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

[united2007]

For those cases from WL..

Hi, united2007:
I am bothering you again. I was trying to get case files that have been cited in my MTD and also the Norton and Manzoor cases. But with the format xxx vs xxx, 2007 WL 413227 (E.D. Va), I could not find them. Snorlax sent me a website, I still can't get them. I must have done some not correctly.
So, if you could give me a clue and thanks a million.

Normally, I first try to use google search the WL numbers. If that fails, I use the following website,
http://dockets.justia.com/
and use the (1) the district information, (2) date, and (3) Plaintiff and Defendants names as clue to search for the case.

Once you found the case, you can use your Pacer system username/password to login and get the case document.

 

[lazycis]

Snorlax:
Thank you so much for your email. I tried the website, but with this particular one, I still can't find it. I will try again and also asked United2007.

I want to ask you and maybe others that have any thoughts on this.
When I filed my complaint (1/31/07), for the Prayer for relief, what I wrote was to ask "the court requring the defendants to adjudicte my application for acting on an approved petition". I have read a lot of opposition where the plaintiff argued they only want defendants to act on their case, not to approve the case. Since I have written to ask for a approval, I guess it is not good. Is there anyway I can say something about it, not just to avoid it? In the MTD, AUSA didn't really bring this up, though. They focused on the "the court lacks subject matter juridiction to grant relief under either statutory framwork."

Thanks a lot!
41906

You have to file a motion for leave to file amended complaint. It's not good to ask for approval, because the decision is up to USCIS discretion. It's better to ask court to compel USCIS to adjudicate your application within 30 days or so.

 

[united2007]

asking for approval is not good

Snorlax:
Thank you so much for your email. I tried the website, but with this particular one, I still can't find it. I will try again and also asked United2007.

I want to ask you and maybe others that have any thoughts on this.
When I filed my complaint (1/31/07), for the Prayer for relief, what I wrote was to ask "the court requring the defendants to adjudicte my application for acting on an approved petition". I have read a lot of opposition where the plaintiff argued they only want defendants to act on their case, not to approve the case. Since I have written to ask for a approval, I guess it is not good. Is there anyway I can say something about it, not just to avoid it? In the MTD, AUSA didn't really bring this up, though. They focused on the "the court lacks subject matter juridiction to grant relief under either statutory framwork."

Thanks a lot!
41906

This is the most subtle and tricky part of the whole thing.

Because approval and denying are discretionary decision, AUSA is easy to argue that the 1252(a)(2)(B) statute can bar the juridiction if you are seeking an approval.

I very vaguely remembered that, in a case when a professional lawyer took over a Pro Se Complaint in the middle, he immediately amended the original Complaint regarding this issue. However, I am not sure if you are still allowed to amend your Complaint at this moment. I guess you may ask the clerks in the court regarding this situation, although they may refuse to answer it, because they are not supposed to answer any procedure type of questions in our district.

Also, you can spend some money consulting with a good lawyear regarding how to fix this situation.

Finally, I want to remind you that this is only my limited understanding. You need to do your own homework regarding how serious this issue is particularly in your case. It may not be so critical in your case (at least I hope). Meanwhile, I hope you can keep in your mind that, although these technical details are critical, they will never change the fact that the justice is on our side.

 

[snorlax]

Snorlax:
Thank you so much for your email. I tried the website, but with this particular one, I still can't find it. I will try again and also asked United2007.

I want to ask you and maybe others that have any thoughts on this.
When I filed my complaint (1/31/07), for the Prayer for relief, what I wrote was to ask "the court requring the defendants to adjudicte my application for acting on an approved petition". I have read a lot of opposition where the plaintiff argued they only want defendants to act on their case, not to approve the case. Since I have written to ask for a approval, I guess it is not good. Is there anyway I can say something about it, not just to avoid it? In the MTD, AUSA didn't really bring this up, though. They focused on the "the court lacks subject matter juridiction to grant relief under either statutory framwork."

Thanks a lot!
41906

This is first time I hear that the case cannot be found at http://dockets.justia.com/. Are you sure you spelled xx correctly?

