Eastbayer said:Hi buggin,
This is what I got from googling:
Dismiss without prejudice = To dismiss the present action, but leave open the possibility of another suit on the same claim.
This is absolutely correct. If the action is dismissed "without prejudice" it means that the plaintiff can file a new lawsuit against the same defendants based on the same grounds. I was just making the point that the lawsuit cannot "revert" back to court. You will have to file a new one after the first one is dismissed.
However, I think the chance that I have to reopen the case is slim. I copied "In case...." from our big brother Publicus' great example, just to play it super safe!
I agree. You will have your application approved and won't have to worry about another petition. If the USCIS had any reasons not to approve your application, they woudn't be signing an agreement with you in first place.
By the way, there are several posts here saying one does not have to dismiss the case to allow USCIS to adjudicate the naturalization application. The most recent example is ReaSuperK's. He dismissed his case immediately following his oath. It seems to me that USCIS is the one that requests a name check expedition and finishes up the work, then gives US Att. a progress report at every milestone. Not the other way around. But calling the DA's office is a simple way to get your case update.
This would be the best way to handle it. However, in some cases USCIS wouldn't approve your application until the case is dismissed. Sometimes, they just want to give you a hard time.
I went to the Oakland sub-office last Friday (One can go to this office inquiring any time without an InfoPass, as long as you have your GC with you). They confirmed everything is ready, and double-checked my mailing address etc. So I think it is pretty safe to dismiss the case now.
My case has been asigned to a judge in Oakland. For me, it is a 1.5 hour drive. Oh well, I think I can deal with this inconvenience as long as I am going to be approved for citizenship..
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
You are absolutely right. This is exactly what is going to happen if the 120-day rule will go away. It seems to me that USCIS opposes WOMs more often than they do the 1447(b) petition, because the rules for WOM do not have any prescribed timeframes. However, I am still optimistic and believe that there is still going to be a loophole to get through or some kind of remedy provided for people to get their matters resolved.goldspot7 said:
buggin said:
And this is why I'm always advising people who have their processing delayed to start a.s.a.p. writing to Congressperson, Senators, FBI, USCIS, Ombudsman, etc...at the end when and if litigation is necessary, these letters, emails, faxes, InfoPasses will weight heavy to defeat USCIS in court.
Not to mention that for Writ of Mandamus, is mandatory to show that all the Administrative remedies were exhausted before going to court.
Holy Fock! 2.5 years delay is NOT Unreasonable!
, a delay in this case is characterized as NOT Unreasonable (on top of page 6 of the attached doc, in bold print). Now I see, illegals do have better right than the legals, as you all may have noticed, the current bill is trying to take away the right of judicial reviews for the legal immigrants as much as possible while granting those illegals "path to citizenship", damn it, something is wrong here!
Be careful with WOMs, folks!
Good luck to all.
Balto
Excuse my language, but really, holy fockgoldspot7 said:
, a delay in this case is characterized as NOT Unreasonable (on top of page 6 of the attached doc, in bold print). Now I see, illegals do have better right than the legals, as you all may have noticed, the current bill is trying to take away the right of judicial reviews for the legal immigrants as much as possible while granting those illegals "path to citizenship", damn it, something is wrong here! Be careful with WOMs, folks!
Good luck to all.
Balto
Last edited by a moderator:
well, if you read the senate's bill carefully, you will notice that
a) the illegals will retroactively be granted social security benefits, estimated at about $80 - 100 billion. or about $300 per adult, boy and girl, for their illegal stay in this country.
b) the documents supplied by the illegals are NOT to be investigated by any government agencies, yet it is based on those documents that the illegals are to be granted immigration benefits. Talk about checks and balances.
or common sense, or the lack of.
a) the illegals will retroactively be granted social security benefits, estimated at about $80 - 100 billion. or about $300 per adult, boy and girl, for their illegal stay in this country.
b) the documents supplied by the illegals are NOT to be investigated by any government agencies, yet it is based on those documents that the illegals are to be granted immigration benefits. Talk about checks and balances.
or common sense, or the lack of.
