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

bondarenko name check ?

Something interesting that I came up during my research:
Bondarenko v Chertoff (Pro-se won in WD NY).
I see the following case(went up to Supreme court):
NIKOLAY N. BONDARENKO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES
No. 05-74644
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

>>
Nikolay N. Bondarenko petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision ordering him removed.
>>>
it is apparent that Bondarenko used violent force when he committed battery upon the police officer.
 
Something interesting that I came up during my research:
Bondarenko v Chertoff (Pro-se won in WD NY).
I see the following case(went up to Supreme court):
NIKOLAY N. BONDARENKO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES
No. 05-74644
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

>>
Nikolay N. Bondarenko petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision ordering him removed.
>>>
it is apparent that Bondarenko used violent force when he committed battery upon the police officer.

This should tell you that there is a high bar the Federal court has for upholding USCIS rejections and should sooth some anxious nerves on this forum. Its good news. (though the battery part is bad ,we dont know the entire circumstances, but since he won circumstances may have been in his favor)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must say that this forum gives me confidence. At first when I was reading the beginning of the thread it was Publicis and others, but now it sem that Lazycis and others are very helpful. I must say thank you and God Bless you with tears in my eyes. This is from a 6'4" 300lb man who has felt helpless against the "big guys".

My question now is how would one describe in the WOM what the US attorney does if the FBI guy does the following. I ask this because I plan to make the US attorney a defendant.


Respondent Robert S. Mueller, III is the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the ultimate decision-making authority over the plaintiff’s pending name check clearance as alleged in this
complaint.
,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would this include the same for Jurisdiction. Does the Judge have jurisdiction over the case because this is my home state?

Jurisdiction is a different story. I recommend you to register for PACER and download complaint from Razaq case. It will make your preparation so much easier! I do not have that complaint in my library...
Here is a link to sample mandamus complaint for I-485.
http://www.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17057&d=1191491072
You can use it as a template.

Jurisdiction for I-130 case will look like this (same for I-485):

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal question statute) since this is a civil action arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United states, provisions of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Immigration and Nationality Act, INA) and applicable regulations, policies and procedures arising thereunder. This Court may grant relief in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Mandamus Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); and under 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act).
 
lazyuscis and other incredible members of this board-

My name check was cleared recently after pending for nearly 4 years. I first came to know about this in the first week of December. (I just found out the date it was cleared also (10/16/07) after speaking to a TSC rep a little while ago.)

Since the first week of December-

1) I have an SR opened on 12/6/07 to which I have not received a reply yet.

2) I was also told by a TSC rep on 3 weeks ago (12/6/07) that she would send an email request to move the case from exam area to an officer. But nothing has happened.

3) My congressman received a fax last week(12/16/07) that said my case would be assigned to an officer shortly (I have a copy of this fax as well).

But the TSC lady just told me that my case is still pending and it has not been assigned to an officer. Of course she has no clue on when it might get assigned to an officer.

Now, I ask the incredible members of this board on what other tricks I can use to get my case assigned to an officer quickly. A fax to TSC director, first lady or any other creative avenues that you think has a better chance?

I also sent two emails to my lawyer asking him to initiate an inquiry from his end.

Oh BTW, everything else on my case is current, as you can imagine.


Thanks in advance.

If you want to see quick results, file a WOM. When name check is cleared, the government has no excuses at all. Writing to Mr. Bush should also help, but I'd do both just in case :)
 
here is the declaration of Gerard

Could you upload the declaration from Gerard and the part of the MSJ where AUSA argues about the visa number availability?
I think it is only a matter of time that we work out some strategy to deal with these bastards.
 
My question now is how would one describe in the WOM what the US attorney does if the FBI guy does the following. I ask this because I plan to make the US attorney a defendant.

How do I say what the Attorney is responsible ??


Respondent Robert S. Mueller, III is the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the ultimate decision-making authority over the plaintiff’s pending name check clearance as alleged in this
complaint.
 
