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

[aryin]

need samples for opposition to MTD

Dear GC-pending,

Thank you very much for all your hard work.

I filed WOM 2 weeks ago. Could you tell me where to find samples for opposition to MTD.

Thanks.

Thanks Mingjing for sending the updated file. I have updated the wiki book to match the same structure and categories as your file. I tried to include all the cases you had in the wikibook as well.

Still the wiki book doesn't have links to some of the court orders. If anybody has those court orders, please post them to this forum and update the wiki book with the link to the file. Again, the wiki book is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and anybody can edit the page.

We need everybody's help to support the wiki book by providing more cases.

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]

Well, how exactly did you do to search cases by judge? I don't know how but would really like to. Thanks.

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 ...

Mingjing.

you go to this dockets-CA link:

http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-california

Then you plug in your district and it will show you all cases filed on the dates you requested, with judge's name shown in the middle. I think there's another way to look at all cases assigned to a specific judge, but I didn't save the link so you may just play with the link I used. I just scrolled down and opened all cases I was interested in (1447/WOM, assigned to my judge)- and paid Pacer to view them.

Good luck!

 

[shvili]

let's not be so naive!

Hello Friends:

I got my I485 approval notice in mail from USCIS yesterday. The online status report told me that they mailed out my card on 05/08, but I haven't got my card yet.

Here is my WOM status:
(1) I filled WOM for I485 in Dec, 2006.
(2) AUSA asked for a 2-week automatic extension after 60 days.
(3) AUSA filed his MTD at the end of the extension, i.e. in the middle of March.
(4) I filed my OPP in early April.
(5) AUSA filed his reply one week later.
(6) I filed a letter to the judge to add three new I485 WOM winning cases one week later, i.e. in the late April.
Now the WOM is in front of the judge for nearly a month, and the judge hasn't made any decision on it.

At the same time, here is my I485 case status:
(1) my case was first moved my service center to Texas in Feb or early March.
(2) then I was asked to provide my second FP with a code of 3 (FP, photo, and signature) in April.
(3) then I was notified by USCIS that my cases was moved back from Texas to my service center in late April.
(4) then I got the approval letter yesterday.

I really don't know if my case was approved because of my lawsuit or not, because
(1) AUSA clearly told me that he didn't ask USCIS to work on my case in any way. (He told me they was only told to fight each case, and they have no right to request USCIS or FBI to do anything).
(2) I know at least one I485 case of a person in this forum experienced similar process as mine, (i.e. move-FP-move back), even before he/she filed his WOM.
(3) What really surprised me is that the AUSA even didn't contact to moot my case after I have already gotten my approval letter in mail. It seems that the AUSAs are really in a dark during this whole thing.

All of these seem to suggest that my case was approved independent of my WOM.

Anyway, I am not saying that I am 100% sure that WOM for I485 does not work anymore. I just share my case with you for your information.

Best regards

United 2007,

Hell, Yes, it works!!! And your own victory is a proof to that! Although the general "rule of Thumb" is to have a nice working relationship with AUSA asssigned to your case, I would stop trusting the guy/gal immediately once s/he says a miracle was involved in your adjudication. He is lying because he tries to pass a message (with a hope you pass it to all others in your shoes)- that law suit filing does not work. When you clearly have a conflict of interests (AUSA wants number of law suits filed reduced and we hope and know it is usually the only way to press these lazy b-s), you should immediatley mistrust this him/her.

Now, it may be true that your AUSA was lazy enough or just plain lucky so s/he didn't move a finger and CIS just adjidicated your case. But still the only reason it happened is becuase YOU FILED YOUR LAW SUIT. Yes, CIS starts working on your case and sometimes even without an extra pressure from AUSA but the only reaon is your law suit. (I would believe that sometimes-not always-letters to the First Lady may speed up the nc, but to suggest that you miraculously just got adjudicated is the same as thinking that immaculate conception occured in the case of your neighbor's daughter .)

So please let's not be so naive.

But I really congratulate you on your victory and please congratulate yourself for doing all the hard work. No matter what AUSA tells you, you won it!

 

[shvili]

Dear GC-pending,

Thank you very much for all your hard work.

I filed WOM 2 weeks ago. Could you tell me where to find samples for opposition to MTD.

Thanks.

Thanks Mingjing for sending the updated file. I have updated the wiki book to match the same structure and categories as your file. I tried to include all the cases you had in the wikibook as well.

