Reverse it, it does not mention I-130. It means that NC is not required for I-130 approval. Sleepless night
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Reverse it, it does not mention I-130. It means that NC is not required for I-130 approval. Sleepless night
NIWwaiting
Registered Users (C)
Anybody know if the visa number is still an issue even the Feb 4's memo said I-485 should be approved within 180 days? The visa number for China is still stucked on Jan 1 2003. Thanks,
Of course visa number is still needed.
EAJA fees for all pending WOMs
I think all WOM filers who have not lost yet and obtain GC's courtesy of new memo can obtain fees under EAJA based on
Jeffrey v INS 710 F. Supp. 486; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3718.
The court there said:
Court granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, holding plaintiff was prevailing party because she had achieved her lawsuit's objective (defendant granted her application), and that defendant had not met its burden of
proving that its position was reasonable under the circumstances because its delay resulted from <losing plaintiff's file> erroneously requiring that plaintiffs namecheck be cleared before adjudication.
I think all WOM filers who have not lost yet and obtain GC's courtesy of new memo can obtain fees under EAJA based on
Jeffrey v INS 710 F. Supp. 486; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3718.
The court there said:
Court granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, holding plaintiff was prevailing party because she had achieved her lawsuit's objective (defendant granted her application), and that defendant had not met its burden of
proving that its position was reasonable under the circumstances because its delay resulted from <losing plaintiff's file> erroneously requiring that plaintiffs namecheck be cleared before adjudication.
Wom ?
If you had filed WOM, they might have preadjudicated your case. If you did file WOM, do take a infopass for further info.
If you had filed WOM, they might have preadjudicated your case. If you did file WOM, do take a infopass for further info.
new online message
My I485 NC has been pending for 2.4 years.
I filed WOM on Sep 12, 2007 and the AUSA is supposed to response in about a week.
I saw an LUD in my case on 2-3-08 and today I see a new online message:
------
Current Status: Duplicate notice sent.
On February 7, 2008, a duplicate notice was mailed to you regarding a decision on this case, or describing how we will process the case if it is still pending. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If this I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS is still pending, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, contact our customer service at 1-800-375-5283. Note that we process each kind of case in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be completed by following the link below for current processing dates. You can also receive automatic-email updates as we process your case by following the link below to register. Your case is at our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location.
-----
Has anyone recieved this kind of message? Is this a denial message?
THX
My I485 NC has been pending for 2.4 years.
I filed WOM on Sep 12, 2007 and the AUSA is supposed to response in about a week.
I saw an LUD in my case on 2-3-08 and today I see a new online message:
------
Current Status: Duplicate notice sent.
On February 7, 2008, a duplicate notice was mailed to you regarding a decision on this case, or describing how we will process the case if it is still pending. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If this I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS is still pending, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, contact our customer service at 1-800-375-5283. Note that we process each kind of case in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be completed by following the link below for current processing dates. You can also receive automatic-email updates as we process your case by following the link below to register. Your case is at our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location.
-----
Has anyone recieved this kind of message? Is this a denial message?
THX
This is APPROVAL! No kidding and congrats!
Palang:
Frankly speaking, I filed WOM in Aug'07 and I had no clue about legal issues then. Based on the little I learnt since then I have no idea about the legal basis for backdating GC. It seemed reasonable to threaten AUSA about amending the complaint to backdate GC. I don't know how to go about it... but am sure we can find arguments to supplement our just demand.
It seems an ideal candidate for a class action suite. Maybe all of us can join in and hire a good attorney to present the case.
Even though there is no mandate/executive order, this memo is significant because it gives USCIS an escape route from a hole they dug themselves in.
i.e.. They took the moral high ground in all WOM/1447 cases.. beating the drum of national security. However, many judges have beat them on it and required them to adjudicate cases by clear deadlines. Many judges have even threatened to adjudicate 485 cases themselves.. if USCIS does not do it by that deadline. Moreover, for Kaplan v Chertoff settlement, they have to expedite a large number of namechecks in a single go. The FBI can expedite only 100 per week. So, with this memo.. they lose the moral high ground.. but save their face in front of congress..i.e.. this solution is more rationale.. and is not detrimental to national security..
You may ask why they did not do it in 2003 itself..
My guess is.. HUBRIS..
They never thought USCIS could be brought to knees.. by anybody..
