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

[icare]

CSSO Message Changed

Receipt Number: EAC******1418

Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS

Current Status: Approval notice sent.

On January 11, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.

My case:

I140 6/10/2004,
I485 9/10/2004,
I140 AD: 3/22/2005
I485 FP1: 4/9/2005
WOM Filed: 10/24/2006
FP2: 1/10/2007
I485 AD: 1/11/2007

YEEHA!

Thanks so much to people on this board for the support - it is you who make me strong in this battle.

It is also a wonder that they approved my 485 only _1_ day after fingerprint is taken.

Keep fighting guys!

icare

 

[Roomi1967]

District of filling the petition matters?

Thanks PAZ1960 for your quick reply.

Everyone,

I noticed that people living in Red states (conservative areas) get more trouble from AUSA and the judges when compared with Blue states. Lot of people in Blue areas, specially very liberal areas, get there oath letters far more smoothly than red areas. I think this whole petition thing is very subjective to AUSA, if he/she is a wingnut (a crazy right winger) then he will try is level best to find something to give you hardtime and if the judge also have the same believes than we are screwed!

Am I wrong here?

Besides, same goes for other cases. For example 9th circuit courts of Appeals (famous SFO court) is more favourable places for liberal causes. If this is tru then the whole justices system in this country is very subject at many levels?

Any thoughts?

Thanks

 

[zlin]

which situation is the best?

Hello, I have a silly question for gurus. I filed MOW for my I-485 case. My AUSA is nice. She said it's not expeditable for MOW cases anymore, but she said she will have to file "something" on due day. She seems nice. I'm going to follow up with her constantly. So what if on due day which is mid Feb for my case there's no decision from USCIS yet, maybe I can pursuade her to file "something"? which one is the best situation? Montion to dismiss, Montion to remand, 30 day extention, or let judge to order USCIS? Thank you so much. Right now I'm thinking maybe 30 day extention is the best if no decision...

 

[wenlock]

Thanks PAZ1960 for your quick reply.

Everyone,

I noticed that people living in Red states (conservative areas) get more trouble from AUSA and the judges when compared with Blue states. Lot of people in Blue areas, specially very liberal areas, get there oath letters far more smoothly than red areas. I think this whole petition thing is very subjective to AUSA, if he/she is a wingnut (a crazy right winger) then he will try is level best to find something to give you hardtime and if the judge also have the same believes than we are screwed!

Am I wrong here?

Besides, same goes for other cases. For example 9th circuit courts of Appeals (famous SFO court) is more favourable places for liberal causes. If this is tru then the whole justices system in this country is very subject at many levels?

Any thoughts?

Thanks

There might be some truth to that but I think it all depends on your US attorney too how willing he is to work with you. I have seen situation where people in red states got cleared with in two weeks. It is all about how lucky you are too what they have in ther database about you. Some times it is easy to clear some one some times it takes time.

Bottom line is NO HARD AND FAST RULE. Immigration system is not based on fairness. For few it just takes 2 months to go through whole thing for few it takes years.

 

[huxf]

How wonderful! Enjoy your freedom!
Please share details (contacts, updates) after filing WOM. Thanks.

Receipt Number: EAC******1418

Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS

Current Status: Approval notice sent.

On January 11, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.

My case:

I140 6/10/2004,
I485 9/10/2004,
I140 AD: 3/22/2005
I485 FP1: 4/9/2005
WOM Filed: 10/24/2006
FP2: 1/10/2007
I485 AD: 1/11/2007

YEEHA!

Thanks so much to people on this board for the support - it is you who make me strong in this battle.

It is also a wonder that they approved my 485 only _1_ day after fingerprint is taken.

Keep fighting guys!

icare

 

[wenlock]

Receipt Number: EAC******1418

Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS

Current Status: Approval notice sent.

On January 11, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.

My case:

I140 6/10/2004,
I485 9/10/2004,
I140 AD: 3/22/2005
I485 FP1: 4/9/2005
WOM Filed: 10/24/2006
FP2: 1/10/2007
I485 AD: 1/11/2007

YEEHA!

Thanks so much to people on this board for the support - it is you who make me strong in this battle.

It is also a wonder that they approved my 485 only _1_ day after fingerprint is taken.

Keep fighting guys!

icare

Your fingerprint results comes back within a day. It is always that way its only Name check that takes for ever. Other security checks do not take more then two days at most.

Congratulations on your victory which state you files WOM in?

 

[icare]

How wonderful! Enjoy your freedom!
Please share details (contacts, updates) after filing WOM. Thanks.

My case:

I140 6/10/2004,
I485 9/10/2004,
I140 AD: 3/22/2005
I485 FP1: 4/9/2005
WOM Filed: 10/24/2006 in Newark, NJ
AUSA mentioned service date of 11/02, 60days start counting
Called AUSA on 11/28, was told it was too early, she was very nice though.
Called AUSA on 12/18, she said will file for extension 15 days, said CIS mentioned not enough time to adjudicate before 1/2/07 - the date by which she has to respond to the suit.
Got FP notice 12/28, notice was sent out 12/22, I assume this was the reason CIS can't adjudicate before 1/2, was hoping for a quick resolution
FP2: 1/10/2007
I485 AD: 1/11/2007

It's all amazing. Only thing that makes this imperfect is, wife's case still hangs on. (She was dependent.) She went to have the second FP with me together yesterday. I hope she can get approved soon.

icare

 

[olegb]

Hello forum members,

I just spoke with a US Attorney assistant about my Petition to which USA have filed an Answer. My question to her was regarding an expedite name check request, weither it was made or not. She told me that USA does NOT send such a request to FBI, instead this request is supposed to originate from USCIS. Is this how it supposed to work? Is it true in your cases as well? She was not sure if such a request was made by USCIS, but promissed to send an e-mail to USCIS to verify. At this point I am not even sure if an exp0edite request was sent to FBI.
My second question is about a new policy for expediting name checks. In my understanding (as I saw in a couple of posts here) after 12/22 there will be no more expedite requests made to FBI for name checks. What will then happen to 1447b and WOM cases which were filed before this deadline? Any ideas? Thanks

 

[huxf]

This is what I learned from the assigned AUSA as well. She said "they don't have such power and instead this request is supposed to originate from USCIS"
don't know if this is universal.

Hello forum members,

I just spoke with a US Attorney assistant about my Petition to which USA have filed an Answer. My question to her was regarding an expedite name check request, weither it was made or not. She told me that USA does NOT send such a request to FBI, instead this request is supposed to originate from USCIS. Is this how it supposed to work? Is it true in your cases as well? She was not sure if such a request was made by USCIS, but promissed to send an e-mail to USCIS to verify. At this point I am not even sure if an exp0edite request was sent to FBI.
My second question is about a new policy for expediting name checks. In my understanding (as I saw in a couple of posts here) after 12/22 there will be no more expedite requests made to FBI for name checks. What will then happen to 1447b and WOM cases which were filed before this deadline? Any ideas? Thanks

 

[huxf]

good for you. I got 2nd FD and did it 12/26/06. Even told that NC was done in last Dec. but my case still hanging there...

My case:

It's all amazing. Only thing that makes this imperfect is, wife's case still hangs on. (She was dependent.) She went to have the second FP with me together yesterday. I hope she can get approved soon.

icare

 

[paz1960]

file a motion to reargue, look for local rules for guideline for reargument, state reason why the court should hear you re-arguing, emphasize that you are pro se and you were prejudiced by any innocent error you made, see what happens.

Here is what I found about Motions to alter or amend a judgement (from the Opinion and Order Hammond et al. v. Kempthorne et al. Civil Action No. 01-2345 (PLF), US District Court of D.C, 2005:

"Motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) “are not to be used to relitigate matters already argued and disposed of; they are intended to permit the court to correct errors of fact appearing on the face of the record, or errors of law.” Independent Petroleum Ass’n of America v. Babbitt, 178 F.R.D. 323, 324 (D.D.C. 1998) (citing U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 690 F. Supp. 22, 25 (D.D.C. 1988)). A Rule 59(e) motion will not be granted unless there is an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing National Trust v. Dep’t of State, 834 F. Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1993), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom, Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass’n v. Christopher, 49 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). As for Rule 60(b), it provides in pertinent part that "upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding [where] . . . it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or . . . [for] any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). For a judgment to no longer be equitable, one must identify a "significant change in circumstances" justifying modification. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992)."

