Congratulations, can you please explain why you got the IBIS hit, what did you do to correct it? It's hard to get info about what was the result of IBIS hit.
Thanks
Thanks
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
soccergirl
Registered Users (C)
Great news
That is great news.....something at the very least right! Would you mind posting the letter that you wrote to "Mr Vice President" and who you sent it to. I would love to get a response without have to file a suit. You guys are so tough! We have written so many letters with no response at all and are in the exact same position you are....just in the Dallas area......please help.......
That is great news.....something at the very least right! Would you mind posting the letter that you wrote to "Mr Vice President" and who you sent it to. I would love to get a response without have to file a suit. You guys are so tough! We have written so many letters with no response at all and are in the exact same position you are....just in the Dallas area......please help.......
Lazycis and Others,
I got this letter from USCIS, DC office yesterday in response to my inquiry to Mr. Vice President. “On February 29, 2008, you were placed in the queue to be scheduled for an interview. The date scheduled is by a computer driven type system and a notice will be mailed out once a date has been determined by the system.” Any idea how long more would it take or just another trick of USCIS. Please advice….
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- Second Info Pass on Jan 25, 2008: Under extended review by USCIS; don’t know how long would it take
6- Got second fingerprinting on Feb, 2008
7- Have written hundreds of letters/emails/calls/faxes to all the concerned persons
8- Sent my WOM with 30 days’ deadline on March 15, 2008 to all the Defendants.
naturalization wom another step towards victory
HOUSHANG BAHADORI GHASHGHAI, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL MUKASEY
CASE NO. 07CV0163-LAB (RBB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20128, March 13, 2008, Decided
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants represent that Plaintiff's background check has begun and [*11] is ongoing. (Mot. to Dismiss at 7:25-26; Reply at 4:14-25.) But Defendants have proffered no particularized explanation for the delay, 1 so the Court is in no position to evaluate whether the FBI's efforts are reasonable under the circumstances. If the delay is reasonable, the manner and pace in which the background check is carried out are committed to the FBI's discretion and are thus beyond this Court's power to review. Because of the unusually long delay, the Court expects to receive an explanation particularly focusing on the facts of Plaintiff's case, rather than a generalized explanation applicable to all background checks. See, e.g., Guoping Ma v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 2743395, slip op. at *7 (W.D.Wash., Sept. 17, 2007) (citing authority for the principle that where the only delay in processing an application is that the FBI is taking an unusually long time to complete a background check, the government must provide a particularized explanation).
In order to enable the Court to examine its power to grant mandamus relief, and thus its jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim, Defendants are ORDERED, no later than 30 calendar days from the date this order is issued, to explain the delay in completing Plaintiff's background check. They may do so by submitting a memorandum of points and authorities, no longer than five pages in length, not counting any appended or lodged material. Defendants should focus on whether the FBI's delay is reasonable under the circumstances; extraneous briefing will not be considered. Defendants' explanation need not be long, provided it is reasonable.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim the FBI is unreasonably delaying his background check. Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to all other claims, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unripe.
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
HOUSHANG BAHADORI GHASHGHAI, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL MUKASEY
CASE NO. 07CV0163-LAB (RBB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20128, March 13, 2008, Decided
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants represent that Plaintiff's background check has begun and [*11] is ongoing. (Mot. to Dismiss at 7:25-26; Reply at 4:14-25.) But Defendants have proffered no particularized explanation for the delay, 1 so the Court is in no position to evaluate whether the FBI's efforts are reasonable under the circumstances. If the delay is reasonable, the manner and pace in which the background check is carried out are committed to the FBI's discretion and are thus beyond this Court's power to review. Because of the unusually long delay, the Court expects to receive an explanation particularly focusing on the facts of Plaintiff's case, rather than a generalized explanation applicable to all background checks. See, e.g., Guoping Ma v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 2743395, slip op. at *7 (W.D.Wash., Sept. 17, 2007) (citing authority for the principle that where the only delay in processing an application is that the FBI is taking an unusually long time to complete a background check, the government must provide a particularized explanation).
In order to enable the Court to examine its power to grant mandamus relief, and thus its jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim, Defendants are ORDERED, no later than 30 calendar days from the date this order is issued, to explain the delay in completing Plaintiff's background check. They may do so by submitting a memorandum of points and authorities, no longer than five pages in length, not counting any appended or lodged material. Defendants should focus on whether the FBI's delay is reasonable under the circumstances; extraneous briefing will not be considered. Defendants' explanation need not be long, provided it is reasonable.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim the FBI is unreasonably delaying his background check. Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to all other claims, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unripe.
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
Last edited by a moderator:
same judge remands case(SD CAL) see prev post
ROY JOSEPH, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
CASE NO. 07cv0341-LAB (LSP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20100
When, as here, a delay in the decision results from the FBI's investigative process and no abusive or egregious circumstances are apparent, the Court finds it appropriate to remand with instructions rather than attempting to make its own citizenship determination before the background check is complete. See Ghazal at *3 (citation omitted). To do otherwise, the Court "would be improvidently bypassing the agency's expertise in immigration matters committed in the first instance to the agency." Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
ROY JOSEPH, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
CASE NO. 07cv0341-LAB (LSP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20100
When, as here, a delay in the decision results from the FBI's investigative process and no abusive or egregious circumstances are apparent, the Court finds it appropriate to remand with instructions rather than attempting to make its own citizenship determination before the background check is complete. See Ghazal at *3 (citation omitted). To do otherwise, the Court "would be improvidently bypassing the agency's expertise in immigration matters committed in the first instance to the agency." Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
1- In the file, the last H1B was valid upto 5/31/2004.Congratulations, can you please explain why you got the IBIS hit, what did you do to correct it? It's hard to get info about what was the result of IBIS hit.
Thanks
2- The sixth year extension (H1B), 1/6/2004 - 5/31/2005 was missing why did it happen?, but attorney made a mistake.
3- I travelled on (2 APs), each time a (bar code) ticket generated by system
and the IBIS stored in the system. So that the adjudicators could see.
4- When an adjudicator sees/researches/performs gets the bar code that raises red flag. He/she printed bar codes and put it on Yellow page - On the top it was printed "IBIS CHECKS" (center), on the next line "HITS"., then the printed bar codes are placed on "IBIS HITS"
5- I actully saw these HITS/Bar codes.
6- I provided the missing H1B for the period 1/6/2004 - 5/31/2005
7- She entered the period in the system, there was no bar code indicator, she said "Excellent" now everthing looks perfect.
By the way, IBIS HITS, contains half page remarks field, in this field the remark was "Unauthorized Stay"
Last edited by a moderator:
Congrats, OK-Boy!!!
I think you are almost there!!! From the posts that I have seen on this board, this is definitely a good sign. You will get interviewed very soon...
BTW, how did you get FBI sending you a status letter?
Leon
I think you are almost there!!! From the posts that I have seen on this board, this is definitely a good sign. You will get interviewed very soon...
BTW, how did you get FBI sending you a status letter?
Leon
Lazycis and Others,
I got this letter from USCIS, DC office yesterday in response to my inquiry to Mr. Vice President. “On February 29, 2008, you were placed in the queue to be scheduled for an interview. The date scheduled is by a computer driven type system and a notice will be mailed out once a date has been determined by the system.” Any idea how long more would it take or just another trick of USCIS. Please advice….
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- Second Info Pass on Jan 25, 2008: Under extended review by USCIS; don’t know how long would it take
6- Got second fingerprinting on Feb, 2008
7- Have written hundreds of letters/emails/calls/faxes to all the concerned persons
8- Sent my WOM with 30 days’ deadline on March 15, 2008 to all the Defendants.
Yes sir.Thanks assur for the detailed explanation. So there wasn't any RFE but this was brought up in the interview?
dfwikea,
As I mentioned in my original WOM complaint that I had written/faxed/emailed/called more than 200 times to all the powerful people in US, you could imagine for. The FBI sent me the letter in response to my earlier query to Mrs. Laura Bush. I would like to everyone know in this forum that sometimes we believe that we are not getting any immediate response for all of our Congressional/Executive Memebrs' inquiry but believe me, it does work. Atleast, it worked for me up to some extend. I hope that I get my IV letter soon.
As I mentioned in my original WOM complaint that I had written/faxed/emailed/called more than 200 times to all the powerful people in US, you could imagine for. The FBI sent me the letter in response to my earlier query to Mrs. Laura Bush. I would like to everyone know in this forum that sometimes we believe that we are not getting any immediate response for all of our Congressional/Executive Memebrs' inquiry but believe me, it does work. Atleast, it worked for me up to some extend. I hope that I get my IV letter soon.
Congrats, OK-Boy!!!
I think you are almost there!!! From the posts that I have seen on this board, this is definitely a good sign. You will get interviewed very soon...
BTW, how did you get FBI sending you a status letter?
Leon
Last edited by a moderator:
Soccergirl,
I just sent you a PM....
I just sent you a PM....
That is great news.....something at the very least right! Would you mind posting the letter that you wrote to "Mr Vice President" and who you sent it to. I would love to get a response without have to file a suit. You guys are so tough! We have written so many letters with no response at all and are in the exact same position you are....just in the Dallas area......please help.......
Last edited by a moderator:
prose & EAJA ?
Lazy,others:
Is this correct ? pro-se == no EAJA ?
