1. You can file a motion to show cause and for hearing on your N-400.
2. You do not have to do that, but you can get a copy of what you filed in pacer (proof of service) and mail it to AUSA
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
1. You can file a motion to show cause and for hearing on your N-400.
2. You do not have to do that, but you can get a copy of what you filed in pacer (proof of service) and mail it to AUSA
N400-Misery
Registered Users (C)
Question about ECF !!
Team:
How come my court told me that only attorneys are allowed to sign up for ECF..
Is that different from one district court to another ?
If I don't have ECF, will the AUSA serve me via hard-copy mail every time he/she files somthing with the court ?
Thanks
==================
N400 @ TSC
PD: 11/??/06
FP: 12/??/06
IL: ???????
WoM: 05/19/08, Pro Se
Team:
How come my court told me that only attorneys are allowed to sign up for ECF..
Is that different from one district court to another ?
If I don't have ECF, will the AUSA serve me via hard-copy mail every time he/she files somthing with the court ?
Thanks
==================
N400 @ TSC
PD: 11/??/06
FP: 12/??/06
IL: ???????
WoM: 05/19/08, Pro Se
LazyCIS,
Can we file the motion to show cause & hearing with the original complaint or we need to wait and if wait then for how long? The idea is to make eligible for vote in upcoming election and taking 60 days from original complaint plus any extension would make this objective void. Please advice...
Can we file the motion to show cause & hearing with the original complaint or we need to wait and if wait then for how long? The idea is to make eligible for vote in upcoming election and taking 60 days from original complaint plus any extension would make this objective void. Please advice...
You can file motion before 60 days are over, especially when there is an urgent need. The court can actually hold emergency hearings the same day the complaint is filed. Attached is a motion for hearing filed in 1447b case.
It's different from court to court and it is governed by local rules. I could not use ECF in my district.
Yes, AUSA have to mail you a copy of everithing s/he files in your case.
waitforsolong
Registered Users (C)
Thanks, Lazycis!! That's really helpful!!!
Senator office reply
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has told me your name check, received on March 1, 2007, is still pending. There is no way to determine when the name check will be completed. If you haven't heard about the status of your case from USCIS within six months, please contact our office and we will make a follow up inquiry.
I hope that this information is helpful and that it will clarify the situation for you. If you have further questions, or if there is any way the Senator's office can help you in the future on other federal matters, I hope you will contact us again."
This letter will be Exhibit A in my WOM
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has told me your name check, received on March 1, 2007, is still pending. There is no way to determine when the name check will be completed. If you haven't heard about the status of your case from USCIS within six months, please contact our office and we will make a follow up inquiry.
I hope that this information is helpful and that it will clarify the situation for you. If you have further questions, or if there is any way the Senator's office can help you in the future on other federal matters, I hope you will contact us again."
This letter will be Exhibit A in my WOM
Put all those efforts in your "List of Exhibits" to let the Judge know about your efforts/sufferings to be more sympathetic towards you and start working on your reply to MTD once you file the main complaint in order to meet the next milestone...
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has told me your name check, received on March 1, 2007, is still pending. There is no way to determine when the name check will be completed. If you haven't heard about the status of your case from USCIS within six months, please contact our office and we will make a follow up inquiry.
I hope that this information is helpful and that it will clarify the situation for you. If you have further questions, or if there is any way the Senator's office can help you in the future on other federal matters, I hope you will contact us again."
This letter will be Exhibit A in my WOM
N400-Misery
Registered Users (C)
Very interesting case
Lazycis and Friends,
Can someone look at the case below (The colored paragraph) and tell me if that could benefit WoMer's with NO-INTERVIEW !!!!
Thanks,
...............................................................................................
SARBAST ABDULLAH ALI, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, et. al., Defendants.
