I don't understand why my lawyer pushed for the oral debate. Maybe because my case is too weak? I don't know. Just have my fingers crossed.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
I don't understand why my lawyer pushed for the oral debate. Maybe because my case is too weak? I don't know. Just have my fingers crossed.
Why would your case be any weaker than any of us. the only difference is the number of months we've all been waiting.
FYI: They got their GC on May 24 before they filed opposition to MTD.don't know why he didn't dismiss his case.
CIS memo
Hello everyone,
Last year the CIS had sent a memo to the district and regional directors about the stopping of interim EAD issuance at district offices (see attached). On page 4 of this memo, there is the following paragraph in bold:
----
In the event that an application is not adjudicated within the regulatory time frame, each Service Center and the NBC have established a dedicated telephone line to answer field office inquiries when an applicant appears for an interim EAD. Since the affected alien will be in the field office at the time the inquiry is made, the NBC and Service Centers will attempt to respond to any inquiry within 30 minutes of receipt. Inquiries made to a Service Center or the NBC after their normal business hours should be sent to the email addresses listed below, with the response from the Service Centers or NBC provided to the local office by 10:00 the next business day.
Once contacted by a local office, it will be the responsibility of the Service Center or NBC to either adjudicate the pending Form I-765 or issue an interim EAD.
-----
To me, it sounds too good to be true that they will respond in 30 minutes. My question is, have people done this and have the local field offices been cooperative in this regards and has this worked? I have made an Infopass to go tomorrow and try this out since mine's been pending for over 1.5 years (yes, EAD renewal application for more than 1.5 years!) but I wanted to get an idea.
Thanks.
Hello everyone,
Last year the CIS had sent a memo to the district and regional directors about the stopping of interim EAD issuance at district offices (see attached). On page 4 of this memo, there is the following paragraph in bold:
----
In the event that an application is not adjudicated within the regulatory time frame, each Service Center and the NBC have established a dedicated telephone line to answer field office inquiries when an applicant appears for an interim EAD. Since the affected alien will be in the field office at the time the inquiry is made, the NBC and Service Centers will attempt to respond to any inquiry within 30 minutes of receipt. Inquiries made to a Service Center or the NBC after their normal business hours should be sent to the email addresses listed below, with the response from the Service Centers or NBC provided to the local office by 10:00 the next business day.
Once contacted by a local office, it will be the responsibility of the Service Center or NBC to either adjudicate the pending Form I-765 or issue an interim EAD.
-----
To me, it sounds too good to be true that they will respond in 30 minutes. My question is, have people done this and have the local field offices been cooperative in this regards and has this worked? I have made an Infopass to go tomorrow and try this out since mine's been pending for over 1.5 years (yes, EAD renewal application for more than 1.5 years!) but I wanted to get an idea.
Thanks.
Question per to Relief statement in complaint
Below is the Relief statement used in my complaint. I just realized that (b) may cause problem for the case because the court may only require USCIS to adjudicate but it is in USCIS's discretion to either approve or disaprove an AOS application. Please jump in and share your view.
P. S., Do I need to amend the complaint? Is it too late to do so?
Thank you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREFORE, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, the Plaintiffs respectfully
pray that the Defendants be cited to appear herein and that, upon due consideration, the Court
enters an order:
(a) requiring Defendants to properly adjudicate Plaintiffs’ application for
action on approved petitions;
(b) requiring Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with Notice of Approvals;
(c) granting such other relief at law and in equity as justice may require.
Below is the Relief statement used in my complaint. I just realized that (b) may cause problem for the case because the court may only require USCIS to adjudicate but it is in USCIS's discretion to either approve or disaprove an AOS application. Please jump in and share your view.
P. S., Do I need to amend the complaint? Is it too late to do so?
Thank you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREFORE, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, the Plaintiffs respectfully
pray that the Defendants be cited to appear herein and that, upon due consideration, the Court
enters an order:
(a) requiring Defendants to properly adjudicate Plaintiffs’ application for
action on approved petitions;
(b) requiring Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with Notice of Approvals;
(c) granting such other relief at law and in equity as justice may require.
You do need to amend to avoid dismissal. The decision regarding approval or denial is discretionary. What stage are you on? Did you receive an answer (not MTD)? If not, it is easy to amend, ask AGC4ME.
Amend a to
(a) requiring Defendants to properly adjudicate Plaintiffs’ application for
permanent residency within a reasonable time;
(b) requiring Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with Notice of the decision regarding his application;
Only oral and email communication with the AUSA and no answers yet. Thanks lazycis.
AGC4ME, would you mind to follow up?
Thanks!
duck008,
you can also check this post, it applies to your situation
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1734869&postcount=12176
It's easy to amend before answer is filed, you do not need a permission from court.
you can also check this post, it applies to your situation
http://boards.immigration.com/showpost.php?p=1734869&postcount=12176
It's easy to amend before answer is filed, you do not need a permission from court.
6th circuit-Motion to Dismiss History
Paz, Lazycis and other experienced members,
I have a MTD hearing on Eastern District of Michigan for a pending I485/namecheck case scheduled for mid August. Unfortunately in our district there have been 3 unfavorable rulings in July where the MTD was granted
. That is probably enough to kill my case I assume! Here are my questions,
1- Does anyone know any favorable ruling on MTD in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky) that I can cite in which the judge denied MTD?
2- What is the Motion for leave to file supplemental authority in support of motion to dismiss? The AUSA has just filed that and copied the three recent rulings that I have just mentioned.
