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

Need a lawyer in Maryland

Based on what I read in this forum, I believe being represented by an attorney (versus Pro Se) has an effect on expediting the name check. So, I am planning to hire a lawyer. Can anyone recommend a lawyer in Maryland who is familiar with these cases? I already filed the complaint as Pro Se and after 60 day deadline the AUSA asked for another 60 days extention. AUSA's response is due July 6. So, I have a few weeks to find the lawyer. Any help from you guys is really appreciated.

Also, I haven't been able to find any successful AOS cases in Maryland. If anyone knows of such cases, please post it to the forum.

Mingjing: Congratulations for your greencard and thanks for the cases you posted to the forum. I was away for a while but I have been able to update the wikibook with the successfull cases you posted here.
For newcommers: the wikibook on FBI Name Check is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and has a good repository of successful court cases.
 
GC-Pending said:
Based on what I read in this forum, I believe being represented by an attorney (versus Pro Se) has an effect on expediting the name check. So, I am planning to hire a lawyer. Can anyone recommend a lawyer in Maryland who is familiar with these cases? I already filed the complaint as Pro Se and after 60 day deadline the AUSA asked for another 60 days extention. AUSA's response is due July 6. So, I have a few weeks to find the lawyer. Any help from you guys is really appreciated.

Also, I haven't been able to find any successful AOS cases in Maryland. If anyone knows of such cases, please post it to the forum.

Mingjing: Congratulations for your greencard and thanks for the cases you posted to the forum. I was away for a while but I have been able to update the wikibook with the successfull cases you posted here.
For newcommers: the wikibook on FBI Name Check is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and has a good repository of successful court cases.
Click to expand...


Who is your AUSA? My AUSA is Neil White. He just asked for an extension too. 45 days. I'm not planning to hire a lawyer just yet. We'll see how it goes.
 
hopeforall2 said:
Dear Friends , I need you help,

I received following order in responce to my lawsuit in which the AUSA filed an answer instead of MTD , Please inlight me what this is , is it discovery , conference or motion and what prove of documents should I prepare ?

Quote

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
--------------------------------------------------------------X
My Name ,
Individually,
--------------------- -----ORDER
Plaintiff,
ALBERTO GONZALES,
Officially as United States Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X

An initial conference will be held in this case on July 18, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge. All participants are directed to report to Court.

All counsel must be present.

All requests for adjournments must be made in writing on notice to all parties and no request will be considered unless made at least forty-eight (48) hours before the scheduled conference. Requests must disclose whether or not all parties consent to the adjournment.

The parties are reminded of their obligations under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all parties are directed to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than five days before the above scheduled conference.

Failure to make the required disclosures may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Judge Name
United States Magistrate Judge
May 17, 2007


NOTE: PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO CONFIRM WITH ALL
OTHER COUNSEL THAT ALL NECESSARY PARTIES ARE AWARE OF
THIS CONFERENCE.

Unquote

I need your kind help and advise on whether this good news , that the court are moving towards speeding up my case and what is ment by disclosures and documents I need in pursuant to Rules 26 (f) and 26 (a) (1) , please.

Thank you for all your valuable help.
Click to expand...

One thing I noticed in our court, some judges order a conference based on RULE 16 and others order RULE 26 (F).

Mine was orderd based on Rules 26 (f) and 26 (a) (1), which imposes sanctions if disclosures are not made in due time. This wording only apply in a discovery stage of the litigation ?

Please correct me / advise me if my understanding is correct.

Thank you.
 
After my I485 was approved, some here asked me to post my draft of opposition to MTD. I have posted my case number a few days ago, but this draft was never filed before my I485 approval. I did asked my lawyer yesterday who asked me not to post it. And after some though, I decided to respect her request.

I think most of the content in my draft of Opposition also appear in many other opposition to MTD field in Pacer posted on this forum before. So this should not be a big loss for many of you.

My lawyer did ask me to write Affidavit of Support. I was under impression this document will be an exhibit to opposition to MTD. Since we never filed, and the opposition itself seems to have included some of the languages in this affidavit I wrote, so I am not sure what may lawyer's final plan was regarding this affidavit of support. Anyway, it may help some of you while you draft about why the delay is unreasonable. So I am attaching a sanitized version for your reference. Yellow blocks are where I removed case specific content. Hope this helps. I feel it is pretty complete and compelling (note that in affidavit of support, only facts and no argument/opinions are allowed).

