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

[lazycis]

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.

Regarding venue: USCIS/DHS/FBI headquarters are located in Washington, DC therefore you can file there.
See 28 USC 1391(e):

A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which
(1) a defendant in the action resides,
(2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.

As for appeal vs another lawsuit, I am not sure. Lawsuit in a district court may take less time if all goes well. If not, you will lose another 3-4 months. You also have to ask lawyers about chances of winning appeal versus chances of winning in another district. IMHO, you have good chances of winning an appeal because by dismissing you case for lack of subject matter, court basically said that it is impossible to prove that USCIS/FBI violated any federal laws regardless of facts in your case. It's easy enough to dispute that statement based on a number of successfull cases, including SC.

 

[shvili]

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.

Ipoh,

Lazycis posted an Elmalky case which actually has a discussion on the proper venue (pages 12-15, I think). According to it, you have some freedom in establishing venue (like, defendants reside within the distr.)

Lazycis, thank you for posting more cases! As I mentioned before, I cannot read any cases on Pacer because it only allows me to see who is in the case, but no texts of actual docs. So unfortunately, for me the work of Mingjing is not helpful (unless I make a trip to the courthouse or a law library to access their pacer to read listed cases). From home, I can only benefit from the Wikibooks project GC-Pending started. Was anyone able to resolve the problem with pacer I described?

GC-Pending, I think you got an excellent idea of posting cases on wiki! Can anyone update this forum to include the link to wiki in the front pages (together with the Publicus references)?


Also, The previous case in San Jose Lazycis posted is interesting because judge refused to recognize defendants other than Chertoff. Curious... Perhaps it's because the plaintiff went overboard with number of defendants.

 

[DUDE12190]

The main reason is how name check the process was implemented - without analysis, appropriate rules and regulations. So nobody can be hold responsible, which is quite unusual situation for the US. Then FBI failed to implement Virtual Case system so they still rely on paper files. Then we have incompetent USCIS leadership. Come on, instead of fixing the problem they are trying to raise (2x/3x) fees! Try to do that in private industry. USCIS requests are only 47% of the total volume processed by FBI. Do you think other agencies are waiting for 2-3+ years for a response? No way. I was reading a report from the Office of the Personnel Management (OPM) - they sent people to FBI to help process their name checks requests. Do you think CIS does not have extra people bored from doing close to nothing?
OPM goal is to process all requests in less than 6 months. In that report they also mention that average time to get top secret clearance is about 18 months. To issue top secret clearance FBI checks (including name check) all you relatives/friends and pets So to me it looks like FBI just ignores lingering USCIS requests and USCIS does nothing to push or to help FBI.

lazycis, can u please post this report from OPM where they send people to FBI to work for the backlog. Please post it. I would like to read it. It seems interesting. Thanks and good luck!! regards, dude

 

[lazycis]

lazycis, can u please post this report from OPM where they send people to FBI to work for the backlog. Please post it. I would like to read it. It seems interesting. Thanks and good luck!! regards, dude

Thanks for the good wishes, dude! Same to you.
I believe that's the document (see page 8), although I am losing track of them. My HDD is limited, after all...
One amuzing quote from the report: "The average time to conduct the investigation had been about one year for Top Secret clearances and 5 to 6 months for Secret/Confidential, a totally unacceptable length of time."
Makes me feel important, my "clearance" is taking more than 3 years now

 

[w&w]

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.

Thanks pipidh for sharing your good news. Your case is especially interesting to me because I'm in the same district and I'll file WOM in a few days.

The judge only addressed the jurisdiction issue in the order. He mentioned "whether the delay ... has benn reasonable is best left for another day". Hopefully USCIS will feel the presure and have you case resolved soon. Otherwise it really depends on if the judge consideres your delay as reasonable or not. I have a feeling that the judge is on our side. According to the order, you didn't file opposition to MTD. That's a very import step you missed. Fortunately the judge still denied the MTD.

The order cited several new cases, including the two cases from Pennsylvania (Duan & Song). It's a very good case for preparing opposition to MTD.

 

[lazycis]

Razaq v. Poulos

Not sure if this order was posted earlier, but it has some very good points useful for oppositions/motions for summary judgment.

Razaq v. Poulos, 2007 WL 61884, *6 (N.D. Calf. Jan. 8, 2007

 

[stillstuck]

Got my Oath Scheduled

Fianlly, after being stuck in NC for 2 years and 1 month, my oath has been scheduled. I had filed a lawsuit and the AUSA had responded with a MTD around May 1st. On the morning of May 5th, I mailed in my opposition to MTD and on the same evening, I got a letter from AUSA that my oath had been scheduled. Thanks for all the help that I got from people on this forum. If I can be of any help, feel free to ask. Still keeping my fingers crossed, though. will post again once my oath has concluded.

 

[ashlie23]

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

Hi Desi,

My name check has been pending for 2.5 years now. Like many of us here, I did everything like writing letters, infopass visits etc to solve this problem.

