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

Small observatoin

I noticed that some members are filing pro se without reading this whole thread. This matter is no joke. I understand that the thread is huge but the matter is so important. I read the whole thing form the begining and still decided to go with a lawyer. So for all my friends out there reading and planning to file WoM or 1447b complaints PLEASE read the whole thread. It is safer for you and better for your nerves since all the AUSA tricks and the responses to them are somewhere. This will help you keep calm and laugh at these motions to dismiss.
 
khalafah2000 said:
I wonder why did it take so long (from filing date of Sept 23 to the proof of service on Oct 16)? Is it my lawyer's fault? If true, then basically he wasted 3/4 weeks.
Click to expand...

Your lawyer could not serve the summons before it was issued by the Court clerk (Oct. 3). I assume that this was mailed to his office (couple of days with USPS), so the delay between actually receiving it from the Court till it was delivered to the defendant(s) is probably not much longer than one week.

I assume that your lawyer is working on several other cases in the same time; you probably can't expect him/her to act as fast as you would do it. (It's not his/her application, it's yours. Who can be more interested in your case than yourself?)
 
rob waiter said:
yeah, Irene. I am still hanging around.

BTW, did you call the AUSA before he contacted
you/your mom?

congrats again for this good news, which came
from the blue!
Click to expand...

No, I didn't talk to him before. I tried calling them a few times, they always transferred me to some voice mail. I left messages, but no one called me back.
I hope you'll get your good new very soon too!
 
Here is what I recieved from AUSA:

"Assented to motin to remand the matter to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of approval of the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization and Swearing-in

The defendants on the above-captioned matter respectfully move this Court to remand this case bach to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of the approval of the plaintiff's application for naturalization and the swearing-in of the plaintiff. As reasons therefore, the defendants state the following:
1. In September of 2003, the plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2. The adjudication of the plaintiff's application for naturalization had not beed concluded due to a delay in the comletion of the security checks.
3. On or about September 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed this petition for hearing on naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. 1147(B).
4. Counsel for the defendants has beed informed by a representative for the USCIS that the plaintiff's security checks have been completed and her application for naturalization is ready for adjudication.
5. The parties agree that if the plaintiff's application for naturalization is not approved and the plaintiff is not sworn-in within thirty (30) days of this Court's Order of Remand the United States District Court for the District of Massachisetts will retain jurisdiction over this matter as set forth in the plaintiff's original complaint.
..."

What do you guys think? I think everything looks good here!
 
Motion for default judgment

What’s theWhat’s the Motion for default judgment? Why and when people need to file this motion?
 
IreneB said:
Here is what I recieved from AUSA:

"Assented to motin to remand the matter to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of approval of the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization and Swearing-in

The defendants on the above-captioned matter respectfully move this Court to remand this case bach to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of the approval of the plaintiff's application for naturalization and the swearing-in of the plaintiff. As reasons therefore, the defendants state the following:
1. In September of 2003, the plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2. The adjudication of the plaintiff's application for naturalization had not beed concluded due to a delay in the comletion of the security checks.
3. On or about September 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed this petition for hearing on naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. 1147(B).
4. Counsel for the defendants has beed informed by a representative for the USCIS that the plaintiff's security checks have been completed and her application for naturalization is ready for adjudication.
5. The parties agree that if the plaintiff's application for naturalization is not approved and the plaintiff is not sworn-in within thirty (30) days of this Court's Order of Remand the United States District Court for the District of Massachisetts will retain jurisdiction over this matter as set forth in the plaintiff's original complaint.
..."

What do you guys think? I think everything looks good here!
Click to expand...


I think that you got more than you could hope, looking closely to the wording of the statute. " Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions to the Service to determine the matter" [INA Section 336(b), 8 USC 1447(b)].

As you see, the court could remand the matter to USCIS with the appropriate instructions, i.e., to ADJUDICATE your petition in xx days, and realistically speaking, this is what all of us should expect. This doesn't necessary means that USCIS should APPROVE naturalization no matter what. Theoretically a DENIAL is also a possibility of the adjudication. USCIS informed your AUSA that they are ready for adjudication, not necessary approval (I know that very likely in this case - and in the vast majority of the cases - the adjudication means approval, but don't use these two terms as synonims).