FRCP, Rule 59(e):
Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.

 

[RWDW]

I think many of us have the same concern regarding the 1447b / wom filed before the policy changes. Below is the email I received from my AUSA.

"I'm checking again for your name check status, and it's still pending... an expedite request was received by FBI from CIS which is good news, b/c as of Dec. 21, CIS will no longer request expedites on mandamus cases... "

I think it answers both of your questions. 1. CIS is the only agency makes the expedite request to FBI. At least in my district ( Northern IL ) the course of procedure is: AUSA informs CIS about the lawsuit and check the reason for the delay, if it's due to name check pending, CIS makes expedite request to FBI. 2. As of 12/21, no more expedite requests. I also called the staff in Lianglaw.com, in which I saw the news for the first time. The staff said it's not on USCIS's offical website, but it's an internal document CIS sent to those immigration lawyers. So if you filed in December, make sure your AUSA already processed your file and CIS sent the expedite request.

Hello forum members,

I just spoke with a US Attorney assistant about my Petition to which USA have filed an Answer. My question to her was regarding an expedite name check request, weither it was made or not. She told me that USA does NOT send such a request to FBI, instead this request is supposed to originate from USCIS. Is this how it supposed to work? Is it true in your cases as well? She was not sure if such a request was made by USCIS, but promissed to send an e-mail to USCIS to verify. At this point I am not even sure if an exp0edite request was sent to FBI.
My second question is about a new policy for expediting name checks. In my understanding (as I saw in a couple of posts here) after 12/22 there will be no more expedite requests made to FBI for name checks. What will then happen to 1447b and WOM cases which were filed before this deadline? Any ideas? Thanks

 

[aka808]

I think many of us have the same concern regarding the 1447b / wom filed before the policy changes. Below is the email I received from my AUSA.

"I'm checking again for your name check status, and it's still pending... an expedite request was received by FBI from CIS which is good news, b/c as of Dec. 21, CIS will no longer request expedites on mandamus cases... "

I think it answers both of your questions. 1. CIS is the only agency makes the expedite request to FBI. At least in my district ( Northern IL ) the course of procedure is: AUSA informs CIS about the lawsuit and check the reason for the delay, if it's due to name check pending, CIS makes expedite request to FBI. 2. As of 12/21, no more expedite requests. I also called the staff in Lianglaw.com, in which I saw the news for the first time. The staff said it's not on USCIS's offical website, but it's an internal document CIS sent to those immigration lawyers. So if you filed in December, make sure your AUSA already processed your file and CIS sent the expedite request.

Even if the name check has cleared you have to wait for your file to be cleared from Washington DC (DHS HO) if a lawsuit is pending. This process was put in place in Dec 06 from what i understand by speaking with USCIS

 

[LuckyPiggy]

Here is what I found about Motions to alter or amend a judgement (from the Opinion and Order Hammond et al. v. Kempthorne et al. Civil Action No. 01-2345 (PLF), US District Court of D.C, 2005:

"Motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) “are not to be used to relitigate matters already argued and disposed of; they are intended to permit the court to correct errors of fact appearing on the face of the record, or errors of law.” Independent Petroleum Ass’n of America v. Babbitt, 178 F.R.D. 323, 324 (D.D.C. 1998) (citing U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 690 F. Supp. 22, 25 (D.D.C. 1988)). A Rule 59(e) motion will not be granted unless there is an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing National Trust v. Dep’t of State, 834 F. Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1993), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom, Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass’n v. Christopher, 49 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). As for Rule 60(b), it provides in pertinent part that "upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding [where] . . . it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or . . . [for] any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). For a judgment to no longer be equitable, one must identify a "significant change in circumstances" justifying modification. Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992)."

