Nastena,
Attached is the joint status report previously posted by another forum member.
Good luck!
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Nastena,
Attached is the joint status report previously posted by another forum member.
Good luck!
Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report
I asked the AUSA about the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report, and here is her reply. "I will prepare a joint ADR report. It will state that the Government does not want to use ADR . What is your position? I will leave it here with the receptionist on the 6th floor for you to stop by and sign. It will not be ready until 3 p.m.".
Should I agree?
I asked the AUSA about the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report, and here is her reply. "I will prepare a joint ADR report. It will state that the Government does not want to use ADR . What is your position? I will leave it here with the receptionist on the 6th floor for you to stop by and sign. It will not be ready until 3 p.m.".
Should I agree?
andrew_sun
Registered Users (C)
Questions for pro se WOM case processing status I-485
Dear All,
By last week, I have filed my complaint and served summons. I have a few questions and hope somebody can help me.
1) The Order of show cause was issued: "upon the petition of ---, the respondent is ordered to show cause as to why the relief should not be granted". The respondent should response within 20 days and I should reply within 20 days afterwards.
Is there anything I should do when waiting for the answers from defendants?
2) I made a mistake, had a typo in my email address in my complaint. Should I correct it? I am not sure if court or AUSA use the email communicate or not.
3) I do not know who my AUSA is handling for my case. Should I call the court or AUSA office to ask?
Thanks,
Andrew
-----------------------------------------------
My WOM status update:
5/23/2007: submit complaint+exhibits to court;
5/29/2007: served summons+complaint to defendants by USPS certified mails;
5/31/2007: received "show cause" order for defendants and me.
-----------------------------------------------
I-140/I-485 RD: 7/2003 concurrent (EB-2, China);
I-140 AD: 11/2003;
FP (2003-2006): submitted 3 times;
EAD (2003-2007): 4 cards;
AP (2004-2007): 4 documents
Dear All,
By last week, I have filed my complaint and served summons. I have a few questions and hope somebody can help me.
1) The Order of show cause was issued: "upon the petition of ---, the respondent is ordered to show cause as to why the relief should not be granted". The respondent should response within 20 days and I should reply within 20 days afterwards.
Is there anything I should do when waiting for the answers from defendants?
2) I made a mistake, had a typo in my email address in my complaint. Should I correct it? I am not sure if court or AUSA use the email communicate or not.
3) I do not know who my AUSA is handling for my case. Should I call the court or AUSA office to ask?
Thanks,
Andrew
-----------------------------------------------
My WOM status update:
5/23/2007: submit complaint+exhibits to court;
5/29/2007: served summons+complaint to defendants by USPS certified mails;
5/31/2007: received "show cause" order for defendants and me.
-----------------------------------------------
I-140/I-485 RD: 7/2003 concurrent (EB-2, China);
I-140 AD: 11/2003;
FP (2003-2006): submitted 3 times;
EAD (2003-2007): 4 cards;
AP (2004-2007): 4 documents
1) Prepare opposition to MTD, AUSA will try to dismiss your complaint.
2) Do not worry about it, court and AUSA do not use e-mail to communicate with pro se.
3) Look up your case in Pacer, it should have info about your AUSA. It may be too early right now. You can also call AUSA office and ask, but again, it may be too early.
frank Haan
New Member
Remand Back to USCIS
Last week my Judge (Nebraska) denied the AUSA's motion to dismiss, but remanded the case back to the USCIS. My attorney has 10 days to file for a reconsider or an appeal and is doing just that. I however noticed on pacer that my case has been closed by the court clerk. Has anyone ever had this happen to them?
N400 January 2004
Interviewed May 2004
1447b January 2007
Feb AUSA Motion for more time
April 2007 AUSA filed MTD
May 2007 Case remanded back to USCIS
(Will file motion to reconsider(if that fails) then an appeal(if that fails) then file WOM (If that fails?)
Last week my Judge (Nebraska) denied the AUSA's motion to dismiss, but remanded the case back to the USCIS. My attorney has 10 days to file for a reconsider or an appeal and is doing just that. I however noticed on pacer that my case has been closed by the court clerk. Has anyone ever had this happen to them?
N400 January 2004
Interviewed May 2004
1447b January 2007
Feb AUSA Motion for more time
April 2007 AUSA filed MTD
May 2007 Case remanded back to USCIS
(Will file motion to reconsider(if that fails) then an appeal(if that fails) then file WOM (If that fails?)
That's what happens after the final order. It does not mean you cannot file motion to reconsider within 10 days or notice of appeal within 60 days.
andrew_sun
Registered Users (C)
Thank you, Lazycis. I appreciated your quick reponse and advice. /Andrew
Thats not a problem. The ECF marks the case closed when the judgement comes. You can file a motion to reconsider even if case is marked closed as long as it is filed witin 7 days of judgement
hopeforall2
Registered Users (C)
gmlvsk , lazycis, paz and all
Please read this proposed amendment in the Immigration reform act s.1348
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836286/posts
under " (g) District Court Jurisdiction "
Please read carefully the wording and please post your thoughts / Interpretation
Thanks
Please read this proposed amendment in the Immigration reform act s.1348
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836286/posts
under " (g) District Court Jurisdiction "
Please read carefully the wording and please post your thoughts / Interpretation
Thanks
springbranch
Registered Users (C)
There is no definite answer. Could be yes, or no. I did receive one of those letters last week after writing to Mrs. Bush. What triggered your letter?
yes I wrote the letter to Mrs Bush.
How about your reply letter. It is completely same to my letter ("is currently in process").
How about your reply letter. It is completely same to my letter ("is currently in process").
Hi all, today is a bad day. First, I sent the AUSA an email yesterday about the Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report which is due june 6, and here is her reply. "I will prepare a joint ADR report. It will state that the Government does not want to use ADR . What is your position? I will leave it here with the receptionist on the 6th floor for you to stop by and sign. It will not be ready until 3 p.m.". I don't know if I should sign it, so, I called her. She called me back later which I missed it and she left a message saying she filed the MTD. And if I don;t want to sign the Joint ADR report, they will tell the court that they can not reach me. After I recieved the message, I went to Pacer and saw the MTD. The MTD is very short. "Defendants, by XXXX, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, and through, XXXX, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) for the District of Oregon, moves this Court to Dismiss the above entitled litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Page 2 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss XX v. Chertoff et al, CV XXXX Grounds for this motion are set forth in the Defendants’ Memorandum in support of this motion. Pursuant to Local Rule (LR) 7.1 Defendants Counsel contacted Plaintiff XXX, pro se, and he opposes this motion.".
Is this MTD very bad? I know I will file the counter motion soon, and I know there are some samples here I can use. But for now, do I need to sign the ADR?
Is this MTD very bad? I know I will file the counter motion soon, and I know there are some samples here I can use. But for now, do I need to sign the ADR?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi shvili, lazycis, and other seniors,
I have some questions about the statutes that I am alleging in my suit. Can someone please educate me and other rookies alike on the roles of and relationships between them? I find it hard to organize the logic without a thorough understanding of them. I will start with statutes I am most familiar with and utter some of my understanding along the way.
1) the INA statutes: 8 U.S.C. §1154(b), 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 8 U.S.C.§1255(a)
Many AUSAs have argued 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) divests courts of jurisdiction and many courts have bought it. §1252 is titled "Judicial review of orders of removal"; (a) "Applicable provisions"; (2) "Matters not subject to judicial review"; (B) "Denials of discretionary relief." It seems the whole section only concerns removal related decisions. How could they use it to their favor?
8 U.S.C.§1255 commits the whole adjudication to AG's discretion, which is why AUSAs are citing it (because of the "may be adjusted" phrase) in combination with 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to challenge jurisdiction. What they are really doing is confusing discretionary power to adjust with mandatory duty to adjudicate. Unfortunately 8 U.S.C.§1255 is lacking a statutory time constraint and this is often exploited by AUSAs. So the APA is often alleged in addition (see below).
8 U.S.C. §1154(b) creates a mandatory duty for AG to process and adjudicate immigrant visa applications. Many OPP examples have used it to counter the discretion challenge. But it is actually a statute for immigrant visa applications. Can anyone comment on its applicability to AOS cases?
2) the APA statutes: 5 U.S.C. §555(b) and 5 U.S.C. §706(1)
According to wikipedia, "the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 governs the way in which administrative agencies of the United States federal government may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for federal courts to directly review agency decisions." According to AILF's advisory titled "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissals and Proving the Case", The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). However, the APA provides a basis for the suit when the government unreasonably delays action or fails to act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1). Thus, the plaintiff may allege the APA as a cause of action. Id.
AUSAs have often challenged that discretionary decisions of federal agencies are precluded from judicial review under 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2). My understanding is the key issue that WOM complaints need to address is that adjudicating AOS applications is a nondiscretionary duty and so 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2) does not apply. Is this correct?
3) the Mandamus statutes: 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1361
Title 28 of U.S.C. deals with judiciary and judicial procedure. These two statutes should be most familiar to WOM filers as they are among the first statutes alleged. They do not, by themselves, establish a basis for the suit and should be combined with the APA statutes, the latter qualifying unreasonably delaying adjudication as a violation of law.
A successful WOM suit must allege the Mandamus statutes, argue the INA statutes do not strip court's subject matter jurisdiction and allege APA to prove the agencies' delay of adjudication is a violation of law (state a claim upon which relief can be granted). From my observation, AUSA's challenge of subject matter jurisdiction is somewhat less successful than that of unreasonableness of delay. But seniors please give us your opinions here.
I am less clear on the role of the following statute:
4) the CFR: 8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i)
Title 8 Part 245 of C.F.R. specifically deals with AOS applications. It seems to me that the content this statute is quite similar to that of 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). What is the role of this statute in WOM suits?
Thanks in advance for corrections/answers/comments!
I have some questions about the statutes that I am alleging in my suit. Can someone please educate me and other rookies alike on the roles of and relationships between them? I find it hard to organize the logic without a thorough understanding of them. I will start with statutes I am most familiar with and utter some of my understanding along the way.
1) the INA statutes: 8 U.S.C. §1154(b), 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 8 U.S.C.§1255(a)
Many AUSAs have argued 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) divests courts of jurisdiction and many courts have bought it. §1252 is titled "Judicial review of orders of removal"; (a) "Applicable provisions"; (2) "Matters not subject to judicial review"; (B) "Denials of discretionary relief." It seems the whole section only concerns removal related decisions. How could they use it to their favor?
8 U.S.C.§1255 commits the whole adjudication to AG's discretion, which is why AUSAs are citing it (because of the "may be adjusted" phrase) in combination with 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to challenge jurisdiction. What they are really doing is confusing discretionary power to adjust with mandatory duty to adjudicate. Unfortunately 8 U.S.C.§1255 is lacking a statutory time constraint and this is often exploited by AUSAs. So the APA is often alleged in addition (see below).
8 U.S.C. §1154(b) creates a mandatory duty for AG to process and adjudicate immigrant visa applications. Many OPP examples have used it to counter the discretion challenge. But it is actually a statute for immigrant visa applications. Can anyone comment on its applicability to AOS cases?
2) the APA statutes: 5 U.S.C. §555(b) and 5 U.S.C. §706(1)
According to wikipedia, "the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 governs the way in which administrative agencies of the United States federal government may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for federal courts to directly review agency decisions." According to AILF's advisory titled "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissals and Proving the Case", The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). However, the APA provides a basis for the suit when the government unreasonably delays action or fails to act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1). Thus, the plaintiff may allege the APA as a cause of action. Id.
AUSAs have often challenged that discretionary decisions of federal agencies are precluded from judicial review under 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2). My understanding is the key issue that WOM complaints need to address is that adjudicating AOS applications is a nondiscretionary duty and so 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2) does not apply. Is this correct?
3) the Mandamus statutes: 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1361
Title 28 of U.S.C. deals with judiciary and judicial procedure. These two statutes should be most familiar to WOM filers as they are among the first statutes alleged. They do not, by themselves, establish a basis for the suit and should be combined with the APA statutes, the latter qualifying unreasonably delaying adjudication as a violation of law.
A successful WOM suit must allege the Mandamus statutes, argue the INA statutes do not strip court's subject matter jurisdiction and allege APA to prove the agencies' delay of adjudication is a violation of law (state a claim upon which relief can be granted). From my observation, AUSA's challenge of subject matter jurisdiction is somewhat less successful than that of unreasonableness of delay. But seniors please give us your opinions here.
I am less clear on the role of the following statute:
4) the CFR: 8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i)
Title 8 Part 245 of C.F.R. specifically deals with AOS applications. It seems to me that the content this statute is quite similar to that of 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). What is the role of this statute in WOM suits?
