Good idea about wiki. In the meantime, here is another fresh order to dismiss MTD.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Good idea about wiki. In the meantime, here is another fresh order to dismiss MTD.
Hi, all, I have been watching this thread for several months and filed our I485WOM in Western WA District court back in Jan, 2007 with the help of many useful information here. Big thanks to you all! AUSA filed MTD on the last minute of 60day deadline back in March.
Yesterday, the MTD was denied by District Judge. I hope everybody on this thread will hear similar good news soon.
Does it mean I can just sit back and wait for I485 approval now? Do I need to talk to AUSA to give him another push?
Yesterday, the MTD was denied by District Judge. I hope everybody on this thread will hear similar good news soon.
Does it mean I can just sit back and wait for I485 approval now? Do I need to talk to AUSA to give him another push?
sambocico2
Registered Users (C)
I looked at this case on pacer. Here is something strange: In the AOS interview letter he was asked to bring a bunch of documents to the interview. The IO took only some from that list and did not ask for others. Also at the end of the interview the IO issues him an RFE asking for "all copies of all checks made for charitable contributions by him between 1999 and 2005"It looks like they considered the documents submitted by him insufficient and closed the case as being abandoned. It was re-opend, dont know what happened.
How did you look at the case. I could not find it in pacer. Please post the related documents in here.
Thanks
New citizenship success case
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Astafieva 4-3-07.pdf
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Astafieva 4-3-07.pdf
This is amazing. As opposed to conventional wisdom of this forum, this judge actually naturalized the applicant!!
salechirp .
could you please explain to me what suppose to mean ausa , mtd .
how the court process was? did you had an attorney ? how much he charged you for this wom ?
thank you very much for answering me because am thinking to file wom asap
god help you.
Question on a favorable I485 case
I am doing a detailed review of all favorable/useful I485 WOM cases. Take a look at this one
Alsharqawi vs. Gonzales
1. Judge denied MTD on 3/14/2007, and finds that plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. No final order on relief yet. However, “This case is set for trial on February 4, 2008 before Judge David C Godbey. The setting is for a one week docket. Reset or continuance of the trial setting does not alter the deadlines in this Order unless expressly provided by court order.”. Why such a long delay into April of 2008, nearly a year into the future?
2. On 04/27/2007, defendants filed "unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Answer". What is this about? I thought after MTD is filed and subsequently denied, there is no place for defendants to file answer.
Case Number: 3:2006cv01165
Filed: June 30, 2006
Court: Texas Northern District Court
Office: Dallas Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Judge David C Godbey
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
I am doing a detailed review of all favorable/useful I485 WOM cases. Take a look at this one
Alsharqawi vs. Gonzales
1. Judge denied MTD on 3/14/2007, and finds that plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. No final order on relief yet. However, “This case is set for trial on February 4, 2008 before Judge David C Godbey. The setting is for a one week docket. Reset or continuance of the trial setting does not alter the deadlines in this Order unless expressly provided by court order.”. Why such a long delay into April of 2008, nearly a year into the future?
2. On 04/27/2007, defendants filed "unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Answer". What is this about? I thought after MTD is filed and subsequently denied, there is no place for defendants to file answer.
Case Number: 3:2006cv01165
Filed: June 30, 2006
Court: Texas Northern District Court
Office: Dallas Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Judge David C Godbey
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
It seems the judge only ruled on MTD. And you need to read judge's order on MTD. Sometimes judge only deny MTD on basis that court has jurisdiction, but does not discuss whether the waiting time is unreasonable or other aspects of the MTD. Your judge does not seem to have decided on what kind of relief you may be granted by the court.
AUSA now will feel the pressure, but not ordered by judge yet to complete your name check. Great progress you have so far, not you are not done yet.
I'd like to ask you share your case number with the rest of us. I have built a list of favorable I485 WOM cases where judge denied MTD so that we can all build a strong base of case law specific to I485 WOM. I think it will beneift all of us. And having your case in this list will not hurt you in any way. Please consider.