Paz, Lazycis and other experienced members,
I have a MTD hearing on Eastern District of Michigan for a pending I485/namecheck case scheduled for mid August. Unfortunately in our district there have been 3 unfavorable rulings in July where the MTD was granted
. That is probably enough to kill my case I assume! Here are my questions,1- Does anyone know any favorable ruling on MTD in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky) that I can cite in which the judge denied MTD?
2- What is the Motion for leave to file supplemental authority in support of motion to dismiss? The AUSA has just filed that and copied the three recent rulings that I have just mentioned.
can I file an addendum to my original complaint?
Question for pros. Since I filed my WOM for "N-400 No Interview" on Jan 3, 2007, there have been a number of additional events that have occured.
1. 1/10/07: Received status check response from USCIS. Background check pending
2. 4/11/07: Received FOIPA results. No records found
3. 5/15/07. Received FBI Identification Record. No arrest record found
4. 5/25/07. Received Congressman's reply -FBI says name check pending
5. 7/3/-7. Interviewed by FBI Agent. He said he cleared me and sent his report to USCIS.
6. 7/19/07. Received status check response from USCIS. Background check pending.
The question is: Should I file some sort of an addendum to my original complaint with all this new info since the original filing?
Question for pros. Since I filed my WOM for "N-400 No Interview" on Jan 3, 2007, there have been a number of additional events that have occured.
1. 1/10/07: Received status check response from USCIS. Background check pending
2. 4/11/07: Received FOIPA results. No records found
3. 5/15/07. Received FBI Identification Record. No arrest record found
4. 5/25/07. Received Congressman's reply -FBI says name check pending
5. 7/3/-7. Interviewed by FBI Agent. He said he cleared me and sent his report to USCIS.
6. 7/19/07. Received status check response from USCIS. Background check pending.
The question is: Should I file some sort of an addendum to my original complaint with all this new info since the original filing?
Thanks again lazycis!
U r welcome.
Unfortunately not all opinions are available on that site. Some districts (yours included) did not post any opinions since 2006. Looks like Arlander Keys is indeed a new guy. So check your current judge and if s/he is good, I would oppose any changes. You can request that your case be considered by a regular judge. Magistrate judge usually has less experience. However if you current judge is not good (favors government), it may be a different story.
You can file a motion for supplemental pleadings and ask court's permission to file papers associated with new developments in your case. Read FRCP rule 15(d). After the motion is granted, file those documents and additional facts. They will be considered as part of your complaint.
duck008, I can certainly help you. I have filed amendments twice. You should file an amendment to make sure your prayer for relief doesn't ask for an approval but rather just and adjudication. I have uploaded my motion to file second amendment and my second amendment. The court clerk told me that I do not need to file a motion but it doesn't hurt. The CA handbook said only the first amendment can be filed without Court's permission. If this is your first amendment you don't need the motion. Just title your complaint as FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Change your prayer for relief and file it with court clerk. You also have to execute a certificate of service (attached to my sample) showing the court that the AUSA was served with the amended complaint. I delivered mine personally to the AUSA's office.
Paz, Lazycis and other experienced members,
I have a MTD hearing on Eastern District of Michigan for a pending I485/namecheck case scheduled for mid August. Unfortunately in our district there have been 3 unfavorable rulings in July where the MTD was granted
1- Does anyone know any favorable ruling on MTD in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky) that I can cite in which the judge denied MTD?
2- What is the Motion for leave to file supplemental authority in support of motion to dismiss? The AUSA has just filed that and copied the three recent rulings that I have just mentioned.
I do not recall a favorable AOS ruling in the 6th Cir. However, here is a good case for you to withstand lack of jurisdiction attack:
Coal Operators & Assocs., Inc., v. Babbitt, 291 F.3d 912
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0193p-06.pdf
Basically, the court says that mandamus jurisdiction exists to review mandamus claim under 28 usc 1361.
The Coal Operators case is cited in Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2003)
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/540RBCDU.pdf
"We agree with the Coal Operators court that unless the claim is so frivolous that it fails the Bell v. Hood test, the district court has jurisdiction under § 1361 to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other
adequate remedy available. See Iddir, 301 F.3d at 499. A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not because it now realizes that it had no power to be thinking
about the case in the first place, but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief."
Have you filed an opposition to MTD yet?
chicagoboy3
Registered Users (C)
I was recently told by an IO I am stuck in name check. It has been more than 120 days since my fingerprinting. My filing date is not that old (relatively speaking) as you can see in the timeline below, but I am starting to think that I may be in for a long wait. I understand I am still within the processing timelines as well - for now. Have there been any cases where a WOM was filed by someone who hasn't had their interview yet? What are the chances of success in such a scenario? Snorlax, Shivli, lazycis, other veterans of this board - would appreciate your thoughts on this.
My timeline:
N400 Fedexed: 2/20/07
Priority Date: 2/22/07
Checks Cashed: 3/02/07
FP Letter Received: 3/07/07
FP Scheduled & Taken: 3/20/07
IL Received:
IL Scheduled:
Oath Letter:
Oath Date:
My timeline:
N400 Fedexed: 2/20/07
Priority Date: 2/22/07
Checks Cashed: 3/02/07
FP Letter Received: 3/07/07
FP Scheduled & Taken: 3/20/07
IL Received:
IL Scheduled:
Oath Letter:
Oath Date:
Thanks lazycis. Now the next question is, is it advisable to file supplemental pleading in my case? My original pleading has similar details of events from March 2005 to Decemeber 2006. Now adding these new events that occurred between Jan 07-Jul07, could it help my case? The current Answer Due by Defendants date is September 6. If I file motion for supplemental pleadings, and then file the actual supplemental pleadings, could it push out the Answer Due date? And in turn push out the schedule for my case? What would you suggest? To file or not to file supplemental pleading is the question.