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

[Publicus]

look who's here, it is nice to know that you still arround, and have the same attention, and interest in encouraging, the same cause, i guess by now you can realize how many have benefited from your experience.
we all salute you

Thank you Sir.

 

[kabi24]

With the thousands of lawsuits filed on the Federal level, Judges cannot read every document filed with the court. That's why even to rule on different cases, they use Magistrate Judge who contrary to the Federal Judges are not appointed by the President of the U.S. This is the reason why I advise everyone here to use the Magistrate Judges.

Good luck,

Publicus

I think there's no way for any of us to make sure that a magistrate judge is going to preside over our cases. In my case i found out that THE chief judge of Western washington District court was assigned. Luckily i saw a couple of his old cases on PACER. and they were all dismissed for adjudication.

 

[Mr LA]

magistrate judge

Thank you Sir.

Hello to the man

Publicus, I think they assigned magistrate judge to my case, is that good or bad ? and who is magistrate judge ?

I thank today and everyday for your help

 

[Haddy]

Very Very Happy To See You

Welcome to the forum. Don't feel confused. You obviousely have a lot to learn. Read this thread, especially the first 15 to 20 pages. You need this number (your case number) whenever you speak about your case to the court or to the defense (Dist. Attorney) Make copies of everything you sent to the court which you have included in your WOM, include the case # and mail a copy to Dist. atty, and all the parties you have sued. Use certified mail, return receipt requested and file this proof of service with the court. There is a copy of this on this thread. The 60 days starts from the date the district atty. receives the complaint and signs for it. Call them and ask about the person handling the cases of immigration litigation. Like I said: Do some reading first, then ask questions and many of the good members here will answer your questions.

Good luck and congratulations on your lawsuit.

Hey Publicus,

I am really happy to see you. I got to this forum by mere luck thru google search. I just read your first 2 or 3 pges and filed my lawsuit. Made some mistakes. But still I am happy to stand for myself. Funny thing is after reading all the pages I felt very bad being so impatient but still I am happy that I filed "Pro Se". Like many others went to many lawyers all would ask lot of money and frankly speaking I dont have that kind of money to spare on lawyers. Long story short. I-485 filed in July 2004 + Interview in
April 2005 and then as usual name check WAIT. I filed in early April and waiting for USCIS to act on my delayed case.

I really THANK YOU for being such a wonderful light in our lives. I truly pray for you. Please, pray for all of us and keep in contact with us whenever you can.

My english expressing skills are not that good, but I say that every one here tries his/her best to accomodate eachother with good advice. Some times in a kidding way and some times very direct. The thing, I am trying to say here is that you brought us together in this forum and I am very very very sure that no one has any bad intentions to hurt anyone. Everyone tries to do their best to help others. Some people have good knowledge and grip on this subject and some people have less. Same way some people can spare more of their quality time and some less. But with all these different styles we all have just one MOTTO "To Stand Tall For Ourselves, We are Not Criminals, We are Not Bad People and We should Not be treated like one and We should not be treated like 3rd class citizens".

It is good to see your writing. Please, if you ever need any help in your life, do not hesitate to ask us. You are more than welcome to Private email me and I will be there for you like good old friend.

God Bless You and God Bless Us All.

Publicus, I like to mention here that there are many good people here like MohamedMohamed, Suzy, and many others who got impressed by you and are helping others. They really deserve your "Job Well Done" Pat on their back.

Please, dont be stranger (keep visiting us when ever possible).

 

[Publicus]

Hello to the man

Publicus, I think they assigned magistrate judge to my case, is that good or bad ? and who is magistrate judge ?

I thank today and everyday for your help

Hi Mr LA:

A Magistrate Judge is usually a lawyer or a prosecutor who get elected by the life-term federal district judges of a particular court, to serve terms of eight years if full-time, or four years if part-time. Magistrates may be reappointed and help with the load of cases.

Usually in less serious criminal cases and some civil litigation, some Federal Courts will use magistrate judges. However this usually requires both parties agreement to do so. I agreed to the use of one when the court asked me.

On the state level many speeding ticket trials are handled by a magistrate.

 

[Publicus]

I think there's no way for any of us to make sure that a magistrate judge is going to preside over our cases. In my case i found out that THE chief judge of Western washington District court was assigned. Luckily i saw a couple of his old cases on PACER. and they were all dismissed for adjudication.

