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

[dmakarov]

dmakarov,
I can't comment on CMC itself as I'm only going to file (hopefully tomorrow).

However, I do have a comment on your attitude: while you feelings are totally clear and I share them, your attitude may negatively affect your cmc outcome.
What other steps do you expect from AUSA, if what he told you is not enough? From reading a lot of experiences on this forum, there's not much else s/he can do! In your place, if an AUSA told me they (at least!) are going to request to expedite, I would be glad, as it shows they're trying to settle you case and that's what you want, right? Yes, you can't trust CIS or FBI but if AUSA formally requested them to act and they agreed, your nc will be cleared and CIS will (hopefully) adjudicate. Isn't it what you're after? Also, my attitude at a cmc would be: courteous to AUSA (who I understand is stressed with too many cases and he isn't really a party to blame on my situation); firm on my ultimate goal to have a relief from court so a simple remand back to CIS would not suffice; requesting clear timetables from AUSA on any conditional promise s/he makes. Other than that, I agree with Lotech.

Have you started your OPP to MTD yet? Our seniors (Paz, Riz, Wenlock, etc.) may have really good advie on that.

Where have you filed?

shvili,

I appreciate your constructive critique of my attitude and the points you made on CMC. Indeed, wrong attitude can negatively affect any initiative. Of course, I never would address AUSA "dude" in person. When I talk to them I'm courteous, but firm. I said: today is the due date, I would like to know what is the answer to my complaint.

Nevertheless, I am not going to sympathize any one of them. I didn't create this mess, instead I fell in its nets, by virtue of my name matching some of their records. Could you imagine something like this would be practiced in a civilized country in the 21st century? Yes, it's a pathetic call.

As far as my personal expectations go: I expect them to deny all allegations, because this is what criminals do when they caught on crime. Ideally, they could have admitted the name check practice (specifically as it is implemented now) is pernicious, it does not solve any national security problem and it is illegal.

Curiously, they haven't filed MTD yet. It's only in their answer to my complaint they deny my allegations. I guess, once I refuse their offer to resolve the case outside the court, they will file MTD. Of course, if somehow the name check will clear as a result of their intervention and so-claimed request to expedite the process, I will not go to trial. But as long as it all is informal, I am not going to accept their offer.

Thanks.

 

[lotechguy]

shvili,

I appreciate your constructive critique of my attitude and the points you made on CMC. Indeed, wrong attitude can negatively affect any initiative. Of course, I never would address AUSA "dude" in person. When I talk to them I'm courteous, but firm. I said: today is the due date, I would like to know what is the answer to my complaint.

Nevertheless, I am not going to sympathize any one of them. I didn't create this mess, instead I fell in its nets, by virtue of my name matching some of their records. Could you imagine something like this would be practiced in a civilized country in the 21st century? Yes, it's a pathetic call.

As far as my personal expectations go: I expect them to deny all allegations, because this is what criminals do when they caught on crime. Ideally, they could have admitted the name check practice (specifically as it is implemented now) is pernicious, it does not solve any national security problem and it is illegal.

Curiously, they haven't filed MTD yet. It's only in their answer to my complaint they deny my allegations. I guess, once I refuse their offer to resolve the case outside the court, they will file MTD. Of course, if somehow the name check will clear as a result of their intervention and so-claimed request to expedite the process, I will not go to trial. But as long as it all is informal, I am not going to accept their offer.

Thanks.

You are absolutely right. I have seen cases here (basher82) was strong with the AUSA and got them to resolve the case.

 

[lazycis]

shvili,

I appreciate your constructive critique of my attitude and the points you made on CMC. Indeed, wrong attitude can negatively affect any initiative. Of course, I never would address AUSA "dude" in person. When I talk to them I'm courteous, but firm. I said: today is the due date, I would like to know what is the answer to my complaint.

Nevertheless, I am not going to sympathize any one of them. I didn't create this mess, instead I fell in its nets, by virtue of my name matching some of their records. Could you imagine something like this would be practiced in a civilized country in the 21st century? Yes, it's a pathetic call.

As far as my personal expectations go: I expect them to deny all allegations, because this is what criminals do when they caught on crime. Ideally, they could have admitted the name check practice (specifically as it is implemented now) is pernicious, it does not solve any national security problem and it is illegal.

Curiously, they haven't filed MTD yet. It's only in their answer to my complaint they deny my allegations. I guess, once I refuse their offer to resolve the case outside the court, they will file MTD. Of course, if somehow the name check will clear as a result of their intervention and so-claimed request to expedite the process, I will not go to trial. But as long as it all is informal, I am not going to accept their offer.

Thanks.

I understand your position and anger. You did nothing wrong. And you do not have to agree to anything AUSA will propose. But you are fighting against a monster so be careful, do not push too hard. They can outright deny your AOS and your case will become moot.
You have to have your own proposal ready for CMC. It will be easier for you also to resolve the case outside of court. So you may propose to file a joint stipulation to remand case back to USCIS and if you did not get a decision withing 30 days you will file for summary judgment. You may insist on getting a letter from USCIS promising that they will adjudicate your case in 30 days. Just my 2 cents. And yes, I am waiting more than 3 years for my AOS.

 

[hopeforall2]

When AUSA filed an answer to your lawyer, they attached the certificate of service. Take it and show to the court clerk. AUSA usually files electronically so it may be transmission problem or something like that.

Thanks, and Yes a certificate of service is attached with the answer, I am a little bit cautious though to approach the court by my self , because My case is filed by a lawyer , the court may not agree to accept any thing from me personally , but then again, the lawyer is not providing me with any reason or any hope that he is working something out with the AUSA.

I don't know what to do at this point, I can’t talk to the AUSA because I have a lawyer..

Can you or any one please suggest any professional approach to this?

Thank you.

 

[SLIS]

Hello, Can you please post the actual cases? I am going to file soon and I am in Pennsylvania...but just so you know Philadelphia is not an easy place to do this. I am not sure where this cases are from?

Do you have actual cases? I have PACER but how do I get cases from LEXIS? Can anyone tell me?

Go back to my original post. I've added the two court rulings there.

 

[dmakarov]

I understand your position and anger. You did nothing wrong. And you do not have to agree to anything AUSA will propose. But you are fighting against a monster so be careful, do not push too hard. They can outright deny your AOS and your case will become moot.
You have to have your own proposal ready for CMC. It will be easier for you also to resolve the case outside of court. So you may propose to file a joint stipulation to remand case back to USCIS and if you did not get a decision withing 30 days you will file for summary judgment. You may insist on getting a letter from USCIS promising that they will adjudicate your case in 30 days. Just my 2 cents. And yes, I am waiting more than 3 years for my AOS.

lotechguy, lazycis,

Thank you for your support!

I wouldn't say I am fighting against "a monster", rather it is "a machine". As long as we know how the machine works, it is relatively straightforward to manipulate the machine and make it produce the results we need, if it is at all capable of doing that. And this is where the forum is invaluable, in understanding the machine and collectively finding the ways to deal with it.

Thank you all very much. Now I feel much better about what I am to do to prepare for the CMC.

 

[lazycis]

Thanks, and Yes a certificate of service is attached with the answer, I am a little bit cautious though to approach the court by my self , because My case is filed by a lawyer , the court may not agree to accept any thing from me personally , but then again, the lawyer is not providing me with any reason or any hope that he is working something out with the AUSA.

I don't know what to do at this point, I can’t talk to the AUSA because I have a lawyer..

Can you or any one please suggest any professional approach to this?

Thank you.

Does certificate of service says that answer was filed with the Court? If yes, here you go, you need to find out what happened. You have a lawyer, you can ask him/her first to find the answer. However you, as a party, are free to talk to Court clerk or AUSA or present at the Court hearings. I found out that court personnel is very friendly, so do not afraid to call clerk or call/e-mail AUSA.

 

[hopeforall2]

Does certificate of service says that answer was filed with the Court? If yes, here you go, you need to find out what happened. You have a lawyer, you can ask him/her first to find the answer. However you, as a party, are free to talk to Court clerk or AUSA or present at the Court hearings. I found out that court personnel is very friendly, so do not afraid to call clerk or call/e-mail AUSA.

The Certificate of Service is in a form of letter addressed to the court and signed by the AUSA , it has my name as Plaintiff, and the names of all the Defendants , the letter is a " RESPONSE TO PETTION FOR HEARING ON NATURALIZATION APPLICATION"

It says the following :-

Quote

I, ABC DEF ( AUSA name), herby certify under penalties of perjury that on xyz day, I did cause a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument, Defendants' Response to Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application, to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following counsel of record for the Petitioner in this action:


My lawyer name and address



AUSA NAME and Signature.
UnQuote

 

[shvili]

shvili,

I appreciate your constructive critique of my attitude and the points you made on CMC. Indeed, wrong attitude can negatively affect any initiative. Of course, I never would address AUSA "dude" in person. When I talk to them I'm courteous, but firm. I said: today is the due date, I would like to know what is the answer to my complaint.

Nevertheless, I am not going to sympathize any one of them. I didn't create this mess, instead I fell in its nets, by virtue of my name matching some of their records. Could you imagine something like this would be practiced in a civilized country in the 21st century? Yes, it's a pathetic call.

As far as my personal expectations go: I expect them to deny all allegations, because this is what criminals do when they caught on crime. Ideally, they could have admitted the name check practice (specifically as it is implemented now) is pernicious, it does not solve any national security problem and it is illegal.

Curiously, they haven't filed MTD yet. It's only in their answer to my complaint they deny my allegations. I guess, once I refuse their offer to resolve the case outside the court, they will file MTD. Of course, if somehow the name check will clear as a result of their intervention and so-claimed request to expedite the process, I will not go to trial. But as long as it all is informal, I am not going to accept their offer.

Thanks.

dmakarov,

It's probably good it's not an MTD, so you have time to prepare your Opposition or a MSJ. But why do you want to refuse to solve outside of court? Remember, it's not AUSA you're angry with, it's another bureaucracy, CIS, they just have to defend it. Also I don't think you acturally can refuse to work with them outside of court, as pro se handbook is very heavy on mediation and out of court resolution. In other words, I believe if a judge hears AUSA offer to do their work and you refuse to that, s/he'd deny to do anything untul you at least try to work it out (through expediting nc and whatever they offer).

Just a little clarification on my part. But believe me, otherwise I (and probably most on this forum) are pretty much as outraged as you are.

Good luck!

 

[birdie]

Hello guys,

Could anyone share his experience of going to CMC? What exactly can I say there?

I filed 1447(b) about two months ago. On the last day due got an answer from AUSA. He of course denies all my allegations in his answer. He claims in a personal email that they contacted "the agency" (I don't know what he means, probably USCIS) and "asked *them* to ask FBI to expedite the name checks" for my case! (Who needs this for Christ sake?! The agency failed multiple times and will most likely fail again and again to get their act together. I mean it's humiliating to be suspected criminal based on one's name (because this is exactly what the name checks are) and now they humiliate me further by suggesting the very same agency, that humiliated me, can help. I already came to the court because my trust and desire to deal with the agency is exhausted!) Then he suggests alternative resolution without further litigation in court. I think I'm going to refuse that, but not sure what I should say in CMC and in our common statement before CMC. Eventually I'm shooting for motion for summary judgment.

Thanks.

Hi Dmakarov,

Don't get too hung up on the CMC, to my experience, it is just another legal procedure that you need to go through in order to get your case heard by the judge, and I am afraid that you don't have much input in it anyway As to ADR, AUSA will refuse that any way.

My suggestion is to go through the PACER and find cases ahead of you and you will get some ideas of what filed and what the procedures are like.

 

[COEB!]

WOM Question

Hi All,

My I-485 has been pending for over 2 years. I am stucked in name/security check now for over 2 years. Planning to file WOM. I am planning to file WOM. I had some question and would appreciate if some experts can shed some light on it.

-Does the attorney for WOM need to be in the same jurisdiction as the applicant/plaintiff

-What are the typical attorney fees for step 1 and step 2 of WOM (if it goes to trial)

- Can anybody suggest names of attorneys in colorado or elsewhere for Writ of Mandamus (can PM them to me)?

Thanks

 

[lotechguy]

filing opposition to Mostion to Dismiss

Just want to clarify with anyone who has filed an opposition to mtd what the steps are:

1. Prepare a 1 page signed opposition to defendents motion to dismiss or remand. that basically says that I am filing a defendents motion to dismiss or remand and a plaintiffs brief in support of plaintiffs opposition to defendents motion to dismiss or remand accompanies this docuemnt.

2. A certificate of service for serving this opposition to AUSA

3. Finally Attach the brief which is the main opposition text and exhibits

I was not sure if anything else needs to be filed ie :

1. any civil cover sheet etc ?
2. Any other document/form to be filed ?
3. Do we need to serve this to all defendants or only AUSA ?

Thanks

 

[davy72]

My WOM Question about the pretrial

Hi,

I filed the Writ of Mandamus about my pending I-485 through Pro Se on Feb. 13, 2007. The US attorney filed the motion to dismiss on April 27, 2007 and my hearing date is June 1, 2007.

Could anyone share some experience for the pretrial conference before the judge? Do I have to hire a lawyer or go myself? What is the reasonable attorey fee for my case after initial filing through Pro Se?

1. How should I prepare?
2. What should I do during the conference and after the conference?
3. Based on the notice from the court, do I need to file a certificate listing all person? Do I need to prepare a joint report after the conference?

I am sorry that I have a lot of quesitons since I have little experience dealing with the court. My email address is sunman1972@hotmail.com

Thanks a lot!

davy

 

[SLIS]

Just want to clarify with anyone who has filed an opposition to mtd what the steps are:

1. Prepare a 1 page signed opposition to defendents motion to dismiss or remand. that basically says that I am filing a defendents motion to dismiss or remand and a plaintiffs brief in support of plaintiffs opposition to defendents motion to dismiss or remand accompanies this docuemnt.

2. A certificate of service for serving this opposition to AUSA

3. Finally Attach the brief which is the main opposition text and exhibits

I was not sure if anything else needs to be filed ie :

1. any civil cover sheet etc ?
2. Any other document/form to be filed ?
3. Do we need to serve this to all defendants or only AUSA ?