ZHENG LIU, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
Civil File No. 06-3851 (MJD/SRN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20423
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants assert that Liu is not entitled to an EAJA fee award because, at the time Liu filed his Petition and his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, he was proceeding pro se. Pro se litigants are not entitled to EAJA fee awards. Kooritzky v. Herman, 178 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (D.C. Cir. 1999). [*7] The Court concludes that this argument does not affect Liu's request for attorney fees. Liu is not seeking fees for work done while he was pro se; he only seeks attorney fees for work done by the attorneys that he hired during the pendency of the case. Liu's initial pro se status does not preclude an attorney fee award.
Lazy,others:
Is this correct ? pro-se == no EAJA ?
ZHENG LIU, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
Civil File No. 06-3851 (MJD/SRN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20423
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants assert that Liu is not entitled to an EAJA fee award because, at the time Liu filed his Petition and his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, he was proceeding pro se. Pro se litigants are not entitled to EAJA fee awards. Kooritzky v. Herman, 178 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (D.C. Cir. 1999). [*7] The Court concludes that this argument does not affect Liu's request for attorney fees. Liu is not seeking fees for work done while he was pro se; he only seeks attorney fees for work done by the attorneys that he hired during the pendency of the case. Liu's initial pro se status does not preclude an attorney fee award.
Lazy,others:
Is this correct ? pro-se == no EAJA ?
ZHENG LIU, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
Civil File No. 06-3851 (MJD/SRN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20423
This is right. We cannot ask the government to compensate for our legal footwork. However, filing fees, mailing expenses, etc. are reimbursable if you win.
Letter from Judge
Lazycis and all
I got a letter from Judge, saying
===============
The court’s records reflect that the complaint in this action was filed on March 5, 2008. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
"
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period
"
Accordingly, if service is not made upon the defendants by July 3, 2008 or plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected, it will be recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice.
==============
Questions:
1. why it is saying 120 days, not 60 days ?
2. I don't understand those in bold. Could you please explain it to me ?
Thanks.
Lazycis and all
I got a letter from Judge, saying
===============
The court’s records reflect that the complaint in this action was filed on March 5, 2008. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
"
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period
"
Accordingly, if service is not made upon the defendants by July 3, 2008 or plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected, it will be recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice.
==============
Questions:
1. why it is saying 120 days, not 60 days ?
2. I don't understand those in bold. Could you please explain it to me ?
Thanks.
Lazycis and all
I got a letter from Judge, saying
===============
The court’s records reflect that the complaint in this action was filed on March 5, 2008. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
"
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period
"
Accordingly, if service is not made upon the defendants by July 3, 2008 or plaintiff fails to show good cause why such service has not been effected, it will be recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice.
==============
Questions:
1. why it is saying 120 days, not 60 days ?
2. I don't understand those in bold. Could you please explain it to me ?
Thanks.
Did you serve the summons, and complaint to all the defendants and file the summons with proof of service in the court? You have to do that else the Court will dismiss the lawsuit as none of the defendants were served.
Yes, I mailed all of summons and complaints to all the defendants. and local attorney received my package and notified me already.Did you serve the summons, and complaint to all the defendants and file the summons with proof of service in the court? You have to do that else the Court will dismiss the lawsuit as none of the defendants were served.
Yes, I mailed all of summons and complaints to all the defendants. and local attorney received my package and notified me already.
So you have nothing to worry. 120 days is for you to serve the complaint. 60 days is for government to respond. When you get all the receipts, file return of service (2-nd page of summons) with the court.
about the amendment for complaint
Hey, members,
If I want to amend the complaint for the first time, do I need to serve every defendant (4 of them so far), and DOS and serve to the US attorney? Or do I only serve to US attorney and the new defendant (DOS)?
If I do amend the complaint? How do we calculate the deadline? Right now the deadline for defendants is 4/3/08 and if I amend it before then, Do I have to give them another 60 days for extension of deadline? Thanks.
Hey, members,
If I want to amend the complaint for the first time, do I need to serve every defendant (4 of them so far), and DOS and serve to the US attorney? Or do I only serve to US attorney and the new defendant (DOS)?
If I do amend the complaint? How do we calculate the deadline? Right now the deadline for defendants is 4/3/08 and if I amend it before then, Do I have to give them another 60 days for extension of deadline? Thanks.
Hey, members,
If I want to amend the complaint for the first time, do I need to serve every defendant (4 of them so far), and DOS and serve to the US attorney? Or do I only serve to US attorney and the new defendant (DOS)?
If I do amend the complaint? How do we calculate the deadline? Right now the deadline for defendants is 4/3/08 and if I amend it before then, Do I have to give them another 60 days for extension of deadline? Thanks.
Serve to AUSA and the new defendant (DOS). Get summons for DOS as well.
Answer deadline will be the same for old defendants (or +10 days if you serve amended complaint right before current deadline) and 60 days for the new defendant.