So, in my opinion, the proposed Court order is stronger than normally you could expect, because specifically states that the matter is remanded to USCIS for approval and swear-in, and states that the Court will regain jurisdiction if this doesn't happen in 30 days. I believe, that this will not happen because AUSA consulted the USCIS counsel before proposed you the above quoted deal, so they know that your petition for naturalization will be approved as soon as they gain back the jurisdiction and the whole jurney will be over in less than 30 days. Congratulations!
 
paz1960 said:
I think that you got more than you could hope, looking closely to the wording of the statute. " Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions to the Service to determine the matter" [INA Section 336(b), 8 USC 1447(b)].

As you see, the court could remand the matter to USCIS with the appropriate instructions, i.e., to ADJUDICATE your petition in xx days, and realistically speaking, this is what all of us should expect. This doesn't necessary means that USCIS should APPROVE naturalization no matter what. Theoretically a DENIAL is also a possibility of the adjudication. USCIS informed your AUSA that they are ready for adjudication, not necessary approval (I know that very likely in this case - and in the vast majority of the cases - the adjudication means approval, but don't use these two terms as synonims).

So, in my opinion, the proposed Court order is stronger than normally you could expect, because specifically states that the matter is remanded to USCIS for approval and swear-in, and states that the Court will regain jurisdiction if this doesn't happen in 30 days. I believe, that this will not happen because AUSA consulted the USCIS counsel before proposed you the above quoted deal, so they know that your petition for naturalization will be approved as soon as they gain back the jurisdiction and the whole jurney will be over in less than 30 days. Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Thank you! :)
 
peter2006 said:
What’s theWhat’s the Motion for default judgment? Why and when people need to file this motion?
Click to expand...

Motion for default judgement is filed when one of the parties doesn't answer a complaint or an another motion. For example: your clock starts ticking after you served the defendants, if they (AUSA) don't answer or file for extension before the 60 days deadline expires, after that you should file the motion for default judgement. But I don't remember that I saw on this forum a single case when this happened. For a district attorney missing the deadline should be a gross professional misconduct and I wouldn't be surprised if in such case (s)he would be disciplined. I normally wouldn't count on the 60 days expiration without anything from the AUSA. But everything is possible...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my little update.

upon my query, my AUSA (who is very courteous) told me that he had confirmed with USCIS that requests to expedite my application have been made, and that my application package is being reviewed. (any thoughts, gurus?)

I will write more if I have got more news for my case.
 
Irene,

I think this is an excellent exposition.
congrats!!

rob
IreneB said:
Here is what I recieved from AUSA:

"Assented to motin to remand the matter to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of approval of the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization and Swearing-in

The defendants on the above-captioned matter respectfully move this Court to remand this case bach to the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of the approval of the plaintiff's application for naturalization and the swearing-in of the plaintiff. As reasons therefore, the defendants state the following:
1. In September of 2003, the plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2. The adjudication of the plaintiff's application for naturalization had not beed concluded due to a delay in the comletion of the security checks.
3. On or about September 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed this petition for hearing on naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. 1147(B).
4. Counsel for the defendants has beed informed by a representative for the USCIS that the plaintiff's security checks have been completed and her application for naturalization is ready for adjudication.
5. The parties agree that if the plaintiff's application for naturalization is not approved and the plaintiff is not sworn-in within thirty (30) days of this Court's Order of Remand the United States District Court for the District of Massachisetts will retain jurisdiction over this matter as set forth in the plaintiff's original complaint.
..."

What do you guys think? I think everything looks good here!
Click to expand...
 
attorney info

I sent you a private message with the contact info of an attorney who's allowed in the San Diego court, in case you want to consult her.

utsapeng said:
Just received motion to dismiss from Attorney office. They listed three reasons:
1. The complaint is should be dismissed because plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate his application within a certain time period
2. the complaint should be dismissed because it is brought in the improper venue
3. As a pro-se plaintiff, plaintiff cannot represent his wife.

We are asked to go to court next month. Should we hire a lawyer? Your suggestion is highly appreciated!
Click to expand...
 
Filed 1447(b) in Southern district of California

I filed 1447B for Citizenship in San Diego 2 weeks ago. Waiting for the response. Will keep you guys updated. Wish me and all of us good luck.

Sky

Interview: 6/6/06
I1447B filed: 10/5/06
Certificate of service filed to Court: 10/11/06
AUSA served 10/05/06
Defendents answer due: 12/5/06
 
negotiate for the reliefs sought in WOM

I filed WOM and in the complaint, as part of relief I am seeking, I ask for 1 year credit towards waiting for citizenship (ie. reduce 5 years requirement to 4 years due to the unusal delay on my I-485). I got my green card now and US Attorney asked me to dismiss the case. I want to ask for this relief to be granted. Anyone has success in this or in negotiating other relief such as asking USCIS to pay for the Pro Se filing fees? I apprecaite your input.

