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

[sweetapple]

Thanks for the reply. I see your point. Most cases have been pending for a long time, because the defendant first asks for 30 day extension then the MTD...

If the court doesn't find anything against me (my FOIPA has no record), then the court should grant me the citizenship.

Etape case is important for you to prove that court has exclusive jurisdiction under 1447b. Whether Etape has a bad character or not is not relevant for your case. The government brief in Etape case may be helpful for your case as well. If you do not include Etape, the government most likely will try to drag the case and file MTD. You need to prevent it.

 

[au071]

I filed my N400 case on 3/15/2007 priority date; currently Philly's date is 5/10/2007. Haven't got my interview notice yet; the last I check they said it's still under name check, which was filed on 3/26/2007. Did my own privacy act check through FBI, no record. For god sake, I don't even have a speeding ticket.

Should I file a law suit now? Or is 1 year still considered not long enough. From the posts, INS is no longer doing expediate requests even if you file a law suit. Will this be helpful to speed up my application at all?

Thanks.

 

[sweetapple]

Yes, it's free. But you can only search cases that were filed in the local district. You need to bring a USB to download the files. The cases in the system are all pending cases. I didn't find
any successful cases though. Maybe the closed cases is not in the system. But the law clerk told me every case should be in the ECF system

Is it free to search and download the court cases using the ECF system at your court house?

 

[waitinfori130]

Well done! I wish you to get a sympathetic judge. I believe there is a couple of successful WOM cases in your district.

Should I expect to receive the MTD as this plays out? should I begin to prepare for it, or is that possible before hand?

 

[lazycis]

Should I expect to receive the MTD as this plays out? should I begin to prepare for it, or is that possible before hand?

I feel that your case will be resolved quickly but you should be prepared (mentally for the most part ) to get MTD.

 

[waitinfori130]

I feel that your case will be resolved quickly but you should be prepared (mentally for the most part ) to get MTD.

When should I expect to see my case on Pacer? Should I expect it in a day? or so or when I send the 'served summons' to the AUSA?

 

[sweetapple]

The court clerk in my local district told me that only lawyers can use ECF to file the complaint.

2. Members who used ECF like it. It will probably save you time and money if you have access to a scanner. Court clerk will give your ECF instructions when you file original complaint.

 

[meteor8]

Yeah, for my district(ND CA). Pro Se plaintiff has to file motion to efile after the initial filing, and get approval from the judge first.

I am going to file a motion to efile right after I file my complaint and get the case number(should be able to do it during the same visit). I am sure it will become handy down the road.

Your local district should has a seperate manual for ECF filing. Even I have an ECF account, I still file the complaint in person since the summons needs to be signed and stamped anyway. I did the rest with ECF. It really saves time.

 

[lazycis]

deja vu

The government had a nerve to file MTD on 3/28 in one of the cases in Mocanu opinion: 2:07-cv-02859 NEWTON v. MONICA (N-400 with no interview).

 

[sweetapple]

Do you know which district this case was filed? If the plaintiff somehow lost the (I hope this is not true for the case you mentioned here), the plaintiff still has a chance to be adjudicated by USCIS. I wonder if such scenario has ever been reported by the members on this forum.

Last year after I sent my inquiry to the USCIS, I got a letter from USCIS which specifically informed me that the the examination mentioned in N-652 does not include any pending background checks. USCIS has a strong intention to discourage people to request a hearing before U.S distrcit court. I didn't plan to include this letter in my exhibit. What do you think?

Thanks for your help!

The government had a nerve to file MTD on 3/28 in one of the cases in Mocanu opinion: 2:07-cv-02859 NEWTON v. MONICA (N-400 with no interview).

 

[wom_ri]

Did you download the MTD ? if so, can you post the MTD?
I am interested in what arguments they are posing now.

The government had a nerve to file MTD on 3/28 in one of the cases in Mocanu opinion: 2:07-cv-02859 NEWTON v. MONICA (N-400 with no interview).

 

[wommei]

about sensitive info

Lazycis and other members,

IN my original complaint, I forgot to block out some very personal information that could cause problems. I suppose anyone who has access to pacer can open that file if they want to. After I file the first amended complaint, can I ask court to seal my original complaint? Or is there any other way to solve this problem? Thanks much.

 

[meroncluster]

WOM Filed

Hello all,

I have been following some of the posts on this forum. Thanks so much to all of you, I finally got the courage to file a WOM. My N400 application has been pending for almost 20 months without interview. Since I did not have time I used a lawyer to file the case. I am from North Carolina, but I have filed my WOM in Washington DC on recommendation from my Lawyer. The judge assigned to the case is Ricardo M. Urbina. Google shows that the judge did rule against the government a few times. So that is a bit of good news. But have no idea what my luck would bring. Does anyone know about WOM cases in the DC area?

Thanks,

 

[suethem]

Hello all,

I have been following some of the posts on this forum. Thanks so much to all of you, I finally got the courage to file a WOM. My N400 application has been pending for almost 20 months without interview. Since I did not have time I used a lawyer to file the case. I am from North Carolina, but I have filed my WOM in Washington DC on recommendation from my Lawyer. The judge assigned to the case is Ricardo M. Urbina. Google shows that the judge did rule against the government a few times. So that is a bit of good news. But have no idea what my luck would bring. Does anyone know about WOM cases in the DC area?

Thanks,

Good luck to you, and I think that you are doing the right thing!

 

[lazycis]

Do you know which district this case was filed? If the plaintiff somehow lost the (I hope this is not true for the case you mentioned here), the plaintiff still has a chance to be adjudicated by USCIS. I wonder if such scenario has ever been reported by the members on this forum.

Last year after I sent my inquiry to the USCIS, I got a letter from USCIS which specifically informed me that the the examination mentioned in N-652 does not include any pending background checks. USCIS has a strong intention to discourage people to request a hearing before U.S distrcit court. I didn't plan to include this letter in my exhibit. What do you think?

Thanks for your help!

Eastern Pennsylvania. You do not need to include that letter as the USCIS is mistaken. Use Walji decision instead, it will be useful to cite it in your complaint as well:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Walji II 5th Cir. 9-14-07.pdf

 

[lazycis]

Did you download the MTD ? if so, can you post the MTD?
I am interested in what arguments they are posing now.

I did not. I have a post-Mocanu MTD from another district, I do not think the defendants came up with new arguments. Their arguments are:
1. Because plaintiff did not have an interview, court does not have jurisdiction as the government did not waive its sovereign immunity. Only 1447b and 1421 (N400 denial) have such waivers. (Apparently they forget that mandamus jurisdiction does not require a specific waiver of sovereign immunity).
2. The delay is not unreasonable as other people waited for years. (Another lame excuse. What constitutes a reasonable time for adjudicating an application necessarily depends on the facts of each case. See Gelfer v. Chertoff, No. C 06-06724 WHA, 2007 WL 902382, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007)).
3. Even if court founds jurisdiction, it should just remand the matter back to the USCIS without any instructions. (See Tang v. Chertoff, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 150 ("The duty to act is no duty at all if the deadline is eternity."))

 

[lazycis]

Lazycis and other members,

IN my original complaint, I forgot to block out some very personal information that could cause problems. I suppose anyone who has access to pacer can open that file if they want to. After I file the first amended complaint, can I ask court to seal my original complaint? Or is there any other way to solve this problem? Thanks much.

File a motion to seal your first complaint after you file amended complaint. Check your local rules, there should be a rule for such motions.

 

[wom_ri]

preliminary injunction draft

Guys.
Draft of my prelim injunction & TRO.

 

[sweetapple]

MTD for a similar case in MD. This is very recent. I downloaded from ECF.
See the attachment.

I did not. I have a post-Mocanu MTD from another district, I do not think the defendants came up with new arguments. Their arguments are:
1. Because plaintiff did not have an interview, court does not have jurisdiction as the government did not waive its sovereign immunity. Only 1447b and 1421 (N400 denial) have such waivers. (Apparently they forget that mandamus jurisdiction does not require a specific waiver of sovereign immunity).
2. The delay is not unreasonable as other people waited for years. (Another lame excuse. What constitutes a reasonable time for adjudicating an application necessarily depends on the facts of each case. See Gelfer v. Chertoff, No. C 06-06724 WHA, 2007 WL 902382, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007)).
3. Even if court founds jurisdiction, it should just remand the matter back to the USCIS without any instructions. (See Tang v. Chertoff, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 150 ("The duty to act is no duty at all if the deadline is eternity."))

 

[waitinfori130]

Georgia District courts don't allow Pro se filers to have a ECF account. I will have to next day mail any additional filings. That's a Bummer