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

Dear Lazycis and AGC4ME,
Thank you very much for your reply. It is really helpful.
AGC4ME, my judge has ordered on my case, granted my
summary judgment, denied defendants' MTD, and ordered
defendants to adjudicate my 485 forthwith. I also found
my case was terminated after judge's order.
Thanks again.

Yaoming

Yaoming,
Please do not worry. Any motion for consideration should be filed within 10 days of the order/entry of judgment. I think 10 days have been passed, right? It does not really make sense for AUSA to appeal because they have no excuse for the delay.
Wait a little more and if nothing happens, we'll come up with something.
 
Thank you very much, Lazycis!

Dear Lazycis,
Thank you very much for your help. I think every one in
this forum agrees with me: you are one of the greatest people
in this forum to help every one's questions, no mater how
naive the question is, you are so patient to answer it.
Thank you very much for your great contribution !
Yes, the order of my case was entered on Oct. 5, 2007.
So it is after 10 days, the AUSA did not file anything so far.
I will keep you posted of my case.
Yaoming

Yaoming,
Please do not worry. Any motion for consideration should be filed within 10 days of the order/entry of judgment. I think 10 days have been passed, right? It does not really make sense for AUSA to appeal because they have no excuse for the delay.
Wait a little more and if nothing happens, we'll come up with something.
 
Thanks duck008 and liuym

duck if you know how xfer the screen name I'll do it. what's in a name huh !!! well those who are/were stuck in name check shouldn't say that may be.
 
Thank You

Lazycis, AGC4ME, Yaoming, Duck008, thank you!

Lazy, I'll pray for you and hope you see your victory soon.
AGC4ME, I'll pray judge rule in your favor for your spouse case (I know you've won your victory).

Yaoming, are you the famous basketball star? :))

Duck008, I'm attaching my letter to Ombudsman, I put it together based on the collective wisdom of this forum, especially from the postings of Lazycis, AGC4ME, and more...

Wish everyone good luck!


I join the celebration. This is wonderful!
 
form and letter

Duck008,

You can find out the instructions on this website, and fill out DHS Form 7001 and prepare a letter (I've already attached the letter in my last post).

http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0497.shtm

I basically wrote letters to almost all the officials I can think of including first lady (not like some other members, i have no luck with first lady's help), but keep doing all you can, you never know which step you become lucky, all the effort will come together to give USCIS a lot pressure, and I do believe when judge finally started to scheduling conference, USCIS feel they will have little chance to win, so instead of wasting more time and resource to continue the fight, they decide to adjudicate and close the case fast.


I think I will try this Ombudsman too. Could you tell us how did you do it? If there is a sample write up, could you please post?

Thanks
 
After I filed a WOM case on Aug. 14 (Maryland), things got into motion.
I got a call from AUSA telling me that my name check is cleared and that USCIS is ready to adjudicate and approve my petition.
However, he told me that according to a recent reading in 4th Circuit Etape v. Chertoff, USCIS can't adjudicate while there's a federal case pending.
AUSA suggested "administrative dismissal" and sent me drafts of
"Consent MtD without predjudice", to be filed by their office and citing my consent, and Court Order. The consent states that USCIS is ready to adjudicate immediately upon receipt of the Order but no later than within 30 days. The Order says that if this does not happen I may reopen the case within 60 days.

Should I agree? On the face of it this looks good, in the worst case, this will be a month's delay.


Timeline:
N-400 filed Feb. 2005, FP Apr. 05, Interview June 05.
WOM case filed on Aug. 14 2007, FP Aug. 29 2007

Agreed to dismissal, court order arrived by mail 2 days after that followed shortly by notice of oath ceremony which went swimmingly. End of close to 3yr ordeal. Thanks to everyone who provided advice: it works!
 
hi lazycis
i wanted to file wom asap...
i confirmed with 2 infopass appointment that my NC intiated on jan-22nd 2005.
so its more than 33 months.
and i would kike to file my self
please please need help with some questions
 
my main question is do i have to wait until get the reply from first lady?
what i got is
1. SR requested on july 14th
2.reply for that SR 60 day wait
3.two info pass
4. two letters from senators

i am waiting for
1 file ombudsman after 60 days of reply for SR
2 waiting the reply from first lady
3 waiting for my FOIA report

AND THE BIGQUESTION IS WHERE DO I START

thanks all gurus in advance for ur help
 
Heckler v. Chaney

Lazycis, AGC4ME and others,
I appreciate if you could look at the Supreme Court case Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821 at 830. This page sounds like a disaster.
" In such a case, the statute ("law") can be taken to have "committed" the decisionmaking to the agency's judgment absolutely. This construction avoids conflict with the "abuse of discretion" standard of review in 706 - if no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when an agency should exercise its discretion, then it is impossible to evaluate agency action for "abuse of discretion."

