FYI if you need. New online service from USCIS
change you address (AR-11) online
https://egov.immigration.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
change you address (AR-11) online
https://egov.immigration.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Happyheart
Registered Users (C)
You are so close.
Can I ask which state are you in? Thanks.
Can I ask which state are you in? Thanks.
huxf said:
wenlock said:
Wenlock:
Do you know if you can file WOM again for the same subject if you lose your case in court?
My AUSA emailed me that FBI received USCIS request of expedition of my background check with new A# on 1/9/2007. Hope there is no more mistakes! I am going to have a conference with judge and AUSA next Friday in court. Do you have some suggestions about the conference? I am a little bit nervous about it. By the way, My namecheck with wrong A# is pending since Dec. 2003 (still pending). I think there are still many name checks pending since 2003.
Dear fellow co-sufferers:
I have just prepared my 1447b case and sent 30-day “Intent to Sue” letters to Office of the General Counsel, Officer-in-Charge San Jose Sub Office of USCIS and US Attorney. Planning on filing by mid-February in San Jose and posting the developments. If there is somebody here, who went through the process in Northern CA, - please share your experience.
Generally speaking, would not it be beneficial if the participants indicated their locations in the signature?
Best of luck, everybody!
I have just prepared my 1447b case and sent 30-day “Intent to Sue” letters to Office of the General Counsel, Officer-in-Charge San Jose Sub Office of USCIS and US Attorney. Planning on filing by mid-February in San Jose and posting the developments. If there is somebody here, who went through the process in Northern CA, - please share your experience.
Generally speaking, would not it be beneficial if the participants indicated their locations in the signature?
Best of luck, everybody!
myang1969 said:
I tried senator before I filed WOM. they even didn''t reply my mail. I don't count on them. Now all my documents based on the old A #, such as EAD card, advanced parole, even H1B et al. Do I need to clean up all these mess?
I went to Infopass and try to know how they deal with my info today. The officer just told me blurly that my case is reopened recently (didn't tell me when). All my info in the new A#. She just said to write to USCIS and didn't want to answer any of my questions. I am so exhausted and don't want to write anything to these XX. How did you do your documents after you know the mixed up A#?
I don't know how much troubles I will get from this mixed up A# in the future. No matter what happened to our lawsuit, we are victims!
needsolution
Registered Users (C)
aka808 said:
Why do you say you were one of the lucky ones for having a second interview? They gave you a hard time and recorded you on camera, is that right? So why are you saying you were lucky for going through that hard interview?
No More Expedite
Hi Team,
Just for your info. This afternoon I sent the same reply to one of the forum member.
I recently spoke to one of my friend who filed WoM in Los Angeles area through an attorney. I asked him to find out the story behind “No More Expedite”. He said that attorney told him that, it use to be when a law suit filed CIS ask FBI to expedite name check. But now CIS is not doing this, instead waiting for the outcome of the law suit, if judge is remanding with specific instruction then they are asking FBI to expedite the check otherwise nothing. I think it make sense, if you look at the cases, very few cases were remand back to CIS with specific instruction. Also, if you look at the pattern most of the cases were resolved before going to the judge or during initial stages. So, I guess CIS learned that these bios judges would not do any harm to a government agency. I am very depressed with this entire situation because in my district judges are remanding without any specific instruction. I will file suit in very near future and suggest you to go ahead and do the same, if we will loose, we will loose only about $400.00.
Keep in touch and thank you.
Hi Team,
Just for your info. This afternoon I sent the same reply to one of the forum member.
I recently spoke to one of my friend who filed WoM in Los Angeles area through an attorney. I asked him to find out the story behind “No More Expedite”. He said that attorney told him that, it use to be when a law suit filed CIS ask FBI to expedite name check. But now CIS is not doing this, instead waiting for the outcome of the law suit, if judge is remanding with specific instruction then they are asking FBI to expedite the check otherwise nothing. I think it make sense, if you look at the cases, very few cases were remand back to CIS with specific instruction. Also, if you look at the pattern most of the cases were resolved before going to the judge or during initial stages. So, I guess CIS learned that these bios judges would not do any harm to a government agency. I am very depressed with this entire situation because in my district judges are remanding without any specific instruction. I will file suit in very near future and suggest you to go ahead and do the same, if we will loose, we will loose only about $400.00.
Keep in touch and thank you.
Don't worry now, you dont need clear all mess, USCIS should. All you need to do is make sure you have correct A# this time. if they already expedite your new name check, just waiting and keep all your old documentation as your very strong argument. Believe me, they will clear up all their error, otherwise, we will win our case in the court.Comfused said:
Hello aaron13,aaron13 said:
As you probably saw in wenlock's post he also thinks that AUSA practically does what the lawyers from DHS/USCIS and FBI General Counsel Offices instruct him/her. This is especially true in a smaller district, where they may not even have an AUSA specialised in immigration issues. I saw couple of cases where forum members reported that their AUSA told them that their case is the first such type of lawsuit (s)he got. It is understandable that no lawyer can be proficient will all kind of types of lawsuits. So they rely mostly on the immigration expert lawyers from USCIS. However, AUSA still can make a difference if (s)he is insists enough and puts a constant pressure on USCIS and FBI. Or at least that's what I inferred form other people's experience.