I have spent two hours tonight to go through the details of each of the 22 cases on my list. will add another new case to the list and post here in about 10 min. from now.
AUSA now will feel the pressure, but not ordered by judge yet to complete your name check. Great progress you have so far, not you are not done yet.
I'd like to ask you share your case number with the rest of us. I have built a list of favorable I485 WOM cases where judge denied MTD so that we can all build a strong base of case law specific to I485 WOM. I think it will beneift all of us. And having your case in this list will not hurt you in any way. Please consider.
I have spent two hours tonight to go through the details of each of the 22 cases on my list. will add another new case to the list and post here in about 10 min. from now.
Thanks Birdie for your help. Once you get a writen judge order re denial of respondents' MTD, please let me know ASAP so I can add to the list.
Mine is I-485, I filed pro se. I did not see judge's order to deny defendants' MTD, as it was decided at the hearing, not on paper. I will let you know if there is a judge order so you can list it as a favorable WOM for I-485, I will also let you guys know if I win
Updated Favorable/Useful I485 Cases and Questions
Here is the updated list. I added the Linville case mentioned by Lazycis. I also classified all of the 23 cases into 4 classes A, B, C and D (see page #1 of the list attached).
Questions:
1. Can someone help look up case history of Elmalky v. Upchurch, 2007 WL 944330, 6 (N.D.Tex. March 28,2007)? It is from U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas), and case number is 3:06-cv-02359. However, Pacer does not show any history of this case other than defedants and petitoiner's names. This may be a favorable case for I485, as it is cited in Linville case to support judge's denial of MTD.
2. Anybody has time please help review remaining cases listed on page 8 of the attached list (starting from "17. Yu vs. Agbemaple"). I did not have enough time to research through them in next few days, and would like to ask help if you can identify which one of these cases are I485 WOM cases that we may benefit from. Then I will do more focused detailed research to add it to my list.
And by the way, eventually I think we will need to use wikibook to get all help from all folks here. Meanwhile, I feel using this list is still effective because I can summarize information specific and only specific to fighting MTD, which is the biggest hurdle. Feel free to use this list to update wikibook if you want.
Here is the updated list. I added the Linville case mentioned by Lazycis. I also classified all of the 23 cases into 4 classes A, B, C and D (see page #1 of the list attached).
Questions:
1. Can someone help look up case history of Elmalky v. Upchurch, 2007 WL 944330, 6 (N.D.Tex. March 28,2007)? It is from U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas), and case number is 3:06-cv-02359. However, Pacer does not show any history of this case other than defedants and petitoiner's names. This may be a favorable case for I485, as it is cited in Linville case to support judge's denial of MTD.
2. Anybody has time please help review remaining cases listed on page 8 of the attached list (starting from "17. Yu vs. Agbemaple"). I did not have enough time to research through them in next few days, and would like to ask help if you can identify which one of these cases are I485 WOM cases that we may benefit from. Then I will do more focused detailed research to add it to my list.
And by the way, eventually I think we will need to use wikibook to get all help from all folks here. Meanwhile, I feel using this list is still effective because I can summarize information specific and only specific to fighting MTD, which is the biggest hurdle. Feel free to use this list to update wikibook if you want.
The case is in trial stage. Here is the court order denying MTD:
pipidh,
You've made a good progress. You may contact AUSA (preferably in writing) and propose to file joint stipulation to remand case back to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate your I-485 within 30 days. It's better than waiting for trial stage and let USCIS buy more time to do what it supposed to do.
Norfolk VA I forgot about district already lol. Once I get my passport than I will sue them for a refund in small claim court
xil96,
Were you able to get the average time its taking for appeals in your circuit court.
All,
I spoke to Rajiv Khanna's office and also my attorney. Rajiv's office said I could file in Washington DC. My attorney said I could file in the district of his office.
The proper venue for WOM case does not necessarily have to be the district of your residence. Can any one point me to the statue/clause of the venue?
I am contemplating refiling in a different district vs appealing. Good or bad idea??
I will be meeting the AILA president see if she will take up my case and get her openion in the mean time.
Approved!!
Yippe, it's finally here.
I received emails yesterday that our cases were approved, the approval notice was sent and that card production has been ordered.
Finally, this ordeal has come to an end (almost).
The details of my case are in the signature. I waited for 3 years and 4 months to get my approval; hopefully you guys won't have to wait for so long.
I filed WoM on Feb 15th of this year, through a lawyer.
What I also did was to send a letter to the First Lady on the same date. The FBI cleared my namecheck in response to a letter from Mrs. Bush, in the last week of April.
After the namecheck was cleared, the USCIS had no reason to hold my application especially since there was a WoM pending.
To all of you guys who are waiting I recommend that you send a letter to the First Lady about your namecheck and then wait for a couple of months. Most likely, you namecheck will be cleared in that time frame. After that your approval will be a given.
If you are in a rush (like I was), you can file a WoM and send the letter at the same time.
I am so glad it's over. I will answer any questions that you guys have. I wish you all good luck.
Desi
Yippe, it's finally here.
I received emails yesterday that our cases were approved, the approval notice was sent and that card production has been ordered.
Finally, this ordeal has come to an end (almost).
The details of my case are in the signature. I waited for 3 years and 4 months to get my approval; hopefully you guys won't have to wait for so long.
I filed WoM on Feb 15th of this year, through a lawyer.
What I also did was to send a letter to the First Lady on the same date. The FBI cleared my namecheck in response to a letter from Mrs. Bush, in the last week of April.
After the namecheck was cleared, the USCIS had no reason to hold my application especially since there was a WoM pending.
To all of you guys who are waiting I recommend that you send a letter to the First Lady about your namecheck and then wait for a couple of months. Most likely, you namecheck will be cleared in that time frame. After that your approval will be a given.
If you are in a rush (like I was), you can file a WoM and send the letter at the same time.
I am so glad it's over. I will answer any questions that you guys have. I wish you all good luck.
Desi
AUSA = Assistant US Attorney. S/he is the lawyer who is representing the Defendants in cases when you sue the government (and of course, s/he is the counsel of the Plaintiffs when the government sues somebody, but this is irrelevant in such cases what are discussed on this forum)
MTD = Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss the complaint argues that there are legal problems with the way the complaint was written, filed, or served. Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists the following defenses that can be raised in a motion to dismiss the complaint:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this type of motion the defendant argues that the court does not have the legal authority to hear the kind of lawsuit that the plaintiff filed.
2. Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In this type of motion the defendant argues that he or she has so little connection with the district in which the case was filed that the court has no legal authority to hear the plaintiff’s case against that defendant.
3. Motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. In this type of motion the defendant argues that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong place.
4. Motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of process, or for insufficiency of service of process. In these types of motions the defendant argues that the plaintiff did not prepare the summons correctly or did not properly serve the summons on the defendant.
5. Motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. In this type of motion the defendant argues that even if everything stated in the complaint is true, the defendant did not violate the law. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not appropriate if the defendant wants to argue that the facts alleged in the complaint are not true. Instead, in a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim the defendant assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are true, but argues that those facts do not constitute a violation of any law.
This is a citation from the Northern District of California Pro Se handbook (you can download it from the district court's web site) which I would strongly recommend to read it before you decide to file a complaint Pro Se.
Thanks, Mingjing for your help. case number 2:2007cv00096.
The judge' does not specifically mention the relief granted by the court in the final ORDER section. However, he does mention to compel the defendants adjudicate the pending case.
The judge' does not specifically mention the relief granted by the court in the final ORDER section. However, he does mention to compel the defendants adjudicate the pending case.