My question now is how would one describe in the WOM what the US attorney does if the FBI guy does the following. I ask this because I plan to make the US attorney a defendant.

How do I say what the Attorney is responsible ??


Respondent Robert S. Mueller, III is the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the ultimate decision-making authority over the plaintiff’s pending name check clearance as alleged in this
complaint.

Respondent Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General of the United States. Pursuant, inter alia, to 8 U.S.C. § 1103, he is charged with controlling determination of all issues of law pertaining to immigration and with representing the United States of America in various legal matters.
 
Respondent Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General of the United States. Pursuant, inter alia, to 8 U.S.C. § 1103, he is charged with controlling determination of all issues of law pertaining to immigration and with representing the United States of America in various legal matters.


Thanks, lazycis.... sorry,but I'm talking about the U.S. Attorney, not the attorney General
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yiliuer

here is the declaration of Gerard

Hey, yiliuer,
please check out the following news.
It states clearly that USCIS approved some 485 cases without name check results from FBI during this June or July cheoas. That could serve as part of the arguments. Other than that, we should try to find some cases that the court order USCIS to adjudicate the cases even though the visa number seemingly unavailable. Lazycis listed a couple of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin

good luck!
 
wom_ri

Something interesting that I came up during my research:
Bondarenko v Chertoff (Pro-se won in WD NY).
I see the following case(went up to Supreme court):
NIKOLAY N. BONDARENKO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES
No. 05-74644
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

>>
Nikolay N. Bondarenko petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision ordering him removed.
>>>
it is apparent that Bondarenko used violent force when he committed battery upon the police officer.

I still don't quite understand what this means. Could you clarify this please? Or maybe you can post the court order? Thanks
 
what FBI does during namecheck process.

Wommei,
Most of us file WOM because of FBI namecheck delays..I have often wondered(so too would have many) what they have against me(or associated with my name).. It's similar to you applying for a mortgage and the bank tells you that your credit history is the worst they have seen and can only give you with a high interest rate. You will ask them on what basis they did that. Maybe it is an identity theft issue.. But you don't expect the bank to tell you that they will give you a call as soon as they get your credit report. and you are waiting for 2 years to hear from them.
Many namecheck sufferers have common names..so it is fair to think that all Jane Doe's suffer in namecheck if one "Jane Doe" has done something to enter FBI's related databases.
Other's with uncommon names would feel aggrieved further if not many "Jane Doe's" exist and FBI claim's they are investigating your records for 2+ years.
In the example I quoted, one "Bondarenko"(an academic) filed WOM,prose in NDNY(2007) after namecheck delay of 3 years. He won.
The other "Bondarenko" apparently was involved in other things and got USCIS to deport him. He appealed his case all the way upto Supreme court and lost.
I have read the first bondarenko's case, but recently came across the second bondarenko( I havent read this case.. nor am i interested..:) )
Iam speculating the 2nd Bondarenko's name was the cause of delay in 1st bondarenko's namecheck. ( I might very easily be wrong).
IMO, If the FBI really thinks you pose an imminent danger to the country, I am confident that they can identify you(with or without a namecheck from USCIS). It is just that, USCIS burdened them with rechecking 3+million names through all their databases, in addition to fresh 10000+ names every month.. and that they pay them miserly..
So the real culprit behind namecheck delays is USCIS.. Instead of issuing a policy for expediting namechecks for backlogged cases.. I am indignant with rage when I read Canon declaration in my MTD case. They are talking about contractor help to resolve namecheck's involving single hit. Maybe that will help.. maybe not.. What I care is some clear cut policy that gives first priority to help people stuck for many..many years.. it dosen't matter if they have a single hit or a thousand hits.. They have a right to get their name cleared in a timely manner. Until that happens.. WOM's will continue to be filed.
You should read Eldeeb v Chertoff. They spent a year trying to get hold of the ICE agent who flagged the name "Eldeeb" as a excludable smuggler. In the end they declared that this particular Eldeeb was not a .. whatever they cared.. Then they initiated his FBI namecheck.. It is only becos of WOM that those blatant inactions come out for the public to see. USCIS top-brass don't lose their sleep over a possibility that bcos they overlooked something, a GC applicant or naturalized citizen eventually was able to harm this country.
If you read the Ombudsmans report, you will realize that USCIS centers give more priority to low-hanging fruits.. i.e.. cases that can be resolved quickly.. bcos they get more budget allocated to them next year based on the volume of cases that they resolve. In return to filing fees for my I-485, that is certainly not acceptable to me.

