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

[moody22]

I got a phone call on 11/8/06 at lunch from my attorney that my name check is cleared. When I got home the same day, I got the oath letter. It is a huge release. I can not be any happier. My oath is schedule 11/21/06. Thank again to everyone on this forum and without all of you I will not get my oath letter that quickly. I will still stick around and try to answer questions and share my experience. For guys, such as Mr. LA, who are still fighting, please keep fighting and you will be the next one to win and just don't give up.

Regards,

Jack

Man, Congratulationsssssssssssssssss.

What a relife, the same one i felt yesterday. It feels diffrent when you get your rights through legal fight. you feel that you are not weak. you did standed up for your self.

Why in hell others should contol your life, while you live in a free country.

Good luck in your future life planning, after you removed the bastards out of your way.

Regards,

Moody

 

[lenscrafterslen]

help needed on order from judge

i posted last night that i missed a certified mail with return receipt request from the judge. today i got it. i think i know every word in the letter, but man, when they are put together, i really don't know what it means.

so i really need some help here from those more knowledgeable. if you could point me to another post that may help me, that would be great too!

background: i filed the WOM three weeks ago and have served the sommons but not filed the certification of service yet. (will do next MOnday.) then last week i received a regular mail from the judge for a conference schedule.

the letter reads as follows:

*****
the clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order...., upon the US attorney and shall also mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff. respondent shall file an answer or motion of apperance herein within 60 days from the date of this order. responding papers shall include such information as may be necessary in order that this court may ascertain whether the plaintiff has exhausted alll administrative remedies.

in the even respondent wishes to move for judgment on the pleadings (or otherwise file a case dispositive motion), it may do so without the necessity of a pre-motion conference but must do so no later than 30 days after filing an answer.
*****

okay i feel an idiot reading this. can anyone explains to me what is this about? what's the implication for me? what are the things i need to do or not to do?

many thanks!

 

[786riz]

My understanding is the person got naturalized because I did not find any other posting and the case did not come to the court. But you can see what a battle he fought as a Pro Se. You were worrying about your two tickets but this case shows you that tickets are not a big deal.
Thank you.

Just to summarize, in this case the first N400 decison seems to have been made within the normal decison time of the additional information being provided (6/17/02) without any 1447b filing. The petitioner then files an appeal and gets the moral character question reolved but denial stands due to one day late. So he files again immedeatly and is told background check pending so files under 1447b and gets a decision to remand to USCIS for 90 days. I suspect this case is now reolved and the guy has had his oath because no other filing is available under this name in pacer. Is this your understanding ?

 

[786riz]

Congratulation moody22, you did it. It was no easy but your persistent effort made this possible. Enjoy the victory and help others.
Thank you.

Alright friends, I won the fight against the bastards.

After seven days from filing and serving the defendants, I couldn’t believed it when the honorable Judge ordered a hearing.

The hearing was today at 11.20 am. My attorney office called me at 10.30 am, and connected me to my attorney who was driving in his way to the court.
The attorney told me congratulation. I’m like what, what happened?
He said that the AUSA just called him, saying that he has in his hands two faxes from the CIS, one for the interview appointment within three weeks, and the second one for a new fingerprint appointment, since the one I did has been already expired ”was taken on August-04”.
My attorney said: they better finish this case very quick, it seems like the judge is very angry, and that’s why he ordered a hearing order.
The AUSA said they searched their record, and found out that the plaintiff is right. His background security checks were completed on august, 04. Their record shows his still pending; obviously they didn’t update their crap. CIS are inefficient at all and they need a new system in place right away.
In front of the Honorable judge, the AUSA said: It’s already been done, Mr. Judge. we have everything ready, and he will be sworn in January, if not sooner.
My attorney want to keep the case open until I get my Oath, but the Judge said there is no reason for that. Your client should be happy since we finished his case quickly. If anything went wrong, we can reopen the case.

Now friends, you see, we are right, and they are jus bastards. They are just a bunch of lazy asses, setting on our applications for years for no reasons. They rely on getting us scared to hell, thinking that we are criminals and terrorists.
But we have to show them hell in all courts, nationwide, to make them aware that we will never give up our rights to be proud Americans.

Good luck to everybody still fighting the bastards.

Hopefully I will pass the English test, pray for me

 

[786riz]

Congratulations cajack. You too, this is great, in one page two victories. Enjoy the moment and help each other.
Thank you

I got a phone call on 11/8/06 at lunch from my attorney that my name check is cleared. When I got home the same day, I got the oath letter. It is a huge release. I can not be any happier. My oath is schedule 11/21/06. Thank again to everyone on this forum and without all of you I will not get my oath letter that quickly. I will still stick around and try to answer questions and share my experience. For guys, such as Mr. LA, who are still fighting, please keep fighting and you will be the next one to win and just don't give up.

Regards,

Jack

 

[cajack]

786riz:

Thank you very much. I will stick around and try my best to help people out here. Since I went through this Name check stuff myself, I really understand how people, who stuck in it, feel.

Regards,

Jack

Congratulations cajack. You too, this is great, in one page two victories. Enjoy the moment and help each other.
Thank you

 

[786riz]

Hi paz,
The difference that I saw between past cases and this is that, in past cases when the case was remand to the USCIS the security check was still pending but in this case security check was completed. Plaintiff point out this in his motion and asked the judge to adjudicate his application. He mentioned that in past cases judges remand because they said that they did not have resources to complete the security check but in my case security checks are completed, although this judge did not buy this reason and still said that this court do not have expertise to interpret the out of the different results.
Nevertheless, this guy really gave a very good battle.
Thank you.

In the judge's opinion it is stated that the background check was completed and USCIS is willing to adjudicate the application in 90 to 120 days if the Court decides to remand. According to the final order, the case was remanded to USCIS "for a prompt determination of Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within ninety (90) days of the date of this order".

I have no knowledge if this adjudication really happened in the ordered timeframe.

 

[paz1960]

i posted last night that i missed a certified mail with return receipt request from the judge. today i got it. i think i know every word in the letter, but man, when they are put together, i really don't know what it means.

so i really need some help here from those more knowledgeable. if you could point me to another post that may help me, that would be great too!

background: i filed the WOM three weeks ago and have served the sommons but not filed the certification of service yet. (will do next MOnday.) then last week i received a regular mail from the judge for a conference schedule.

the letter reads as follows:

*****
the clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this order...., upon the US attorney and shall also mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff. respondent shall file an answer or motion of apperance herein within 60 days from the date of this order. responding papers shall include such information as may be necessary in order that this court may ascertain whether the plaintiff has exhausted alll administrative remedies.

in the even respondent wishes to move for judgment on the pleadings (or otherwise file a case dispositive motion), it may do so without the necessity of a pre-motion conference but must do so no later than 30 days after filing an answer.
*****

okay i feel an idiot reading this. can anyone explains to me what is this about? what's the implication for me? what are the things i need to do or not to do?

many thanks!

Hello lenscrafterlsen,

Certainly this is not the most usual sequence of the events I saw reported on this forum, but reading this order from the judge, I think that you should not worry. My understanding is that this order is addressed primarily to the Respondents (in some courts they are called Defendants, anyway, the agencies you are sueing), you just got a copy because the rules require that both sides get everything which is filed with the court or ordered by the judge.

Nothing new that Respondents have to file an answer to your complaint before the 60 days are up. But looks that this 60 days is counted now from the date of the order, not from the date when the US Attorney's Office was served. Instead of answering your complaint, respondents can file a motion in which they can ask the Court to dismiss your case, they can ask for summary judgement or to simply extend the time they are allowed to answer your complaint. Looks to me that the ball is anyway in their court.

The judge specifically requested that Respondents should include in their answer or motion all the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted all the available administrative remedy before he filed this lawsuit.

I believe that in your complaint you explained and demonstrated with exhibits that you did everything possible to get a resolution from USCIS before you took this last resort measure to file a complaint in the Court. This is one of the three pre-requisites of a WOM based complaint. That's why people think that it is more difficult a WOM than a complaint based on 1447(b). This latter is available only for N-400 applicants who had their interview more than 120 days ago and still no decision on their cases.

Bottom line; I believe that at this moment you can't and you don't have to do anything, besides prepare for writing an opposition to the Respondents Motion to Dismiss.

 

[moody22]

Congratulation moody22, you did it. It was no easy but your persistent effort made this possible. Enjoy the victory and help others.
Thank you.

Thank you 786riz.

I will stick here, to my peferred lovely forum, to help others as i was been helped before.

My only advise for everybody here, file your case, wether its 1447b or WOM as soon as possible, wether you get interviewed or not. this is the only way to get this shit done.

File before they close this door too.

Regards,

Moody

 

[needsolution]

Please help with removal of attorney from record expeditiously

I have a problem with my attorney. He is a pain and does not file the motions I want him to file on time. He is always busy taking in other cases. Since he has been paid in full and upfront, he does not care about my case. I want to file a motion I prepared pro se now, but since he is the attorney of record, the court clerk told me that the attorney has to withdraw himself from my case before I can file something pro se. Knowing him, this could take several months for him to do and then it would be too late for me to file this motion. Does anyone know a quick procedural way for me notifying the court that he is no longer my attorney and so I can file this motion pro se, right away

 

[SanJoseCA]

Civil cover sheet: nature of suit

At the "Civil Cover Sheet", what should we choose for "Nature of Suit"? Should we select "Civil Rights 440 Other Civil Rights"?

Thanks

 

[dreamtoGC]

Preparing Summons

Hi! everyone
I thank everyone who devote his precious time and efforts to this thread.
Now I am preparing Pso se WoM. I selected four defendant as follows;Secretary of DHS, Director of USCIS and VSC and Director of FBI. I did not include US Attorney general and US Attorney. My question is that Should I prepare summons for US Atorney and Attorney general. I read the article they are should be served even if they are not in the defendants list.
Thanks in advance
EB-3 RIR PD 04/2001
I-485 RD 07/2003
FP 08/2004
Pending NC since 07/2003
File WoM: Very Soon

 

[786riz]

890 Other Statutory Actions

At the "Civil Cover Sheet", what should we choose for "Nature of Suit"? Should we select "Civil Rights 440 Other Civil Rights"?

Thanks

 

[paz1960]

At the "Civil Cover Sheet", what should we choose for "Nature of Suit"? Should we select "Civil Rights 440 Other Civil Rights"?

Thanks

If you tell us some details about what do you want to file, we may help you. With the information given, the answer is NO (or MAYBE).

If you file for a Petition for Hearing on naturalization Application under 1447(b), the correct "nature of suit" is what 786riz mentioned in the previous post.
If you file a Writ of Mandamus, the correct category is 540 (I believe).

 

[paz1960]

Hi! everyone
I thank everyone who devote his precious time and efforts to this thread.
Now I am preparing Pso se WoM. I selected four defendant as follows;Secretary of DHS, Director of USCIS and VSC and Director of FBI. I did not include US Attorney general and US Attorney. My question is that Should I prepare summons for US Atorney and Attorney general. I read the article they are should be served even if they are not in the defendants list.
Thanks in advance
EB-3 RIR PD 04/2001
I-485 RD 07/2003
FP 08/2004
Pending NC since 07/2003
File WoM: Very Soon

Correct. Even if you don't include the Attorney General in the list of Defendants, he and the US Attorney for your district has to be served. See attached Practice Advisory from the American Immigration Law Foundation.

 

[paz1960]

I have a problem with my attorney. He is a pain and does not file the motions I want him to file on time. He is always busy taking in other cases. Since he has been paid in full and upfront, he does not care about my case. I want to file a motion I prepared pro se now, but since he is the attorney of record, the court clerk told me that the attorney has to withdraw himself from my case before I can file something pro se. Knowing him, this could take several months for him to do and then it would be too late for me to file this motion. Does anyone know a quick procedural way for me notifying the court that he is no longer my attorney and so I can file this motion pro se, right away

Check out this website: http://www.slandau.com/faqs.htm

 

[dreamtoGC]

Correct. Even if you don't include the Attorney General in the list of Defendants, he and the US Attorney for your district has to be served. See attached Practice Advisory from the American Immigration Law Foundation.

Thanks paz1960 for your prompt reply
I gonna file WOM NJ district, Newark. They request summons be prepared by me, Plaintiff. I am confused should I prepare summons for US Attorney and Attorney general. If I look at the summons, there is space for the defendants in the tile section and space for the defendant name and address for delivery. Since US Attorney and Attorney general are not defendants where should I put their name or Just make copy for the stamped summons for others and serve that copy along with my complaint?

Thanks

 

[paz1960]

Thanks paz1960 for your prompt reply
I gonna file WOM NJ district, Newark. They request summons be prepared by me, Plaintiff. I am confused should I prepare summons for US Attorney and Attorney general. If I look at the summons, there is space for the defendants in the tile section and space for the defendant name and address for delivery. Since US Attorney and Attorney general are not defendants where should I put their name or Just make copy for the stamped summons for others and serve that copy along with my complaint?

Thanks

1. I included the US Attorney General in the list of Defendants.
2. In the space of the defendants I listed all five of them (DHS secretary, USCIS director, USCIS district director, FBI director and Attorney General)
In the space for the defendant name and address I listed one-by-one, which means 5 different summonses + one more, where I listed in this space US Attorney's Office, Civil Process Clerk and their address. I mailed to each of them the corresponding summons and a copy of the complaint. Each copy+summons was stamped by the court's clerk.

 

[dreamtoGC]

1. I included the US Attorney General in the list of Defendants.
2. In the space of the defendants I listed all five of them (DHS secretary, USCIS director, USCIS district director, FBI director and Attorney General)
In the space for the defendant name and address I listed one-by-one, which means 5 different summonses + one more, where I listed in this space US Attorney's Office, Civil Process Clerk and their address. I mailed to each of them the corresponding summons and a copy of the complaint. Each copy+summons was stamped by the court's clerk.

I appreciate you, It really helps me.

 

[santa4u]

I found these links....
are these enough for filing the WOM - Pro Se package,

Instructions on how to file:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/forms/proseinstructions.pdf

Complaint Form - is this right?
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/forms/complain.pdf

Looks one just needs to fill up 3 paragraphs/pages - pretty much and done!
-----------------
PD: Aug 02 (EB2/India/TSC)
485 ND: Sep 05
485 AD: ???