By the way, some one asked - both green cards (for myself and my wife) arrived yesterday, on the 6th business days after I learnt our cases were approved. The "Residence Since" date starts May 2007, not from the time we started waiting for name check.

Best regards.
Mingjing

Priority Date: 08/2001
I140 RD: 08/2003
I485 RD: 11/2003
Name Check stuck from: 12/2003
I140 AD: 09/2004
1st FP: 04/2004
2nd FP: 04/2005
3rd FP:09/2006
4 EADs and 5 APs (My good GOD!!!)
WOM filed by attorney: 01/2007, Northern California District MTD recieved: 03/2007 Opposition to MTD Deadline: 05/2007 Court Hearing Scheduled: 06/15/2007 USCIS Online Status of 05/17/2007: "Card production ordered.On May 16, 2007, we ordered production of your new card..."
USCIS Online Status of 05/22/2007: "On May 21, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS..."
Actual Card received: 05/24/2007
Approval Notice received: ??
 
SLIS said:
I hope they do care about their success rate, as you said. That will mean some light for us! In the meantime, I'm waiting to see how the judge would rule on my case....

What's up with Kafka these days? Do you know? She was expecting and had decided to hire an attorney. I wonder if she's already got her case resolved....
Click to expand...

SLIS,

You probably meant Kefira, and it looks like she may have too much going on (having a baby by now) so it may be one reason for her disapperance. But I hope there's the other reason: she got her case resolved, as I saw one of the docs posted by Mingjing showed MTD in her case was denied...

If you're still following the forum, please post your developments, Kefira!
 
mas06 said:
I could not verify the source of this information. Amendement #1148 is not by Sen. Cornyn. It is rather Sen. Dodd. It is not related to the subject. Sen. Cornyn's amendement is #1184 and it did not touch on secret evidence in the amendement text. It just expands the scope of effect certain crimes on denying immigration benefits. It will be voted on next week.
Click to expand...

mas06,

Please clarify "expands the scope of effect certain crimes on denying immigration benefits". Is there no violation or is there a violation of due process (an immigrant may be deported/denied natur-n without explanation)? If there is such a thing, I agree with Hiram, that this amend-t should be fought and opposed, if possible. If you know more on where to get the info., please share.

Thank you!
 
Ninyte said:
I sent in FOIPA without notarizing it (cause I thought just like you that I didn't have to) and FBI sent it back to me saying that I had to notarize it and send again.
Click to expand...

This is strange.

According to http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_instruc.htm
You must sign your request and have it notarized
or state, "Under penalty of perjury..."

I did it without notarizing (used PDF form from FBI website) and got a response.
Make sure you use privacy act request and not FOIA request. BTW, FOIA request form does have a "Subject" line.
 
Recent court decisions on MTDs (I485 WOM) in california

Hi all,

Here are 3 recent court decisions on government's MTDs to WOM complaints. One of them favors the plaintiffs:

Reyes et al v. U.S. Dept of Homeland Sec. et al., CV 06-6726 MMM (MANx), C. D. Ca​

whereas the other 2 favor the defendents:

Jing Li v. Chertoff et al., CV 06-02625-H(POR), S. D. Ca​
Patel et al. v. Chertoff et al., CV 07-66-RGK(FFMx), C. D. Ca​

The Reyes case is an encouraging win as the judge rejected government's claim that I-485 adjudication is authorized by Congress to be precluded from judicial review.

In the Li case, the plaintiff sought approval and subsequently revised it to adjudication, so it is not surprising it was dismissed.

Can the seniors on this board comment on these recent cases please?
 
GC-Pending said:
Based on what I read in this forum, I believe being represented by an attorney (versus Pro Se) has an effect on expediting the name check. So, I am planning to hire a lawyer. Can anyone recommend a lawyer in Maryland who is familiar with these cases? I already filed the complaint as Pro Se and after 60 day deadline the AUSA asked for another 60 days extention. AUSA's response is due July 6. So, I have a few weeks to find the lawyer. Any help from you guys is really appreciated.

Also, I haven't been able to find any successful AOS cases in Maryland. If anyone knows of such cases, please post it to the forum.

Mingjing: Congratulations for your greencard and thanks for the cases you posted to the forum. I was away for a while but I have been able to update the wikibook with the successfull cases you posted here.
For newcommers: the wikibook on FBI Name Check is located at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check and has a good repository of successful court cases.
Click to expand...

I've read several cases here where when AUSA asked for an extension more than likely they approved your case. Same thing happend to my friend where AUSA instructed CIS to send him Oath cerimony in NY City.
My case went all the way to Judge to decide in Norfolk VA. Judge ordered CIS to make the decision in 120 days or else she will decide in my favor. All pro sea thanks to this blog.
 
