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

yvesliu said:
Thanks DUDE12190. I am in Oregon. I will contact AUSA again to see if she can do anything. Do you have any recommendation about the wording? She is pretty new and sometime I have a feeling that she does not know what she can do. My previous AUSA was very experenced and he was very helpful and nice. Too bad he retired and then this new one took over. I even checked Oregon lawyer Association list 2007 and her name is not listed. But the previous one is listed. Sigh....
Click to expand...

You are welcome!
All i would say(and I said this before) is that because these cases and especially, the WOM cases, are getting harder every day, it is very very important that if we have compelling reason/reasons that can hurt our situation because of this unreasonable delay, we should always mention it in our intial complain and then push the AUSA to work on the case. Each case is unique. If u think u have such a situation like your visa is going to expire or u will loose your job or something that is not normal, I think you can push AUSA even though u did not mention it in your complaint and also mention in front of a judge if they call u for a pre trial hearing or initial conference. Make sure u bring all the documents that support that claim. As u know, it depends on the judge too. Best of luck to you!! regards, dude
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, Dude12190.

DUDE12190 said:
You are welcome!
All i would say(and I said this before) is that because these cases and especially, the WOM cases, are getting harder every day, it is very very important that if we have compelling reason/reasons that can hurt our situation because of this unreasonable delay, we should always mention it in our intial complain and then push the AUSA to work on the case. Each case is unique. If u think u have such a situation like your visa is going to expire or u will loose your job or something that is not normal, I think you can push AUSA even though u did not mention it in your complaint and also mention in front of a judge if they call u for a pre trial hearing or initial conference. Make sure u bring all the documents that support that claim. As u know, it depends on the judge too. Best of luck to you!! regards, dude
Click to expand...
 
Defendant's Third UUnopposed Motion for an Extension of Time To Respond

Dear Paz and other members,

in a recent email discussion with my AUSA who asked me for a third continuance in my WoM, my AUSA mentioned that the case just came back from USCIS HQ to be adjudicated by the field office. As the field office had plenty of cases to adjudicate the timeline would be 60 days maximum. With this in mind he asked me for a third conlinuance and I agreed that I would not oppose a motion in which we moved the on behalf of the defendants for a third enlargement of time of sixty date to respond to my Complaint for Writ of Mandamus.
Now I hold the motion in my hand and part of it reads

1. Defendants were previously granted a second enlargement of time from February 15,2007 to April 16, 2007, in which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint in mandamus.
2. During this time, the undersingned Assistant United States Attorney was advised that the background check performed and completed by the Federal bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and forwarded to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service Headquarters ("USCIS HQ") in Washington,D.C., had issues that were required to be resolved at that level prior to being sent to the field office for adjudication. According to Ms. X, Agency Counsel for USCIS, the Jacksonville USCIS field office just recently received plaintiff's name check from Washington, DC.
3. At this juncture, the Jacksonville USCIS field office will need additional time in which to review plaintiff's background check performed by the FBI and administratively adjudicate plaintiff's application persuant to 8 C.F.R. 335.2 (b), (1), (2), and (3). This may require additional investigation and inquieries as a result of the background check issues. USCIS estimates that this activity make take an additional 60 days.

As I have a DUI (nolled) on my record and filed a suit, I was wondering whether the 60 days are a normal consequence of being thrown back into the long line at the USCIS Field Office as the AUSA indicated and whether the additional investigation is just a way to get a judge to sign the motion or whether there are true issues beyond my knowledge which actually require an investigation and might be related to the DUI charge.
I understand that the results of everybody who has a "hit" (or who has filed a WoM) is sent to USCIS HQ as only they have the authority to follow up with the FBI.
Thanks for anyone who can provide an input.

Best

D.
 
We need to express our disapproval of this bill, in particular to section 401, par. (k).

Gurus, what are the most effective ways to have our voice heard? I am thinking to write and call the office of this heartless Republican senator from Texas. Other actions I can take?

Thanks.

paz1960 said:
This is S.1083, and according to a search on THOMAS, it was introduced on 4/10/2007 and it was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. My guess is that it is just one of the many proposed amendments to the INA, which ultimately will need a major overhault. The previous Congress tried but failed to reach a compromise. I think that nobody can predict at this point the fate of this bill. I personally don't see that it will be adopted quickly.

However, the real bad part for people stuck in the name check is sec. 401, par. (k), Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement. If this will be adopted with the proposed wording, will put an end on all of these lawsuits.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I am prepared to goto the appeal court too, if my WOM case at district court does not work out for me. I have waited 3.5 years too.

I will do all I can, so I don't feel sorry for myself years down the road that I had not fought and lived as a free man.

united2007 said:
Obviously, it has become fairly difficult to get your GC by a simple WOM. Although it hasn't become an obvious trend, I clearly can see more court rulings are siding with the government.

The reason behind this trend is complicated. At least one of the contributing facts is the number of relatively "low quality AOS cases", which are featured with relatively short-waiting period, mistakes made in the WOM, weak argument in the OPP, etc. That is, the bar of the AOS case is rising a lot recently.