I still don't quite understand what this means. Could you clarify this please? Or maybe you can post the court order? Thanks
 
Wommei,
Most of us file WOM because of FBI namecheck delays..I have often wondered(so too would have many) what they have against me(or associated with my name).. It's similar to you applying for a mortgage and the bank tells you that your credit history is the worst they have seen and can only give you with a high interest rate. You will ask them on what basis they did that. Maybe it is an identity theft issue.. But you don't expect the bank to tell you that they will give you a call as soon as they get your credit report. and you are waiting for 2 years to hear from them.
Many namecheck sufferers have common names..so it is fair to think that all Jane Doe's suffer in namecheck if one "Jane Doe" has done something to enter FBI's related databases.
Other's with uncommon names would feel aggrieved further if not many "Jane Doe's" exist and FBI claim's they are investigating your records for 2+ years.
In the example I quoted, one "Bondarenko"(an academic) filed WOM,prose in NDNY(2007) after namecheck delay of 3 years. He won.
The other "Bondarenko" apparently was involved in other things and got USCIS to deport him. He appealed his case all the way upto Supreme court and lost.
I have read the first bondarenko's case, but recently came across the second bondarenko( I havent read this case.. nor am i interested..:) )
Iam speculating the 2nd Bondarenko's name was the cause of delay in 1st bondarenko's namecheck. ( I might very easily be wrong).
IMO, If the FBI really thinks you pose an imminent danger to the country, I am confident that they can identify you(with or without a namecheck from USCIS). It is just that, USCIS burdened them with rechecking 3+million names through all their databases, in addition to fresh 10000+ names every month.. and that they pay them miserly..
So the real culprit behind namecheck delays is USCIS.. Instead of issuing a policy for expediting namechecks for backlogged cases.. I am indignant with rage when I read Canon declaration in my MTD case. They are talking about contractor help to resolve namecheck's involving single hit. Maybe that will help.. maybe not.. What I care is some clear cut policy that gives first priority to help people stuck for many..many years.. it dosen't matter if they have a single hit or a thousand hits.. They have a right to get their name cleared in a timely manner. Until that happens.. WOM's will continue to be filed.
You should read Eldeeb v Chertoff. They spent a year trying to get hold of the ICE agent who flagged the name "Eldeeb" as a excludable smuggler. In the end they declared that this particular Eldeeb was not a .. whatever they cared.. Then they initiated his FBI namecheck.. It is only becos of WOM that those blatant inactions come out for the public to see. USCIS top-brass don't lose their sleep over a possibility that bcos they overlooked something, a GC applicant or naturalized citizen eventually was able to harm this country.
If you read the Ombudsmans report, you will realize that USCIS centers give more priority to low-hanging fruits.. i.e.. cases that can be resolved quickly.. bcos they get more budget allocated to them next year based on the volume of cases that they resolve. In return to filing fees for my I-485, that is certainly not acceptable to me.