No. 07-0448-CV-W-NKL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DIVISION
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38655
May 13, 2008, Decided
May 13, 2008, Filed
OPINION
ORDER
Plaintiff Sarbast Ali ("Ali"), a citizen of Iraq, requests that this Court either naturalize him or compel Defendants Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Emilio T Gonzales, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Michael Jaromin, Director of the Kansas City Office of USCIS; and Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to immediately [*2] adjudicate his naturalization application. 1 Ali moves for summary judgment [Doc. # 24], while the Government provided the following response to the second "show cause" order entered in this case:
In response to the multitude of cases like the one presently pending before the Court, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), a defendant herein, has requested that the Department of Justice discontinue raising objections to subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, in all pending cases, such as the case before the Court, the USCIS is asking the FBI to expedite the name check clearance for the aliens. To that end, the defendants request that the Court remand this matter to the USCIS so that the case may be adjudicated upon receipt of the FBI's expedited name check.
[Doc. # 27]. This Court now grants summary judgment for Ali. The case is remanded to USCIS with instructions.
I. Facts
On October 17, 2003, Ali filed his Form N-400 Application for Naturalization. He was interviewed on June 7, 2004, and successfully passed both the English language [*3] and the history and government tests. Despite the passing of over 46 months since Ali's interview, USCIS has yet to adjudicate his application.
II. Standard
Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Gipson v. I.N.S., 284 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.2002)). In the present case, the parties essentially agree to the material facts, making summary judgment appropriate. See W.S.A., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis v. Teamsters Local Union No. 688, 959 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir. 1992)).
III. Discussion
The Government evidently concurs that 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 27); see also Patel v. Gonzales, No. 07-0083, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70801, 2007 WL 2811470, at *2-*4 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2007); Salah v. Gonzales, No. 07-0144, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78022, 2007 WL 3094228, at *2-*3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 2007); Ibrahim v. Gonzales, No. 07-3099, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77641, 2007 WL 3072170, at *2-*4 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2007). Almost [*4] four years have passed since Ali completed his interview and tests; the Government is clearly in violation of § 1447(b)'s 120- day time frame.
The Government requests that the case be remanded to USCIS without instructions regarding the background check, relying on the USCIS's representation that it has requested the FBI to "expedite the name check clearance for the aliens." It is not clear who the Government includes when referring to "the aliens." However, the Government has not provided any evidence upon which this Court may deny the relief requested specifically and individually by Ali. The Government did not file a response to Ali's motion for summary judgment, but rather a cursory response to this Court's "show cause" order of April 1, 2008. (Doc. 26). This Court has noted the Government's similar conduct in 1447(b) cases before. See Kilani v. Gonzalez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12946 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2008); Zhu v. Chertoff, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1099 n. 1 (W.D. Mo. 2007). Because the Government has not provided any support for why it has failed to comply with § 1447(b)'s requirements in this case, summary judgment is granted in favor of Ali. Further, under the individual circumstances [*5] presented here, the Court remands this matter to the USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiff's application within 30 days of receiving a completed background check from the FBI and that the FBI complete the name check process within 60 days this Order. See Zhu, 525 F. Supp. 2d at 1102; Salah, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78022, 2007 WL 3094228, at *4; Ibrahim, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77641, 2007 WL 3072170, at *8; Alhamedi v. Gonzales, No. 07-2541, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39601, 2007 WL 1573935, at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2007).
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Sarbast Abdullah Ali's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 24] is GRANTED and the above-captioned case REMANDED to USCIS with the following instructions: (1) The FBI shall complete Ali's background security check and report the results to the USCIS within 60 days of the date of this Order; and (2) the USCIS shall complete its adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400 application within 30 days of receiving the FBI security check. Upon completion of the adjudication, the USCIS shall promptly file an affidavit demonstrating compliance. The Court retains jurisdiction over the matter in the interim to ensure that the USCIS complies with this Order.
/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United [*6] States District Judge
DATE: May 13, 2008
Kansas City, Missouri
Lazycis and Friends,
Can someone look at the case below (The colored paragraph) and tell me if that could benefit WoMer's with NO-INTERVIEW !!!!
Thanks,
...............................................................................................
SARBAST ABDULLAH ALI, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, et. al., Defendants.
No. 07-0448-CV-W-NKL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DIVISION
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38655
May 13, 2008, Decided
May 13, 2008, Filed
OPINION
ORDER
Plaintiff Sarbast Ali ("Ali"), a citizen of Iraq, requests that this Court either naturalize him or compel Defendants Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Emilio T Gonzales, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Michael Jaromin, Director of the Kansas City Office of USCIS; and Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to immediately [*2] adjudicate his naturalization application. 1 Ali moves for summary judgment [Doc. # 24], while the Government provided the following response to the second "show cause" order entered in this case:
In response to the multitude of cases like the one presently pending before the Court, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), a defendant herein, has requested that the Department of Justice discontinue raising objections to subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, in all pending cases, such as the case before the Court, the USCIS is asking the FBI to expedite the name check clearance for the aliens. To that end, the defendants request that the Court remand this matter to the USCIS so that the case may be adjudicated upon receipt of the FBI's expedited name check.
[Doc. # 27]. This Court now grants summary judgment for Ali. The case is remanded to USCIS with instructions.
I. Facts
On October 17, 2003, Ali filed his Form N-400 Application for Naturalization. He was interviewed on June 7, 2004, and successfully passed both the English language [*3] and the history and government tests. Despite the passing of over 46 months since Ali's interview, USCIS has yet to adjudicate his application.
II. Standard
Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Gipson v. I.N.S., 284 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.2002)). In the present case, the parties essentially agree to the material facts, making summary judgment appropriate. See W.S.A., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis v. Teamsters Local Union No. 688, 959 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir. 1992)).
III. Discussion
The Government evidently concurs that 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 27); see also Patel v. Gonzales, No. 07-0083, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70801, 2007 WL 2811470, at *2-*4 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2007); Salah v. Gonzales, No. 07-0144, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78022, 2007 WL 3094228, at *2-*3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 2007); Ibrahim v. Gonzales, No. 07-3099, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77641, 2007 WL 3072170, at *2-*4 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2007). Almost [*4] four years have passed since Ali completed his interview and tests; the Government is clearly in violation of § 1447(b)'s 120- day time frame.
The Government requests that the case be remanded to USCIS without instructions regarding the background check, relying on the USCIS's representation that it has requested the FBI to "expedite the name check clearance for the aliens." It is not clear who the Government includes when referring to "the aliens." However, the Government has not provided any evidence upon which this Court may deny the relief requested specifically and individually by Ali. The Government did not file a response to Ali's motion for summary judgment, but rather a cursory response to this Court's "show cause" order of April 1, 2008. (Doc. 26). This Court has noted the Government's similar conduct in 1447(b) cases before. See Kilani v. Gonzalez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12946 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2008); Zhu v. Chertoff, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1099 n. 1 (W.D. Mo. 2007). Because the Government has not provided any support for why it has failed to comply with § 1447(b)'s requirements in this case, summary judgment is granted in favor of Ali. Further, under the individual circumstances [*5] presented here, the Court remands this matter to the USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiff's application within 30 days of receiving a completed background check from the FBI and that the FBI complete the name check process within 60 days this Order. See Zhu, 525 F. Supp. 2d at 1102; Salah, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78022, 2007 WL 3094228, at *4; Ibrahim, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77641, 2007 WL 3072170, at *8; Alhamedi v. Gonzales, No. 07-2541, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39601, 2007 WL 1573935, at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2007).
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Sarbast Abdullah Ali's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 24] is GRANTED and the above-captioned case REMANDED to USCIS with the following instructions: (1) The FBI shall complete Ali's background security check and report the results to the USCIS within 60 days of the date of this Order; and (2) the USCIS shall complete its adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400 application within 30 days of receiving the FBI security check. Upon completion of the adjudication, the USCIS shall promptly file an affidavit demonstrating compliance. The Court retains jurisdiction over the matter in the interim to ensure that the USCIS complies with this Order.
/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United [*6] States District Judge
DATE: May 13, 2008
Kansas City, Missouri
waitforsolong
Registered Users (C)
Jurisdiction over my case
Hello Lazycis and other members,
I received a letter from my congresswoman office. The letter stated that USCIS informed them that USCIS lost the jurisdiction over my case because I filed "Writ of Mandamus". But, USCIS will continue to do my background check.
Questions:
1. What I filed was 1447(b), is it the same thing as "Writ of Mandamus"? I thought 1447(b) is different from WOM. Am I wrong?
2. If USCIS lost the jurisdiction over my case, does it mean that USCIS will never approve my case even if they finish my background check?
3. If I file motion to request hearing on my case now, how long does it usually take for the judge to make decision on my case after hearing? Will judge do his/her own background check (or investigation) on my case? Can it be months for the judge to make a decision?
4. If judge order the USCIS to make a decision on my case, is it true that USCIS still have chance to deny my case?
Thanks,
Hello Lazycis and other members,
I received a letter from my congresswoman office. The letter stated that USCIS informed them that USCIS lost the jurisdiction over my case because I filed "Writ of Mandamus". But, USCIS will continue to do my background check.
Questions:
1. What I filed was 1447(b), is it the same thing as "Writ of Mandamus"? I thought 1447(b) is different from WOM. Am I wrong?
2. If USCIS lost the jurisdiction over my case, does it mean that USCIS will never approve my case even if they finish my background check?
3. If I file motion to request hearing on my case now, how long does it usually take for the judge to make decision on my case after hearing? Will judge do his/her own background check (or investigation) on my case? Can it be months for the judge to make a decision?
4. If judge order the USCIS to make a decision on my case, is it true that USCIS still have chance to deny my case?
Thanks,
waitforsolong
Registered Users (C)
how many background checks are there?
Lazycis and other members,
One more question on my case.
In my complaint, I made the standard assertion "Defendants have sufficient information to determine Plaintiff's elligibility ...".
What if USCIS says that this is wrong, that the FBI name check wasn't enough, and they are still doing some kind of further background check? If the judge orders them to adjudicate the application within 30 days or something, will they just say "Denied" because they claim to not have enough information?
How many cases are known where the judge gave the adjudication order to the USCIS, and the result was a Denial?
Thanks!
Lazycis and other members,
One more question on my case.
In my complaint, I made the standard assertion "Defendants have sufficient information to determine Plaintiff's elligibility ...".
What if USCIS says that this is wrong, that the FBI name check wasn't enough, and they are still doing some kind of further background check? If the judge orders them to adjudicate the application within 30 days or something, will they just say "Denied" because they claim to not have enough information?
How many cases are known where the judge gave the adjudication order to the USCIS, and the result was a Denial?
Thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
See here http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1911512&postcount=16594
I have limited knowledge about Natz cases.
1. In MA, the court did think that it had exclusive jurisdiction after filing 1447(b). In terms of exclusive jurisdiction, WOM and 1447(b) are different.
For a discussion of 1447(b) in U.S.A. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004), see here
See this post by Publicus who was the founder of this thread and Natz applicant.
Few other links regarding 1447(b) and court's jurisdiction:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/litclearinghouse/litclr_newsletter_080707.pdf
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13566
http://www.klaskolaw.com/library/files/federa~1.pdf
I have limited knowledge about Natz cases.
1. In MA, the court did think that it had exclusive jurisdiction after filing 1447(b). In terms of exclusive jurisdiction, WOM and 1447(b) are different.
For a discussion of 1447(b) in U.S.A. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004), see here
See this post by Publicus who was the founder of this thread and Natz applicant.
Few other links regarding 1447(b) and court's jurisdiction:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/litclearinghouse/litclr_newsletter_080707.pdf
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13566
http://www.klaskolaw.com/library/files/federa~1.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Applied in March 2006
--------------------
Applied thru a consulting firm in March 2006. Waited until November to get the Approval Notice. Gave 3500 USD to the consulting firm to process the visa based on returning the money minus the lawyer fee and the firm fee.
RFE in Nov 2006
---------------
Got an RFE. Sent more docs in 2006
Got the approval Notice in March 2007
Went to Chennai Consulate in Nov 2007 due to interview date availability with the VISA fees.
Had a satisfying interview
But Chennai sent the approval notice back to USCIS for review
Got the re-approved notice from USCIS in Feb 2008 and asked me to drop box the passport and other papers with current project details from the employer. Employer took some time to prepare the project details as it needed detailed information.
Did the drop box in beginning of May 2008
Got a 221g (AAP - admin processing) the passport to my old address in chennai (though i had given the new address in the DS - 156 form with updated phone numbers).