Still the wiki book doesn't have links to some of the court orders. If anybody has those court orders, please post them to this forum and update the wiki book with the link to the file. Again, the wiki book is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and anybody can edit the page.

We need everybody's help to support the wiki book by providing more cases.

aryin,

here is a sample of a MTD posted by another member (it was posted openly on the forum so I assume no privacy issue arises from reposting it, -thank you for posting it, member!). Also, you might e-mail Paz1960 whose most recent post is a couple of days old. He has an excellent MTD draft he might share with you. Two others are real ones used in law suits.

Other than that-plan to spend huge amount of time and read all posted orders, search more on Pacer, and come up with your own argument.

Good luck!

 

[GC-Pending]

Loading files to wikibook

Hi Mingjing,

I didn't actually load the court orders to the wikibook but just put a link in there that links to the files in this forum. I found it somehow cumbersome to load files directly to wikibook so the easiest and best option is to load the files to this forum and have a link in the wikibook to link to the file.
So, if you can load your files here, I can take care of the rest of it and update the wikibook.

Well, I have at least one document for each of the 20+ I485 WOM cases in my list. I can send them to your mailbox and then you can post to the wiki book. I'd like not to do it myself as I am out of time in next few days.

Let me know.

Thanks Mingjing for sending the updated file. I have updated the wiki book to match the same structure and categories as your file. I tried to include all the cases you had in the wikibook as well.

Still the wiki book doesn't have links to some of the court orders. If anybody has those court orders, please post them to this forum and update the wiki book with the link to the file. Again, the wiki book is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and anybody can edit the page.

We need everybody's help to support the wiki book by providing more cases.

 

[GC-Pending]

To find good samples of oppotion to MTD, you can lookup successful court orders on pacer and go to docket report and find and download the document that says opposition to motion to dismiss.
Meanwhile I'll try to create a section in the fbi name check wikibook for responses to MTD.

Dear GC-pending,

Thank you very much for all your hard work.

I filed WOM 2 weeks ago. Could you tell me where to find samples for opposition to MTD.

Thanks.

Thanks Mingjing for sending the updated file. I have updated the wiki book to match the same structure and categories as your file. I tried to include all the cases you had in the wikibook as well.

Still the wiki book doesn't have links to some of the court orders. If anybody has those court orders, please post them to this forum and update the wiki book with the link to the file. Again, the wiki book is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and anybody can edit the page.

We need everybody's help to support the wiki book by providing more cases.

 

[aryin]

Thank you

Dear shvili,

Thank you very much for your quick reply. Could you do me a favor to tell me Paz1960's email address.

Thanks again!

Dear GC-pending,

Thank you very much for all your hard work.

I filed WOM 2 weeks ago. Could you tell me where to find samples for opposition to MTD.

Thanks.





aryin,

here is a sample of a MTD posted by another member (it was posted openly on the forum so I assume no privacy issue arises from reposting it, -thank you for posting it, member!). Also, you might e-mail Paz1960 whose most recent post is a couple of days old. He has an excellent MTD draft he might share with you. Two others are real ones used in law suits.

Other than that-plan to spend huge amount of time and read all posted orders, search more on Pacer, and come up with your own argument.

Good luck!

 

[shvili]

Dude,
It was me who posted the link but I think the article was submitted before 12/21/2006, when lawsuit was still considered as a reason for expedited processing. Not anymore...

Lazicis and DUDE,

A little funny update on the story. Before I read you correspondence, I found the reporter's phone in the article and called him to inquire about the DHS Memo.
You may guess the outcome. He said, he is not at liberty to provide the link to the memo he mentioned and I might call the attorney quoted in his piece, Jihad Muhaisen, who represented Muslims in CO. "I can't give you the goat but I can give you an advice", as an old joke goes... I also told the reporter that this delays affect a number of other immigrants in addition to Muslims (meaning that his quote from an attorney that "if a non-Muslim immigrant applies for naturalization he is adjudicated right away" is really incorrect.) He said, he is aware of it (then why the quote?). I told him that as another angle to this issue, a lot of people serving in the US army are also stuck in this process, and he replied that he mentioned it (very briefly!) in his article. And so forth and so on...

