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

amyamy said:
Dear Sir,

Could you explain more clear about "file opposition to MTD"? I got MTD from Government Attonery on May 2, 2007, and did not do anything "opposition to MTD". Do I need to file opposition to MTD? Please help. I will have an ADR conference on May 21! Desperated.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Amyamy,

Take a look of shvili's post (#11062). Read the attached CA Pro Se handbook for the explanation of opposition to MTD. You can base your opposition to MTD on some examples but do read your MTD carefully. Mingjing has been posting successful I485 WOM cases that you can cite in your opposition to MTD. See post #11013. Bottom line is that you need to spend a lot of time preparing it. If you don't have the time, consider hiring a lawyer as shvili suggested.
 
I wish to go forward with opposition to mtd despite unfavorable cases in NJ. I have a feeling that this thread has lot to offer to write one. Please support me for my case. I shall do best to write shall follow all the support I have got from lots of people.
Any comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
recent court order (1447b)

Just wanted to post another fresh order. It has references to other citizenship cases. Applicant was interviewed in 2004 in this case.
Court ordered FBI to complete name check in 45 days and USCIS to make a decision in 45 days after name check completion.
 
Thanks SLIS for the new case. I have added your case to the wikibook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check)

SLIS said:
This is another recent case from N.D.CA. done by professionals not Pro Se. Court denied MTD, stating:
This Court has jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's complaint under both the writ of mandamus and the APA. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that defendants have delayed over three years in adjudicating her I-485 application. Defendants have provided a detailed description of the FBI name-check process in an attempt to explain the delay. The Court has reviewed defendants' papers, and finds nothing to compel the conclusion that three years is a "reasonable time" as a matter of law. The amount of time that is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry, which is premature at this stage.​

Here's the actual ruling:
Click to expand...
 
Another finger prints

Hi all.. just a queastion for those whose GC case is pending for name checks.. I applied for EAD renewal and got another finger print notice. My last FP were taken on July 8th, 2006..so not expired yet. So why this second notice? Can any suggest..? Does this mean anything or just a random CIS desire to frustrate people..

Thanks
 
ncblackhole said:
Hi all.. just a queastion for those whose GC case is pending for name checks.. I applied for EAD renewal and got another finger print notice. My last FP were taken on July 8th, 2006..so not expired yet. So why this second notice? Can any suggest..? Does this mean anything or just a random CIS desire to frustrate people..

Thanks
Click to expand...

You should not be required to go thru another biometrics as they already have your biometrics on record. You can call USCIS "customer service" and ask why do they do that.
There were some changes in EAD processing last year
(see http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf) so maybe it's related somehow. Makes no sense, but I am not surprised. Your second guess is probably true.
 
Good News.

guys today I got the good news from my AUSA with a scan of the oath letter.

I will be Naturalized on the 25th of May

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't think straight right now but I want to thank everybody in this forum.
without this forum I would have been waiting forever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My AUSA isn't a nice person, everytime i check with her about the status, she keep telling me that no update and she will file MTD on my case, then no follow up. A couple of weeks later, I contact her again, she said "You just contacted me a couple of weeks ago, no update". I don't know what I can do to let her be NICE. ;-(

Here is the schedule on the pacer for my case "Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 6/6/2007. Discovery is to be completed by 7/20/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 7/20/2007. Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by 10/31/2007. Pretrial Order is due by 10/31/2007". My question is do I need to do something about the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report? I asked her about it, she never answered.
 
Once our immigration application is adjudicated but before the close of WOM case, can we insist on proceeding with the case so there is a chance we can be the prevailing part of the law suit? I am thinking about the attorney fees. If answer to my question abvove is no, then plaintiff will not get a chance to recover the attorney fee if name check cleared before judge rules on the case. AUSA may use this tactic to drag as long as possible and make the suit moot by approving immigration case last min. before judge is ready to order. Hopelly we can still proceed for the sake of getting attorney fees back?
 
akram88 said:
guys today I got the good news from my AUSA with a scan of the oath letter.

I will be Naturalized on the 25th of May

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't think straight right now but I want to thank everybody in this forum.
without this forum I would have been waiting forever.
Click to expand...

Akram88, congratulations!!!

I remeber you posted some time ago. Could you please give some details of your case? Especially how your communication with AUSA went before they notified you of your adjudication, your district and timeframe?

Thank you!
 
lazycis said:
Just wanted to post another fresh order. It has references to other citizenship cases. Applicant was interviewed in 2004 in this case.
Court ordered FBI to complete name check in 45 days and USCIS to make a decision in 45 days after name check completion.
Click to expand...

Lazycis,

this is actually the same case that was highlighted in the Colorado article we discussed last week, and the one which was mentioned earlier by another member.

Thank you for posting it! For the 9th Disctrict residents it's a useful case!
 
Can somebody help find judge order and/or plaintiff's opposition to MTD for this case dated 2002? This seems to be a favorable I485 WOM case. Pacer shows docket report, but not actualy documents.

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-02323-AWT

Bartolini, et al v. Ashcroft, et al
Assigned to: Judge Alvin W. Thompson
Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Date Filed: 12/12/2001
Date Terminated: 09/30/2002
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
 
Updated List and A Question

Attached is updated list. I added case #26 (it is type B, MTD denied, but no order on relief yet) published earlier on this forum.

Question about this case: Plaintiff filed motion for summary judgement after judge denied defendants MTD. 3 days later after motion for summary judgement was filed, defendants filed "ANSWER to Complaint". This ANSWER is really to respond to the original complaint, and mentioned nothing about the fact that MTD was dismissed 10 days earlier. Did th edefendants file the wrong thing?