After reading many 'affadavit of michael cannon' filed with motion to dismiss and doing some research I think the FBI filing system is more like your everyday desk filing system. Each 'hanging' folder is a 'main' file which may be the name of the suject under FBI investigation like for example 'Don Corleone'. These are the main file names ie those that show up on a FOIPA. Inside a hanging folder are several kinds of paper ie news paper clipings, letters, scribbled notes , pictures, memos ,cell phone records, phone numbers, contacts etc. The names that appear in these may be just names, with no other or very limited info. However an agent can index these names even though they have no info or limited info on these names and 'refence' them to the main 'Don Corleone' file. These are the 'Reference File names' ie those about which FBI has no or limited information but appear relevant to a ongoing investigation. So from this builds a gigantic list of main file and reference file names. They then use all kinds of name mangling algorithms to pick names "phonetically" close to your name with a 'nearby' birth date. eg. 'Hsu' born in 1965 may match 'Su' born in 63, 'Sue' born in 66 etc. These all all 'HITS' that should be now manually resolved. They found out that they dont have staff to handle all this load now, so 329000+ names with hits are pending. When a WOM is filed, they pull up your case from that pile and assign to an agent to resolve the hits. Its sad, but thats how it seesm to work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I filed WOM due to I-485 name check two month ago. Received AUSA motion to dismiss today. A hearing also has been scheduled on January.

I'll file an opposition soon. My question is, what can I do/say in the hearing? Do I need do something before the hearing besides filing the opposition? Thank you.
 
first I would like to wish all those who are in the process of a law a suit or considering filing one good luck and never give up

As this thread is very long and ongoing. I would like if possible for those who have won their case to start a new thread and list a link to the court papers as this would help others and not get lost in a huge thread as well as posting and helping others in this thread.

I too have a current law suit ( a CSPA case )to be heard in July 08 , so know how you all feel
 
Is anyone considerint taking legal action against USCIS for separation of families?

I am a permanent resident. I am frustrated with waiting for my husband to join me and my daughter. I am raising a daughter all alone. Besides missing him, I am under huge stress with my rental business which I would have sold if it was not for my husband. He says when he comes to the US, he will help me. In the meantime, I am struggling with everything. I have medical issues as well. He applied for tourist visa twice to join us and was denied. At the embassy, they did not even want to hear my medical problems.

I am at the end of my robe. This year, I left my professional job to go visit him. When I got back, my business was falling apart and after 4 months of extensive search, I finally landed a job. I like to go see him but I hate to lose my job and leaving my rental property too long.

Isn't it time someone stands up and raises some voice for the USCIS's policy which is brutally separating families? Children growing without a family? Hillary Clinton presented amendment in May but nothing happened? www.unitefamilies.org is also working on this. I just do not see any more action.

Can we alltogether and do something about this?
What is to be afraid of? This is not humane! This is not ethical. It is time to raise awareness. This is not constitutional.
Please let me know what you think.
 
FBI does not owe plaintiff a clear discretionary duty

Lazycis,others:
In my MTD, AUSA argues that
1. "Plaintiff also has named FBI as a defendant in this case. The FBI, however, does not owe plaintiff a clear non-discretionary duty to perform a namecheck in connection with plaintiff's application for adjustment of status. See Eldeeb...
but see Kaplan v Chertoff. Therefore the court is without jurisdiction to review the pace at which the FBI is processing plaintiffs' application.
what is the best strategy to counter that in MTD response ?
 
FBI=two namechecks, USCIS=1 namecheck

I got Walker Declaration(TSC) & Canon Declaration with my MTD from AUSA. It states the following:
Walker:
in July 2005, USCIS submitted a namecheck for him to the FBI...A response is required...before adjudicated.
Canon:
The USCIS has submitted the namecheck for *** to the FBI twice.
The first namecheck request was received on April1, 2005 and has not been completed.
the second namecheck request was received by FBI from USCIS in July 20, 2005 and has not been completed. ...The results ..will be forwarded ..FBI's normal protocol.

Anyone seen this before ?
( I have used first_name last name in most legal docs.. But some credit cards
might have last_name_first_name)..but all of them are linked to 1 SSN :)
 
Top