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

I uploaded the file. It shows the defendants: director of my field office, district director, CIS director, DHS secretary, and because they claimed my background check was being held up, I named FBI director and Attorney General.
 

Attachments

  • Anonymous LAWSUIT PETITION 8 USC § 1447(b).pdf
    89.4 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
cafeconleche said:
I uploaded the file. It shows the defendants: director of my field office, district director, CIS director, DHS secretary, and because they claimed my background check was being held up, I named FBI director and Attorney General.
Click to expand...

Thanks cafeconleche for the file. My case is a bit different. For me I passed my interview on Sept 15, 2014. At the time, a decision could not be made on my application, as they had not received my original A-File. I contacted the Service - Tier 2 officer several times, and was told finally that they received my file on Nov 17. Since then I have been waiting anxiously for a response but am told that the case is "Pending Consideration" - whatever that means. So status was changed from "Processing Hold" to "Pending Consideration" on Dec 23rd after sending them a Service Request. I made an infopass just yesterday, and the officer told me that the case is pending security checks, and the officer was informed, and that she would try to make a call to obtain security clearance. 120 days have passed since my interview, and another 60 days since the file was received. I was told by the CSR on phone to wait 90 days since the receipt of the file to file a SR. In the meantime, I have approached the Congresswoman's office for my district to enquire about the status as well.

I suspect this delay has something to do with visit from the ICE consultants (off-duty) sometime in 2011 - two years after my work based GC. It has something to do with a complaint they received regarding my employer who filed my GC. Since then - I did not hear back - neither did my employer. All questions asked concerning the business and practices of the employer. May be I should have consulted an attorney rather than answering the questions directly. In any case, I think I will give them an additional month and intend to file the lawsuit by March of this year, hoping it does not get complicated.
 
Security checks is the same as your background check, probably, and the claim is the FBI is being slow. So, our cases are pretty much alike. Whatever the reason, you can sue after 120 days, and you ought to unless you want to wait.
 
cafeconleche said:
Security checks is the same as your background check, probably, and the claim is the FBI is being slow. So, our cases are pretty much alike. Whatever the reason, you can sue after 120 days, and you ought to unless you want to wait.
Click to expand...
Yes I hate it when their internal mishandling of cases become our problem. I am just waiting to hear back from the congresswoman, which I sent a case enquiry to yesterday. I would like to know if they can shed more light on the security check, hoping its not a waste of my time. At this point, I could care less. I just need this to be over with, and with the successes reported on this forum am willing to chance it. I read somewhere that once a law suit is filed, USCIS gets vindictive and would look for opportunities to deny citizenship, but such cases are not reported anywhere. In any case, that is the risk one must be willing to take I guess to get a speedy response.
 
Does your case have anything that could lead to a denial? Long absences? Criminal record? If you're clean, you have nothing to worry about.

Get in touch with the FBI too and request your record. I did and it was clean.
 
cafeconleche said:
Does your case have anything that could lead to a denial? Long absences? Criminal record? If you're clean, you have nothing to worry about.

Get in touch with the FBI too and request your record. I did and it was clean.
Click to expand...


Hi cafeconleche,

Thank you for your quick response. I don't really think it is the FBI name check, only because the current status showed 'Pending Consideration' , however the Infopass Officer told me that it is 'Security Checks' and the officer has been informed. He also stated that some security checks take long and other short and there is clearly no date, when it could be resolved. There was a clear change from 'Processing Hold for security Checks' before Nov 17 when the A-File was missing to 'Pending Consideration. That could mean anything. What the infopass officer told me was clearly different from what USCIS call center officer Tier 2 told me.
I am preparing my lawsuit, because I believe the response from congresswoman will not help, and they most probably will respond according to the Service Request reason. I heard that Eric Holder has resigned, and the current DA of Eastern District of New York - Loretta Lynch will be replacing him, but that decision has yet to be made. Do I wait till it is confirmed - as a defendant in the lawsuit ? Also, does the DA from the Eastern District has to be included in the Lawsuit. I am in a dilemma, since both posts could soon be having a new official.
 
Apparently you can name the office without naming the person (so, defendants would be Attorney General of the US, not Eric Holder). You wouldn't name the DA as she doesn't have anything to do with the agencies dealing with your case. The District Director of CIS is a different story.

By the way, some people have even named the president as a defendant as he is the head of the executive branch that oversees the departments and its agencies.

Whatever you choose to do re the FBI checks, you can explain that you are getting conflicting responses, and there seems to be no coordination within the agency, which could indicate a lack of service or professionalism for which they charge the fee of $590 or whatever. In the end, they know they have 120 days to adjudicate before you can sue, and if they think think they can't make it, they should know where they stand and for what reason, and that they should contact you to explain/request additional information.
 
Again thanks Cafeconleche for your swift response. Most attorneys would advise against taking this route, but I guess there is nothing to gain from just waiting and stressing about it. I will prepare the lawsuit this week and probably file it by next week.
 