If you see most of the USCIS related lawsuits before namecheck cases.. they have won.. why.. bcos.. plaintiffs have mostly done something wrong... or the law was so complex that they did something wrong without knowing it..
Frankly speaking, I filed WOM in Aug'07 and I had no clue about legal issues then. Based on the little I learnt since then I have no idea about the legal basis for backdating GC. It seemed reasonable to threaten AUSA about amending the complaint to backdate GC. I don't know how to go about it... but am sure we can find arguments to supplement our just demand.
It seems an ideal candidate for a class action suite. Maybe all of us can join in and hire a good attorney to present the case.
Even though there is no mandate/executive order, this memo is significant because it gives USCIS an escape route from a hole they dug themselves in.
i.e.. They took the moral high ground in all WOM/1447 cases.. beating the drum of national security. However, many judges have beat them on it and required them to adjudicate cases by clear deadlines. Many judges have even threatened to adjudicate 485 cases themselves.. if USCIS does not do it by that deadline. Moreover, for Kaplan v Chertoff settlement, they have to expedite a large number of namechecks in a single go. The FBI can expedite only 100 per week. So, with this memo.. they lose the moral high ground.. but save their face in front of congress..i.e.. this solution is more rationale.. and is not detrimental to national security..
You may ask why they did not do it in 2003 itself..
My guess is.. HUBRIS..
They never thought USCIS could be brought to knees.. by anybody..
If you see most of the USCIS related lawsuits before namecheck cases.. they have won.. why.. bcos.. plaintiffs have mostly done something wrong... or the law was so complex that they did something wrong without knowing it..
sweetapple
Registered Users (C)
Thank you Lazycis!
Thanks for the answer. My question was posted before the new USCIS memo came out. With this new memo, I hope that I don't have to go through the law suit. It just takes so much time and energy away from my normal life. I think I'll call the senator and congressman again to see how my case has been progressed.
Thank you for all the contributions you made to this thread.
Thanks for the answer. My question was posted before the new USCIS memo came out. With this new memo, I hope that I don't have to go through the law suit. It just takes so much time and energy away from my normal life. I think I'll call the senator and congressman again to see how my case has been progressed.
Thank you for all the contributions you made to this thread.
sweetapple, unfortunately this new memo is not affecting people like you who have a pending N-400 application. The memo refers only to the AOS (and similar) cases, it states specifically that the procedure for the naturalization applications stays unchanged. Your best option is still to file a lawsuit based on 1447(b).
yes, it is approved
Thanks Lazycis.
I received another email saying they ordered production of new card.
It appears to me the Feb 4th memo thing is for real.
I am a bit at loss my WOM case is going to be withdrawn/dismissed. I was fully ready to kick the USCIS' butt.
I still consider the fight worthwhile though. As a matter of fact I think I have done my part of contribution to defeat the NC P.O.S.
Congratulations to all WOM filers, this is a success.
Thanks Lazycis.
I received another email saying they ordered production of new card.
It appears to me the Feb 4th memo thing is for real.
I am a bit at loss my WOM case is going to be withdrawn/dismissed. I was fully ready to kick the USCIS' butt.
I still consider the fight worthwhile though. As a matter of fact I think I have done my part of contribution to defeat the NC P.O.S.
Congratulations to all WOM filers, this is a success.
Not only the Judge. All of you deserve flowers! BIG THANKS FOR FILING ALL THESE WOM's !!!
This is legitemate.. no doubt about it
Thanks to all the folks on this forum. The contribution from all of you indeed gives the much needed confidence and courage to seek ways for resolving issues that we will generally not consider out of the fear of failure.
I was inquiring Murthy law firm about the process for WOM and suddenly I read the new memo. Great news!! I sent the memo to Murthy and now you can read it on their website:
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020708.html
My I485 is pending due to name check since 09/2006. I've been married to a US Citizen since 2000 (my wife became a citizen in 2006) so I'm hoping we hear the good news soon. I'm in Southern California and the local field office is very unhelpful!! The last LUD on my pending I485 is 01/16/08 while my renewal I485 and I131 (AP) applications are also pending for >120 days due to the background check!!
Thanks to all the folks on this forum. The contribution from all of you indeed gives the much needed confidence and courage to seek ways for resolving issues that we will generally not consider out of the fear of failure.
I was inquiring Murthy law firm about the process for WOM and suddenly I read the new memo. Great news!! I sent the memo to Murthy and now you can read it on their website:
http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020708.html
My I485 is pending due to name check since 09/2006. I've been married to a US Citizen since 2000 (my wife became a citizen in 2006) so I'm hoping we hear the good news soon. I'm in Southern California and the local field office is very unhelpful!! The last LUD on my pending I485 is 01/16/08 while my renewal I485 and I131 (AP) applications are also pending for >120 days due to the background check!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Just called the CIS...
My I-485/I-130 has been pending since September of 2004. After the news of the new CIS memo, I just called the CIS and inquired about my case. I was able to speak with an IO, who first acted extremely surprised that my marriage-based application has been pending since Sept of 2004, and I haven't even had an interview. And then he just said that there is nothing more he can do for me (duuh, he hadn't done anything to start with yet, besides acting surprised).
I asked him if my file was assigned to an adjudicating officer and he said yeah it is with an officer, and it has been (so nothing new).
And btw, he had no clue about the memo. He asked me about it and when he heard that it was on an official USCIS letterhead, he said "oh yeah, then that's official."
Nice guy...but not very helpful! So I don't know how people were able to talk to IO's and get the news that there files were being assigned to adjudicators...
My I-485/I-130 has been pending since September of 2004. After the news of the new CIS memo, I just called the CIS and inquired about my case. I was able to speak with an IO, who first acted extremely surprised that my marriage-based application has been pending since Sept of 2004, and I haven't even had an interview. And then he just said that there is nothing more he can do for me (duuh, he hadn't done anything to start with yet, besides acting surprised).
I asked him if my file was assigned to an adjudicating officer and he said yeah it is with an officer, and it has been (so nothing new).
And btw, he had no clue about the memo. He asked me about it and when he heard that it was on an official USCIS letterhead, he said "oh yeah, then that's official."
Nice guy...but not very helpful! So I don't know how people were able to talk to IO's and get the news that there files were being assigned to adjudicators...
I also called the uscis, and same thing, it's me who broke the news first to that person handling the call. So, she had to put me on hold to verify the news. After 10 or 15 minutes, she came back and said-yeah, it's new. We didn't kow about it, you know, we don't work that fast (HUH!- no kidding)." I just laughed, and said "so?" So, my fp expired this month, which I knew, so she is sending the file to an AO so that it can get settled. That's all from the conversation.
Same here. In fact, I included a single reference to the statute in my original complaint because I was given a complaint form by clerk and the form said not to cite any statutes. How silly of me to believe it?
Estoppel is our only hope here, it seems.
At least we can certainly afford the initial consultation.
Yes, this is big. I think they did not do it for natz cases only because the volume of lawsuits is much smaller. Look for the volume to pick up now
Could not have said it better myself. The USCIS backtracked only because the number of expedite requests overwhelmed the FBI capabilities. Plus, Kaplan's settlement. They did not want to be held in contempt by courts which ordered the USCIS to adjudicate cases. Judge Baylson was the last drop - the USCIS could not improve processing speed for natz cases without dropping AOS.
You answered your question. I've read enough briefs to understand the size of government's arrogancy. Looks like they actually believed in what was written in those briefs - that they do not have a duty to process applications in any particular timeframe. The sad part is that many judges believed that blatant lie. On the bright side, there are still many judges (the overwhelming majority) who did not lose honor, sanity and independent, not-biased thinking. It strenghtened my faith in US justice system. Another bright side is that people came out of the shadows and fought for their rights. A single person would not be able to achieve it. We could provide templates, giudes, but if not for thousands people who took the issue to courts, we would not have this victory. Well done, my friends!
WhereIsMyGCUSA
Registered Users (C)
Which center? Which phone #?
Which phone number and which center did you call?
Did you talk to the customer representative or an immigration officer?
Thanks.
Which phone number and which center did you call?
Did you talk to the customer representative or an immigration officer?
Thanks.
Of course. We could not miss that one.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1645409&postcount=10230
I called the regular 1-800-375-5283 # on the case status screen on uscis web. However, I choose the option that says if you have questions on a recent rfe request sent by uscis. Only then my call gets routed to Cali Svc center where my case is currently pending. I feel they know lot more than those regular customer service people. I talked to a customer service person, but as mentioned I believe they have access to more info than a regular customer sevc person.