I am not sure that I understood the sentence “the court requring the defendants to adjudicte my application for acting on an approved petition”, and suspect that neither did your AUSA. I would certainly consult with a lawyer if you want to amend your complaint.

Best of luck,
snorlax

 

[ipoh]

Name check cleared but AOS pending.

I(my attorney) received a copy of the Summary Judgment from the AUSA. It has an affidavit from the USCIS DO director. Its a long motion from the AUSA, looks worst than a MTD. They mentioned that my FBI name check was cleared but they are waiting for clearences from other agencies (no agenciy names mentioned), "....pending further investigation....". Is any one aware of similar situation in a WOM, if so what were the outcomes?
Thanks.

 

[gctarget06]

Guys,
My AUSA is insisting on me to sign a joint stipulation to dismiss "WITH PREJUDICE" which is something obviously I don't want to do. Wondering what would happen if I don't sign it ?? The answer is due next week from the defendants but since the adjudication of travel document has already taken place, the lawsuit is technically "MOOT". I am wondering if we don't file a joint stipulation to dismiss then how the court will dismiss it ? With or without Prejudice ?

Highly appreciate if you could please comment and share your experience.

 

[parsfalcon]

joint stipulation to dismiss "WITH PREJUDICE"

I would file a motion to oppose it if I were you and if you want to dismiss it, dismiss it "without prejudice" so you can re-open it if you have to. You have to fight it to the end.

Guys,
My AUSA is insisting on me to sign a joint stipulation to dismiss "WITH PREJUDICE" which is something obviously I don't want to do. Wondering what would happen if I don't sign it ?? The answer is due next week from the defendants but since the adjudication of travel document has already taken place, the lawsuit is technically "MOOT". I am wondering if we don't file a joint stipulation to dismiss then how the court will dismiss it ? With or without Prejudice ?

Highly appreciate if you could please comment and share your experience.

 

[Mingjing]

I don't have similar experience, so I am just thinking out loud here - our WOM suits press defendants to adjudicate our cases, not just clear FBI name checks. So completion of FBI name check is not sufficient to close our complaints.

Therefore, the only reason USCIS affidavit mentioned your FBI name check cleared but there are other checks pending is to attempt to convince judge your waiting time (of 3.5 years?) is not unreasonable. I think it is helpful to ask and know what exactly are the nature of pending checks, who is supposed to do what, and why, and time table to get them done. If defendants don't provide these information, I would argue before judge that WOM is only way to move to adjudication of your case and judge should order a limited time.

Folks, if defendants can hide behind these vaguely defined pending checks, they will have powerful excuse that can be abused by defendants to defeat nearly any WOM cases. Thoughts?

How about file your cross motion for summary judgement including talking about these vaguely definined pending checks? Or go press for discovery phase, so defendants have to tell what is going on with these pending checks?

I(my attorney) received a copy of the Summary Judgment from the AUSA. It has an affidavit from the USCIS DO director. Its a long motion from the AUSA, looks worst than a MTD. They mentioned that my FBI name check was cleared but they are waiting for clearences from other agencies (no agenciy names mentioned), "....pending further investigation....". Is any one aware of similar situation in a WOM, if so what were the outcomes?
Thanks.

 

[gctarget06]

Thanks parsfalcon,
Here is what AUSA has to say when I told her that I won't be able to file a complaint again if it is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

"You can file another and separate case concerning the specific visa petitions at issue. Only this one is moot and should be dismissed with prejudice – because this specific petition has been granted. "


Anyone else.. ??? Please share your thought/comments.
Thanks....

I would file a motion to oppose it if I were you and if you want to dismiss it, dismiss it "without prejudice" so you can re-open it if you have to. You have to fight it to the end.

 

[shvili]

What is the Chevron case as it relates to us ? I read an AUSA filed MTD where AUSA says that the judge must follow Chevron and take the agency (USCIS) interpretation of "examination" and not the plaintiffs which is "interview". Paz, riz, Snorlax, shvilli, others, Does anybody know what is chevron case

Lotechguy,

Danilov's judge also refers to Shevron on p. 5 (see below, in the footnote). According to the footnote, the case created a "latmus test" to see if laws are clear enough to be followed at face value. If any ambiguity exists, the court has to proceed to "step two" which is to see, what (if any) way an agency itself interprets the law.

Obviously, the Danilov's judge deicded there was enough ambiguity re. definitions of "examination" and "investigation" in the law (which obviously there was not, he just really wanted to deny the case), so he ruled that "examination=investigation", becuase there was not any clear agency interpretation of the law on that point (to follow "step two")

But in our case now, we also can quote Chevron's reasoning in our favor: there is now a "step two" available, as USCIS itself considers "examination" must follow "investgation" and the 1447 applies! Just use the document you posted as an exhibit in your MTD (or add as an exhibit before they file MTD)!

Please see the Danilov's fateful judgement:

Good luck!
Shvili

 

[41906]

This is the most subtle and tricky part of the whole thing.

Because approval and denying are discretionary decision, AUSA is easy to argue that the 1252(a)(2)(B) statute can bar the juridiction if you are seeking an approval.

I very vaguely remembered that, in a case when a professional lawyer took over a Pro Se Complaint in the middle, he immediately amended the original Complaint regarding this issue. However, I am not sure if you are still allowed to amend your Complaint at this moment. I guess you may ask the clerks in the court regarding this situation, although they may refuse to answer it, because they are not supposed to answer any procedure type of questions in our district.

Also, you can spend some money consulting with a good lawyear regarding how to fix this situation.

Finally, I want to remind you that this is only my limited understanding. You need to do your own homework regarding how serious this issue is particularly in your case. It may not be so critical in your case (at least I hope). Meanwhile, I hope you can keep in your mind that, although these technical details are critical, they will never change the fact that the justice is on our side.

Hi, united2007, Snorlax and Lazycis:
Thank you very much for your input. I know it is too late. At the beginning, I was just following other complaints which have won, where they also demanded for approval. I guess things have changed which was illuted in this forum.
I called the clerk's office, they suggested me to write a letter to ask the Judge whether I could amend the complaint now, since the AUSA has responced to my complaint. So, I am sending the letter to the Judge. In the meantime, I have tried to talk to a lawyer and see his advice. Anyway, I think there is not much hope for me now, as I have read a lot of orders and opposition, also the bad cases........
But if anyone has some suggestions, again, I'd appreciate it.

AlSo, if anyone started to write your complaint, don't demand an approval but an action on your case, denying or approving.

 

[lazycis]

Hi, united2007, Snorlax and Lazycis:
Thank you very much for your input. I know it is too late. At the beginning, I was just following other complaints which have won, where they also demanded for approval. I guess things have changed which was illuted in this forum.
I called the clerk's office, they suggested me to write a letter to ask the Judge whether I could amend the complaint now, since the AUSA has responced to my complaint. So, I am sending the letter to the Judge. In the meantime, I have tried to talk to a lawyer and see his advice. Anyway, I think there is not much hope for me now, as I have read a lot of orders and opposition, also the bad cases........
But if anyone has some suggestions, again, I'd appreciate it.

AlSo, if anyone started to write your complaint, don't demand an approval but an action on your case, denying or approving.

You can still try to file a motion and amend your complaint, even after the response is filed. And if your complaint is dismissed, you can always file a new one, I think you can mention it in your letter to the judge. It's better for all parties to let you amend your complaint rather then go thru the whole process again.

 

[bsus]

Completely wrong conclusion. They answer on the last day, because they hope that your case will be resolved before it and they won't need to file anything at all. Have not u been a student once? Did u submit your homeworks always 2 weeks in advance before dead line? I doubt it. I submitted my homework on the day of submission with hope that may be I will get an additional time (specially night)
I agree that AUSA try to delay all process (for example my case), but they achieve it in a different way and you DO NOT HAVE to agree how your case will go. It is between you and them. So if u voluntary agree for an extension, as some people here, then it is their decision to delay their case. If you do not ask immediately for cross-summary judgement and ready to go through enormous hearings, additional paperwork, change judges (as I did), then it is my problem (and reason for delay).
Olsen is not my AUSA, I met him once when he was substituting my AUSA. And again I want to tell you that he is a very polite and nice guy and please be patient. When did u submit your case and on what stage are u in now?

Interesting interpretation of why AUSA always submit the response on last day, and even submit request for extension. I can see it's might be true for certain cases with certain AUSAs, but I'm not convinced as a general statement that AUSA is doing these actually for the good of Plaintiff. Nevertheless you might be right as you actually talked to AUSA (and Olsen).

I'm at last stage and waiting for Judge to rule.

 

[zevs]

It's all over for me!

Hi guys,

I have REALLY good news to report! I have a Green Card (actually, it has off-white color) in my hands!!!!!!!!! And surprise, surprise!!!! It backdated to the date of my first entry to the US (not to the date of my I-485 application or marriage to the US citizen). Does it mean that I can apply for the citizenship already ??? (Do you count from the date the card was issued or from the date you become a PR?? )
Moreover, the GC is valid for the next 10 years, meaning that I don’t need to spend my valuable time and another $275 to remove the conditions from marriage-based GC. I remember that few days ago somebody asked about the conditional status of GC. My case is a direct proof that if the marriage last more than 2 years on the date the permanent residency conferred, USCIS issues the regular GC (valid for 10 years), and not conditional (valid for 2 years only).

Again, I would like to THANK all members of this forum (especially Paz) for their help and advices! I really appreciate it! Good luck to everyone who is still fighting!

Alika

 

[ipoh]

I don't have similar experience, so I am just thinking out loud here - our WOM suits press defendants to adjudicate our cases, not just clear FBI name checks. So completion of FBI name check is not sufficient to close our complaints.

Therefore, the only reason USCIS affidavit mentioned your FBI name check cleared but there are other checks pending is to attempt to convince judge your waiting time (of 3.5 years?) is not unreasonable. I think it is helpful to ask and know what exactly are the nature of pending checks, who is supposed to do what, and why, and time table to get them done. If defendants don't provide these information, I would argue before judge that WOM is only way to move to adjudication of your case and judge should order a limited time.

Folks, if defendants can hide behind these vaguely defined pending checks, they will have powerful excuse that can be abused by defendants to defeat nearly any WOM cases. Thoughts?

How about file your cross motion for summary judgement including talking about these vaguely definined pending checks? Or go press for discovery phase, so defendants have to tell what is going on with these pending checks?

Thanks Mingjing,
My attorney is preparing an Answer to the AUSA's vague defence.
Will keep the forum updated if and when I have more news. I never felt this helpless.

 

[snorlax]

Hi, united2007, Snorlax and Lazycis:
Thank you very much for your input. I know it is too late. At the beginning, I was just following other complaints which have won, where they also demanded for approval. I guess things have changed which was illuted in this forum.
I called the clerk's office, they suggested me to write a letter to ask the Judge whether I could amend the complaint now, since the AUSA has responced to my complaint. So, I am sending the letter to the Judge. In the meantime, I have tried to talk to a lawyer and see his advice. Anyway, I think there is not much hope for me now, as I have read a lot of orders and opposition, also the bad cases........
But if anyone has some suggestions, again, I'd appreciate it.

AlSo, if anyone started to write your complaint, don't demand an approval but an action on your case, denying or approving.

I would be optimistic, especially since AUSA let it slip and did not mention it in the MTD.
I am not even sure that you even need to amend you complaint - in your OPP you can mention that you satisfied all requirements for naturalization and that was the reason you asked for approval. Anyway, consulting with a lawyer is a good idea.

Cheer up!
snorlax

 

[snorlax]

Interesting interpretation of why AUSA always submit the response on last day, and even submit request for extension. I can see it's might be true for certain cases with certain AUSAs, but I'm not convinced as a general statement that AUSA is doing these actually for the good of Plaintiff. Nevertheless you might be right as you actually talked to AUSA (and Olsen).