My conclusion from this exchange is majority of reporters jump at you for info as long as it feeds their ugenda, and are very unscrupulous in their methods. I mentioned law suits are filed by many others pro se and he was "graceful enough" to express interest in statistics on other nationals stuck in the nc delays and naturalization, "but it has to be very grounded statistics supported by verifieable data". Give me a break! Like his quote from that attorney was a very verifiable data! He didn't even present a cross-opinion showing that other groups are also very affected by these delays .
I regret now that I told him I might forward a link to a SF class action law suit and "keep him updated" on my situation. He reminded me of some dirty jokes about the "third oldest profession" (-journalists), they are hungry for exhibiting power (he "may or may not write about something and there are higher reasons for his decisions") and doesn't bother with any ethical concerns while using their sources.

So unless I get somebody in my own (-much higher journalistic circle) interested in this issue (which is a big "IF" cause they also serve their own agenda)- I will never again contact any little media people out here.

P.S. I also regret that I left a message on that attorney's phone requesting the link to the memo... Again, I read of your correspondence later.

 

[shvili]

Dear shvili,

Thank you very much for your quick reply. Could you do me a favor to tell me Paz1960's email address.

Thanks again!


Aryin,

you can go back and when you see Paz1960 message, click on the "private message" link (using you right-side mouse button, I think).

 

[DUDE12190]

I agree.

Lazicis and DUDE,

A little funny update on the story. Before I read you correspondence, I found the reporter's phone in the article and called him to inquire about the DHS Memo.
You may guess the outcome. He said, he is not at liberty to provide the link to the memo he mentioned and I might call the attorney quoted in his piece, Jihad Muhaisen, who represented Muslims in CO. "I can't give you the goat but I can give you an advice", as an old joke goes... I also told the reporter that this delays affect a number of other immigrants in addition to Muslims (meaning that his quote from an attorney that "if a non-Muslim immigrant applies for naturalization he is adjudicated right away" is really incorrect.) He said, he is aware of it (then why the quote?). I told him that as another angle to this issue, a lot of people serving in the US army are also stuck in this process, and he replied that he mentioned it (very briefly!) in his article. And so forth and so on...

My conclusion from this exchange is majority of reporters jump at you for info as long as it feeds their ugenda, and are very unscrupulous in their methods. I mentioned law suits are filed by many others pro se and he was "graceful enough" to express interest in statistics on other nationals stuck in the nc delays and naturalization, "but it has to be very grounded statistics supported by verifieable data". Give me a break! Like his quote from that attorney was a very verifiable data! He didn't even present a cross-opinion showing that other groups are also very affected by these delays .
I regret now that I told him I might forward a link to a SF class action law suit and "keep him updated" on my situation. He reminded me of some dirty jokes about the "third oldest profession" (-journalists), they are hungry for exhibiting power (he "may or may not write about something and there are higher reasons for his decisions") and doesn't bother with any ethical concerns while using their sources.

So unless I get somebody in my own (-much higher journalistic circle) interested in this issue (which is a big "IF" cause they also serve their own agenda)- I will never again contact any little media people out here.

P.S. I also regret that I left a message on that attorney's phone requesting the link to the memo... Again, I read of your correspondence later.

shvili,
I really apperciate your efforts and completely agree with you. It is meaningless to call the media people. The worse thing is that USCIS does not wanna show any statistics about how many name checks are pending with FBI for more than one year. I am really suspicious about the figures that were giving in a report by USCIS director. I have even read that USCIS even stopped showing the old pending backlog just to show fancy figures that they are processing the N-400 applications within the average six months times. As I said before, these people will only start to wake up when more and more people will significantly file these lawsuits and they will have thousandas instead of hundreds of lawsuits pending in these Federal courts. Our good Persident's administration will not even do anything then, as their main concentration is somewhere else. I hope things will start to change a bit if we have a better adminsitration after next year's presidential eclection. Good luck to you and all!! regards, dude.

 

[james_gmail]

Passed the 60 days

Hi, I filed WOM on 3/8/2007. and serve the USA on 3/9/2007. They got it on 3/12/2007.

Now seems it passed the 60days deadline already but I did not get any reply.
Is it a good/bad sign? What should I do?

Could I push court the rule?

Thank you very much for your help!!

 

[lazycis]

Hi, I filed WOM on 3/8/2007. and serve the USA on 3/9/2007. They got it on 3/12/2007.

Now seems it passed the 60days deadline already but I did not get any reply.
Is it a good/bad sign? What should I do?

Could I push court the rule?

Thank you very much for your help!!

If they got it on 3/12, they have a coulpe extra days (5/12 falls on Saturday). So wait until next week, they will respond. You can also try to call your AUSA and ask about your case.

 

[james_gmail]

Hi, LazyCIS,

But if considering there is 31 days in March, it is exactly 60 days today.
thinking may take advantage of this ... is it possible?

 

[lotechguy]

Hi, I filed WOM on 3/8/2007. and serve the USA on 3/9/2007. They got it on 3/12/2007.

Now seems it passed the 60days deadline already but I did not get any reply.
Is it a good/bad sign? What should I do?

Could I push court the rule?

Thank you very much for your help!!

James.
Take an infopass and check if anything has happened to your file

 

[james_gmail]

Thanks! will do if there is no reponse from them on Monday. I did not get any update recently. Also I did a infopass two weeks ago and nothing happenend then per the officer.

 

[james_gmail]

Just wonder, strictly from law point view, can we force them to make a decision (using 60days deadline as a reason ) if they did not reply in 60 days?

 

[amyamy]

Help!

Dear Sir,

I am a new user, and donot know how to post my question.

I filed WOM on Feb 26, 2007, and got MTD ( Motion to Dismiss) from US government attonery on May 2, 2007. Please help me what I should do. I plan to visit the court clerk next Monday. Do I need to response the MTD?

Frustrated. Thanks a lot.

Amyamy

Hello everyone;

I went to court today to see if I can file a request for hearing since the AUSA set the court hearing date to June 25th in his MTD, and the court clerk told me that I have to wait till then although I've responded to the MTD.

Does any one know if this is the normal proceedure? Has antone successfully changed the hearing to an earlier date?

parsfalcon

 

[SLIS]

I can't find this case on Pacer. Can somebody help find it?

Loo v. Ridge, 2007 U.S. Dist. 17822, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. March 14, 2007) (noting that adjudicating an adjustment of status application is not at the discretion of defendants because defendants are required to do so);

AS ALWAYS, PLEASE POST ANY RECENT FAVORABLE I485 WOM CASES YOU HEARD ABOUT, EVEN IF IT JUST HAS A GOOD OPPOSITION TO MTD WITHOUT JUDGE RULING YET.

Here's from LEXIS:

 

[shvili]

shvili,
I really apperciate your efforts and completely agree with you. It is meaningless to call the media people. The worse thing is that USCIS does not wanna show any statistics about how many name checks are pending with FBI for more than one year. I am really suspicious about the figures that were giving in a report by USCIS director. I have even read that USCIS even stopped showing the old pending backlog just to show fancy figures that they are processing the N-400 applications within the average six months times. As I said before, these people will only start to wake up when more and more people will significantly file these lawsuits and they will have thousandas instead of hundreds of lawsuits pending in these Federal courts. Our good Persident's administration will not even do anything then, as their main concentration is somewhere else. I hope things will start to change a bit if we have a better adminsitration after next year's presidential eclection. Good luck to you and all!! regards, dude.

Dude,

Yes, I also think CIS/FBI manipulate numbers for better faces, and we might never know the real ## involved. Because of that, it would be interesting to make a simple call among our forum readers and start a counting link where all the new ones must register and post whether they are stuck in AOS or N-400. Just to have a basic picture, (including those who want to read only- just ask them to sign which group they belong to). But again, it's easy to give advice, as I have no time myself to undertake this, and most of us probably don't either.

Good luck to you! Hope something may chnge after the elections but that we win long before that time.

 

[Mingjing]

Parsfalcon, This Hooman case is a naturalization case it seems. Let me know otherwise.

I am only specifically focusing on I485 WOM cases, and with the angle of fighting against MTD.

Thanks for sharing. Now, rest of the guys here, WE NEED MORE RECENT FAVORABLE/USEFUL I485 WOM CASES!

Hi Mingjing;

The judge in the central district of CA rules in favor of the plaintiff and dimissed AUSA MTD. You can look it up under "Hooman Darabi". Please let us know if you come across more cases files in CA which were ruled in favor of Plaintiffs.

Well, I have at least one document for each of the 20+ I485 WOM cases in my list. I can send them to your mailbox and then you can post to the wiki book. I'd like not to do it myself as I am out of time in next few days.

Let me know.