Sen Cornyn Amendement

shvili said:
mas06,

Please clarify "expands the scope of effect certain crimes on denying immigration benefits". Is there no violation or is there a violation of due process (an immigrant may be deported/denied natur-n without explanation)? If there is such a thing, I agree with Hiram, that this amend-t should be fought and opposed, if possible. If you know more on where to get the info., please share.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Hi Shvili,

Thanks for addressing this issue. I just wanted to say that I read the text of the amendment and I could not find any reference to the use of secret evidence of deciding immigration cases. The amendment essentially attempts at closing some loopholes that Sen. Cornyn believes that would be critical before granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Please refer to the senator web page:
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&oid=17&rid=237453&pg=1

I may not necessarily approve all of the points in the amendment but I do not see anything within it that would hurt legally present immigrants.
As a matter of fact, Sen. Cornyn introduced even more aggressive amendment last year (May 06) if you remember (the Kyl/Cornyn amendment) and it was unanimously approved by the senate. See ref:
http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&rid=237181

Examples of crimes that would be eligible for amnesty under the current CIR bill if sen. Cornyn's amendment is not passed include:

" * Alien smuggling, U.S. v. Sucki, 748 F. Supp. 66 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)
* Conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., Hirsch v. INS, 308 F2d. 562 (9th Cir. 1962)
* Assault and Battery (simple), Griffo v. McCandless, 28 F.2d 287 (E.D. Pa. 1928)
* Manslaughter (involuntary), Matter of Lopez, 13 I&N Dec. 725 (BIA 1971)
* Kidnapping (simple), Hamdan v. INS, 98 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 1996)
* Weapons possession (possession of a sawed-off shotgun), Matter of Granados, 16 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 1979)
* Burglary (possession of tools to commit), Guarino v. Uhl, 107 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1939)
* Money laundering (structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reporting), Goldeshtein v. INS, 8 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 1993)"

Please note that I am like many others stuck in the NC process for almost a year, also being from one those black listed countries, yet, I am trying to be objective in analyzing these dynamic changes in immigration. Like anyone else, I think it is a broken system and needs to be fixed.

If you are aware of any specific issues in this or other amendments that we need to be aware of, please let me know so we can voice our opinion through the appropriate channels.

Finally, I would like to thank you for you valuable contributions in this thread, realizing that my post may not be suitable placed here, so, my appology for that. Thanks and have a nice memorial day weekend!
 
lazycis said:
This is strange.

According to http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_instruc.htm
You must sign your request and have it notarized
or state, "Under penalty of perjury..."

I did it without notarizing (used PDF form from FBI website) and got a
response.

Good for you.. :) I'm just saying what happened to me..


Make sure you use privacy act request and not FOIA request. BTW, FOIA request form does have a "Subject" line.
Click to expand...

FOIA request does have a "subject" line. But didn't you just say not to use it?
 
use this for FOIA request

Ninyte said:
FOIA request does have a "subject" line. But didn't you just say not to use it?
Click to expand...

Since you're doing FOIA request for yourself, you should use the form located at http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_request.pdf

When I did my request a few months back, it was not required to have the form notarized. It does require the form to be notarized now. So, make sure that you do that before mailing it in.

Also, note that there's no subject line in this form....
 
missingpa said:
Here is the decision of the Reyes case.
Click to expand...

It is nice to observe how our successfull cases are used as precendents: this case heavily uses a case of one of our forum members to deny MTD. Also, follow the judges logic: this AUSa did NOT request to deny for failure to STATE A CLAIM; therefore, the judge did NOT consider factual allegations (he presumed, all facts in the case are correct). He considered only facial allegations because AUSA claimed defendants' action to adjudicate I-485 to be discretionary.

So Does it mean if AUSA's MTD asks to dismiss for "failure to state a claim" the judge will consider factual allegations? But most cases (even though some did MTD for "failure to state a claim") still did not rule on factual allegations after a short review. Why? Is it because our facts are "speaking for themselves"? If anyone remebers a particular case (I'm just lazy to browse through the truckload I have :eek: ) please comment.