However, if you do think (1) you have a very long-delayed case (over three years), (2) you are sure you can devote your time to this, and (3) you are sure that you are capable of learning, I still think taking the government to the court is something worthwhile doing. The fundamental reason is that "we anyway have to wait, and why not!".

Last night, I wrote an email to my AUSA. (He never replies to me, and I anyway wrote to him).

"
......

Since we all can see that this is still a topic constantly generating divided court ruling, everything is indeed depending on the judge's personal opinion. I hope the judge can carefully consider my Opposition. Meanwhile, I am preparing for the worst. That is, I am now studying how to go to the appeal court. I do believe that I have a strong case, because there are unique elements in my case. My chance of success will definitely be increased if I expose my case to more judges, because the more judges review my case, the bigger chance that one of the judges will pay attention to the unique feature in my case. I will win if any one of them agrees with me.

In fact, I have nothing to lose during this course. I have been quietly waiting for over three and half years. The worse situation to me is to go back to my current waiting status. Meanwhile, I have been so excited to be exposed to a field that is amazingly challenging to me. If I finally win, I will be thrilled. Otherwise, I will still gain a new set of knowledge and life experience. I consider this legal procedure as my new "waiting" status. I know I have to enjoy it, as long as I am still in this "waiting" black hole.

......
"
Click to expand...
 
Bushmaster said:
COURT HEARING set for Thursday 1400 hours. I will be appearing in dress uniform. AUSA indicated she would see if there was a resolution short of a hearing that could be reached.
Click to expand...

We'll be wishing you victory! The day is close. Keep your spirits high!
 
Any more recent favorable WOM cases?

Hi, folks,

For I485 WOM cases, it is important we track recent favorable WOM cases. Attached is the list I uploaded before to capture some good WOM cases.

I have only done a little bit update since, but take a look and post if you have found additional new cases. I will update and post at a later time.

The second part of the doucment have bunch of "WOM cases" - I have not looked at them myself, not sure if some of them are naturalization cases or I485 WOM cases.

united2007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
snorlax said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi, Snorlax:
thank you very much! I appreciate your encouragement.
I decided to write a letter to ask the Judge for amending my complaint. (Unfortunately, the lawyer I am trying to talk to is not responding yet. I may have to do it myself. ) If yes, I will make changes on the prayer for relief part and continue with my opposition; If no, I will still write my opposition. As you all mentioned, asking for approval is not good at all, the AUSA didn't mention but the judge will see it... I will put in your suggestions, Snorlax. We will have to see. Motion day is on May 14.
As many of you, I have waited more than three years, tried many ways of contacting this and that, calls and emails.....I will fight.
thanks again.
41906
 
Guys, we got our citizenship oath today. We filed 1447(b) case last Dec. Thanks to all the information provided by the forum. My only advice to those serious about a lawsuit is to go through a lawyer. The USCIS has become very serious about fighting the cases, and as a Pro Se they tend to push you even further.
 
Good Case

While reviewing few MTD I ran across this important MTD response and this attorney tackled government argument about 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) very well. I have yet to see this argument in any recent cases.

I think it has some really good points that can be used as part of motion to dismiss response in I-485 cases.

My case is N-400 so 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not apply to me as Naturalization comes under title III of INA and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies only to Title II

I thought it is good argument for I-485 WOM based People.
 
41906 said:
Hi, Snorlax:
thank you very much! I appreciate your encouragement.
I decided to write a letter to ask the Judge for amending my complaint. (Unfortunately, the lawyer I am trying to talk to is not responding yet. I may have to do it myself. ) If yes, I will make changes on the prayer for relief part and continue with my opposition; If no, I will still write my opposition. As you all mentioned, asking for approval is not good at all, the AUSA didn't mention but the judge will see it... I will put in your suggestions, Snorlax. We will have to see. Motion day is on May 14.
As many of you, I have waited more than three years, tried many ways of contacting this and that, calls and emails.....I will fight.
thanks again.
41906
Click to expand...
In my Prayer for Relief I did ask for “review de novo … and … grant naturalization”. Since I asked for “review de novo” (I think) my AUSA did not argue that at all. When writing to the judge, you might mention that you meant to ask for “review de novo” and grant, not just grant. I have seen a couple of cases filed by professional lawyers where they used “review de novo … and … grant naturalization” formula and do not remember seeing objections from AUSAs.

Best of luck to you!
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Recent ruling in E.D. Michigan

Hi Team,
Just want to post this recent ruling (4/5/07) on citizenship case in E.D Michigan. Again in the order, judge did not give any specific instructions to USCIS, just said “GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to remand the action to CIS for a prompt resolution following completion of the background check”, which means nothing. Plaintiff filed motion to amend like I did, will see how it goes.
 