WOM FILED JULY 22ND, GREEN CARD ISSUED OCT 2ND
 
WOM on I-485 EB

My employment based I-485 is handled by lawyer. Do I need to notify him before filing WOM pro se? If yes, is it a gesture of courtesy or a legal requirement? Thank you!
 
yfehgh said:
I filed WOM and in the complaint, as part of relief I am seeking, I ask for 1 year credit towards waiting for citizenship (ie. reduce 5 years requirement to 4 years due to the unusal delay on my I-485). I got my green card now and US Attorney asked me to dismiss the case. I want to ask for this relief to be granted. Anyone has success in this or in negotiating other relief such as asking USCIS to pay for the Pro Se filing fees? I apprecaite your input.

WOM FILED JULY 22ND, GREEN CARD ISSUED OCT 2ND
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you manage to get 1 year credit for the delay of your I-485 (although, I agree with you that you would deserve it). Write PM to mohamedmohamed and ask him what did he find out about this possibility. He is one of the better informed former members of this forum, and he was in a similar situation.

The defendants would pay your costs (or attorney's fee, if your case would be handled by an attorney) only if there is an order to grant you the relief you asked in your complaint. When you dismiss the case voluntarily, I saw that there is a sentence at the end that both parties support their own costs and attorney's fees. You can try, but I wouldn't haggle much about these issues. In fact, you got what you were looking for; they adjudicated your case. I'm not implying that I agree with the fact, that we incurr sometimes serious expenses to obtain what we would be entitled: timely adjudication of our petitions. I rather would pay USCIS up front the amount I'll spend on this lawsuit as an expedited processing fee, than to spend this money in court, not talking about the value of my time I spent studying the relevant legislation and the incurred stress...
 
3 weeks visit

Do i need to let the court know that i would be out of country for 3 weeks? I have filed few weeks ago through a lawyer and it is my understanding that yet to be assigned AUSA will talk to him only. Anyway, my 60 days are going to be over by the end of November and I would be back few weeks before it.
I have though sent a fax to my lawyer about my trip. I bet that if I call him, very likely he would not call me back. He doesn't have a legal assitant and takes his own calls. Almost all the time, it goes to his voice mail.
 
khalafah2000 said:
Do i need to let the court know that i would be out of country for 3 weeks? I have filed few weeks ago through a lawyer and it is my understanding that yet to be assigned AUSA will talk to him only. Anyway, my 60 days are going to be over by the end of November and I would be back few weeks before it.
I have though sent a fax to my lawyer about my trip. I bet that if I call him, very likely he would not call me back. He doesn't have a legal assitant and takes his own calls. Almost all the time, it goes to his voice mail.
Click to expand...

Well, can't you go to his office man? I know this pain not being able to reach lawyers, I have gone through that for my AOS and I think for my natz, I will go pro se.

If you have a legit reason, other than leisure for your travel, I don't think there should be a problem. I can only imagine that if AUSA learns about your trip, just to mess you up, he would take action while you are gone. I don't think you can find anything out about this through court or AUSA, only through your lawyer and you know, you gotta do what you gotta do! Once AUSA contacts your lawyer about the case, your lawyer will want to contact you and then he will realize you are gone and will be back on a certain date. Then I believe he can stall the case until you are back.

In my opinion, it is doable, as long as it is necessary! Best wishes, God Bless.
 
I got the oath letter

dhua said:
I called the national service phone inquiry today (1-800-375-5283). After waiting for 40+ minutes as usual, I talked to an officer and ask him about my application status. He told me an oath letter is sent out today and I should get it in two weeks. He did not tell me when the exactly oath day is but it should be someday in the 2nd week of November. This is the second source beside ASUA to confirm my case is moving one more step.
It will pass the election registration deadline (in a week) but I am ok with it. I may pushed too hard for them anyway. If thing goes well, I will be naturalized before ASUS' answer due and I will file motion to dismiss right then.
Click to expand...
I got the oath letter this afternoon. The ceremony is scheduled on November 16, 2006. It will be just 4 day before US attorney answer due.
Many many thanks for all the heros in this forum to make this happen. If I did not see this forum, I would still stuck in waiting mode.
 
Congradulations, dhua. This is yet another success.


sky

dhua said:
I got the oath letter this afternoon. The ceremony is scheduled on November 16, 2006. It will be just 4 day before US attorney answer due.
Many many thanks for all the heros in this forum to make this happen. If I did not see this forum, I would still stuck in waiting mode.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top