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

hopeforall2 said:
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
Click to expand...

Hopeforall,

If this amend-t passes (which I think happens only if the bill passes), it takes ability to file under 1447 if there's a nc delay away. And that means most members of forum wouldn't be able to file.

I wanted to pay attention to the effective date. According to this, it is NOT RETROACTIVE:

District Court Jurisdiction- Section 336(b) (8 U.S.C. 1447(b)) is amended to read as follows:

`(b) Request for Hearing Before District Court- If there is a failure to render a final administrative decision under section 335 before the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary of Homeland Security completes all examinations and interviews required under such section, the applicant may apply to the district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. The Secretary shall notify the applicant when such examinations and interviews have been completed. Such district court shall only have jurisdiction to review the basis for delay and remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Secretary for the Secretary’s determination on the application.’.

(h) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section—

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) shall apply to any act that occurred on or after such date of enactment.

So if I'm reading this right, it won't apply to those already filed. But there's a big question if the bill passes altoghether:confused:
 
shvili said:
Hopeforall,
I wanted to pay attention to the effective date. According to this, it is NOT RETROACTIVE:

District Court Jurisdiction- Section 336(b) (8 U.S.C. 1447(b)) is amended to read as follows:
(h) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section—

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) shall apply to any act that occurred on or after such date of enactment.

So if I'm reading this right, it won't apply to those already filed. But there's a big question if the bill passes altoghether:confused:
Click to expand...


After reading the wording again, I started to doubt: what is "the date of the enactment of this Act"? Is it the date the original bill was accepted, or is it the future date???
 
shvili said:
After reading the wording again, I started to doubt: what is "the date of the enactment of this Act"? Is it the date the original bill was accepted, or is it the future date???
Click to expand...

Act refers to the proposed bill (see SEC. 619. EFFECTIVE DATE).
I agree with you that proposed language gives USCIS immunity from 1447(b) suits. Why didn't they just strip 1447(b) altogether? Who knows when 180 day period will start, we will not be notified about it and even if we do, what's the point to sue if court can only send it back to USCIS?
One hope that "all examinations and interviews required under such section" will not include a name check :)
 
Amendment question. Thanks

Dear All,

FBI is only Defendant in my previous Complaint that filed on Feb 23, 2007. I will file an amendment complaint to add USCIS as Defendants. Do I need to server FBI again? I will modify the reliefs related USCIS. Thanks.

Best Regards,
Amy
 
lazycis said:
Act refers to the proposed bill (see SEC. 619. EFFECTIVE DATE).
I agree with you that proposed language gives USCIS immunity from 1447(b) suits. Why didn't they just strip 1447(b) altogether? Who knows when 180 day period will start, we will not be notified about it and even if we do, what's the point to sue if court can only send it back to USCIS?
One hope that "all examinations and interviews required under such section" will not include a name check :)
Click to expand...

There are various versions going around of the bill. The one you are refering to was the last year bill. The current bill is on:

http://www.aila.org/Content/default.aspx?docid=22422

and does not talk about 1447b.

You can tell that the link hopeful posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836286/posts

is not the currnet proposed bill since it does not have a single line about Z-visa which is the basic driving force
behind the bill being discussed in senate
 
Last edited by a moderator:
amyamy said:
Dear All,

FBI is only Defendant in my previous Complaint that filed on Feb 23, 2007. I will file an amendment complaint to add USCIS as Defendants. Do I need to server FBI again? I will modify the reliefs related USCIS. Thanks.

Best Regards,
Amy
Click to expand...

You do not need to serve FBI again, just USCIS and AUSA. Do not forget to get summons for USCIS director.
 
lotechguy said:
There are various versions going around of the bill. The one you are refering to was the last year bill. The current bill is on:

http://www.aila.org/Content/default.aspx?docid=22422

and does not talk about 1447b.

You can tell that the link hopeful posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836286/posts

is not the currnet proposed bill since it does not have a single line about Z-visa which is the basic driving force
behind the bill being discussed in senate
Click to expand...


