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

cover sheet

I am ready to sue the USCIS to Eastern NY court. I have 5 defendants, then how many copies of complaints needed ?

The cover sheet, should I fill it , or the court clert will do it ?

could you confirm this
"You will need to mail (certified) a copy of your complaint +2 summons to the attorney general, complaint + one summon to the US attorney for your district, complaint + one summon for each defendant." ?

thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gosueins said:
I am ready to sue the USCIS to Eastern NY court. I have 5 defendants, then how many copies of complaints needed ?

The cover sheet, should I fill it , or the court clert will do it ?

could you confirm this
"You will need to mail (certified) a copy of your complaint +2 summons to the attorney general, complaint + one summon to the US attorney for your district, complaint + one summon for each defendant." ?

thanks.
Click to expand...

Is US AG one of the defendants? If yes, then you need 7 copies, if no - 8. You fill the cover sheet and summons.
 
Post memo saga continues

_______________________________________________________________________________________
"
....
USCIS Requests Patience until April 30, 2008

As is understandable, many requests for action, on a "me first" basis, have reached the USCIS. In response, the USCIS has confirmed that sweeps are being conducted to identify all eligible I-485 cases, and has asked for time to do so. They request that inquiries into eligible cases wait until after April 30, 2008.

Ongoing Service Center Sweeps

The USCIS is conducting the sweeps at the service centers. This essentially means that they systematically search their records for eligible cases. Since many of these cases have been reviewed and otherwise processed, they, hopefully, will be approved once identified. Of course, some may need to submit updated information, such as employment letters or fingerprints. Some Requests for Evidence (RFEs) may also result from the sweeps.

What Exactly Does this Mean for a Long Pending Security Delayed I-485?

It is less clear what is occurring with pending cases at the local offices. Further information may be forthcoming. For the time being, as explained above, the USCIS has asked attorneys and applicants to wait, presumably until March 30, 2008, before submitting further requests for action based upon the new policy. They anticipate identifying and taking action on cases by that date. It is unclear if "taking action" means issuing final approvals, as, given the volume of cases, this would seem to be a significant task. Of course, as evidenced last summer, the USCIS has the ability to move great numbers of I-485 cases quickly when it is a priority.

It should be noted that it appears as though congressional offices have received a great number of requests for action based upon the new policy, as well. It seems that those requests also will have to wait for the results of the USCIS sweeps.

Conclusion

Given the ongoing delays in case processing, many people continue to file writs of mandamus against the FBI and the USCIS. They can now include the recent Aytes memo as part of their arguments in efforts to expedite their cases. In instances where priority dates are not current, individuals must continue to wait. While this memo is beneficial to many employment-based applicants in the long run, it cannot assist with problems created by the lack of available visa numbers.
"
Source: http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html [ VOL. XIV, no. 08; February 2008, week 4, Posted : February 22, 2008]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Status Update Available March 30 For Processing Of Employment-Based Green Cards Under New USCIS Policy On Pending FBI Name Checks


USCIS has moved up the date to March 30, 2008 for seeking status updates on employment-based green card cases that may be eligible for processing in light of the change in policy regarding pending FBI name checks, according to AILA.

Previously, USCIS had said it would need until April 30, 2008 to sweep its files and identify cases subject to processing in light of the new policy. AILA[ http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=24691 ] is reporting now, however, that USCIS service centers say they will accept requests on status updates for employment-based cases effective March 30, 2008.
...

Source: http://vkvisafamilylaw.wordpress.co...-new-uscis-policy-on-pending-fbi-name-checks/

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Ok so USCIS is actively conducting sweeps. That's good news!

Questions that I and others in similar situation would like to find answers to:

1. How to find if one's case has been picked up by the sweep at Service Center (mine is Nebraska)?
2. What are you guys getting from Congressman's/Senator's office in response to request to act on the pending I485 (or other eligible) applications?
3. Are you getting any info relevant to this from the IOs on the phones?

I have yet to hear from my congressman because the case worker is out of town.

By the way, does anyone has access to AILA's restricted/member only content?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how to fill in summon form ?

I am using the online summons form, I try it, but don't know if it is correct. Please see the attachment and help me.

And in my complaint, I wrote

"The Defendants, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC §701 et seq., are unlawfully withholding action on the Plaintiff’s application and have failed to carry out the adjudicative function delegated to them by law with regard to the Plaintiff’s case. "

In the cover sheet, the field "Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing", should I fill in "Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC §701 et seq." ?

I submitted my marriage-based I485 to NYC in June 2002, so far no results yet. No more wait, I have to sue. Do we have a stronger "Civil Statute" for my case ?

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally over

After almowst two years, my wait is over. Oath ceremony is on Feb 25.

Timeline:

N400 Receipt date: Jan 2006
Washington DC DO
Interview: June 2006. Told NC pending
June 2006 - Oct 2007: Waiting period.....
Nov 2007: Filed 1447(b) thru Lawyer
Jan 2008: AUSA filed for MTD. MTD hearing set for Feb 29, 2008
Jan 2008: AUSA file Motion to remand to USCIS. Requests expedited NC
Feb 21, 2008: AUSA calls lawyer and asks to dismiss. USCIS to adjudicate within 15 days. Lawyer signs to settle

Feb 22: USCIS calls me and schedules oath for the 25th.

For all those stuck after interview, use 1447(b). I used a lawyer and did not have the time to research . I did not write letters to senators etc. The law is on your side. Hate to start life by suing, but had no other choice.....

Thanks to LazyCIS. Good luck to all
 
what'sinaname said:
After almowst two years, my wait is over. Oath ceremony is on Feb 25.

Timeline:

N400 Receipt date: Jan 2006
Washington DC DO
Interview: June 2006. Told NC pending
June 2006 - Oct 2007: Waiting period.....
Nov 2007: Filed 1447(b) thru Lawyer
Jan 2008: AUSA filed for MTD. MTD hearing set for Feb 29, 2008
Jan 2008: AUSA file Motion to remand to USCIS. Requests expedited NC
Feb 21, 2008: AUSA calls lawyer and asks to dismiss. USCIS to adjudicate within 15 days. Lawyer signs to settle

Feb 22: USCIS calls me and schedules oath for the 25th.

For all those stuck after interview, use 1447(b). I used a lawyer and did not have the time to research . I did not write letters to senators etc. The law is on your side. Hate to start life by suing, but had no other choice.....

Thanks to LazyCIS. Good luck to all
Click to expand...



jefkorn,

I have tried to several IOs and stuff but they didn't really give out any information. I did an inquiry yesterday with the congressman's office so let's see what they come back with. I sent them a copy of the memo also.

I had written to the Vice President who forwarded my inquiry to the CIS. They wrote back a week after the memo, with the same old security checks excuse! I am thinking of holding off from inquiries after this congressional inquiry that I just did, because I do see how that could slow down the process.
 
gosueins said:
I am using the online summons form, I try it, but don't know if it is correct. Please see the attachment and help me.

And in my complaint, I wrote

"The Defendants, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC §701 et seq., are unlawfully withholding action on the Plaintiff’s application and have failed to carry out the adjudicative function delegated to them by law with regard to the Plaintiff’s case. "

In the cover sheet, the field "Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing", should I fill in "Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC §701 et seq." ?

I submitted my marriage-based I485 to NYC in June 2002, so far no results yet. No more wait, I have to sue. Do we have a stronger "Civil Statute" for my case ?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Here is a sample cover sheet
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13652&d=1135936045

I am attaching a sample summons form. Do not fill the second page of summons until after you receive return receipt (small green card) back.
 
lazycis said:
Here is a sample cover sheet
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13652&d=1135936045

I am attaching a sample summons form. Do not fill the second page of summons until after you receive return receipt (small green card) back.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much.

In summon form you posted
"JOHN DOE" is the plaintiff or attorney ? Do I list all defendants to summon form ?

another question is:
My wife is U.S. citizen, she sponsored my green card. could I say I am the "Petitioner" of my I485 , or my wife is the "Petitioner" ? how to call my wife role in law term ?

I read some old posts, some are asking for "compel to adjudicate", some are asking for "provide the Plaintiff with a Notice of Approval" of I 485 ? which "Prayer" will be better ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gosueins said:
Thank you very much.

In summon form you posted
"JOHN DOE" is the plaintiff or attorney ? Do I list all defendants to summon form ?

another question is:
My wife is U.S. citizen, she sponsor my green card. could I say I am the "Petitioner" of my I485 , or my wife is the "Petitioner" ? how to call my wife role in law term ?