Missingpa, thank you for posting the case.
 
mas06 said:
Hi Shvili,

Thanks for addressing this issue. I just wanted to say that I read the text of the amendment and I could not find any reference to the use of secret evidence of deciding immigration cases. The amendment essentially attempts at closing some loopholes that Sen. Cornyn believes that would be critical before granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Please refer to the senator web page:
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&oid=17&rid=237453&pg=1

I may not necessarily approve all of the points in the amendment but I do not see anything within it that would hurt legally present immigrants.
As a matter of fact, Sen. Cornyn introduced even more aggressive amendment last year (May 06) if you remember (the Kyl/Cornyn amendment) and it was unanimously approved by the senate. See ref:
http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&rid=237181

Examples of crimes that would be eligible for amnesty under the current CIR bill if sen. Cornyn's amendment is not passed include:

" * Alien smuggling, U.S. v. Sucki, 748 F. Supp. 66 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)
* Conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., Hirsch v. INS, 308 F2d. 562 (9th Cir. 1962)
* Assault and Battery (simple), Griffo v. McCandless, 28 F.2d 287 (E.D. Pa. 1928)
* Manslaughter (involuntary), Matter of Lopez, 13 I&N Dec. 725 (BIA 1971)
* Kidnapping (simple), Hamdan v. INS, 98 F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 1996)
* Weapons possession (possession of a sawed-off shotgun), Matter of Granados, 16 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 1979)
* Burglary (possession of tools to commit), Guarino v. Uhl, 107 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1939)
* Money laundering (structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reporting), Goldeshtein v. INS, 8 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 1993)"

Please note that I am like many others stuck in the NC process for almost a year, also being from one those black listed countries, yet, I am trying to be objective in analyzing these dynamic changes in immigration. Like anyone else, I think it is a broken system and needs to be fixed.

If you are aware of any specific issues in this or other amendments that we need to be aware of, please let me know so we can voice our opinion through the appropriate channels.

Finally, I would like to thank you for you valuable contributions in this thread, realizing that my post may not be suitable placed here, so, my appology for that. Thanks and have a nice memorial day weekend!
Click to expand...

mas06,

Thank you for the clarification. From what your links say, I agree with you, there is no reason to worry to legal immigrants. The measures are understandable. And there's no indication that if implemented, they would cause deportations/denials without explanation. That would be simply unconstitutional.

But I wanted to ask, why do you say that your "post may not be suitable placed here, so, my appology for that"? On the contrary, I think it is very suitable to place it here and very good that you addressed this issue replying to Hiram. Thank you for that! In fact, it'd be nice to see more of such posts on our forum, we as no one else should be involved in the decisions in this country as they'd affect us/our families first hand...

Have a good memorial day weekend too!
 
shvili said:
mas06,

Thank you for the clarification. From what your links say, I agree with you, there is no reason to worry to legal immigrants. The measures are understandable. And there's no indication that if implemented, they would cause deportations/denials without explanation. That would be simply unconstitutional.

But I wanted to ask, why do you say that your "post may not be suitable placed here, so, my appology for that"? On the contrary, I think it is very suitable to place it here and very good that you addressed this issue replying to Hiram. Thank you for that! In fact, it'd be nice to see more of such posts on our forum, we as no one else should be involved in the decisions in this country as they'd affect us/our families first hand...

Have a good memorial day weekend too!
Click to expand...


That being said,, how about this new bill congress was discusing not long ago, which strips courts from their jurisdiction, not only new cases but all cases filed with courts.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4437

Please read SEC. 122. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.

This was my prime reason to file a lawsuit early in time to avoid any changes in immigration law.

Every body , this is a very creticial phase of our lifes for all of us including the future of our families ,

Please comment .


Thank you.
 
1447b in Maryland

Did anyone file a Petition for a Hearing on Naturalization Application pursuant to 1447(b) and 1421(c) recently in Maryland?
Does anyone know any lawyer in Maryland that can help with it?

My name check is pending for almost 2 years, need help desperately!
 
Contacting AUSA directly

without filing WOM and requesting them to look in to your case. Has anyone attempted to do that ?
 
delayed naturalization due to pending name check

AGC4ME said:
without filing WOM and requesting them to look in to your case. Has anyone attempted to do that ?
Click to expand...

No, I just discovered this forum, and I am trying to find out what can be done. From reading this thread, I thought that I need to file the petition and/or I can do FOIPA.

Any advise is greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More definitions

My wife has filed a lawsuit 1447(b) earlier this year, and I have been reading through this thread for the last couple of days. You guys have collected here an amazing amount of very useful information, and it also feels much better to see that other people are in the same case.

I will post our time line here, but before I do so I have some lame questions to ask about some abbreviations I see frequently used in this thread: what do FP, ID, and PD stand for?

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top