The district where I filed my suit gave me the option to either use one or not. In the meantime the case was referred to a Federal Judge and it stayed as because the defense never agreed to the use of a magistrate judge. I believe you may call your court and ask about the possibility of using a Magistrate. But don't waste too much time on this subject.

Notice that Magistrates can administer the Oath of Allegiance.

 

[Publicus]

...But with all these different styles we all have just one MOTTO "To Stand Tall For Ourselves, We are Not Criminals, We are Not Bad People and We should Not be treated like one and We should not be treated like 3rd class citizens"...

Amen...I agree 100%.

It is good to see your writing. Please, if you ever need any help in your life, do not hesitate to ask us. You are more than welcome to Private email me and I will be there for you like good old friend.

God Bless You and God Bless Us All.

Thank you Sir and you are very welcome. May God help you in this immigration journey and help all of us in our endeavors.

 

[Screaming_Eagle]

Thanks, Publicus. I thought along the same lines. I read the whole tread already , I just thought judge should write something more than just a case #, and a summon is something else than my case + case #.

Mohammed, it is not a blank page, I didnot make myself clear, it is my front page with my name and names of all defendants, and title, etc. Thanks!

Hello ls691035,

In my case when the DA submitted his response for an extension, I have received a copy of his electronics submitted file + the PACER receipt. When the judge granted the DA 30 extension, I got a letter with a copy of the first page of my complaint showing on PACER website (My name, case + case number + defendants and their representative) + Docket Text. I would assume you have received something similar to that. If you email me your case number and the district you filed it in, I can look it up on PACER web and see if it is like what I have received. You can email me at energizer2000@knology.net.

Hope that helps.

 

[PendingN400]

Deny naturalization

I'm not sure why they would deny your case based on the pending Name Check. If they could do that, they'd just start denying ALL cases with pending Name Checks. A pre-emptive strike against lawsuits, so to speak. Obviously, there is a reason why they aren't doing this stuff.

But I think no matter what's said here, you have made up your mind. And don't get me wrong, if I were you, I'm not sure I'd make a decision that is that much different from yours. After all the years of being here, there is no way they should make things THAT difficult!
K

I am curious as to previous precedents in this issue pertaining to "deny naturalization due to pending name check". The reason why I am saying this is due to to two visits I made using Infopass, whereby the immigration officer (including officer-in-charge) threatened me with denying my naturalization application because I pointed out the 120 day rule from the date of examination. They said "if you force a decision, we will have to deny your application" or "if you want a decision now, we will have to deny your application".

I am also grappling with this worry that if I do file a lawsuit under 1447(b), can they just go ahead and deny my application without worrying about legal consequences? In other words, your case can get quite muddled up, since an appeal would then have to be made against their decision prior to pursuing judicial determination. I am perfectly aware of this sole jurisdiction (with the court, not a concurrent judicial and USCIS jurisdiction) issue under 1447(b), but you now have a muddled up judicial case that will require different set of arguements for resolutions. Any thoughts or previous known experience of this kind?

 

[PendingN400]

just a thought,
can anybody contact a famous journalist from New York times or any strong, strong public affecting newspaper, and just explain to him the name check issue, how damging effect have on the legal immigrants.
also tell him about this forum/thread to read so so many devosting strories he can read, to include it if he's intresting to write about it in the media.

New York Times would be the best publication to run a story, as the NY office has maximum number of pending naturalization and other immigration applications. It appears that a disproportionate number of applications from NY stay pending due to naturalization. I think, if many of us sent personal notes to the editor along with references to this forum, you might see a story.

 

[mohamedmohamed]

I am curious as to previous precedents in this issue pertaining to "deny naturalization due to pending name check". The reason why I am saying this is due to to two visits I made using Infopass, whereby the immigration officer (including officer-in-charge) threatened me with denying my naturalization application because I pointed out the 120 day rule from the date of examination. They said "if you force a decision, we will have to deny your application" or "if you want a decision now, we will have to deny your application".

I am also grappling with this worry that if I do file a lawsuit under 1447(b), can they just go ahead and deny my application without worrying about legal consequences? In other words, your case can get quite muddled up, since an appeal would then have to be made against their decision prior to pursuing judicial determination. I am perfectly aware of this sole jurisdiction (with the court, not a concurrent judicial and USCIS jurisdiction) issue under 1447(b), but you now have a muddled up judicial case that will require different set of arguements for resolutions. Any thoughts or previous known experience of this kind?

if they ghave threaten to deny your case after you iled you law suit, that is some you should submitt to the court, but denying your case due to the lack of name check completion, as you can see_if they ever get the ball to do that_ would very easy to defeat, because what they doing is ingnoring the lagal basis on which you have file the suit, 1447(b), which give them only 120 day, and they are obligate by the statue to finsih their investigation in this period.
but lets remember that as long as your case is pending , they can not make any decision about your case period, but they can ask the court to make that decision,which mean that teh cour have either order them to make a decision the judge see appropriate, or at least the judge have to agree on any decion the want to make
so i think you are save from any adverse decision they want to make in your case, because they have to justfy to the court first, the judge have to agree to it, which very unlikely, considering the 120 day, and considereing the whole problem is them and FBI not finishing the work they need to do.