Holy Fock again!
Balto
Now that you brought that up, I can't help adding my 2 cents. The illegals in the bill were refered to as "undocumented", yet the bill will give those who are here 5 yrs or more with direct path to GC, 2 to 5 yrs get out and get back in, less than 2 yrs get out. They are UNDOCUMENTED, who the fock in his/her right mind will produce a piece of sh*t saying s/he was here for less than 2 yrs? I am searching for a word for the person who come up with this measure in this bill, help me guys/gals!qili said:
Balto
I am with you, guys. This new bill really infuriates me. I would love to know what is the reasoning bihind this bill. Well, as somebody mentiones here, it is the lack of reasoning that makes this bill so bad. On the other hand having personally met my local congresswoman numerous times, I am not surprised that this bill makes no sense: yes, why don't we reward people who disobey our own laws? If all the polititians on Capitol Hill are in the same state of mind as my congresswoman, I am not surprised at all. She can't even speak in sentences, let alone making laws. This is really outrageous.qili said:
greencard12
Registered Users (C)
goldspot7 said:
When I called the DA about three weeks ago, he said he would file the motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. So far I have not received his answer yet. Since I filed WOM for my I485, I guess his argument would be similar to this one. Basically, the DA argued that
(1) "Plaintiffs have an alternative avenue of relief available: Wait in the line with the other individuals awaiting visa petitions ..."
(2) "Plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a clear right to the relief they seek of lawful permanent resident ... while the background checks remain pending. "
(3) "Jurisdiction does not lie under the Administrative Procecure Act because there is no final agency decision, And the Delay in Adjuducating the application is NOT unresonable."
Guys, do you have any idea how to fight these arguments?
khalafah2000
Registered Users (C)
FBI name check supervisor testimony
anybody remember that there is a post in this forum which says that FBI can complete a name check within 48 hours and can even expedite it if requested by USCIS. Actually that was the testimony of FBI name check supervisor.
i can't find this post? anybody remember where is it?
anybody remember that there is a post in this forum which says that FBI can complete a name check within 48 hours and can even expedite it if requested by USCIS. Actually that was the testimony of FBI name check supervisor.
i can't find this post? anybody remember where is it?
She's not alone in federal Gov.
Is she R or D?
AGC4ME, just my 2 cents, I believe you should not file WOM if your PD is not current, I think if you do, they can simply dismiss your case with "plaintiff is not eligible for AOS at this time, b/c no visa is available".
greencard12, I feel your pain, WOM in my opinion is always a tough fight. However I did remember reading in this thread some successful WOM cases, as a matter of fact I was trying to find them for you in my saved documents folder, but I could not find any (mine was 1447b, so I guess I did not pay enough attention to WOMs for I-485, sorry ). Maybe someone here can help you locate some, or you may want to try PACER, I have never tried that but I heard it can do wonders in terms of finding info
Good luck to all!
Balto
She can't even speak in sentencesha, ha, ha, ha, she's not alone, you know what I meanbuggin said:
Is she R or D?AGC4ME, just my 2 cents, I believe you should not file WOM if your PD is not current, I think if you do, they can simply dismiss your case with "plaintiff is not eligible for AOS at this time, b/c no visa is available".
greencard12, I feel your pain, WOM in my opinion is always a tough fight. However I did remember reading in this thread some successful WOM cases, as a matter of fact I was trying to find them for you in my saved documents folder, but I could not find any (mine was 1447b, so I guess I did not pay enough attention to WOMs for I-485, sorry
). Maybe someone here can help you locate some, or you may want to try PACER, I have never tried that but I heard it can do wonders in terms of finding info Good luck to all!
Balto
Balto said:Now that you brought that up, I can't help adding my 2 cents. The illegals in the bill were refered to as "undocumented", yet the bill will give those who are here 5 yrs or more with direct path to GC, 2 to 5 yrs get out and get back in, less than 2 yrs get out. They are UNDOCUMENTED, who the fock in his/her right mind will produce a piece of sh*t saying s/he was here for less than 2 yrs? I am searching for a word for the person who come up with this measure in this bill, help me guys/gals!
Balto
Special interest groups lobby the Congress. This in not about what's rightful, nor about justice...is about money, politics and the own agenda of Hispanics (especially Mexicans) who soon will not be a "minority" in this country...already L.A. has over 50% Latino population
khalafah2000
Registered Users (C)
Balto said:
thanks Balto, that was exactly what i was looking for.
sfaizullah
Registered Users (C)
khalafah2000 said:
In the mean time utilize this time by "bottom-up approach" writing to USCIS (starting by your interview officer, local DO director, Dr. E. Gonzalez, FBI (someone from Mr. Canon's team, Mr. Canon, Mr. Hooton, Mr. Mueller) and Mr. Chertoff & Mr. Alberto Gonzales. and while you are at it why not White House. Supplement this by going to your Congressman, senator and one or more InfoPass.
Keep all certified mail receipts and copy of InfoPass results.
All this is just in case you end up in front of a judge who may ask if you tried other avenues. This will show them that you did. And maybe one of these officers help (very unlikely but possible) and you will not need 1447(b) but if you do then you have something that you can tell the DA and if needed the judge.
Good Luck!
Best Regards
Last edited by a moderator:
Eastbayer said:Hi All,
I proposed the following modifications:
.....in light of the fact that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is now prepared to adjudicate plaintiff’s application for naturalization and agree to grant approval of such application within 30 days of the dismissal of this action. In case Plaintiff is not naturalized within this mutually agreed timeframe, the case will revert back to the Court who will then have jurisdiction over the matter....
Will check with the DA's office next Monday.
Many thanks to qim, horiba, Finale, mohamedx2, buggin....and all the friends here. Good luck to everyone
You are welcome.
By the way, when I was in same situation and proposed my own text of Stipulation to Dismiss, I also included this "...case will revert... " piece, not just " ...to grant approval... " piece (about which I told you earlier).
However, UA Atty. office didn't like the "revert" piece because, as they explained to me, this was already effectively included by using wording "without prejudice" (which is correct).
After some thinking I decided to agree with final version that did not have the "revert" piece but did have "grant approval" piece.
Eastbayer,Eastbayer said:Hi buggin,
This is what I got from googling:
Dismiss without prejudice = To dismiss the present action, but leave open the possibility of another suit on the same claim.
However, I think the chance that I have to reopen the case is slim. I copied "In case...." from our big brother Publicus' great example, just to play it super safe!
By the way, there are several posts here saying one does not have to dismiss the case to allow USCIS to adjudicate the naturalization application. The most recent example is ReaSuperK's. He dismissed his case immediately following his oath. It seems to me that USCIS is the one that requests a name check expedition and finishes up the work, then gives US Att. a progress report at every milestone. Not the other way around. But calling the DA's office is a simple way to get your case update
I went to the Oakland sub-office last Friday (One can go to this office inquiring any time without an InfoPass, as long as you have your GC with you). They confirmed everything is ready, and double-checked my mailing address etc. So I think it is pretty safe to dismiss the case now.
Oakland sub-office for inquiring name check status? Do you mean the office where we were interviewd? How did you do? Go to the front desk and show them your GC and then they will let us know the current status of our N-400 naturalization application? Could you please let me know more about this. Thansk a lot.
syt
Passionate
New Member
Lawsuit
Dear Publicus and Bashar82,
I'm also living in Annandale, VA. Do I have to file lawsuit against INS in Easten District Court, Alexandria or Washington DC District? Which one is better for plantiff? THanks so much for your response
Dear Publicus and Bashar82,
I'm also living in Annandale, VA. Do I have to file lawsuit against INS in Easten District Court, Alexandria or Washington DC District? Which one is better for plantiff? THanks so much for your response
mohamedmohamed
Registered Users (C)
go to the next link , click on the state where you residnet, and find out , it should tell you which district you file atPassionate said:
http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/