Went to the drop IFS Global service to enquire the address issue. They said it was sent by Chennai consulate and they said that they submitted all the docs to consulate.
Got the refusal of granting a VISA next days itself stating Employer as the issue (not able or willing to provide employment).
Employer and I have waited from March 2006 - May 2008 to get the refusal status. Employer is shocked and plan to complain USCIS.
Can somebody in the world explain what in the world I have done wrong?
Don't you all think that this is just another way of US earning money ?
If Chennai had to refuse so many visas stating various reasons, why they grant the visa in US itself in the first place ?
I am joining the group of sick people having lost all the money and the patience.
--------------------
Applied thru a consulting firm in March 2006. Waited until November to get the Approval Notice. Gave 3500 USD to the consulting firm to process the visa based on returning the money minus the lawyer fee and the firm fee.
RFE in Nov 2006
---------------
Got an RFE. Sent more docs in 2006
Got the approval Notice in March 2007
Went to Chennai Consulate in Nov 2007 due to interview date availability with the VISA fees.
Had a satisfying interview
But Chennai sent the approval notice back to USCIS for review
Got the re-approved notice from USCIS in Feb 2008 and asked me to drop box the passport and other papers with current project details from the employer. Employer took some time to prepare the project details as it needed detailed information.
Did the drop box in beginning of May 2008
Got a 221g (AAP - admin processing) the passport to my old address in chennai (though i had given the new address in the DS - 156 form with updated phone numbers).
Went to the drop IFS Global service to enquire the address issue. They said it was sent by Chennai consulate and they said that they submitted all the docs to consulate.
Got the refusal of granting a VISA next days itself stating Employer as the issue (not able or willing to provide employment).
Employer and I have waited from March 2006 - May 2008 to get the refusal status. Employer is shocked and plan to complain USCIS.
Can somebody in the world explain what in the world I have done wrong?
Don't you all think that this is just another way of US earning money ?
If Chennai had to refuse so many visas stating various reasons, why they grant the visa in US itself in the first place ?
I am joining the group of sick people having lost all the money and the patience.
Do not worry about it, the court can overturn the denial. File a motion for hearing.
waitforsolong
Registered Users (C)
Thank you for your reply, and more questions...
It has been almost 5 months since my case entered USCIS final review. I have the feeling that USCIS is looking at every possibility to deny my case. Plus, they know they lost the jurisdiction on my case, I think they don't plan to approve me any time soon.
Probably waiting for extra 30 days is meaningless on my situation. I should file motion for hearing right now.
On my original complaint, I followed some standard form and not put good details on how I am qualified as US citizen.
Do I need to make an amendment first to put the details in the complaint, then file the motion for hearing? Or, should I only draft a motion with details of my qualification, forget my original complaint?
Thanks,
It has been almost 5 months since my case entered USCIS final review. I have the feeling that USCIS is looking at every possibility to deny my case. Plus, they know they lost the jurisdiction on my case, I think they don't plan to approve me any time soon.
Probably waiting for extra 30 days is meaningless on my situation. I should file motion for hearing right now.
On my original complaint, I followed some standard form and not put good details on how I am qualified as US citizen.
Do I need to make an amendment first to put the details in the complaint, then file the motion for hearing? Or, should I only draft a motion with details of my qualification, forget my original complaint?
Thanks,
It may be a good idea, but you can attach that info to your motion for hearing and ask court to naturalize you. You can submit affidavit to state that you complied with requirements for naturalization. You may submit also affidavit signed by another US citizen (friend, pastor, etc) stating that they know you and that you have a good moral character. Affidavit should be signed in the presence of notary (any bank branch should have one). Below is a sample form for affidavit
Commonwealth of Massachusetts )
)SS:
County of )
Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared Joe Doe to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following:
(Affiant’s Statement)
___________________________
(Signature of Affiant)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this__________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public
1. It is different.
2. The USCIS may not approve or deny your case unless court decides to remand the matter back to USCIS
3. The judge can take an oath and naturalize you during the hearing
4. True, but the court can reverse it so you are in a better position after filing 1447b in any case.
waitforsolong
Registered Users (C)
Thank you, Lazycis!
One following on question on the affidavit, can I ask family to sign on it? Like my father in law?