 

[khalafah2000]

I am curious as to previous precedents in this issue pertaining to "deny naturalization due to pending name check". The reason why I am saying this is due to to two visits I made using Infopass, whereby the immigration officer (including officer-in-charge) threatened me with denying my naturalization application because I pointed out the 120 day rule from the date of examination. They said "if you force a decision, we will have to deny your application" or "if you want a decision now, we will have to deny your application".

I am also grappling with this worry that if I do file a lawsuit under 1447(b), can they just go ahead and deny my application without worrying about legal consequences? In other words, your case can get quite muddled up, since an appeal would then have to be made against their decision prior to pursuing judicial determination. I am perfectly aware of this sole jurisdiction (with the court, not a concurrent judicial and USCIS jurisdiction) issue under 1447(b), but you now have a muddled up judicial case that will require different set of arguements for resolutions. Any thoughts or previous known experience of this kind?

Remember one basic point.
When a citizenship application is approved, the IO doesn't have to give any reason. But when they deny the application, they have to give a detailed explanation. IO is not a lawyer and obviously have no legal standing in what he is saying. Remember, you are filing the suit based on a "LAW" and they can not deny your application based on the reason that you want to follow the law by filing the suit. They are just trying to intimidate you and that is it. If I were you, i would rather focus my energies on the lawsuit than this kind of nonsense.

 

[PendingN400]

Deny naturalization

if they ghave threaten to deny your case after you iled you law suit, that is some you should submitt to the court, but denying your case due to the lack of name check completion, as you can see_if they ever get the ball to do that_ would very easy to defeat, because what they doing is ingnoring the lagal basis on which you have file the suit, 1447(b), which give them only 120 day, and they are obligate by the statue to finsih their investigation in this period.
but lets remember that as long as your case is pending , they can not make any decision about your case period, but they can ask the court to make that decision,which mean that teh cour have either order them to make a decision the judge see appropriate, or at least the judge have to agree on any decion the want to make
so i think you are save from any adverse decision they want to make in your case, because they have to justfy to the court first, the judge have to agree to it, which very unlikely, considering the 120 day, and considereing the whole problem is them and FBI not finishing the work they need to do.

Thanks for your reply. However, elsewhere in other threads, I have read (Rajiv included where he has stated that they can deny) that USCIS can deny naturalization applications, period. In fact 10% or more of all naturalization applications are denied, I wonder how many of these (even if small) are denied due to pending background check issue? Perhaps USCIS feels threatened by lawsuits, denies your application, hope it never goes through appeals process or stays stuck, and thus stall for more time whereby they retain jurisdiction.

The issue here is in the interim period, when for example you have issued USCIS a notice with your intent to file a lawsuit, or when you have actually filed a lawsuit and the judge is yet to hear your case, can USCIS go ahead and deny. Are there other precendents such as this?

 

[RealSuperK]

I am curious as to previous precedents in this issue pertaining to "deny naturalization due to pending name check". The reason why I am saying this is due to to two visits I made using Infopass, whereby the immigration officer (including officer-in-charge) threatened me with denying my naturalization application because I pointed out the 120 day rule from the date of examination. They said "if you force a decision, we will have to deny your application" or "if you want a decision now, we will have to deny your application".

I am also grappling with this worry that if I do file a lawsuit under 1447(b), can they just go ahead and deny my application without worrying about legal consequences? In other words, your case can get quite muddled up, since an appeal would then have to be made against their decision prior to pursuing judicial determination. I am perfectly aware of this sole jurisdiction (with the court, not a concurrent judicial and USCIS jurisdiction) issue under 1447(b), but you now have a muddled up judicial case that will require different set of arguements for resolutions. Any thoughts or previous known experience of this kind?