786riz said:
Hi Team,
Just want to post this recent ruling (4/5/07) on citizenship case in E.D Michigan. Again in the order, judge did not give any specific instructions to USCIS, just said “GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to remand the action to CIS for a prompt resolution following completion of the background check”, which means nothing. Plaintiff filed motion to amend like I did, will see how it goes.
Click to expand...

Thanks riz for posting this.
 
This is a very good point for AOS.

wenlock said:
While reviewing few MTD I ran across this important MTD response and this attorney tackled government argument about 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) very well. I have yet to see this argument in any recent cases.

I think it has some really good points that can be used as part of motion to dismiss response in I-485 cases.

My case is N-400 so 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not apply to me as Naturalization comes under title III of INA and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies only to Title II

I thought it is good argument for I-485 WOM based People.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for this post
 
snorlax said:
In my Prayer for Relief I did ask for “review de novo … and … grant naturalization”. Since I asked for “review de novo” (I think) my AUSA did not argue that at all. When writing to the judge, you might mention that you meant to ask for “review de novo” and grant, not just grant. I have seen a couple of cases filed by professional lawyers where they used “review de novo … and … grant naturalization” formula and do not remember seeing objections from AUSAs.

Best of luck to you!
snorlax
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that this not going to work for 41906, because his/her case is an AOS WOM. In a WOM lawsuit you can't ask "de novo" review and adjudication, this works only in naturalization lawsuits based on 1447(b). That particular paragraph gives a choice to the court either to determine the matter or to remand it to the service with specific instructions.
 
always.wired said:
What are the steps for building up a case for WOM against delay in FBI Name CHeck Process?

I am already scheduling InfoPass appointments once every month and building the record that I am following up.

Should I apply for FOIPA in order to prove that the delay is only administrative and there is no real reason?

How long should I wait after my N400 is filed before applying for WOM?
I have not been called for an interview yet.
Click to expand...

I tried to answer your questions sent to me in a PM, but for some reason it didn't go through (I tried 3 times, retyping the same thing three times...). Because there was nothing personal in the questions and some other members might be interested too, here are my answers:

Hi,
Some of the arguments I saw in different lawsuits why you want your citizenship NOW rather than wait further:
-you can't vote
-you can't travel with US passport, which means that you need visa in some countries where you wouldn't need as a US citizen
-you can't sponsor immediate relatives to immigrate in the US (or at least not in the citizen category and as only a LPR your relatives would need to wait many years till they would get an immigrant visa)
-you can't apply for certain federal jobs where citizenship is a prerequisite.

My case was based on 1447(b), so I didn't study in great detail WOM; but in many cases I saw that waiting 2 or more years was considered unreasonable delay. But is really up to the judge, because there is no clear definition in the statues what is "unreasonable delay".
Regards,
paz
 
Letter from FBI

I am a long-time reader of this forum, but a first-time poster. In past 6 months, I learned a lot from this forum. Thanks to everyone who makes this forum available and helpful.

Now, I like to share a good news with the forum: yesterday, I received a letter from FBI. The letter is a response to my letter to the first lady at early February. In the letter, it states my name check "was processed and finalized" two weeks ago. It appears that the letter to the first lady works at this moment. However, I don't know how long it will last. Since there are so many people stuck in this FBI name check black hole, all the "shortcuts" (letter to Senator, letter to Congressman, and WOM) were quickly flooded by the requests and soon became less effective or even useless.

I filed my WOM through a lawyer at early January. After thousands dollars, the case became another waiting game. Before this FBI letter, I was so depressed that sometimes I just wanted somehow to forget about this whole thing. However, I know for my heart that I have to fight a good fight through this nightmare so that I would not feel sorry for myself in the future.

Good luck to everyone!
 
XG1970 said:
I am a long-time reader of this forum, but a first-time poster. In past 6 months, I learned a lot from this forum. Thanks to everyone who makes this forum available and helpful.

Now, I like to share a good news with the forum: yesterday, I received a letter from FBI. The letter is a response to my letter to the first lady at early February. In the letter, it states my name check "was processed and finalized" two weeks ago. It appears that the letter to the first lady works at this moment. However, I don't know how long it will last. Since there are so many people stuck in this FBI name check black hole, all the "shortcuts" (letter to Senator, letter to Congressman, and WOM) were quickly flooded by the requests and soon became less effective or even useless.

I filed my WOM through a lawyer at early January. After thousands dollars, the case became another waiting game. Before this FBI letter, I was so depressed that sometimes I just wanted somehow to forget about this whole thing. However, I know for my heart that I have to fight a good fight through this nightmare so that I would not feel sorry for myself in the future.

Good luck to everyone!
Click to expand...

Congratualtions! and thank you for sharing your experiance! Could you tell us in general what did you write in that letter to first lady. Did you tell them that you have filed a lawsuit. Also, please share the address where you sent your letter. I am hearing this from other users on the other forum "My Namecheck Experiance" that there name check is also cleared because of a letter to the first lady. I think it is not going to hurt me and I would like to give it a try. Please share this info with us. Thank you, regards, dude
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top