006).
From what I read, the judge is aware that INS should not conduct the interview before the name check is cleared.

He ordered USCIS to respond to the WOM (within 60 days) and present a reasonable due date of the name check as well as the reason why the plaintif under went an interview before the clearance of his FBI name check.

Too bad he is not going to be my judge (but he is the refence Magistrate judge for my case).

it doesnt matter what the US attorney will file, and it doesnt matter what you want to discuss with the judge, what matter is whatever you have to support your argument, should be made ina case of a written motion, generally the judge dont go by verbal words, they have to some concret to make a judgement based on it.
what we(if i can speak for Suzy) was saying is that whatever you wanna talk to the judge about, should be inthe form of articulately written motion , explaining why do you think that the court should grant you what are you asking, in fact that work for your favour too, because there is a better chance of you making a good argument , when prepare it, review it, than when you talking to a judge, you may forget some , ignore ,ect..
the other case you have refred to in your district , is a good indication on where the court stands, genereally, any district court, rarely make a different judgement on the same issue.
from my point i think that how you make your point in the court, by writing , talking, ir hardly a practice in the court to establish a merit of an argument, the only time i have heard of talking in teh court, is only when trying to arrange a date for procedures, like producing evidence, or conductind a discovery, or similar procedures, but a written motion is the traditional way to establish the merit of the claims/argument you are making, but i could be wrong

 

[kabi24]

Hi Kabi24, I have a question for you, did you send the USCIS in Seattle and US attorney a demand letter before you filed with the court?

NO. my experience with the USCIS DO. made me just decide to go ahead and file my case. Like that i know that this whole issue will end in a 3 months period (or so).
The only time USCIS answered my request was when i sent a letter to the ombudsman.
THESE PEOPLE DON'T CARE UNLESS THEY ARE OBLIGED.
And by the way, i havent received the summons back from the clerk since 05/16/06.
Also i found out that my case is assigned to THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE WESTERN WASHINGTON DISTRICT COURT Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik.
I don't know if this is good or bad.

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

it doesnt matter what the US attorney will file, and it doesnt matter what you want to discuss with the judge, what matter is whatever you have to support your argument, should be made ina case of a written motion, generally the judge dont go by verbal words, they have to some concret to make a judgement based on it.
...........[/COLOR]

Suzy and mohammedx2,
Thank you guys for your responses.

First suzy, I can't file the motion for default judgment till tomorrow morining (Because the DA has till 5:00pm today 5/22/2006 to respond, that is why I was consideing calling the judge). Tomorow 5/23/2006, there will be no room for the talk and B.S. I will simply file the motion with no doubt.

The judge and the DA are in the same building and about 150 miles away from where I live, I am still thinking the the DA may file his response by 4:45pm today.

Not to mention that the other parties have till 6/2/2006 to respond. Technically they are still within the court limitation.

 

[khalafah2000]

both I and My wife passed Citizenship exam on July 12, 2004. and never received an oath letter, Now I'm preparing to go to Missouri western Distirct Court. I already have my complain and FOIP for both of us plus more than 10 letter form our house of representitive that shows our cases status. My question is Can I and My wife file together or should be seprate? any iformaiton about Western Missouri District Court in Kansas Cityi? any example about more then one person in the complain? Thank you very much.

N400 application: 02/12/2004
FP: 03/11/2004
Interview: 07/12/2004
Oath: ?????????????.

Anybody has filed 1447 in NJ? and if yes, how was his/her experience with the Judge here?

 

[boston_case]

changes to existing 120 day rule to file lawsuit

Hi Gurus,
I have few questions about the amendments to the 1447(b) lawsuit rule

1. Is it only going to change the number of wait days to 180 from 120 days or anything more ?

2. Is the any web site from where we can get update/outcome of this bill in Senate.

Thanks in advance

N400 (Boston)
PD Jan 17 2006
FP Feb 16 2006
Interview April 18 2006 -> Stuck in background check
Oath -> ??
Waiting eagerly for 121st day completes on August 15

 

[khalafah2000]

Name Check Pattern

It appears to me that anybody who is stuck in Name Check is really stuck unless he files 1447? The Name check fact sheet mentions that 98% of such cases get settled in 4 months. Looks like nobody falls in this 98%. I have lots of friends who are still stuck in name check and none of them got anything in 4 months, as a matter of fact they are still stuck.

what do you guys think about it?

My interview was just couple of weeks ago. I am planning to file as soon as my 120 days are over. Hope congress doesn't change the change before that.

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

it doesnt matter what the US attorney will file, and it doesnt matter what you want to discuss with the judge, what matter is whatever you have to support your argument, should be made ina case of a written motion, generally the judge dont go by verbal words, they have to some concret to make a judgement based on it.
what we(if i can speak for Suzy) was saying is that whatever you wanna talk to the judge about, should be inthe form of articulately written motion , explaining why do you think that the court should grant you what are you asking, in fact that work for your favour too, because there is a better chance of you making a good argument , when prepare it, review it, than when you talking to a judge, you may forget some , ignore ,ect..
the other case you have refred to in your district , is a good indication on where the court stands, genereally, any district court, rarely make a different judgement on the same issue.
...........

