You have to agree with AUSA on the timeline. If you are not able to come to agreement, the court will set it.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
You have to agree with AUSA on the timeline. If you are not able to come to agreement, the court will set it.
Sec 1255(a)(3) states
“an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.”.
This is interesting. So Congress knew fully well that if Visa #s are not used in a particular year they cannot be recaptured. Even then it mandated that the immigrant visa be available at the time of filing not at the time of adjudication based on eligibility determined by USCIS and FBI. This shows that Congress never intended for this process to go beyond the calendar year in which the applicant applied.
Otherwise Congress would have allowed everyone to apply for I485 and worded the statute that "an immigrant visa is immediately available to him after eligibility is determined".
Is the above a valid argument ?
“an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.”.
This is interesting. So Congress knew fully well that if Visa #s are not used in a particular year they cannot be recaptured. Even then it mandated that the immigrant visa be available at the time of filing not at the time of adjudication based on eligibility determined by USCIS and FBI. This shows that Congress never intended for this process to go beyond the calendar year in which the applicant applied.
Otherwise Congress would have allowed everyone to apply for I485 and worded the statute that "an immigrant visa is immediately available to him after eligibility is determined".
Is the above a valid argument ?
Well I'll let him know tomorrow and see what he says.
I found a recent ruling from my judge - favorable
OK. I feel a bit relaxed after finding out one recent ruling from the judge who is assigned to my case. THe ruling is on an AOS case, and the judge denied the MTD. Interestingly enough, the AUSA in this case is also my AUSA.
One thing in the ruling I found to be hilarious was:
5 USC 551(13): 'agency action' includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act;
5 USC 701(2): agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
So the defendants asserted that based on the above two, failure to act is committed to agency discretion by law.
How funny
Read page 8 lines 9-12.
OK. I feel a bit relaxed after finding out one recent ruling from the judge who is assigned to my case. THe ruling is on an AOS case, and the judge denied the MTD. Interestingly enough, the AUSA in this case is also my AUSA.
One thing in the ruling I found to be hilarious was:
5 USC 551(13): 'agency action' includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act;
5 USC 701(2): agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
So the defendants asserted that based on the above two, failure to act is committed to agency discretion by law.
How funny
Read page 8 lines 9-12.Regarding my posting a few minutes ago, I see on the CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL page the following:
Cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. Counsel argue the tentative ruling, a copy of which is attached hereto. Matter is taken under submission.
What does the above mean? It does not seem to be the final order or something. It says "[Tentative] Order Denying Defendant's MTD ..."
Anybody knows what is meant by "Matter is taken under submission" ?
Cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. Counsel argue the tentative ruling, a copy of which is attached hereto. Matter is taken under submission.
What does the above mean? It does not seem to be the final order or something. It says "[Tentative] Order Denying Defendant's MTD ..."
Anybody knows what is meant by "Matter is taken under submission" ?
Exactly. Congress never thought that AOS may take more than one year. Otherwise why not assign a visa number when AOS application is accepted? Because the pool is limited and the demand is always higher, USCIS delays disturb the balanced system created by Congress. The numbers go wasted and the backlog grows. I would not tie it to the same calendar year as a) everything is tied to a fiscal year and b) what if person applies at the end of December? But if the whole process falls within 365 days, the system works just fine. The numbers may become oversubscribed a little bit, but they will never be wasted. An oversubscription can be regulated using visa bulletin.
My wife's case (Sacramento) is stuck since April'2005
Roy, Please update your status. My wife's case is on hold since Aug'2005 Interview. She had her second fingerprinting on April'2007.
Roy, Please update your status. My wife's case is on hold since Aug'2005 Interview. She had her second fingerprinting on April'2007.
Researching WOM Cases at the Court
Guys:
How can one research past WOM cases at their local court to see how past WOM cases were treated at my disctrict court ?
I am putting togather my WOM case and plan to file it next week. Can I just got to the Clerk Court or is there some other online way ?
Also, I assume that in case my WOM is unsuccessful, it will not have a negative affect on my case, right ?
At most they will throw it out, I lose about $350, and am not really worse off... though I intend to push it through.
There has been talk of pooling resources to hire an attorney to file multiple cases... any progress on that ?
Guys:
How can one research past WOM cases at their local court to see how past WOM cases were treated at my disctrict court ?
I am putting togather my WOM case and plan to file it next week. Can I just got to the Clerk Court or is there some other online way ?
Also, I assume that in case my WOM is unsuccessful, it will not have a negative affect on my case, right ?
At most they will throw it out, I lose about $350, and am not really worse off... though I intend to push it through.
There has been talk of pooling resources to hire an attorney to file multiple cases... any progress on that ?
dockets.justia.com
ajJax,
goto http://dockets.justia.com and search for cases involving Chertoff under "Other Statutes" and in your district. Then create an account in PACER and read through what those cases are. You should be able to get a good idea.
ajJax,
goto http://dockets.justia.com and search for cases involving Chertoff under "Other Statutes" and in your district. Then create an account in PACER and read through what those cases are. You should be able to get a good idea.
Hi everyone,
After making a phone inquiry with USCIS, I got the letter in the mail from them stating that I will be either notified or that decision will be made on my case within the 60 days from date on letter.
Anyone got this before? Are they again just buying time or this may actually happen? I was about to file 1447(b).
Any thoughts?
Thank You!
What district r u in? What is your case (I-485 or N-400)?
If I were you I'd file 1447b anyway to protect myself from denial. I would not put a lot of hope into that letter, I've got quite a few of those during the last 3 years
yvesliu, How did it go today ?
Thanks for asking. The oral debate was long and slow. The judge said she would get back to us. No ruling. :-(
appelate case to prove mandamus jurisdiction in AOS action
Good news for our lawsuits:
This decision from the 10th circuit states that the district court has mandamus jurisdiction to review mandamus claim in I-485 cases.
Rios v. Ziglar, 398 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2005)
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-3009.pdf
Read page 7:
"In Mr. Rios’s case, mandamus is an appropriate form of relief. Mr. Rios alleges that the INS improperly refused to process his application to adjust status under NACARA... Because Mr. Rios alleged that the INS failed to carry out a ministerial task, the court had jurisdiction over his mandamus petition."
Good news for our lawsuits:
This decision from the 10th circuit states that the district court has mandamus jurisdiction to review mandamus claim in I-485 cases.
Rios v. Ziglar, 398 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2005)
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-3009.pdf
Read page 7:
"In Mr. Rios’s case, mandamus is an appropriate form of relief. Mr. Rios alleges that the INS improperly refused to process his application to adjust status under NACARA... Because Mr. Rios alleged that the INS failed to carry out a ministerial task, the court had jurisdiction over his mandamus petition."
Maybe you can submit this as supplemental evidence for your appeal if you haven't already included it in your original appeal? It could only make your argument stronger. Just a thought.
how to find a case in Ninth Circuit?
In the letter that I received from the court, it says:
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
The Court is inclined to excercise jurisdiction and follow the procedures used elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, as described in Mohammad Saeed Aslam v. Alberto R. Gonzales, et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. C06-614MJP, where the following order issued:
"The case is held in abeyance for sixty (60) days while the FBI completed plaintiff's name check. The parties are to file a joint status report updating the Court on the status of plaintiff's application and name check no later than 60 days hence. If the FBI name check has not been completed at that time, the Government must appear on [a date shortly after 60 days hence] to show cause why [plaintiff] should not be immediately naturalized".
I tried to look for the above refenced case on PACER, but could not find it. Any idea how to find the details on this case (Ninth Circuit)?
In the letter that I received from the court, it says:
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
The Court is inclined to excercise jurisdiction and follow the procedures used elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, as described in Mohammad Saeed Aslam v. Alberto R. Gonzales, et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. C06-614MJP, where the following order issued:
"The case is held in abeyance for sixty (60) days while the FBI completed plaintiff's name check. The parties are to file a joint status report updating the Court on the status of plaintiff's application and name check no later than 60 days hence. If the FBI name check has not been completed at that time, the Government must appear on [a date shortly after 60 days hence] to show cause why [plaintiff] should not be immediately naturalized".
I tried to look for the above refenced case on PACER, but could not find it. Any idea how to find the details on this case (Ninth Circuit)?
You should be able to find this case on PACER. I have some of the documents from that docket, and I downloaded them with PACER. The case number from the documents I have 2:06-cv-00614-MJP. I didn't follow this case till the end, so you better look for the full docket on PACER. I attached one very interesting exhibit from this case; I think that all 1447(b) Plaintiffs should use it to show that remand without specific instructions (i.e., deadline) is nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator: