You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
I guess, AILA must take initiative to tell all pending WOM 485 case Judge about Feb 4 memo. The legal analysis has changed quite a bit with this memo.
Is anyone in the same boat as me.. --> changed WOM to ask for backdated
GC ?
(Please ignore my PM.. I did not see the attached opinion)
An interesting note is that our pleadings had to be filed by 1/31, so I did not incorporate the new CIS memo, nor does the Judge refer to it. The 5th Circuit decision obviously greatly influenced the decision.
Breaking News:USCIS director Emilio Gonzalez resigns
Don't know what effect it may have on future or current policies!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Director-Resignation.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Don't know what effect it may have on future or current policies!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Director-Resignation.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Even my AUSA told me that Govt will fight harder if I ask for backdated GC. am sure they would have told the same thing to the first person who filed WOM for adjudicating GC. They were sure that Judge will buy the argument that 1252 precludes review and 1255 grants broad discretion. Many judges proved them wrong. By their manipulations, no circuit court has spoken on the pace of adjudication issue for I-485.
Look at estoppel arguments in Liston v Chertoff. Plaintiff was denied GC becos he was over 21. There is no statute or law supporting granting of GC in such cases. However estoppel did apply.
Look at USCIS position now:
Nov2002-Feb2008 -- they required namecheck results for 485
they also resubmitted 3million+ names for namecheck(most likely applicants
that were adjudicated before)
Post Feb4 -- you not require namecheck for 485 adjudication anymore.
APA provides relief from agency action unlawfully withheld.
Estoppel provides relief from injustice.
The important thing to remind the court is to grant relief to obtain citizenship at the earliest possible time. All GC applicants eventually plan for citizenship and we are deprived of that right becos of USCIS actions/inactions.
Look at estoppel arguments in Liston v Chertoff. Plaintiff was denied GC becos he was over 21. There is no statute or law supporting granting of GC in such cases. However estoppel did apply.
Look at USCIS position now:
Nov2002-Feb2008 -- they required namecheck results for 485
they also resubmitted 3million+ names for namecheck(most likely applicants
that were adjudicated before)
Post Feb4 -- you not require namecheck for 485 adjudication anymore.
APA provides relief from agency action unlawfully withheld.
Estoppel provides relief from injustice.
The important thing to remind the court is to grant relief to obtain citizenship at the earliest possible time. All GC applicants eventually plan for citizenship and we are deprived of that right becos of USCIS actions/inactions.
People who have been stuck in Namecheck deserve a backdated GC but AUSA tells me there is no statute or caselaw supporting it. Almost seems like CIS will put their best foot to defend against that than just processing applications, which if they had done wouldnt have caused this in the first place.
Any insights on how the April visa numbers are going to be?
Don't know what effect it may have on future or current policies!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Director-Resignation.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
You should create a separate thread for this, as it's very crucial news! Thanks for breaking this story.
Attached memo is an interesting read.
Don't know what effect it may have on future or current policies!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Director-Resignation.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Great, he should resign long time ago. What a mess he create. I am not sure what is next guy will do. But I think it won't be worse like the previous guy.
The Nov election play key roll on immigration. The demorcat and republican don't want to do too much at this stage of immigration since lots of american believe immigration cost economy slow and trouble.
The Nov election play key roll on immigration. The demorcat and republican don't want to do too much at this stage of immigration since lots of american believe immigration cost economy slow and trouble.
Lazycis and other members--about status hearing
I have a status hearing scheduled on next week. I think I should prepare for that hearing. But I don't know what is the agenda or what are we going to do during that status hearing. Does anyone know how to prepare for that? What kind of materials I should bring? I probably need to dress in suits and something formal?
Thanks a lot.
I have a status hearing scheduled on next week. I think I should prepare for that hearing. But I don't know what is the agenda or what are we going to do during that status hearing. Does anyone know how to prepare for that? What kind of materials I should bring? I probably need to dress in suits and something formal?
Thanks a lot.
Folks,
I need your help and advice,
I had an inteview (Adjustment of status based on Mariage, local office in Newark) last year (11 months ago), the case was approved with name check pending. I received a letter yesterday asking me to go to local office (Newark) next month for an interview!!! My question is: do you think that they want to posponed my green card another 180 days, or may be to stamp my passport? my case was approved with check name pending, why I need another interview, my wife is USCitizen and I have two children US born). Please, help, help help!!
Thank You in advance...Lirag
Since you already had the interview you and got your I-130 approved, you are legible to the GC under the new memo. Most probably they will be stamping your passport of they are making sure its a bonafide marriage.
Theoretically you are supposed to get a temporary GC and 2 years later apply for the permanent one. Every district office is different, i think its a good sign they are working on your case. you should not stress.
Good luck and let us know the outcome
Don't know what effect it may have on future or current policies!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Director-Resignation.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Thanks for sharing! One more to go.
.... One more to go.
Not sure what you mean, not sure how it will effect us.
Please help
Lazycis and others,
I talked to my senator’s office today about my stalled N-400 and was known that my namecheck is still in process while I got a letter from FBI earlier that mentioned clearly that my namecheck was done on Nov 2007 and the results were provided to USCIS. I’m planning to file my WOM soon and didn’t put FBI as a defendants and need to know “do I have to out the Robert Mueller” also as a defendants even though I have a written proof of the finalization of namecheck. Please advice. Thanks,
Case Details:
N-400 in TSC
1- Receipt Date: Oct , 2006
2- First Fingerprinting: Oct ,2006
3- Case was pending in Namecheck since then
4- Got a letter from FBI that it was cleared on Nov, 2007
5- Got second fingerprinting on Feb, 2008
6- Second Info Pass: Under extended review by USCIS; don’t know how long would it take
7- Have written hundreds of letters/emails/calls/faxes to all the concerned persons
8- Planning to send all the Defendants a copy of my WOM with 30 days’ deadline this week.
Lazycis and others,
I talked to my senator’s office today about my stalled N-400 and was known that my namecheck is still in process while I got a letter from FBI earlier that mentioned clearly that my namecheck was done on Nov 2007 and the results were provided to USCIS. I’m planning to file my WOM soon and didn’t put FBI as a defendants and need to know “do I have to out the Robert Mueller” also as a defendants even though I have a written proof of the finalization of namecheck. Please advice. Thanks,
Case Details:
N-400 in TSC
1- Receipt Date: Oct , 2006
2- First Fingerprinting: Oct ,2006
3- Case was pending in Namecheck since then
4- Got a letter from FBI that it was cleared on Nov, 2007
5- Got second fingerprinting on Feb, 2008
6- Second Info Pass: Under extended review by USCIS; don’t know how long would it take
7- Have written hundreds of letters/emails/calls/faxes to all the concerned persons
8- Planning to send all the Defendants a copy of my WOM with 30 days’ deadline this week.
april visa bulletin is out(trackitt)
http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i485-1/80306401/last-page/
http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i485-1/80306401/last-page/
Lazycis and others,
I talked to my senator’s office today about my stalled N-400 and was known that my namecheck is still in process while I got a letter from FBI earlier that mentioned clearly that my namecheck was done on Nov 2007 and the results were provided to USCIS. I’m planning to file my WOM soon and didn’t put FBI as a defendants and need to know “do I have to out the Robert Mueller” also as a defendants even though I have a written proof of the finalization of namecheck. Please advice. Thanks,
Case Details:
N-400 in TSC
1- Receipt Date: Oct , 2006
2- First Fingerprinting: Oct ,2006
3- Case was pending in Namecheck since then
4- Got a letter from FBI that it was cleared on Nov, 2007
5- Got second fingerprinting on Feb, 2008
6- Second Info Pass: Under extended review by USCIS; don’t know how long would it take
7- Have written hundreds of letters/emails/calls/faxes to all the concerned persons
8- Planning to send all the Defendants a copy of my WOM with 30 days’ deadline this week.
I would not include FBI as a defendant in this case
waitinfori130
Registered Users (C)
Lazycis, I'm able to look at pacer. Do I need to use lexis as well? IF so, how would I do it.
Does anyone mail thier papers to file or do they simply take them to the court house?
Does anyone mail thier papers to file or do they simply take them to the court house?
I swear that I saw this bulletin on DOS site:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Now it is not there.. I see a fiasco brewing ?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4177.html
Now it is not there.. I see a fiasco brewing ?
deliberate pattern of lies
Contrast FAQ at
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/security_checks_42506.pdf (April2006)
However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
with Feb 28 update on USCIS website:
Questions and Answers: Background Check Policy Update
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
It states no changes to any existing regulation or new legislation. This implies FBI namecheck is not part of any regulation or required evidence for adjudication. It also implies that normal processing time is around 180 days
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
This also implies no changes have been made to make this possible. i.e.. DHS always had the ability to revoke GC under valid circumstances. It also implies that FBI namecheck is of limited value(note unlikely event)
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Again, here it implies that FBI namecheck was a arbitrary requirement imposed by Authority who had no idea of it's usefulness or validity or expense and that institutors of such authority, aka Emilio Gonzalez has been subsequently disposed with.
Contrast FAQ at
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/security_checks_42506.pdf (April2006)
However, USCIS will never grant an immigration service or benefit before the required security checks are completed regardless of how long those checks take.
with Feb 28 update on USCIS website:
Questions and Answers: Background Check Policy Update
Q3. How has USCIS changed its adjudications requirements?
A3. For these forms, including applications for lawful permanent residence, USCIS will adjudicate the application based on all required evidence outlined in applicable law and regulation if the application is otherwise approvable, outside of normal processing times, and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days.
It states no changes to any existing regulation or new legislation. This implies FBI namecheck is not part of any regulation or required evidence for adjudication. It also implies that normal processing time is around 180 days
Q4. What happens if USCIS later receives adverse information from an FBI name check?
A4. In the unlikely event that Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) receives actionable adverse information from the FBI name check after the application is adjudicated, DHS may detain the applicant and initiate removal proceedings.
This also implies no changes have been made to make this possible. i.e.. DHS always had the ability to revoke GC under valid circumstances. It also implies that FBI namecheck is of limited value(note unlikely event)
Q5. Why is this policy being implemented?
A5. This policy change responds to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS better align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Again, here it implies that FBI namecheck was a arbitrary requirement imposed by Authority who had no idea of it's usefulness or validity or expense and that institutors of such authority, aka Emilio Gonzalez has been subsequently disposed with.
Last edited by a moderator: