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

Thank you for sharing this. The reading could eat up few months ;-) How are you looking up opinions using this website? Are the pdfs searchable, they seems to be scanned from case files.

I found the following page to be a good starting point. Of course share your tips to utilize this better.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/0_README.html

wom_ri said:
I saw this online resource today:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/
good to look up case opinions(do not seem to have all of them).
but it's free
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does not seem searchable. I use lexisNexis academic.
Without search.. it is pretty dumb database(unless you have a fed reporter ID
and want to look up the opinion)

jefkorn said:
Thank you for sharing this. The reading could eat up few months ;-) How are you looking up opinions using this website? Are the pdfs searchable, they seems to be scanned from case files.

I found the following page to be a good starting point. Of course share your tips to utilize this better.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/0_README.html
Click to expand...
 
Reopening a WOM.

Guys,
I have a question. I filed a WOM in 2005 for my Advance Parole which was approved by USCIS as a result of WOM. Later the case was "dismissed without prejudice". Now I am stuck in the same freakin background checks for every other petition (I-765, I-131, H1B etc.) I filed after that.

I am planning to go and sue them one more time. I am wondering if I should file a new WOM or there is a way to re-open the old case ?

Highly appreciate your comments in this regard.
 
A very, very small step in the right direction

03/21/2008: USCIS Advisory on Off-Office Hours Scheduling of Naturalization Interviews
If people receive a citizenship interview notice in the mail scheduling it on Saturdays, Sundays, or off-office hours, they should not ignore the interview schedule. It is not a mistake, according to the USCIS. In order to meet the recently announced processing times of naturalization applications, the USCIS is scheduling the interviews even on Saturdays, Sundays, and off-office hours during the weekdays. Please keep the interview appointments!

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ecbf127968dc8110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazycis said:
Attached are retrogression arguments for those who are still fighting. The arguments are based, for the most part, on wom_ri amended complaint.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive. Good work wom_ri. Due to my lawyer screw up my judge never even considered any of the arguments in my case. Damn those lawyers.
 
a sample for discovery request

Lazycis and other members,

I edited the documents-request from AGC4ME and add some contents from Lazycis' visa number arguments.
I think I will sever this discovery request to US attorney soon. For those who want to push USCIS (a bunch of lazy bustards) harder, I think this might be an option. As I recall, my US attorney said my last discovery request was premature. But still one month later she asked me to withdraw it because my name check is cleared. But after that, they didn't do much. Now would be a good time to do a discovery again with focus on visa number issues.
Lazycis, I just found from the previous post that discovery may not be very useful. But I think I will try it anyway just to reduce anxiety.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GC approved

Just wanted to share some good news.

Got two emails from CRIS this evening and both my and my spouse’s GC applications were approved. It is Good Friday, you know.

EB2, TSC, PD: 12/2002.
EB2 RIR approved in 08/2005
I-140/485 concurrently filed in 09/2005.
Fingerprinted twice.
Wrote numerous letters to senators, first lady, congressmen, and FOIA.
EAD: filed three times (the last EAD was really painful; took four months to be approved; spouse almost lost job because of this delay.)

I got a lot of help from this forum. I finished my complaint and visited my local court house once. I was planning to file a WOM after renewing my fourth EAD in the coming months. It looks like that that is not necessary anymore.

It is a painful process but it is a little bit warm with your help. I guess that we benefited from the NC policy change. Thanks to those brave WOM filers. You made a big difference in this shit.

Good luck to all of you.
 
Thank you lazycis for advice

Lazycis:

Thank you very much for your reply. Your advice is highly appreciated.
I think you are right. It's clearly stated in the Form N-652
"Please be advised that under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, you have the right to request a hearing before an immigration officer if your application is denied, or before U.S. district court is USCIS has not made a determination on your application within 120 days of the date of your examination" .

You are better than some lawyers! I saw another N-400 WOM case filed by a lawyer that used both the plaintiff's driver license and green card as Exihibits.

lazycis said:
sweetapple,
1. Keep it simple. All you need to do is to show that 120 days has passed after the interview. Use 1447b. For 1447b, all the government can do is to argue that interview is just a part of examination. All circuit courts that considered the matter support your position: Hovsepian (9th), Etape (4th) and Walji (5th). Under 1447b you can ask court to naturalize you. Cannot do that using mandamus & APA.

2. No need to provide a copy of green card. How about I-485 approval notice?

3. ECF is free for you. You will not be charged for filing or looking at your case.

4. Who knows the future? Lawsuit is a public record, but I do not think you should worry about this stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone use the practice to request the documents be file under seal? I don't feel very comfortable to subject all my documents for public inspection. Today, I noticed that the I-797C of N-400 receipt has my personal information on it.

The alternative is to use my second finger print notice. Or
just to simply cross out some of the personal information on the document. The A number, case number and home address are necessary information. Others can be crossed out.

Thanks for the help!
 
sweetapple said:
Has anyone use the practice to request the documents be file under seal? I don't feel very comfortable to subject all my documents for public inspection. Today, I noticed that the I-797C of N-400 receipt has my personal information on it.

The alternative is to use my second finger print notice. Or
just to simply cross out some of the personal information on the document. The A number, case number and home address are necessary information. Others can be crossed out.

Thanks for the help!
Click to expand...

Yes. I had a similar problem since the I-797C sneaks in your DOB at some place in fine print. After my Oath and before i filed dismissal, I filed a motion to seal the I-797C copy in my documents siting privacy concerns and the judge approved the motion.
 
Thank lotechguy for reply

lotechguy said:
Yes. I had a similar problem since the I-797C sneaks in your DOB at some place in fine print. After my Oath and before i filed dismissal, I filed a motion to seal the I-797C copy in my documents siting privacy concerns and the judge approved the motion.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. I read the guide for the instrustions for pro se in my district. It mentions that "To protect your privacy and that of others who may be mentioned in your case, you should not include social security numbers....
or dates of birth in documents you file with the court. If you believe you need to include this information in full or submit exhibits which have these numbers in full, you may request that they be filed under seal"

So, I would like to seal the I-797C copy in my document when I submit the lawsuit.
 
retroactive GC

a recent case for retroactive GC(not related to namecheck)..
plaintiff lost... this is ED Michigan. I did not expect anyting better from them.
bcos it was not Namecheck delay.. plaintiff could not add estoppel
claims..
Iam interested in this sentence opined by the judge:
In fact, case law holds that the INS lacks authority to grant adjustment of status nunc pro [*13] tunc. See Dong Sik Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 917 (5th Cir. 1981).
I just don't understand judges from ED Michigan. Why do they misinterpret decisions such as this. Kwon v INS had distinctly different factual issues.
That case lead me to :
JUNG BEEN SUH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 78-1457
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT
592 F.2d 230; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15841(http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/592/592.F2d.230.78-1457.html)
----> this is a very good case for requesting retroactive GC relief...
important data:
While the Attorney General is given final discretion to grant or refuse a visa, the Secretary of State has plenary control of the visa issuing process. 8 U.S.C. § 1104. See also 22 C.F.R. Subchapter E (1980). Pursuant to Department of State regulations, authorized by statute, visas are issued by United States Consuls. 4 The State Department's regulations provide for allocation of numbers for use in connection with the issuance of immigrant visas and adjustments of status on a quarterly basis within each fiscal year. 22 C.F.R. 42.60(a), (b) (1980). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a). Under this system a visa number may be allocated to a person who does not in fact use it. If this happens, for whatever reason, the nonuse of the visa must be reported to the Department so that another visa can be issued during the same fiscal year. Otherwise, that vacancy in the quota is irretrievably lost. 22 C.F.R. 42.60(c) (1980).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wom_ri said:
a recent case for retroactive GC(not related to namecheck)..
plaintiff lost... this is ED Michigan. I did not expect anyting better from them.
bcos it was not Namecheck delay.. plaintiff could not add estoppel
claims..
Iam interested in this sentence opined by the judge:
In fact, case law holds that the INS lacks authority to grant adjustment of status nunc pro [*13] tunc. See Dong Sik Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 917 (5th Cir. 1981).
That case lead me to :
JUNG BEEN SUH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 78-1457
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT
592 F.2d 230; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15841
----> this is a very good case for requesting retroactive GC relief...
Click to expand...

Good job wom_ri. You are unearthing stuff that $500/hour lawyers will be outright dismissive about.
I also read the opinion of Mendez v INS which also has some good stuff
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/563/956/
What do you think is the measure of undue hardship? As that seems to be the basis that the court looks into whether to award retroactive benefit.
Delays in naturalization is an irreparable, undue hardship but govt may argue it is not like deportation
To leave uncorrected the INS violation of its own regulation would impose upon petitioner the undue hardship of deportation.
 
visa number is available... available at time of filing

Check history of 1255..

ONG SIK KWON, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 79-2850
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT
646 F.2d 909; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13620



The status of an alien, admitted temporarily, who "was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may be adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" by the Attorney General "in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe." 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Such a change involves altering the status of an alien who is in the United States illegally or temporarily from that of visitor or illegal alien to that of lawful permanent resident. To qualify for a change of status four conditions must be met: the alien must apply for this adjustment by submitting a form I-485, must be eligible to receive an immigrant visa, must be admissible as a permanent resident and, according to the statute in effect when Mr. Kwon applied, "an immigrant visa (must be) immediately available to him at the time his application is approved." Id. [FN5]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 The last word was changed to "filed" by a 1976 amendment. Pub. L. 94-571 § 6, October 20, 1976, effective January 1, 1977, 90 Stat. 2705. Whether this change has substantive effect, we do not now attempt to determine. Certain parts of the regulations have also been changed since Kwon applied. In the remainder of this opinion we consider only the effect of their text at the time of his application without intimating any opinion concerning whether, had he applied at a later time, the regulations then in effect would have altered the result.
 
Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672 5th Cir. Jun 04, 2007

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-60661-CV0.wpd.pdf

The BIA, on the other hand, has a long history of employing nunc pro tunc to backdate proceedings and orders where the error was not clerical or where there was no error at all. Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 308 (citing In re T----, 6 I. & N. Dec. 410, 413 (BIA 1954); In re A----, 3 I. & N. Dec. 168, 172-73 (BIA 1948); In re L----, 1 I. & N. Dec. 1 (A.G. 1940)); see also Patel v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 685, 694 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA may reasonably determine that a nunc pro tunc order is necessary to effectively implement the goals of the INA even where the DHS has not erred.”). The BIA’s use of nunc pro tunc is broader than the court’s proper use and is based on a statutory commitment of authority to use back-dating measures where the BIA deems it appropriate. Patel, 432 F.3d at 694 (“It makes persuasive sense that the power of the BIA to enter nunc pro tunc orders is greater than that of federal courts. Unlike the BIA, Congress did not entrust the federal courts to implement the INA but rather to insure that the DHS and BIA act within their statutory authority under the INA.”). As a result, the BIA has exercised a form of statutory nunc pro tunc separate and apart from the court’s equitable nunc pro tunc.
 
If court establishes estoppel claims are valid, you dont need to prove undue hardship. It is the injustice done to you that warrants estoppel and court can grant relief.
Under the APA too, court can set aside agency action/inaction..which means you can get retroactive benefit and you don't have to prove undue hardship.
I submitted application for preliminary injunction & temporary restraining order today for holding visa number and that requires establishing(to some extent) undue hardship exists if not awarded.

rp1234 said:
Good job wom_ri. You are unearthing stuff that $500/hour lawyers will be outright dismissive about.
I also read the opinion of Mendez v INS which also has some good stuff
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/563/956/
What do you think is the measure of undue hardship? As that seems to be the basis that the court looks into whether to award retroactive benefit.
Delays in naturalization is an irreparable, undue hardship but govt may argue it is not like deportation
To leave uncorrected the INS violation of its own regulation would impose upon petitioner the undue hardship of deportation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top