FRCP, Rule 59(e):
Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.

(1) Different jurisdiction gives differnet level of leeways for judges to decide on this matter, no evidence that he is from D.C. cir.
(2) As of the case of statute, the words in case law also subject to interpretation, which can bring huge difference, as all 1447(b) plaintiffs here can testify.
(3) Judge has disretion. If the judge wants to grant it, the only check on him would be that an unhappy AUSA might appeal. BUt would a AUSA appeal for such a decision? What is on the line for the AUSA? AUSA might just consent for many realistic concerns.
(4) He wants to argue with the same judge, it looks to me the only chance he has, it doesn't hurt to try it and it costs nothing.

Litigation is different from black letter law on book. I would file it if I were in his situation, even the chance might be slim.

 

[LuckyPiggy]

My case:

It's all amazing. Only thing that makes this imperfect is, wife's case still hangs on. (She was dependent.) She went to have the second FP with me together yesterday. I hope she can get approved soon.

icare

Congratulations! When my husband's case was approved the other day, mine was not. However, it came the very next day!

So wish you good luck

 

[Happyheart]

icare,
I have a question for you.

Did you list both your wife and you as plaintiff or only yourself?

My case:

I140 6/10/2004,
I485 9/10/2004,
I140 AD: 3/22/2005
I485 FP1: 4/9/2005
WOM Filed: 10/24/2006 in Newark, NJ
AUSA mentioned service date of 11/02, 60days start counting
Called AUSA on 11/28, was told it was too early, she was very nice though.
Called AUSA on 12/18, she said will file for extension 15 days, said CIS mentioned not enough time to adjudicate before 1/2/07 - the date by which she has to respond to the suit.
Got FP notice 12/28, notice was sent out 12/22, I assume this was the reason CIS can't adjudicate before 1/2, was hoping for a quick resolution
FP2: 1/10/2007
I485 AD: 1/11/2007

It's all amazing. Only thing that makes this imperfect is, wife's case still hangs on. (She was dependent.) She went to have the second FP with me together yesterday. I hope she can get approved soon.

icare

 

[icare]

icare,
I have a question for you.

Did you list both your wife and you as plaintiff or only yourself?

Only myself. I didn't include my wife as I was told by the knowledgable posters here that Pro Se can't include more than one plaintiffs.

Also I've seen so many cases where dependents got GCs while not listed as plaintiffs. Thought that we'll always have time to file another case if that doesn't happen... (guess I was wrong on that now?)

icare

 

[ThreeYears?]

What if i haven't filed yet?

I have not filed the 1447b or wom. Am I toast now or do I still have the option of filing?

 

[veryfree]

I think many of us have the same concern regarding the 1447b / wom filed before the policy changes. Below is the email I received from my AUSA.

"I'm checking again for your name check status, and it's still pending... an expedite request was received by FBI from CIS which is good news, b/c as of Dec. 21, CIS will no longer request expedites on mandamus cases... "

I think it answers both of your questions. 1. CIS is the only agency makes the expedite request to FBI. At least in my district ( Northern IL ) the course of procedure is: AUSA informs CIS about the lawsuit and check the reason for the delay, if it's due to name check pending, CIS makes expedite request to FBI. 2. As of 12/21, no more expedite requests. I also called the staff in Lianglaw.com, in which I saw the news for the first time. The staff said it's not on USCIS's offical website, but it's an internal document CIS sent to those immigration lawyers. So if you filed in December, make sure your AUSA already processed your file and CIS sent the expedite request.

I filed the MOW for my I485 on 12/11/06, and served the AUSA nextday. Do you think there is still a chance that USCIS requested a expedite name check?
Thank you.

 

[Roomi1967]

I have not filed the 1447b or wom. Am I toast now or do I still have the option of filing?

I checked all around the web, other than one lawyer websire, I couldn't find a place where it says there won't be any expadited name check. Even that lawyer website posting is kind of vague. Besides, I don't think FBI can change the laws just like that, if that was the case, they would have done lot worse!

I think we still don't know what that lawyer's website posting came from, no other lawyer is report it.