Can you think of a way we can respond to the argument of this case or in the alternate to prove that this case is totally irrelevant to the immigration cases we are concerned? The Supreme Court held that the Food and Drug Administration's decision not to take the enforcement actions requested by the inmates was not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
 
Heckler v. Chaney - IMHO

The court held that
"The APA's comprehensive provisions for judicial review of "agency actions" are contained in 5 U.S.C. 701-706. Any person "adversely affected or aggrieved" by agency action, see 702, including a "failure to act," is entitled to "judicial review thereof," as long as the action is a "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court," see 704. The standards to be applied on review are governed by the provisions of 706.
But before any review at all may be had, a party must first clear the hurdle of 701(a). That section provides that the chapter on judicial review "applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that - (1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law." Petitioner urges that the decision of the FDA to refuse enforcement is an action "committed to agency discretion by law" under 701(a)(2)."

Essentially court find that the action in question is committed to agency discretion by law, which is not the case in our cases. The USCIS is required by the INA to exercise its discretion and issue a decision upon an application.
Also this case is related to 5 USC 706(2) - "abuse of discretion", while our cases relate to 5 USC 706(1) - "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" action. The SC concluded that review is precluded for abuse of discretion in Heckler because the underlying law - Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not provide guidelines for this particular case. The court further noted:

"We of course only list the above concerns to facilitate understanding of our conclusion that an agency's decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review under 701(a)(2). For good reasons, such a decision has traditionally been "committed to agency discretion," and we believe that the Congress enacting the APA did not intend to alter that tradition. Cf. 5 Davis 28:5 (APA did not significantly alter the "common law" of judicial review of agency action). In so stating, we emphasize that the decision is only presumptively unreviewable; the presumption may be rebutted where the substantive statute has provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers.[Footnote 4] Thus, in establishing this presumption in the APA, Congress did not set agencies free to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers."

That is the difference! The INA does provide guidelines for the government as to how to process an application (I-485 or N-400) and by ignoring an application, the government violates statutory scheme laid down in the INA. Moreover, both 8 USC 1154 and regulations require the USCIS to issue a decision upon an application. Then we have a judicial standard to review agency delay outlined in TRAC. Whether to adjudicate an application is not an action committed to the AG discretion by law and does not fall within the scope of 5 USC 701(a)(2).
For the aforementioned reasons, Heckler is not applicable here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lazycis, AGC4ME and others,
The Supreme Court held that the Food and Drug Administration's decision not to take the enforcement actions requested by the inmates was not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

You yourself answered the question. Look at the bolded part statement. In your case USCIS has not taken any decision. In fact the case is to force USCIS to take some decision. Therefore the protection under Heckler v. Cheney will come once they decide on your petition.

The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that there's a razor thin difference between 701(a)(2) and 706(1). Many times agency abuses, such as our delays, will be argued as protected under 701(a)(2) but Supreme Court clearly identified that only those decisions where individual or public's rights are not affected are protected under 701(a)(2). Again the protection comes only after a decision is made.

One example I can give in immigration context is the interview for I485. USCIS cannot ordered to conduct an interview. It's left to the agency discretion. This is protected under 701(a)(2). But delaying the decision on I485 is not. It's rather reviewable under 706(1). Read also Supreme Court's decision on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
 
Important points from Heckler v. Cheney

"Overton Park did not involve an agency's refusal to take requested enforcement action. It involved an affirmative act of approval under a statute that set clear guidelines for determining when such approval should be given. Refusals to take enforcement steps generally involve precisely the opposite situation, and in that situation we think the presumption is that judicial review is not available. HN5Go to this Headnote in the case.This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123-124 (1979); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 (1967); Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454 (1869). This recognition of the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.

The reasons for this general unsuitability are many. First, an [***724] agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise. Thus, the [**1656] agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency's overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing. The agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved [*832] in the proper ordering of its priorities. HN6Go to this Headnote in the case.Similar concerns animate the principles of administrative law that courts generally will defer to an agency's construction of the statute it is charged with implementing, and to the procedures it adopts for implementing that statute. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978); Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 87 (1975).