I read some old posts, some are asking for "compel to adjudicate", some are asking for "provide the Plaintiff with a Notice of Approval" of I 485 ? which "Prayer" will be better ?
Click to expand...

You are the petitioner for I-485. Is your I-130 approved?

John Doe is plaintiff ( as well as attorney :)). Check the sample complaint from my previous post and use it as a template to avoid crucial mistakes.

One defendant per summon.
 
What's happening with Mocanu case?

Lazyciz,
The judge had ordered in Mocanu case:
"
8. The parties shall file reports no later March 14, 2008 as to their positions on these requirements.
...
10. The Court will hold a hearing on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3A, at which time the Court will consider arguments and any evidence a party wishes to offer on these remedies, and any other remedies that may be appropriate.
"

From another forum:

...at about the same time the new FAQ was pulled of the USCIS website, Eastern Pensilvania federal court in the blockbuster Mocanu WoM case (the one which basically forced USCIS to adopt the new NC-180 policy) has granted the government a Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order. In layman terms, it granted the government a 21-day break from following the court order which is at the root of the new name check policy. During this time, the government will appeal to the Fourth Circuit court in hopes of getting a permanent stay of this order from the lower court. While USCIS seems to follow the new NC-180 memo for now, albeit slowly, who knows if the March 10 date, floated around by USCIS recently, has something to do with government hopes of getting what they want from the Fourth Circuit court by this date and changing NC policy yet again"

Source: http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i485-1/71379215/ posted by Burkino


So does now Defendants don't have to reply by March 14, 2008? Has Defendants filed anything with court which can reveal something?
 
lazycis said:
It's the other way around. I-485 cannot be approved without approved I-130.
Click to expand...

here is the status of I130

========
Application Type: I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN

Current Status: The fee was collected at one location, and the case is now pending at our processing site.

As a routine part of processing this I130, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR RELATIVE, FIANCE(E), OR ORPHAN is now at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. On January 8, 2004, we mailed you a notice explaining this and describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
===========
I filed all I485 and I130 to NYC, recently NYC told me my file is in NSC. the website is saying I130 is in National Benefits Center.

NYC said my name is conflict with another person who has applied asylum but failed. as you know, NSC takes care of asylum.

Then who should I sue ?

Thanks.
 
jefkorn said:
Lazyciz,
The judge had ordered in Mocanu case:
"
8. The parties shall file reports no later March 14, 2008 as to their positions on these requirements.
...
10. The Court will hold a hearing on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3A, at which time the Court will consider arguments and any evidence a party wishes to offer on these remedies, and any other remedies that may be appropriate.
"

From another forum:

...at about the same time the new FAQ was pulled of the USCIS website, Eastern Pensilvania federal court in the blockbuster Mocanu WoM case (the one which basically forced USCIS to adopt the new NC-180 policy) has granted the government a Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Comply With Injunctive Order. In layman terms, it granted the government a 21-day break from following the court order which is at the root of the new name check policy. During this time, the government will appeal to the Fourth Circuit court in hopes of getting a permanent stay of this order from the lower court. While USCIS seems to follow the new NC-180 memo for now, albeit slowly, who knows if the March 10 date, floated around by USCIS recently, has something to do with government hopes of getting what they want from the Fourth Circuit court by this date and changing NC policy yet again"

Source: http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i485-1/71379215/ posted by Burkino


So does now Defendants don't have to reply by March 14, 2008? Has Defendants filed anything with court which can reveal something?
Click to expand...

The information posted on trackitt is incorrect. The government filed a motion for stay in Aslam case (Eastern Virginia - 4th Cir.). Motion for stay was denied, but enlargement was granted. Mocanu case is in Eastern Pennsylvania (3rd circuit). The government filed a similar motion to stay in Mocanu case and is seeking to postpone implementing name check regulations. The motion is opposed and is scheduled for oral argument next week. My hunch is that it will not be granted. I doubt the government will appeal (very little chance to prevail), more likely they just want to drag it until elections.
"The Government has no lawful basis for implementation of an investigative technique that creates delays so extensive they are longer than the original delay that were cited for the creation of the current administrative naturalization scheme. See Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649 401. 407(d), 104 Stat 5038 (Nov. 29, 1990)."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top