********************
05/01/2007 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jing Wu. (Wang, Justin) (Filed on 5/1/2007) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

05/04/2007 21 ANSWER to Complaint byMichael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Christine Poulos, Robert S. Mueller. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 5/4/2007) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
 
Another I485 MTD denied in Western Washington district

In the minute order, the judge of this case (c06-1760) simply cited case c07-0096, where MTD was denied 2 days ago.
 
Akram

akram88 said:
guys today I got the good news from my AUSA with a scan of the oath letter.

I will be Naturalized on the 25th of May

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I can't think straight right now but I want to thank everybody in this forum.
without this forum I would have been waiting forever.
Click to expand...

congratulations akram !!
i am veryy hapy for you !
thanks for helping my file my WOM in NJ and answering many questions I had!!!
Congrats again!
 
Mingjing said:
Once our immigration application is adjudicated but before the close of WOM case, can we insist on proceeding with the case so there is a chance we can be the prevailing part of the law suit? I am thinking about the attorney fees. If answer to my question abvove is no, then plaintiff will not get a chance to recover the attorney fee if name check cleared before judge rules on the case. AUSA may use this tactic to drag as long as possible and make the suit moot by approving immigration case last min. before judge is ready to order. Hopelly we can still proceed for the sake of getting attorney fees back?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you will need to bite the bullet and pay the costs if your case is solved before the judge issues an order. The case will become automatically moot when USCIS adjudicates your case; this is what you asked in your prayer. You will not be able to become a prevailing party. I'm pretty sure that AUSA will fight with almost certain success any attempt to go further with the litigation as soon as USCIS adjudicated your case.
 
yvesliu said:
My AUSA isn't a nice person, everytime i check with her about the status, she keep telling me that no update and she will file MTD on my case, then no follow up. A couple of weeks later, I contact her again, she said "You just contacted me a couple of weeks ago, no update". I don't know what I can do to let her be NICE. ;-(

Here is the schedule on the pacer for my case "Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 6/6/2007. Discovery is to be completed by 7/20/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 7/20/2007. Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by 10/31/2007. Pretrial Order is due by 10/31/2007". My question is do I need to do something about the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report? I asked her about it, she never answered.
Click to expand...

Because in these type of cases generally there are no disputed facts, the whole lawsuit is a mere interpretation of the statues and federal regulations, there is no way that the parties can reach a resolution outside the court (of course, except the fortunate case when your name check is completed in the meantime and the case adjudicated by USCIS). For this reason the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report should be very brief and simple and should state the above mentioned fact only. But because the name states: "joint" this means that both parties (you and AUSA) will need to sign it. Usually when Plaintiff is Pro Se, AUSA will write the required document because s/he is a law professional and s/he knows this better. In your particular case, when AUSA seems uncooperative, it may be possible that you will need to write this and send her to sign it and file it by yourself. You can ask directly her if she is going to write this report or you should do it. Because this is practically irrelevant in your case, I would not worry too much about the whole thing. Just make sure that even if she refuses completely to cooperate, you file in time a document stating the above mentioned facts and you should mention in that case that Defendants' counsel refused to cooperate with you, this is the reason that you submitted alone this document. If she continues to refuse to cooperate, you should send the draft of this joint report to her with certified mail and when you file your part of the report, you should attach as a proof the return receipt, showing that you tried to get her agreement but she refused to cooperate. I don't think that this ultimately will happen, because she is aware of the rules, which requires to cooperation between the parties, and if the judge sees that she refused even the most elementary cooperation, it will make her to look really bad.
 
Please help anwering few questions.
I am filing Opposition to MTD.
(Mingling I owe you one, I am studying the cases you put on this forum)
Anyways
1. They asked to dismiss the case as usual but this time they used
rule 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) instead of regular 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Hence What should be added to curb 12(h) (3)
as per Frcp 12(h) (3) is
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections--When and How Presented--By Pleading or Motion--Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(h) Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defense
(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.
Please help what should I add to this line
2. They have added danilov case again.
Since my interview is done, Should I add 1447(b) argument in my Opp to MTD.

3. They wrote the whole theory of name check and first in First out etc etc
Should I write That It is wrong presenting the Mark canning opinion and FbI website fbi.gov/page2/nationalnamecheck.htm that states
"I am aware that some name checks have been completed that were submitted to the FBI after cases that remain pending. Why are the name checks not handled in the order in which they are received?

The vast majority of name check requests are completed in less than 60 days. Of those remaining, the FBI tries to complete the oldest name checks first. The time to complete any given name check varies. There are many factors that impact processing times such as the number of files to retrieve and review, a file's location and accessibility, case status, and workload all impact processing times. Another factor that might delay the processing of a name check request on a first in/first out basis is the number of requests for expedited handling received from a customer agency."
Is the above argument valid with my case.

4. In between time I contacted local congressman again, as usual got the answer that i have to wait for FBI name check and that
I may file the following .1. age 2.medical conditions...3 Writ of mandamus...4..ss...
Shall I submit this letter as exhibit in opp to MTD. (letter dated MArch 14,2007).
5. Shall I mention all the cases favorable to Opp to MTD.

Also give list of all cases.
Please help
I have filed my case in Trenton,NJ.
 
To United2007

United2007:

I think it is important, if nothing else just for future AOS and naturalization cases, that you file with your court a stipulation for voluntary dismissal or a letter or such, stating that you've recieved your GC and the case is moot. Outsmart the AUSA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top