Thanks

Basically, you can just follow the format of the MTD for your opposition brief. The certificate of service can simply be the last page of the opposition brief.

You do not need to file any civil cover sheet or any other document/form. And you only need to serve it to AUSA as he/she represents all defendants.

 

[lazycis]

Basically, you can just follow the format of the MTD for your opposition brief. The certificate of service can simply be the last page of the opposition brief.

You do not need to file any civil cover sheet or any other document/form. And you only need to serve it to AUSA as he/she represents all defendants.

SLIS is right.
Just to clarify a bit more - opposition to motion should also have a certificate of service attached (as well as brief). All documents filed with court should be accompanied by a certificate of service.

 

[stillstuck]

Response to MTD

Finally the AUSA files MTD or remand back to CIS with the distict court yesterday (the last day for response). I was expecting this and in anticipation I had done my homework around the opposition to MTD. However, I have not come across a good reason against remanding back to CIS without instruction. I have read some cases on pacer and the reasons "back to square one and will continue to wait..." or "cannot obtain some benefits that a citizen only is granted..." do not fly. Any one has seen or thought of better reasons. Any supporting documentation like links to cases which have those reasons and the judge denying those two petitions from the AUSA will be greatly helpful.

Thanks in advance to all on this forum.

 

[lotechguy]

Finally the AUSA files MTD or remand back to CIS with the distict court yesterday (the last day for response). I was expecting this and in anticipation I had done my homework around the opposition to MTD. However, I have not come across a good reason against remanding back to CIS without instruction. I have read some cases on pacer and the reasons "back to square one and will continue to wait..." or "cannot obtain some benefits that a citizen only is granted..." do not fly. Any one has seen or thought of better reasons. Any supporting documentation like links to cases which have those reasons and the judge denying those two petitions from the AUSA will be greatly helpful.

Thanks in advance to all on this forum.

stillstuck, what are your dates ? I have some mterial I can look up.

 

[stillstuck]

Response to MTD

Not sure what dates are you asking so I will give more details than you might require.

Application filed - Jul 2004
Interview - Apr 2005
Petition filed - Feb 2007
Response to MTD due - May 8, 2007

Hope this helps

 

[lazycis]

Finally the AUSA files MTD or remand back to CIS with the distict court yesterday (the last day for response). I was expecting this and in anticipation I had done my homework around the opposition to MTD. However, I have not come across a good reason against remanding back to CIS without instruction. I have read some cases on pacer and the reasons "back to square one and will continue to wait..." or "cannot obtain some benefits that a citizen only is granted..." do not fly. Any one has seen or thought of better reasons. Any supporting documentation like links to cases which have those reasons and the judge denying those two petitions from the AUSA will be greatly helpful.

Thanks in advance to all on this forum.

I saw these paragraphs in one of the cases:

The sponsors of legislation enacting 8 USC 1447(b) intended to give naturalization applicants the power to choose which forum would adjudicate their applications. As the representative who introduced the proposed statue on the House floor noted, “in this legislation, it is the applicant, not the government, who decides the place, setting, and timeframe in which the application will be processed.” 135 Cong. Rec. H4539-02, H4542 (statement of Rep. Morrison). Id. U.S.A. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004) Allowing the USCIS to continue to exercise jurisdiction over an application even after the naturalization applicant has elected to have the district court decide the application would frustrate the sponsors’ intent. Id.
In light of statutore language, congressional intent is to allow the district court to adjudicate a naturalization application once a petition for review has been filed.
The Petitioner possesses all of the statutory prerequisites to be eligible for naturzlization under Pub. L. 101-649. See 8 USC 1427 (2005). However, due to the continued delay of the USCIS in adjudicating his application for naturalization, the Petitioner is being prevented from being admitted to citizenship (8 USC 1448(a)) and therefore from enjoying the status of naturalized citizen of the United States.

 

[RYCeT]

Hi guys, I'm an asylee and my GC application is stuck in FBI name check since August 2006. I was interviewed together with my brothers, they got their GC on the spot and mine got pending due to FBI Name check. I'm considering to file WOM pro se. I just want to ask several questions.

How long should I wait before I file WOM ? It has been 9 months now, If I file WOM now will it hurt my chances to get it approved? Should I wait for more than a year ?

For those of you who got their WOM approved, do you get your GC backdated to the day you should have received them? (the day GC should have been approved if not because of FBI name check delay) Is it reasonable to mention in my WOM to get my GC backdated the same day as my brother's? If it's possible, what is the wording to get the GC backdated?

Obviously, I just want to get my FBI name check clear and get my GC asap but if I can get my GC backdated to the same date as my brother's, I'll be very happy to spend less time to apply for citizenship especially because the delay is a result of FBI incompetence and not my fault.