Thanks lotechguy for the link ,, I have one question though ..

How did you know that the link you posted above is the latest version , I could not find any amendment number or date on the bill.

Thanks.
 
I moved to a different state (in a different district) and address was changed on file, when I file the 1447(b) for N-400 name check pending after interview, should I put both the USCIS local offices as defendants? Or only the current local office? Thanks.
 
You can tell that the link hopeful posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836286/posts
is not the currnet proposed bill since it does not have a single line about Z-visa which is the basic driving force
behind the bill being discussed in senate
Click to expand...

Lo, Lazycis,

what a relief it's not the current version! If it was, and as long as 1427 still discussed the "background checks" as a requirement for adjudication of N-400, that wording would have stripped us from any remedy.

Thank you for doing all the research legwork! (I am busy again and sp spend less time on contributing to forum). Have anyone checked if the new bill version still discusses timelimit on nc completion by FBI? If it does, it may be a good thing for us if it passes...
 
shvili said:
Lo, Lazycis,

what a relief it's not the current version! If it was, and as long as 1427 still discussed the "background checks" as a requirement for adjudication of N-400, that wording would have stripped us from any remedy.

Thank you for doing all the research legwork! (I am busy again and sp spend less time on contributing to forum). Have anyone checked if the new bill version still discusses timelimit on nc completion by FBI? If it does, it may be a good thing for us if it passes...
Click to expand...


From news I hear from AFU (Americans for Family Unity) name check is being considered in the current senate amendments as a purely funding issue ie there seems to be some kind of consensus that name check problem is due to poor funding and so what they expect if anything is just increase in funding for name check without imposing any time limits...however I understand there is one proposal that may make it in the bill, that says that an inter-agency task force will be set up to expedite resolve name checks that are greater than 2 years pending. Ironically, there is expectation that if at all the immigration bill does not get passed, then the Obama Bill has a very good chance of passing. But if immigration bill does pass, obama bill will just vanish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today, I found a new entry in the pacer. "Record of Order by XXXXXXXXXXXX: Setting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, #12, to be taken under advisement by XXXXXXXX on 7/9/2007. ORDER: When submitting dispositive motions and memoranda to the Court, the parties shall either file (in a format compatible with Word Perfect) a disk containing their motions and memoranda, excluding exhibits, or send copies by e-mail to XXXXXXXXXXXX. A MOTION, RESPONSE, OR REPLY WHICH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE STRICKEN. (da) (Entered: 06/06/2007)"

What does that mean? I am thinking about hiring a lawyer, because OPP is too hard for me to come up with in this short time period. With the new information on the pacer, does that mean I don't need to file OPP and just wait for the judge ruling? Is that true that after OPP, the lawyer pretty much do not need to do anything else more? For about $5000, does it worth to hire a lawyer just to file this OPP? I really appreciate any advices.

lazycis said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazycis said:
Act refers to the proposed bill (see SEC. 619. EFFECTIVE DATE).
I agree with you that proposed language gives USCIS immunity from 1447(b) suits. Why didn't they just strip 1447(b) altogether? Who knows when 180 day period will start, we will not be notified about it and even if we do, what's the point to sue if court can only send it back to USCIS?
Click to expand...

You are right, to keep 1447 while removing all other conditions is absurd. So I hope, it will never make it into a passed version (-if it passes, which is a big question).
 
lotechguy said:
From news I hear from AFU (Americans for Family Unity) name check is being considered in the current senate amendments as a purely funding issue ie there seems to be some kind of consensus that name check problem is due to poor funding and so what they expect if anything is just increase in funding for name check without imposing any time limits...however I understand there is one proposal that may make it in the bill, that says that an inter-agency task force will be set up to expedite resolve name checks that are greater than 2 years pending. Ironically, there is expectation that if at all the immigration bill does not get passed, then the Obama Bill has a very good chance of passing. But if immigration bill does pass, obama bill will just vanish.
Click to expand...