I was nervous about filing too. Also, a lot of immigration lawyers don't really have that much experience with cases like this. They mostly deal with routine applications for which one doesn't really need a lawyer anyway. I went to a lawyer too, and she was hardly helpful with my continuous residence/physical presence questions. If you have nothing to lose by waiting a little longer, then you're welcome to. I really couldn't wait as I couldn't travel freely, or apply for federal jobs like the foreign service. So, I went for it.
 
goodguy1200 said:
Update on my pro se lawsuit filed on Dec 9, 2014

(1) AUSA files his appearance on Dec 16, 2014
(2) I find email and phone number of AUSA from Pacer and contact him same day on Dec 16, 2014
(3) USCIS Officer calls me on Dec 22, 2014 and asks minor clarification.
(4) On Dec 24, 2014, USCIS Ombudsman sends an email that USCIS has approved my case on Dec 22, 2014 and they are closing my complaint.
(5) USCIS website still shows the 6 month old status

This 1447 lawsuit works like magic - USCIS approved the pending naturalization case within 14 days after filing lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Hi Goodguy1200. My 120 day mark is approaching and I am thinking to file a 1447 (b) lawsuit. Did you send a demand letter before you filed your lawsuit? And if you did, can you share the text as well.
I am not sure if there are any advantages in sending a demand letter?

Appreciate your help
 
cafeconleche said:
Apparently you can name the office without naming the person (so, defendants would be Attorney General of the US, not Eric Holder). You wouldn't name the DA as she doesn't have anything to do with the agencies dealing with your case. The District Director of CIS is a different story.

By the way, some people have even named the president as a defendant as he is the head of the executive branch that oversees the departments and its agencies.

Whatever you choose to do re the FBI checks, you can explain that you are getting conflicting responses, and there seems to be no coordination within the agency, which could indicate a lack of service or professionalism for which they charge the fee of $590 or whatever. In the end, they know they have 120 days to adjudicate before you can sue, and if they think think they can't make it, they should know where they stand and for what reason, and that they should contact you to explain/request additional information.
Click to expand...

Cafeconleche,
I filed my lawsuit yesterday and mailed out the Summons yesterday itself. District Attorney for Eastern District of NY is also a party, who was not listed in the lawsuit as defendants, but per instructions should be mailed a copy, which I did. I decided not to wait for the response from Congresswoman since USCIS does not care about anyone. I have called USCIS every week since the interview, only to be told several stories and given false assurances. It a right that we all need to take advantage of. The suspense kills especially when there is no time limit given for ending this saga, which unfortunately only maybe every 1 out of 100 cases must face.
 
Last edited:
Cafeconleche,
While serving the Summons via certified mail, I put my name on the envelope on the top left corner. Does this become a valid process of serving ?
Let me know,
Thanks
 
cafeconleche said:
Apparently you can name the office without naming the person (so, defendants would be Attorney General of the US, not Eric Holder). You wouldn't name the DA as she doesn't have anything to do with the agencies dealing with your case. The District Director of CIS is a different story.

By the way, some people have even named the president as a defendant as he is the head of the executive branch that oversees the departments and its agencies.

Whatever you choose to do re the FBI checks, you can explain that you are getting conflicting responses, and there seems to be no coordination within the agency, which could indicate a lack of service or professionalism for which they charge the fee of $590 or whatever. In the end, they know they have 120 days to adjudicate before you can sue, and if they think think they can't make it, they should know where they stand and for what reason, and that they should contact you to explain/request additional information.
Click to expand...

Some minor clarification - I know you told me sometime back that the District Attorney should not be included as a defendant to the lawsuit, however from the guidelines, it seems that she should be mailed a copy. My question is does the DA represent the defendants or AUSA (from Attorney Generals Office) ? I just hope I did not make a mistake by not including DA for Eastern District of New York as a defendant in my complaint. Let me know if you can shed some light. I see some have include the DA as a defendant. Also I did send a copy to the DA as per requirement, but will that suffice ? Your response is greatly appreciated.
 
The DA is NOT a defendant. That is clear. I also think the DA is the one who would prosecute, not defend.

The US Attorney's office defends the government, so that's who will be involved. I sent a copy to that office. Did you call the court clerk for Pro Se cases? He was VERY helpful, and since it was the Eastern District, you'd probably get the same guy in Brooklyn. I think the government will assign an attorney, and he will get a copy.

Read this thread from here on: http://forums.immigration.com/threa...inking-about-a-lawsuit-merged.182108/page-891

Most of my case is discussed.
 
Last edited:
I think we are saying the same thing. I think it is the US Attorney for Eastern District of NY who is not listed as a defendant, but to whom I had to send a copy. I did speak to the same person in Brooklyn who was very helpful but I filed the case at the Branch in Central Islip. I haven't seen any cases arising out of Central Islip over the last year, so I guess mines would be the first <GULP>. I think I got this all figured out now. I was confused between Attorney General for Easter District of NY (Loretta Lynch Non Defandant) and US Attorney General (Eric Holder - Defendant) and District Attorney(Not involved). I would therefore assume that the 60 days start when Attorney General of US gets the summons or is it the US Attorney General.
 
Loretta Lynch is the US Attorney, NOT the District Attorney. So, her office will take the case to defend the federal government, whose agencies you are taking to court. An assistant US attorney in her office will take this case, as it is a simple waste of time. 60 days... I think start once all of the defendants have been served... I forgot.

Forget about the District Attorney, who works at the county level for criminal cases.
 
Cafeconleche,

I finally received a response from the Congresswoman on Feb 13, that states that my case is currently pending extensive background checks that reveal an issue potentially impacting his eligibility for the requested immigration benefit, thus further inquiry is needed. This response is a standard response I found in other forums when something is required from other agencies. Upon gathering and assessing all available information, USCIS will then adjudicate your application as expeditiously as possible.

On a separate note, Tier 2 officer Service request enquiry states that my case is under supervisor review as of Feb 15.

Nothing I suspect to do with the lawsuit. Hopefully this wont get complicated. Nothing with the exception of the Lawsuit has really helped until this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top