I seriously wouldn't listen too much to what people at Infopass tell you. For the most part they do not know what they are talking about. They will treat you like dirt simply because they feel superior. They will threaten you because they would assume that you don't have balls to go after them. The AUSA I dealt with was giving me the same crap 2 weeks before the 60 day deadline - "You know they can deny your case because your security checks aren't in, don't you?". Now she's asking me to dimiss the case because my oath is on Friday and there is no case.

As for the particular question... well, ok, let's say the application gets denied. What is gonna be the reason for the denial? The USCIS didn't recieve background checks back? Um, why does it become the applicant's problem? I'm sure if you could somehow provide any help, you would. It's not like they asked you for additional information and you failed to provide it. If it's their internal problems, the applicant shouldn't be suffering from it.

I seriously can't think of a good reason why the USCIS and DA would let this stuff go THAT far instead of simply expediting the name check. It is MUCH easier on them to simply ask FBI to look up your name than go through courts and appeals.

K

 

[bashar82]

In Kia v. INS (4th Circuit) the petitioners application was denied after he filed a 1447b lawsuit. However, the basis for denial was the applicants understanding/knowledge of English.

USCIS must give a reason for the denial and in the appeals process the burden to overcome that reason falls on the applicant and therefore I don't think USCIS will deny an application because of the lack of namecheck results.

In my case where USCIS attempted to "deny" my case, my Senator started asking questions and the first AUSA even mentioned to me that he had no idea why USCIS would make such a move.

 

[pharmboy]

Motion to seal docket

Dear all

if you remember, before my case got approved, I filed a motion to seal docket in the court. The motion hearing date was set in PACER, but they didn't sent me a letter regarding this. So just a few minutes ago, I called the court and asked the clerk on this, she asked if I am pro se, and then asked for my case number, and then told me that I don't need to show up for the motion hearing. Should I trust her? I mean, it is a hearing in the court. I still want to keep this case active before I receive the physical card. Please advise.

 

[syt]

Sty:

Thank you for sharing Lawyer's information. I am in almost exactly same situation. I passed my interview 4/20 and had not heard anything since then. It is just wrong for USCIS to keep everyone in the dark and doesn't know what is the end of this citizenship process. I think I will sue them once 120 days pass by. I live not too far away from SF. Therefore, I can use the lawyer's information you posted. Thansk a lot. Please keep us updated for your case. By the way, you mentioned that winning 1447(b) petition is 100%. Did Justin Wang said that? Thanks.

jack

Jack,

Yes, he told me that if the only problem is the name check pending for your n-400 naturalization case.

 

[mohamedmohamed]

In Kia v. INS (4th Circuit) the petitioners application was denied after he filed a 1447b lawsuit. However, the basis for denial was the applicants understanding/knowledge of English.

USCIS must give a reason for the denial and in the appeals process the burden to overcome that reason falls on the applicant and therefore I don't think USCIS will deny an application because of the lack of namecheck results.

In my case where USCIS attempted to "deny" my case, my Senator started asking questions and the first AUSA even mentioned to me that he had no idea why USCIS would make such a move.

Um, why does it become the applicant's problem
superk is absolutely right, they cant deny your case, what reason they can cite, FBI messing up, thay cant come up with the N/c whithing the period defined by the statute?,that right will tell the judge a lot, about how strong their case is.
the basis for denial was the applicants understanding/knowledge of English.
at least there was a reason in that case, and trust me, if they have any acceptable reason to deny his or any one else case, they would do it in a blink of an eyes, just by the fact they havent deny, means that simply they can not.
Should I trust her?
ohamrboy, i think you can trust the clerk, they have nothing against you, and no reason to deceive you, beside a moton like this, may not need you presence, because no one is fighting , and arguing it, so why would the judge deny it?, i dont see why.

 

[boston_case]

How did you calculate 120 days...?

Jack,

Yes, he told me that if the only problem is the name check pending for your n-400 naturalization case.

Syt,
I think you can file 1447(b) lawsuit on 8/9/06. Your 120 days clock starts from the interview day.

Only problem we got to keep our fingers crossed that S.2611 does not become law before that.

 

[meshmesh]

New York Times would be the best publication to run a story, as the NY office has maximum number of pending naturalization and other immigration applications. It appears that a disproportionate number of applications from NY stay pending due to naturalization. I think, if many of us sent personal notes to the editor along with references to this forum, you might see a story.

I agrre 100%.
Contacting the media is the best solution to get the public attention to this issue.
and i belive that many name check vectum will be encourged to tell thier stories.
realize that many many NC vectumes do not even know about thier rights of suing, and they even do not know any thing about this forum.