Thanks in advance for corrections/answers/comments!
yvesliu,
They did not want to use ADR anyway, so it's not your fault. It did not matter weather you signed ADR report or not. AUSA intended to file MTD anyway. So there is no need to put blame on yourself and pull your hair
Just prepare Opposition to MTD and hope that judge has some common sense. If you need more time to prepare, ask for extension.
Your description of MTD fits the standard. It's not worse than other MTDs. Do not lose sleep over it, you just moved one step closer to resolution.
AOS analysis
Good question. They are just trying to twist the law. AUSA usually relies on (ii) "any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158 (a) of this title."
AOS falls under subchapter II. I.e. you cannot challenge any discretionary decision or action regarding AOS.
You fight it by asserting that you do not challenge any discretionary decision or action.
Jurisdiction is not barred by REAL ID Act (which made changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B)), which bars jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions, as there has been no action or decision by USCIS, the very basis for this action. Pauncscu v. INS, 76F.Supp.2d 896, 900 (N.D. Ill) (district court jurisdiction to review INS’s failure to timely adjudicate adjustment application is not barred by § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because INS had not yet granted or denied relief). The court concluded that it had mandamus jurisdiction over the challenge. Id. At 901. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has non-discretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on part of the government is an essential element of claim. Thus mandamus actions do not fall within restrictions of INA§241(a)(2)(B).See Iddir v INS 301 F. 3d at 497.
An adjustment of status petition framed by 8 USC 1255 is, in essence, a petition for an immigrant status defined in 8 USC 1154. Title 8 U.S.C. 1255 (a) was enacted in 1960 so that such aliens would not inevitably be required to leave the country and apply to a United States consul in order to obtain permanent-resident status. If anything, the Congress intention was to make it easier, not harder to receive an immigrant status for aliens already residing in the USA. The only substantial difference between adjustment of status application and immigrant visa application is the location of an applicant. There is no reason to believe that the Congress intended to establish different procedures for handling adjustment of status petition versus immigrant visa petition. This point of view is supported in federal courts (see Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2005)).
You've got it right here (almost). It's important also combine APA with 28 USC 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). Here what the court said in Kim v Ashcroft:
The federal question statute confers jurisdiction on the district courts
over actions “arising under” federal law. Specifically, section 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” "An action arises under a federal statute where the statute creates or is a necessary element of the cause of action or the plaintiff would prevail if the statute were construed one way and lose if it were construed another.” This has been interpreted to mean that federal question jurisdiction exists where: “(1) the claim turns on an interpretation of the laws or Constitution of the United States and (2) the claim is not ‘patently without merit."
The APA “itself does not confer jurisdiction on a district court to review the decision of an administrative agency.” Thus, “plaintiffs seeking specific relief are given the right to sue the government in a federal court by the [APA] but the subject matter jurisdiction basis is the federal question statute.” As such, where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the APA, the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331. Id
In other words, the court has to interpret APA provisions and apply it to your individual case ("was the delay unreasonable").
Mandamus does provide an independed basis for jurisdiction. But the plaintiff has to show that:
(1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain;
(2) the duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and
(3) no other adequate remedy is available." Or. Natural Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986))
I agree with your view here.
8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i) applies to employment-based AOS, but the similar provisions exist for other AOS categories. It's an important part as it says:
"The applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial". Word "shall" here makes much for difficult for AUSA to defend their argument that government does not have a duty to process AOS application according to "may" in 1255(a).
Also, CRF trumps USCIS internal regulations regarding waiting for name check to complete before it may issue the decision. Courts view this paragraph as creating non-mandatory duty for USCIS to process AOS (Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL 3041086). Indeed, if USCIS does not have to process AOS, how it is going to provide notice about the decision? It also supports a concept that AG discretion from 1255(a) is limited to the final decision as denial has to state reasons for denial.
P.S. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I express my own views only
Good question. They are just trying to twist the law. AUSA usually relies on (ii) "any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158 (a) of this title."
AOS falls under subchapter II. I.e. you cannot challenge any discretionary decision or action regarding AOS.
You fight it by asserting that you do not challenge any discretionary decision or action.
Jurisdiction is not barred by REAL ID Act (which made changes to INA § 242(a)(2)(B)), which bars jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions, as there has been no action or decision by USCIS, the very basis for this action. Pauncscu v. INS, 76F.Supp.2d 896, 900 (N.D. Ill) (district court jurisdiction to review INS’s failure to timely adjudicate adjustment application is not barred by § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because INS had not yet granted or denied relief). The court concluded that it had mandamus jurisdiction over the challenge. Id. At 901. INA § 242(a)(2)(B) limits jurisdiction over certain discretionary actions and decisions. Neither this section nor the REAL ID Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction where the government has non-discretionary duty to act. In mandamus cases in particular, the existence of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on part of the government is an essential element of claim. Thus mandamus actions do not fall within restrictions of INA§241(a)(2)(B).See Iddir v INS 301 F. 3d at 497.
An adjustment of status petition framed by 8 USC 1255 is, in essence, a petition for an immigrant status defined in 8 USC 1154. Title 8 U.S.C. 1255 (a) was enacted in 1960 so that such aliens would not inevitably be required to leave the country and apply to a United States consul in order to obtain permanent-resident status. If anything, the Congress intention was to make it easier, not harder to receive an immigrant status for aliens already residing in the USA. The only substantial difference between adjustment of status application and immigrant visa application is the location of an applicant. There is no reason to believe that the Congress intended to establish different procedures for handling adjustment of status petition versus immigrant visa petition. This point of view is supported in federal courts (see Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2005)).
You've got it right here (almost). It's important also combine APA with 28 USC 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). Here what the court said in Kim v Ashcroft:
The federal question statute confers jurisdiction on the district courts
over actions “arising under” federal law. Specifically, section 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” "An action arises under a federal statute where the statute creates or is a necessary element of the cause of action or the plaintiff would prevail if the statute were construed one way and lose if it were construed another.” This has been interpreted to mean that federal question jurisdiction exists where: “(1) the claim turns on an interpretation of the laws or Constitution of the United States and (2) the claim is not ‘patently without merit."
The APA “itself does not confer jurisdiction on a district court to review the decision of an administrative agency.” Thus, “plaintiffs seeking specific relief are given the right to sue the government in a federal court by the [APA] but the subject matter jurisdiction basis is the federal question statute.” As such, where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the APA, the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331. Id
In other words, the court has to interpret APA provisions and apply it to your individual case ("was the delay unreasonable").
Mandamus does provide an independed basis for jurisdiction. But the plaintiff has to show that:
(1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain;
(2) the duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and
(3) no other adequate remedy is available." Or. Natural Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986))
I agree with your view here.
8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i) applies to employment-based AOS, but the similar provisions exist for other AOS categories. It's an important part as it says:
"The applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial". Word "shall" here makes much for difficult for AUSA to defend their argument that government does not have a duty to process AOS application according to "may" in 1255(a).
Also, CRF trumps USCIS internal regulations regarding waiting for name check to complete before it may issue the decision. Courts view this paragraph as creating non-mandatory duty for USCIS to process AOS (Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL 3041086). Indeed, if USCIS does not have to process AOS, how it is going to provide notice about the decision? It also supports a concept that AG discretion from 1255(a) is limited to the final decision as denial has to state reasons for denial.
P.S. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I express my own views only
Last edited by a moderator:
good news
Secret Evidence Amendment Fails!
Wednesday, June 06, 2007…Today, by a vote of 46-51, the US Senate voted down Senator Cornyn’s amendment (#1184) that would have allowed the use of secret evidence. This legislative success is a direct result of the thousands of opposition calls that flooded Senate offices over the past few weeks. Had it passed this dangerous amendment could have denied lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence.
ADC chapters and activists from across the country responded enthusiastically to the call to help defeat the Cornyn amendment. Congratulations on your legislative victory and thank you for all of your work!
Secret Evidence Amendment Fails!
Wednesday, June 06, 2007…Today, by a vote of 46-51, the US Senate voted down Senator Cornyn’s amendment (#1184) that would have allowed the use of secret evidence. This legislative success is a direct result of the thousands of opposition calls that flooded Senate offices over the past few weeks. Had it passed this dangerous amendment could have denied lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence.
ADC chapters and activists from across the country responded enthusiastically to the call to help defeat the Cornyn amendment. Congratulations on your legislative victory and thank you for all of your work!
springbranch
Registered Users (C)
This is exact wording
"A review of the FBI's name check Program database revealed that your request was received from the USCIS on ........and it is currently in process"
There was a recent thread started by one of fellow contributers shedding some light over this issue. As indicated on that thread, some people got name check completed after receiving this mail however some people did not.
Depends on how lucky you are!!!!
Good luck