Is Obama bill is even being considered? (I don't watch tv but I haven't heard/read of it in a while.) I thought everyone is more focused on the running race which he is losing to Clinton. Please share details on this, if you can.
 
yvesliu said:
Today, I found a new entry in the pacer. "Record of Order by XXXXXXXXXXXX: Setting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, #12, to be taken under advisement by XXXXXXXX on 7/9/2007. ORDER: When submitting dispositive motions and memoranda to the Court, the parties shall either file (in a format compatible with Word Perfect) a disk containing their motions and memoranda, excluding exhibits, or send copies by e-mail to XXXXXXXXXXXX. A MOTION, RESPONSE, OR REPLY WHICH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE STRICKEN. (da) (Entered: 06/06/2007)"

What does that mean? I am thinking about hiring a lawyer, because OPP is too hard for me to come up with in this short time period. With the new information on the pacer, does that mean I don't need to file OPP and just wait for the judge ruling? Is that true that after OPP, the lawyer pretty much do not need to do anything else more? For about $5000, does it worth to hire a lawyer just to file this OPP? I really appreciate any advices.
Click to expand...

yvesliu,

why don't you use info on this forum and try to submit your own opposition? There're several versions available, which you can recycle to compose your own. If you were able to come up with your own complaint, it would be not too much harder to do opposition, IMHO. Of course, it all depends on your time constraints, etc. This is just my opinion because that's what I am planning to do (and also trying not to waste any $$$ on something I think I am able to accomplish myself). Of course, I might think differently if I later find a major mistake in my work -then I will also think of hiring a lawyer.

The part you got on Pacer doesn't look too scary to me, just regular court language saying that you should submit a reply by the due date. Check other examples of docs(s.a. dispositive motions) on Pacer. Then if you can deal with it, you got time to prepare your opposition. (with the help from this forum members).

In any case, good luck!
 
To Shvili, missingpa and other senior members

Hi Shvili, thank you very much for your encouragement. I was thinking real hard trying to justify the $5000+ bill. My worries are that in the past, the AUSA kept asking me if I hired a lawyer, I think that maybe if I have a lawyer, they will treat my case differently. But thank you very much, I think I will give this a try by myself.

Missingpa, I read that you started your OPP already, is that possible you can share some base documents so I can start working on?

shvili said:
yvesliu,

why don't you use info on this forum and try to submit your own opposition? There're several versions available, which you can recycle to compose your own. If you were able to come up with your own complaint, it would be not too much harder to do opposition, IMHO. Of course, it all depends on your time constraints, etc. This is just my opinion because that's what I am planning to do (and also trying not to waste any $$$ on something I think I am able to accomplish myself). Of course, I might think differently if I later find a major mistake in my work -then I will also think of hiring a lawyer.

The part you got on Pacer doesn't look too scary to me, just regular court language saying that you should submit a reply by the due date. Check other examples of docs(s.a. dispositive motions) on Pacer. Then if you can deal with it, you got time to prepare your opposition. (with the help from this forum members).

In any case, good luck!
Click to expand...
 
toolong2 said:
I moved to a different state (in a different district) and address was changed on file, when I file the 1447(b) for N-400 name check pending after interview, should I put both the USCIS local offices as defendants? Or only the current local office? Thanks.
Click to expand...

To be on the safe side, include both, even though I believe it's not necessary to include local offices at all, it's enough to include USCIS Director,FBI Director, US AG and DHS Secretary.
 
Hi, Lazycis and others:
I wonder if any of you have some suggestions or others had same experience, after the motion hearing date, well, the Judge is supposed to make some decision. However, in my case, it was 5/14/07 motion hearing, but since then, there was nothing happening at all. I files my opposition to AUSA's MTD. Now, the AUSA just kept sending in supporting cases to the court, which makes me think they just want to dismiss the case, and he may not even contact the USCIS to work this out at all. In the meantime, I hear nothing from the court. I am in New Jersey. So, as I have read, it seems not to be a good state for the WOM case now.
thanks much!
41906
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top