Allright guys, I called the assistant DA (who is working directly on my case at the DA office). He said he is working on my case right now and will file "something" today for sure and is making all phone calls throughout the country. He was very careful not to give any outcome.

In this case, I will not be able to file a motion for a default judgment. I told him I am working on it and if I do not hear a response by the end of the day, I will file it without doubt.

The funny part is, he said USCIS should not have conducted the interview before the name check is cleared "NO kidding".

I will keep you guys updated as soon as I receive his response. Just off the record, I am suspecting that he would ask for an extension to allow USCIS to finish this application (guess I have to wait and see).

 

[rob waiter]

Boston,
The new law will make the suit non-exisisting.
For the update check www.immigration-law.com/

I do not think, even this law is passed, it will be implemented
by 8/15. so you should be able to file your case on 8/15.

Please update me with your case, as I will file in September also.

good luck

rob

Hi Gurus,
I have few questions about the amendments to the 1447(b) lawsuit rule

1. Is it only going to change the number of wait days to 180 from 120 days or anything more ?

2. Is the any web site from where we can get update/outcome of this bill in Senate.

Thanks in advance

N400 (Boston)
PD Jan 17 2006
FP Feb 16 2006
Interview April 18 2006 -> Stuck in background check
Oath -> ??
Waiting eagerly for 121st day completes on August 15

 

[AL11]

Allright guys, I called the assistant DA (who is working directly on my case at the DA office). He said he is working on my case right now and will file "something" today for sure and is making all phone calls throughout the country. He was very careful not to give any outcome.

In this case, I will not be able to file a motion for a default judgment. I told him I am working on it and if I do not hear a response by the end of the day, I will file it without doubt.

The funny part is, he said USCIS should not have conducted the interview before the name check is cleared "NO kidding".

I will keep you guys updated as soon as I receive his response. Just off the record, I am suspecting that he would ask for an extension to allow USCIS to finish this application (guess I have to wait and see).

Well, if USCIS adapt the rule that they won't interview anyone before the name check is cleared that would would practicaly deprive us from filing a law suite, since in most cases you can not file unless you have been interviewed. So, I think it is a good think that they are doing this so we have a recourse if they are too late in clearing your name

 

[qim]

Hi qim,

Were you asked to retake your fingerprints? If yes, when were you told your name was cleared/given the oath letter after 2nd fingerprint?

I filed at Oakland on 4/28 and the US att. received my summon on 5/1 based on return receipt. Not all the defendants have sent back the signed receipts to me yet. I was instructed to have my 2nd fingerprint taken on 5/19. I am wondering if it is just a routine after USCIS/SF geting a summon, or it means my name check is complete and I should expect an oath letter soon.

The court has scheduled the initial case management conference on 6/28, exactly 60 days from my filing date. So in my case, I don't think the court took into account the date(s) when US Att/defendants were actually served.

What I want to know the most, are (1) Do I still need to prepare for the initial case managment conference; and if yes, (2) What should I gather for this conference?

Thank you,

Best regards,

E

Generally, the 2nd fingerprinting has nothing to do with the name check. It should be done because the original FP expire after 15 months. I suggest that you go ahead and do it.

(Many people were in this situation, and they all took the FP again. Me too (for more detail, you can take a look here: http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1398652#post1398652))

As to the CM conference, it never happened in my case (details are here: http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1426944#post1426944), so unfortunately I can't be of much help on this.

However, from general considerations I think you should try to be prepared to CM as best as you can. This is of course much easier said than done, in part because (if I remember correctly) so far no one 1447b petitioner on this thread had to really deal with CM, so there is virtually no experience here to learn from. On the other hand, absence of a such experience does speak for itself: chances are that in reality you will avoid it too. But again, I would try to play it safe and be prepared (by careful reading your court papers & court web pages, searching forums/threads, etc.) as good as I could.

And again: you should not consider 2nd FP notice as a sign that your journey is about to be over (it well may be but 2nd FP is an unrelated thing).

Good luck.

 

[AL11]

Boston,
The new law will make the suit non-exisisting.
For the update check www.immigration-law.com/

I do not think, even this law is passed, it will be implemented
by 8/15. so you should be able to file your case on 8/15.

Please update me with your case, as I will file in September also.

good luck

rob

rob can you direct me to the exact provision that talks about the law suit. I though it only make it 180 days instead of 120 also I did not think it would affect the WOM.
I also called my congressman office and they said it will be a while before the house-senate conference committe will debate the bill, she would not tell me whether this would happend before or after summer recess. may be other members can call their congressman and ask the same question.

 

[rob waiter]

REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE DISTRICT

8 COURT.—If there is a failure to render a final administra9
tive decision under section 335 before the end of the 180-
day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary
of Homeland Security completes all examinations and
interviews required under such section, the applicant may
apply to the district court for the district in which the
applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The Secretary shall notify the applicant when such examinations
and interviews have been completed. Such district court
shall only have jurisdiction to review the basis for delay
and remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to
the Secretary for the Secretary’s determination on the application.’’.


This is an evil law. "The secretary shall notify" is the key here, because he will tell ya when the examination is done. so it's impossible for you to determine when the examination and the interviews were completed. it is worse then the house bill when it comes to 1447(b). Notice also the seperation between the examination and the interview.
Reply With Quote

rob can you direct me to the exact provision that talks about the law suit. I though it only make it 180 days instead of 120 also I did not think it would affect the WOM.
I also called my congressman office and they said it will be a while before the house-senate conference committe will debate the bill, she would not tell me whether this would happend before or after summer recess. may be other members can call their congressman and ask the same question.

 

[AL11]

REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE DISTRICT

8 COURT.—If there is a failure to render a final administra9
tive decision under section 335 before the end of the 180-
day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary
of Homeland Security completes all examinations and
interviews required under such section, the applicant may
apply to the district court for the district in which the
applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The Secretary shall notify the applicant when such examinations
and interviews have been completed. Such district court
shall only have jurisdiction to review the basis for delay
and remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to
the Secretary for the Secretary’s determination on the application.’’.


This is an evil law. "The secretary shall notify" is the key here, because he will tell ya when the examination is done. so it's impossible for you to determine when the examination and the interviews were completed. it is worse then the house bill when it comes to 1447(b). Notice also the seperation between the examination and the interview.
Reply With Quote

Well, it depends how you look at it, I think that the USCIS will finish examination and interview at the time of your interview, it has been sucessfuly argued in the past that the name check is a one time examination and not a process, I still think that the only change is the 180 days, and all what you need is one successful case after the law is passed (if at all) for courts to resume siting with defendants. Also you can file a WOM if you can't use the 1447(b)
What I am affraid of is that USCIS will only interview poeple after name check is received (which they can start doing now) and then you can not sue them any more neither with 1447(b) nor with WOM
Did you get the chance to call your congressman to ask about when the house-senate committe will start debating the new law?

 

[mohamedmohamed]

Allright guys, I called the assistant DA (who is working directly on my case at the DA office). He said he is working on my case right now and will file "something" today for sure and is making all phone calls throughout the country. He was very careful not to give any outcome.

In this case, I will not be able to file a motion for a default judgment. I told him I am working on it and if I do not hear a response by the end of the day, I will file it without doubt.

The funny part is, he said USCIS should not have conducted the interview before the name check is cleared "NO kidding".

I will keep you guys updated as soon as I receive his response. Just off the record, I am suspecting that he would ask for an extension to allow USCIS to finish this application (guess I have to wait and see).

again i will assume teh posistion of speaking for Suzy.
we are not doubting you eagle, we only loking after you, gear up and get ready for whatever this DA may have up his sleeves, and you know if you need anythign we here for ya.
good luck

 

[mohamedmohamed]

some one somewhere will come up with a way

Well, if USCIS adapt the rule that they won't interview anyone before the name check is cleared that would would practicaly deprive us from filing a law suite, since in most cases you can not file unless you have been interviewed. So, I think it is a good think that they are doing this so we have a recourse if they are too late in clearing your name

dont warry, someone somewhere will find a way arround it, there is one thign right, process people petions and benefits by their priority date, anything different will be defeated one way or anotehr in court, either in the form of WOM, or something else, it just may take time for someone to come up with some like tat

 

[qim]

REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE DISTRICT

8 COURT.—If there is a failure to render a final administra9
tive decision under section 335 before the end of the 180-
day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary
of Homeland Security completes all examinations and
interviews required under such section, the applicant may
apply to the district court for the district in which the
applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The Secretary shall notify the applicant when such examinations
and interviews have been completed. Such district court
shall only have jurisdiction to review the basis for delay
and remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to
the Secretary for the Secretary’s determination on the application.’’.


This is an evil law. "The secretary shall notify" is the key here, because he will tell ya when the examination is done. so it's impossible for you to determine when the examination and the interviews were completed. it is worse then the house bill when it comes to 1447(b). Notice also the seperation between the examination and the interview

I agree on both matters. "all examinations and interviews" will definitely include NC. But it isn't enough for them... You'll have to wait until the Secretary notifies you... Be sure, he will never notify you until NC is completed.

If exactly what's been cited above becomes a law, it will effectively kill an opportunity to request a hearing, the one that many of us, after Publicus, so successfully implemented. Really sad...