In addition to these administrative concerns, we note that HN7Go to this Headnote in the case.when an agency refuses to act it generally does not exercise its coercive power over an individual's liberty or property rights, and thus does not infringe upon areas that courts often are called upon to protect. Similarly, when an agency does act to enforce, that action itself provides a focus for judicial review, inasmuch as the agency must have exercised its power in some manner. The action at least can be reviewed to determine whether the agency exceeded its statutory powers. See, e. g., FTC v. Klesner, 280 U.S. 19 (1929). Finally, we recognize that an agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict -- a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3. "

I've posted the relevant paragraphs and bolded relevant sections to provide some context.
1. USCIS has not refused to act. It has already set in motion some of the processing required. According to Heckler v. Cheney, "when an agency does act to enforce, that action itself provides a focus for judicial review". Therefore the court has judicial authority to review USCIS action to completion.
2. Heckler made it clear that an action protected under 701(a)(2) should not affect individual's liberty or property rights, and thus does not infringe upon areas that courts often are called upon to protect. That's not the case here either.

Here the question is not USCIS' refusal to process your application but rather the delay in processing the application.
 
Congrats Bou, can you please share your details with on my email?

Hi Bou,
I was following your case and am excited to hear that it ended in your favor. What do you think the situation is for WOM for AOS cases in MA, are the judges friendly towards them? I am in MA and planning to file WOM-AOS employment based after 18 month mark. As you can see from my signature that it's been little over a year since my NC pending.
I would appreciate if you could share your docs even though you didn't get to file them with me (of course you can block personal information).

jefkorn AT yahoo DOT com

Best Regards.
TODAY is the day! Finally after waiting and struggling and fighting for so long and when I feel most despair, I got the good news.

I was unable to come to this forum for some time, just to update all with my case development. I was waiting for more than 6 month for judge ruling on MTD and was in the process of preparing and filing of MSJ. I've decided to wait another month to file since I got the response letter from Ombudsman saying they initiated a formal inquiry and should hear from USCIS soon. Then judge ordered scheduling conference. Then USCIS filed their decision-approval of my AOS application. Everything happened within short period of time, after long time of no action, I was overwhelmed. I agree with other members that once USCIS got motivated, they can move very fast.

My case is one of those most simple case yet had to wait more than 4 years. I feel so grateful to this forum, and the active members, like paz1960, Lazycis, AGC4ME, Lotechguy, many more... For those who still fighting and waiting, please do not give up. I know the feeling how despair you can be, but fighting back is still the only way to have your case resolved.
 
Hello friends. Finally I have got my green card!!! Thank you very much for your help. Here is my timeline.
July 2003 I-485 filed
October 2003 namecheck was submitted by INS to FBI
May 2007 lawsuit was filed pro se
June 2007 AUSA asked for 30 days extension
August 2007 AUSA filed MTD
August 2007 I filed the response to MTD
September 2007 AUSA filed response to my response to MTD
September 2007 conference call with the judge where he asked AUSA to press the FBI
October 2007 AUSA sent me email with the GC approval
Here are my ideas.
1.Sue, sue, and sue but only after 2 years of waiting and after you collected all letters from senators and FBI. Without law suite you will be waiting forever.
2. Sue Pro Se and save money, with lawyer or without your namecheck get expedited after you file complaint. Call AUSA, be friendly, ask if INS has issued the namecheck expedite letter.

I guess, this is it. Thank you very much, my friends, for your great help! I am leaving this forum but I will be back in 3 years when I sue the government for my citizenship.
I wish you all success with your green cards and citizenships!
 
jefkorn

jefkorn, thank you. You have very good chance to win WOM for AOS in MA, but you do have to exhaust all efforts. Start to make FOIPA, write to officials you think may help, start to collect all those responses as your evidence when it's time to file your WOM. You don't have to get all the evidence to file, try collect most of them, you can always file more evidence as you get more, but usually 2 years waiting is considered unreasonable, things are getting tougher since more people are filing WOM, longer waiting time will make your case stronger, there is a balance point you need decide as to how long you are willing to wait and what makes your case look stronger.

I strongly suggest you register PACER, have a PACER account, you will get valuable information and document filed, including initial WOM filing, different motions, etc. It costs 8 cents per page, but it's well worth the money.

I had an attorney to help me, but if you have time, pro se gives you all the freedom as to when and how to file what document to push your case forward. I followed AGC4ME's MSJ (you can search his postings find it) to prepare mine, I was filling in all my personal related info and experiences when I got the good news, so it's not much of help to you.

I wish you good luck in your case!

Hi Bou,
I was following your case and am excited to hear that it ended in your favor. What do you think the situation is for WOM for AOS cases in MA, are the judges friendly towards them? I am in MA and planning to file WOM-AOS employment based after 18 month mark. As you can see from my signature that it's been little over a year since my NC pending.
I would appreciate if you could share your docs even though you didn't get to file them with me (of course you can block personal information).

jefkorn AT yahoo DOT com

Best Regards.
 
Top