I wrote letters to First Lady in March and April, but I didnot receive anything from her office - not even the receipt of my letter!

I'm writing to future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and I think my letters to Laura Bush and many others have gone to deaf ears. Do you have any suggestions/comments? Did u receive anything for the letter that you wrote to Mrs. Bush?

Please reply! Thanks, Ashlie

 

[desiusa]

Ashlie

Ashlie,
If you wrote the letter in March, you should expect something from the FBI in May or June. The First Lady's office doesn't acknowledge letters, but they do act on them. You can call her office and confirm that they have received your letters.
Desi

 

[MidofFighting]

Positive news and my final (hopefully) update

Hi, everyone,

I hope the positive news can join the rest to cheer the forum up. I finally received the three magic emails (of I-485 approval notices) today, 4.66 months after filing WOM and 3.75 years after filing I-485. It was a long journey and will sure be much longer if I did not bring it to court. Due to busy schedule, I did not do a whole lot of extras such as emailing the VIP, etc. But I did learn a lot from the forum and want to echo the following to anyone who is still in the battle:

1. Lawsuit seems to be the only way for those long waits.
2. Establish a good working relationship with your AUSA

Wish you all good luck. This forum is great.

 

[lotechguy]

I noticed on pacer that the judge assigned to my case always holds a hearing on a Motion to Dismiss filed by AUSA after plaintiff files an opposition.
Is this a good or bad sign ? No motions have been decided so far all taken under advisement after the hearing

 

[Mingjing]

desiusa,

Which district did you file? Did you recieve MTD? And did you sent in your opposition to MTD? And did judge rule on MTD?

Which date was your name check cleared?

Congrats!

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

 

[Mingjing]

Pipidh,

I saw following language in judge order on your case. Man, you have guts - you did not even try to oppose MTD?

"Plaintiffs have not responded to this motion to dismiss. This District’s local rules state that if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Rule CR 7(b)(2). However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY defendants’ motion to dismiss."

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.

 

[Mingjing]

Shvili,

I actually have at least one (sometimes more Pacer documents) to EACH of the 25 favorable/useful I485 WOM cases in my list. I did not send them as I thought all of you have access to Pacer. I can send them to you if you need.

I thought more about using wikibook. I think it is a good tool for all of us to share the effort to identify usesful/favorable cases. So we should continue to do that. That being said, there is still a place for my list, where I can summarize the cases into different categories (as I did in my previous posting into A, B, C, D). In our opposition to MTD, a type A case in A where judge orders specific time to adjudicate needs to be treated differently than a type B case where judge denied MTD but no final order on relief yet.

I will keep doing what I am doing. Meanwhile, I NEED ALL OF YOUR HELP TO IDENTIFY MORE CASES, ESP. RECENT ONES. Either post new cases here or sent to wikibook, or both.

Attached is the lattest list. I added case #24 and #25, both belong to tpye B (judge denied MTD, but no final rule on relief yet).

Mingjing

Ipoh,

Lazycis, thank you for posting more cases! As I mentioned before, I cannot read any cases on Pacer because it only allows me to see who is in the case, but no texts of actual docs. So unfortunately, for me the work of Mingjing is not helpful (unless I make a trip to the courthouse or a law library to access their pacer to read listed cases). From home, I can only benefit from the Wikibooks project GC-Pending started. Was anyone able to resolve the problem with pacer I described?

 

[Mingjing]

The underlyking I485 was filed in Sept. 2005. So it is pending less than 2 years. Though there have been favorable outcome of cases pending less than 2 years (such as 18 months), the fact the petition in this case is less than 2 years makes me want to warn Pipidth to do a really good job (if there is such a chance) to convey to judge why less than 2 years is already unreasonably long. So don't sit back and relax. Still a big hurdle to overcome.

The judge only addressed the jurisdiction issue in the order. He mentioned "whether the delay ... has benn reasonable is best left for another day". Hopefully USCIS will feel the presure and have you case resolved soon. Otherwise it really depends on if the judge consideres your delay as reasonable or not. I have a feeling that the judge is on our side. According to the order, you didn't file opposition to MTD. That's a very import step you missed. Fortunately the judge still denied the MTD.

 

[Mingjing]

Hey, MidofFighting,

Did you file opposition to MTD? And did judge deny MTD? And any orders from court? If so, can you please help rest of us by sharing your case number/details?

Thanks.

Hi, everyone,

I hope the positive news can join the rest to cheer the forum up. I finally received the three magic emails (of I-485 approval notices) today, 4.66 months after filing WOM and 3.75 years after filing I-485. It was a long journey and will sure be much longer if I did not bring it to court. Due to busy schedule, I did not do a whole lot of extras such as emailing the VIP, etc. But I did learn a lot from the forum and want to echo the following to anyone who is still in the battle:

1. Lawsuit seems to be the only way for those long waits.
2. Establish a good working relationship with your AUSA

Wish you all good luck. This forum is great.

 

[zenusa]

2nd Finger print

OK guys, I just had my 2nd finger print taken because 1st one expired. So you know i am talking about 16 months since my 1st one. I have been thinking about 1447b for a while now...well just thinking.

Now my question is: Does this 2nd set mean anything beside 1st one was expired? I did try senator and congressman but got slandered responses. I haven't called cust service nor did i get an infoPass thinking i will get the same response. Your opinion is appreciated.

 

[shvili]

My little victory: I "cracked" Pacer! (finally able to dounload docs)

Mingjing,
right after I posted yesterday that I still couldn't seem to get Pacer to work, I went back with one of the filing numbers and -Hurray! -finally managed to read the document!
So please disregard my previous complaints and yes, I'll be able to benefit form your work. Also, I didn't mean to say what you're doing is not usefull, just for me it was not. (But no more!) Actually, the fact you're summarizing the orders and categorizing them is a great help to us -the ones who prepare opposition to MTD, it's a great source to cite from without browsing through huge load of successful cases (not that I'm unhappy that it's so many successful ones, but AUSA has a much easier job in this respect-they can only cite a handful of cases in their support ).

A little summary of what I discovered using Pacer for Northern CA:

I went a year back and mostly checked cases assigned to the same judge we have. So here is the pattern: about 4 months ago AUSA started to fight AOS cases with MTD, and N-400 cases with "answers" (a standard denying sentences). It seems that so far not a single complaint has actually lost, and not a single complaint was ruled upon by our judge, all were resloved prior to it. However, up until January of 07 ALL cases filed (AOS and N-400) were resolved (i.e., adjudicated) within 2-3 months, and AUSA has NEVER even filed MTD or Answer. The ones filed this year, it takes much longer to resolve. Again, I only checked one judge so this data is not conclusive. But it seems to follow the pattern Lotechguy and some seniors mentioned: after CIS stopped expediting nc-s in December 06 in cases of filed complaints the whole process is slower and less certain as US attorneys are forced to fight since FBI+CIS refuse to cooperate as willingly as before. They still DO expedite (How else to explain a "miraculous" nc completions in the first 3 + months after filing?)- but do it slower. Oh, and the other trend Lotechguy commented before: it's about 50-60 cases per month (and even more) filed during the last few months (both AOS+N-400), and it was less than 30 per month last summer, so perhaps the speed of adjudications is also related to current cases overload.

But one good thing for us-residents of CA: it is really an immigrant -friendly state and it shows in judges' orders.

Unfortunately, so far I can't get more cases to Mingjing becase (again) not a single case I saw was ruled upon by the judge. But I'll definitely post is I run across something.

Thank you for you great job, Mingjing, and everyone contributing to this forum!

Shvili,

I actually have at least one (sometimes more Pacer documents) to EACH of the 25 favorable/useful I485 WOM cases in my list. I did not send them as I thought all of you have access to Pacer. I can send them to you if you need.

I thought more about using wikibook. I think it is a good tool for all of us to share the effort to identify usesful/favorable cases. So we should continue to do that. That being said, there is still a place for my list, where I can summarize the cases into different categories (as I did in my previous posting into A, B, C, D). In our opposition to MTD, a type A case in A where judge orders specific time to adjudicate needs to be treated differently than a type B case where judge denied MTD but no final order on relief yet.

I will keep doing what I am doing. Meanwhile, I NEED ALL OF YOUR HELP TO IDENTIFY MORE CASES, ESP. RECENT ONES. Either post new cases here or sent to wikibook, or both.

Attached is the lattest list. I added case #24 and #25, both belong to tpye B (judge denied MTD, but no final rule on relief yet).

Mingjing

 

[shvili]

I noticed on pacer that the judge assigned to my case always holds a hearing on a Motion to Dismiss filed by AUSA after plaintiff files an opposition.
Is this a good or bad sign ? No motions have been decided so far all taken under advisement after the hearing

Lo,

What does it mean, "taken under advisement"? Is it that the judge notifies that s/he would "sit on it" before making a decision? Also, have you checked the judge's previous work (like, past year-what I tried to do)? How far are you on your Opp.? I haven't yet started, waiting to file return of service first.

Also, it seems all of the district's cases assigned to ADR. In my case, although the clerk said it shouldn't apply to us since we're pro se, but our case was also assigned for ECF which does require electronic filing within 10 days after filing in court. Our 10 days expire tomorrow and I have not filed of course (have to verify, if it's 10 days from filing or from return of service filed in court). Did you have similar thing?

 

[MidofFighting]

I did file opposition but the judge's ruling is not out yet. Sorry that my case does not yield any useful court order. But what I feel is that as long as the name check is expedited, it is advantageous to have the case pending because it bugs the USCIS. There is even one case on this forum that was soon adjudicated by USCIS after the plaintiff lost WOM in court. This is because the expedite processing has already been triggered by the lawsuit.

Hey, MidofFighting,

Did you file opposition to MTD? And did judge deny MTD? And any orders from court? If so, can you please help rest of us by sharing your case number/details?

Thanks.