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

[needsolution]

Question for AKA808

Many steps in the process, the route a case takes is purely dependant on the state it is in during this nightmare. For example.

1. Case filed 60 day response required from defendants
2. Defendants "normally" DO NOT respond in the 60 day time-frame "History has it that the USA has never had a Default Judgement against them for failure to respond"
3. Judge issues a Pre-Trail hearing > defendants file an answer to the complaint. No response is required to the answer, since FCRP rules state that the it is assumed that plaintiff rejects all answers.
4. Either case is solved before pre-trial or Defendants request extension of the pre-trail conf or the next hearing date.
5. Plantiff during the course of this if pro-se has nothing to file unless the defendants have filed a "Motion to Dismiss".
6. If you are the few unlucky ones, do not sweat it, this is the time to File "An oppostion to the Motion"
7. If the judge denies the Motion the case then goes into Discovery Mode. Depending on the judge, pro-se status, some judges do not hear oral arguments from pro-se plaintiffs. Hope you do not make it to the discovery stage as it is very very long.."atleast one case in SD NY where the case has taken that route".

I know we pro-se plantiffs are irritated and want to answer to anything that the defendants file (yes they are wrong) but the judicial system is atleast to some extent better than the USCIS.
Best bet and i have done this is that if the defendants have not responded within 60 days, or if they failed to meet a deadline set by the judge, send a nice letter to the judge's chambers explaining the situation and send a copy of that letter to the AUSA.

In my case even after being told the case is approved and that after the second FP they will issue OATH, they just told me the case now needs Washington DC's approval since i filed a lawsuit...what a joke.

best of luck

QuestionS: 1) I was wondering how you were able to find out when your fingerprints were sent to USCIS. Did you call FBI directly and ask them? Is there a number that we could call and confirm that the fingerprints that they took were processed, completed, and submitted to USCIS?

2) Why do you think they scheduled you for a second interview?
3) Do you think it was because you filed a lawsuit and they were trying to give you a hard time?
4) What kind of questions did they ask you in the second interview?
5) How different was the second interview in comparison to the first one?

 

[nasman]

I was told by the FBI through the senator that they can and will take all the time they need no matter how long it takes to make sure they investigate everybody thoroughly. Can't anybody hold them accountable, provide some oversight, otherwise whats to stopping them from being lazy or even worse... !

Yes there is. That is why you file a law suite against Chertoff, FBI, CIS and US Attorney. You back ground will clear in 3 months if u have nothing bad in your back ground. This blog talks alot about the law suite.

 

[wenlock]

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

Can you confirm what is your source about the fact that your file goes to Wahington DC DHS HO after Dec 6th. As far as I know ICE team operates at DHS HO which only take a look at fraud or complicated cases.

I think if some thing comes in your name check that prompts further investigation then your file goes to DHS HO.

 

[nasman]

hi Dear!
Are you in Virginia? I am asking this because there was a very good thread from 2005 and they were discussing that in virginia, it is better to file WOM than 1447b because almost all the cases of wom were cleared. I am going to find that thread and send it to you. Thank you!!! And by the way, I am pllaning to file 1447b in new york city area, if you or anyone have any helpful information, please share. I applied in 2004 and was interviwed and passed everthing in May 2005. Still waiting for the stupid security clearnce!
Thanks again!! Bye

I'm in Norfolk, Virginia. I filed law suite. They did clear back ground check and at the same time they filed motion to dismiss. I replied back and than they send a Rebuttal. I don't know if I can reply again or if that means law suite is over. I might have to file law suite again after 120 days of my Back ground check if CIS does not move their lazy a**. I really don't want to spend another $400.00

 

[lawyer99]

new proposal to restrict WOM and 1447b petitions

Hi Everyone,

Looks like the flood of litigation has forced USCIS to develop develop regulations so that they don't have to expedite mandamus cases in the interest of "fairness" to other applicants. Once regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regulations. This will probably be the end of slamdunk WOMs and 1447bs when the regulations become finalized.

Daniel

The entire link is at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11dec20060800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ua061211/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC
1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland
Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to
the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload
of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions
over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case
management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any
pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is
ongoing and background and security checks are still pending
completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS
may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline
for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This
interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of
naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination
will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or
judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Act). The interim rule
also requires that background and security
checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an
alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization
and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of
the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case
adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration
or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or
required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction
of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration
benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose
a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR
Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07
Interim Final Rule Comment
Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

 

[Happyheart]

My AUSA told me that she only can send the NC expedite request for the plaintiff, that seems not true for most of the cases in my district. I saw the same situation that the dependent case got approved at the same time although she/he is not listed as plaintiff.

So I don't know who send out the expedite request, USCIS , AUSA or AUSA thru USCIS? I am getting a little bit worried as I heard my NC was cleared and don't know the status about my spouse. I am asking the congressman's office to enquire the status but still waiting.

Do you know about your wife's NC status and what did your AUSA tell?

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

 

[zzty98]

SuperK please reply

Hi, SuperK, I sent you a message. Please check.

BTW, I am planning file WOM with eastern Missouri district court, anybody are in this area too?

Thanks.

 

[paz1960]

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

In my opinion you still can file a WOM (if your case is I-485 or N-400) or 1447(b) (if your case is N-400). If you win your lawsuit, the judge can instruct FBI/USCIS to complete the background check and adjudicate your petition/application.

 

[myang1969]

New Name Check Expedite Policy

I post several msg. regarding this new name check policy, but I dont think many of you read it. I have to write it again and give us a chance to discuss and think about it, does it make sense?
(1) Suppose USCIS and FBI keep old way before December 22, for almost all WOM pendingname case, USCIS will ask FBI to expedite name check, but they can not handle it anymore, the backlog of expedite name check will also kill them to meet the WOM 60 days deadline;
(2) USCIS and FBI will stop all expedite name check, since there are thousands of WOM pending case in diffrent federal district court, if they stop doing that, I believe part of cases will reach last stage and Judges will make their orders. Let's guess 20% win! that will be a disaster for USCIS since the good precedent will set up and similar cases can win more easily, the damage of goverment reputation will also kill them. This dramatic change of internal policy doesn't impress all these independent judges, they will roll out orders without constrain of new policy.
(3) Dont think USCIS is stupid, they must carefully consider everthing before their decision; but why they creates this new policy and what is deep thoughts behind it? I think we can guess like that:
(a) You can see from this website, everyone think it is bestway to solve this endless waiting pain by $400 in two, three monthes, some of people which only pending for 4~5 month will also file WOM or 1447b by fear of endless waiting. It is impossible to expedite everyone's case now!!! (b)They can't affort to lose massive cases in Federal Court and eventrally, they still obey court order to expedite those name check. (3)They have to stop or scare away more and more lawsuit and buy some time to have new name check system set up, so this is the strteagy from my guess.
They will still expedite name check, but it will not for everyone, it will go through General Console Office with some lawyer study cases and commuicate with AUSA. If they find out they have big potential to lose, they will expedite and settle it outside; but if they think they have a good chance to win, they will delay response and play tough game on you to froce you drop the case. some of people prepare to file the WOM or 1447b will think about it and some of them will be scare away. does it make sense? This is the most balanced strteagy I can think based on they are not bounch of idoit assumption.
So for those who didn't file WOM or 1447b, my suggestion to you is: think about your case, if you have some confidence, you can file lawsuit, but for those lack of evidences, you still can file, but dont hope too much. I welcome all of you to comment on this issue and I also declare that it is all based on my personal guess and analysis. I wish everyone of you good luck and best outcome!

 

[aka808]

Can you confirm what is your source about the fact that your file goes to Wahington DC DHS HO after Dec 6th. As far as I know ICE team operates at DHS HO which only take a look at fraud or complicated cases.

I think if some thing comes in your name check that prompts further investigation then your file goes to DHS HO.

There are other groups in washington apart from ICE. DHS holds jurisdiction over USCIS. USCIS directors office and cheif counsel are in Washington DC.
A case expedited as a result of pending lawsuit where there is reason for further review or a judicial action is invoked is sent to Washington DC.

 

[wenlock]

I post several msg. regarding this new name check policy, but I dont think many of you read it. I have to write it again and give us a chance to discuss and think about it, does it make sense?
(1) Suppose USCIS and FBI keep old way before December 22, for almost all WOM pendingname case, USCIS will ask FBI to expedite name check, but they can not handle it anymore, the backlog of expedite name check will also kill them to meet the WOM 60 days deadline;
(2) USCIS and FBI will stop all expedite name check, since there are thousands of WOM pending case in diffrent federal district court, if they stop doing that, I believe part of cases will reach last stage and Judges will make their orders. Let's guess 20% win! that will be a disaster for USCIS since the good precedent will set up and similar cases can win more easily, the damage of goverment reputation will also kill them. This dramatic change of internal policy doesn't impress all these independent judges, they will roll out orders without constrain of new policy.
(3) Dont think USCIS is stupid, they must carefully consider everthing before their decision; but why they creates this new policy and what is deep thoughts behind it? I think we can guess like that:
(a) You can see from this website, everyone think it is bestway to solve this endless waiting pain by $400 in two, three monthes, some of people which only pending for 4~5 month will also file WOM or 1447b by fear of endless waiting. It is impossible to expedite everyone's case now!!! (b)They can't affort to lose massive cases in Federal Court and eventrally, they still obey court order to expedite those name check. (3)They have to stop or scare away more and more lawsuit and buy some time to have new name check system set up, so this is the strteagy from my guess.
They will still expedite name check, but it will not for everyone, it will go through General Console Office with some lawyer study cases and commuicate with AUSA. If they find out they have big potential to lose, they will expedite and settle it outside; but if they think they have a good chance to win, they will delay response and play tough game on you to froce you drop the case. some of people prepare to file the WOM or 1447b will think about it and some of them will be scare away. does it make sense? This is the most balanced strteagy I can think based on they are not bounch of idoit assumption.
So for those who didn't file WOM or 1447b, my suggestion to you is: think about your case, if you have some confidence, you can file lawsuit, but for those lack of evidences, you still can file, but dont hope too much. I welcome all of you to comment on this issue and I also declare that it is all based on my personal guess and analysis. I wish everyone of you good luck and best outcome!

That sounds right to me. If judge rules for plaintiff with deadline then governoment do not have choice but for sure they are buying time.
No easy solution to this problem. If plaintiff lose case then you are back to same spot.

I think mostly 3 year is about the time now a days where name check clears with regular processing. I have not seen any case in my DO those are older then 2004. This is some thing informed by information officer at my DO. According to him there office automatically make second request at about third year. I do not believe him on this but that is what he told me.

According to FBI 2003 is the year when they received tons of name check request due to some reruns too back from 2002.

 

[aka808]

QuestionS: 1) I was wondering how you were able to find out when your fingerprints were sent to USCIS. Did you call FBI directly and ask them? Is there a number that we could call and confirm that the fingerprints that they took were processed, completed, and submitted to USCIS?

2) Why do you think they scheduled you for a second interview?
3) Do you think it was because you filed a lawsuit and they were trying to give you a hard time?
4) What kind of questions did they ask you in the second interview?
5) How different was the second interview in comparison to the first one?

1. You can call the FBI at (304) 625-2000 ask for Customer Service, once transferred press option 3 give your info and FP date. I followed this route to get the information
2. According to the USCIS officer, the second interview was a result of the lawsuit (i was one of the lucky ones)
3. That is the general perception
4. They started from the time i was born till now...(i asked if they wanted to know how i was conceived).
5. The first interview was 10 mins, quick overview, checked my passport, photos and thats it. The second one was more intense, detailed questions about everything, living, working, travelling, family, friends, what i like to read, what do i think about the war, etc, etc.... Yep very very detailed.

 

[huxf]

paz1960,
I think you have 15 days left for the extention. am i right? any updates from AUSA?

 

[samhad10]

The defandant used in my case word examination and fbi finger print part of it ...and till it's cleared i don't fall under 1447 category...my question is what argumnet i can give and examples to make my case strong .....................The language of 8 USC 1447(b) says:
If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. 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.

 

[paz1960]

paz1960,
I think you have 15 days left for the extention. am i right? any updates from AUSA?

Unfortunately, not much. I spoke to AUSA last Monday, he told me that he found out who is dealing with my background check in the FBI and he forwarded that information to USCIS and he promised that he will try to call again his contact in USCIS and will get back to me. Since than nothing...

 

[fadd2002]

I post several msg. regarding this new name check policy, but I dont think many of you read it. I have to write it again and give us a chance to discuss and think about it, does it make sense?
(1) Suppose USCIS and FBI keep old way before December 22, for almost all WOM pendingname case, USCIS will ask FBI to expedite name check, but they can not handle it anymore, the backlog of expedite name check will also kill them to meet the WOM 60 days deadline;
(2) USCIS and FBI will stop all expedite name check, since there are thousands of WOM pending case in diffrent federal district court, if they stop doing that, I believe part of cases will reach last stage and Judges will make their orders. Let's guess 20% win! that will be a disaster for USCIS since the good precedent will set up and similar cases can win more easily, the damage of goverment reputation will also kill them. This dramatic change of internal policy doesn't impress all these independent judges, they will roll out orders without constrain of new policy.
(3) Dont think USCIS is stupid, they must carefully consider everthing before their decision; but why they creates this new policy and what is deep thoughts behind it? I think we can guess like that:
(a) You can see from this website, everyone think it is bestway to solve this endless waiting pain by $400 in two, three monthes, some of people which only pending for 4~5 month will also file WOM or 1447b by fear of endless waiting. It is impossible to expedite everyone's case now!!! (b)They can't affort to lose massive cases in Federal Court and eventrally, they still obey court order to expedite those name check. (3)They have to stop or scare away more and more lawsuit and buy some time to have new name check system set up, so this is the strteagy from my guess.
They will still expedite name check, but it will not for everyone, it will go through General Console Office with some lawyer study cases and commuicate with AUSA. If they find out they have big potential to lose, they will expedite and settle it outside; but if they think they have a good chance to win, they will delay response and play tough game on you to froce you drop the case. some of people prepare to file the WOM or 1447b will think about it and some of them will be scare away. does it make sense? This is the most balanced strteagy I can think based on they are not bounch of idoit assumption.
So for those who didn't file WOM or 1447b, my suggestion to you is: think about your case, if you have some confidence, you can file lawsuit, but for those lack of evidences, you still can file, but dont hope too much. I welcome all of you to comment on this issue and I also declare that it is all based on my personal guess and analysis. I wish everyone of you good luck and best outcome!

agree with you.

 

[vcs_victim]

Another WOM Case

Hi everyone,

I also filed WOM Pro Se for I-485 with the Connecticut District Court. Here are the details for my case:

PD: 03/26/2001
VSC
EB2, Worldwide
I-140 ND: 04/11/2003
I-140 AD: 05/09/2003 (approved in one month, now suffering though)
I-485 ND: 04/11/2003 (concurrent filing)

FP 1: 06/07/2003
FP 2: 10/07/2004

Several EADs, APs, etc.

Actions done: FOIPA, Congressman, Senator, multiple email/fax to FBI, Ombudsman, many inquiries, Infopass at New York City Office, company's attorney's inquiries (she was against filing WOM)

Wife's NC was cleared a year ago (from senator's office). My 485 has been pending for 44 months.

WOM Filed: 12/26/2006
Defendants Served: 12/27/2006
US Atty Served: 12/28/2006
US Atty Recvd: 12/29/2006 (60 day started)

I called US Atty office on 01/10/2007 to learn who was assigned to my case and learned that no one was assigned yet. No wonder why US Atty almost always files for extension.

I am a little bit concerned and worried about the rumors about the new policy to handle the NC expedition requests.

I wish all of us big luck in this ordeal.

Will keep you posted about the updates.

 

[DUDE12190]

please reply

Are you sure that have passed this law and they will deny almost all the 1447b cases after 6 months. I am planning to file in april. do u think it is going to effect me? Please reply

Hi Everyone,

Looks like the flood of litigation has forced USCIS to develop develop regulations so that they don't have to expedite mandamus cases in the interest of "fairness" to other applicants. Once regulations are published (expected to be about 6 months from now), the US Attorneys will file motions to dismiss all WOM and 1447b petitions based on the new regulations. This will probably be the end of slamdunk WOMs and 1447bs when the regulations become finalized.

Daniel

The entire link is at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11dec20060800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ua061211/ua061009.txt

Here is the relevant abstract:

1306. WITHHOLDING OF ADJUDICATION

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 8 USC 552; 8 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC
1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1421; 8 USC 1443; 8 USC 1447; . . .

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 310; 8 CFR 335; 8 CFR 336

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This interim rule codifies the Secretary of Homeland
Security's current discretionary authority, as delegated to
the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directors, to manage the caseload
of pending requests for immigration benefits in districts or regions
over which the directors have jurisdiction. A component of this case
management authority is the ability to withhold adjudication of any
pending application or petition, particularly when an investigation is
ongoing and background and security checks are still pending
completion. This interim rule expands the circumstances under which DHS
may withhold adjudication or toll any applicable regulatory deadline
for completion of adjudication of an application or petition. This
interim rule also modifies the regulations governing processing of
naturalization applications to define when a naturalization examination
will be deemed ``conducted'' for purposes of seeking administrative or
judicial review under section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (Act). The interim rule
also requires that background and security
checks be completed to the satisfaction of the Secretary before an
alien may be found to have ``good moral character'' for naturalization
and before the alien may be naturalized in accordance with title III of
the Act. These changes will aid DHS in its efforts to improve case
adjudication overall while simultaneously ensuring that no immigration
or naturalization benefit is granted until any pending investigation or
required background and security check is completed to the satisfaction
of the Secretary. These changes also will ensure that no immigration
benefit is provided to an ineligible individual or person who may pose
a threat to public safety or national security.

Timetable:
________________________________________________________________________

Action Date FR
Cite

________________________________________________________________________

Interim Final Rule 01/00/07
Interim Final Rule Comment
Period End 03/00/07

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: CIS No. 2234-02
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG86

Agency Contact: Alice J. Smith, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 272-1418

RIN: 1615-AA86

 

[RWDW]

It's hard to say. Every district office is different. It depends on how quickly your AUSA is assigned and working on your case. Once you know who is your AUSA, check with him / her about your case.

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.

 

[huxf]

sorry for these lazy B..S.
Sorry I forgot... did you get help from your Senator.
Somehow the senator didn't respond my mail, but I tried phone call today and this worked amazing. The nice lady got my A# and called me back in just about an hour.
She said she got good news for me and it is good. She confirmed (my infopass results) that my NC cleared Dec 12th, and my FP cleared 27th, the day after my FP. And now it is in adjuris. office and should hace a result in 60 days.

One fact I want to clear, as many of you may have awared that the D** NSC representatives are so stupid and they always give inaccurate/wrong information, which I believe is worse than "no information". I was told earlier this week that NC pending and that made me so worried. Those guys definitely are watser our taxpayer money and those jobs definitely worth outsourcing!

Unfortunately, not much. I spoke to AUSA last Monday, he told me that he found out who is dealing with my background check in the FBI and he forwarded that information to USCIS and he promised that he will try to call again his contact in USCIS and will get back to me. Since than nothing...