I'm at last stage and waiting for Judge to rule.

My sence is that the first and foremost goal for normal AUSAs is to minimize their workload. They hate to lift a finger to make an extra keystroke, much less to generate an extra document. Going to Case mangement conference - like in kefira's case - is a near-death experience. That is why kefira's AUSA was so unhappy, venting even in the presence of the judge. Phoning USCIS and/or FBI and filing for extensions is much easier - that job can be dropped on paralegals.

Cheers,
snorlax

 

[united2007]

I got AUSA's reply to my Opp today

Hello All of my friends:

I got the reply to my OPP today from my AUSA. It basically attached three very very recent (all after March 2007) court orders regarding AOS. Of course all of the court orders granted the MTD.

The worst situation is that one of the court orders was from another judge in my district court.

Since we didn't have a lot of most recent court orders siding with us, I am not sure if this is a sign that the general trend has become seriously against our AOS cases.

The three cases are listed as follows:

Serrano v. Quarantillo, Civ No. 06-5221 (D.N.J. April 9, 2007) (This is a case pending just over two years. The judge clearly said that waiting period of time is not unreasonable. )

Li v. Chertoff, et. al., Case No: 06-cv-02625(S. D. Cal. April 2, 2007) (This is a Pro Se case mistakenly seeking for an approval. )

Grinberg v. Swacina, __F.Supp.2d___, 2007 WL 840109 (S. D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007)

Basically, I can't do much regarding my case now. What I can do is just waiting for the judge's order.

 

[snorlax]

hello everyone,

I scheduled an INFOPASS in light of my completed name check as confirmed by the FBI. In the INFOPASS, I want to ask USCIS how much longer and what else is needed to arrange my oath ceremony. Should I inform the USCIS officer that I have a pending 1447b lawsuit against USCIS during the INFOPASS? Thanks.

ps, several of you sent me private messages for the template of the letter I sent to the First Lady Mrs. Bush. Actually, my letter was plain and simple. I said I met the conditions to be a US citizen and I wanted to be a US citizen and vote. Then I mentioned the federal law 8 USC 1447(b). I included my personal data (name, country of birth, birth date, address and phone number, N400 receipt number and my greenccard number). That's it. It's the same letter format as those I sent to FBI myself, to senator and to congressman, but FBI responded to the First Lady's office and finished my name check within 2 weeks after receiving the inquiry from her office. When I sent the letter to the First Lady's office, I didn't expect much to happen, now I am grateful to her and her staff for the compassion. Good luck.

I do not know if I would waste any time on INFOPASS prior to hearing from AUSA. In my case the INFOPASS officer just mentioned unexpectedly swift activity with my case after a year of complete dormancy, which resulted in recent approval. Once I asked when to expect an Oath letter she went on pontificating that I had to be patient and if the letter had not arrived in 3-4 months, but not any earlier - contact them. She had no idea about the lawsuit and did not care when I told her - just gave me a disbelieving and disapproving look.

Best of luck,
snorlax

 

[lotechguy]

Hello All of my friends:

I got the reply to my OPP today from my AUSA. It basically attached three very very recent (all after March 2007) court orders regarding AOS. Of course all of the court orders granted the MTD.

The worst situation is that one of the court orders was from another judge in my district court.

Since we didn't have a lot of most recent court orders siding with us, I am not sure if this is a sign that the general trend has become seriously against our AOS cases.

The three cases are listed as follows:

Serrano v. Quarantillo, Civ No. 06-5221 (D.N.J. April 9, 2007) (This is a case pending just over two years. The judge clearly said that waiting period of time is not unreasonable. )

Li v. Chertoff, et. al., Case No: 06-cv-02625(S. D. Cal. April 2, 2007) (This is a Pro Se case mistakenly seeking for an approval. )

Grinberg v. Swacina, __F.Supp.2d___, 2007 WL 840109 (S. D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007)

Basically, I can't do much regarding my case now. What I can do is just waiting for the judge's order.

You can and should file a reply to the AUSA reply. See for example E.D Mich chertoff vs awada