I am not sure at all that you will be able to find out at an Infopass appointment if your name check was expedited (and when) or not. But if you can't communicate with AUSA, that's certainly a possibility worth to try. You also can try to write to one of your elected officials, I saw cases when a senator or congressman's staff was able to find out when was the name check initiated or expedited.
I have no idea how long can be dragged such cases in court. That really depends on the particular case and on the case load of the judge. But I saw WOM or 1447(b) based cases where the docket was open for more than a year.
I don't really understand why AUSA denied practically everything form your complaint, even material facts for what you presented exhibits. Just doesn't make any sense to me. This definitely would not look too good in front of the judge, I mean, AUSA will look really silly, unless this is an accepted tactics. Because I don't have any previous litigation experience, I simply don't know more about this.
I noticed from the context of your complaint, that you were not Pro Se, but represented by a lawyer (par. 25 and last par. of your prayer). I think that your lawyer should be in much better situation to answer all your question than anybody on this forum. (S)he is a professional (hopefully) and we are all amateurs...Why don't you trust him/her?
I have couple of problems with your Complaint.
1. In par. 23. is stated that "defendants in violation of APA, 5 USC 551 et seq. are unlawfully delaying action on Plaintiff's application...". Unfortunately, this is not true, because there is no time limit in any statue which would prescribe how long can they withhold the adjudication. The second part is what a judge can decide that is correct, i.e., the withholding was unreasonably long. I saw several court decisions where time longer than 2 years was considered unreasonable.
2. They are not withholding adjudication unlawfully. They can't adjudicate your petition before the background check is completed. This is mandated by law. They are delaying your background check unreasonably long. This is what is unlawful. It seems that there is only a small difference and the result is certainly the same, but all the lawsuits are about interpreting the laws and twisting words (or at least this is the impression what I got so far)
3. You can't ask the judge to compel the USCIS to provide you an Approval Notice. Approving or denying a petition is discretionary. The only thing what the judge can compel the Government is to adjudicate your petition. This is non-discretionary. The output (approval or denial) is discretionary. A WOM lawsuit never can ask to compel defendants to perform a discretionary action.
Last edited by a moderator:
I found this on some other discussion group I find it very interesting.
Following post was posted by one of caifornia based attorney. I can not validate authenticity of following post but looks accurate to me.
I'm an attorney based in CA and have filed about 10 of these individual petitions. I'm also a pro-bono attorney working with the ACLU (Ranjana, quoted in the article, is my co-counsel) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) on a similar case seeking class-action status in CA.
The problem is big, but it doesn't just affect Muslims, but they do seem to be unfairly affected. The way it works, from my understanding & not the article, the FBI runs the applicant's name through a database containing records from various US & Foreign government. They also run through different spellings, name variations, and change the order. Since there are so many common Muslim names, many of which are variations of each other, this results in a bunch of false positives. Other ethnic communities with common names, such as Poles and Koreans, also have higher rates of delays (Of course since DHS won't release actual figures, all these are based on observations, there is a pending FOIA suit about the issue in Chicago filed by CAIR and the Midwest Immigration and Human Rights Coalition). If there is one of these "hits," an FBI agent has to manually search the records, trying to prove the "bad guy" is not the applicant. The FBI currently has 13 agents assigned to this, to handle a backlog of 440,000, which is just growing every day.
Filing the suits does help your client (my job), but also leads to more delays for everyone else since the agents are pulled off to work on your case.
Bad planning, bad execution. Standard DHS practice.
Following post was posted by one of caifornia based attorney. I can not validate authenticity of following post but looks accurate to me.
I'm an attorney based in CA and have filed about 10 of these individual petitions. I'm also a pro-bono attorney working with the ACLU (Ranjana, quoted in the article, is my co-counsel) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) on a similar case seeking class-action status in CA.
The problem is big, but it doesn't just affect Muslims, but they do seem to be unfairly affected. The way it works, from my understanding & not the article, the FBI runs the applicant's name through a database containing records from various US & Foreign government. They also run through different spellings, name variations, and change the order. Since there are so many common Muslim names, many of which are variations of each other, this results in a bunch of false positives. Other ethnic communities with common names, such as Poles and Koreans, also have higher rates of delays (Of course since DHS won't release actual figures, all these are based on observations, there is a pending FOIA suit about the issue in Chicago filed by CAIR and the Midwest Immigration and Human Rights Coalition). If there is one of these "hits," an FBI agent has to manually search the records, trying to prove the "bad guy" is not the applicant. The FBI currently has 13 agents assigned to this, to handle a backlog of 440,000, which is just growing every day.
Filing the suits does help your client (my job), but also leads to more delays for everyone else since the agents are pulled off to work on your case.
Bad planning, bad execution. Standard DHS practice.
Hello 786riz, cheer up man, don't get depressed! It's not so bad as you think in your district. Here are three cases when the judges remanded the matter to USCIS with meaningful specific instructions:786riz said:
1. Al Saidi v. Jenifer, No. 05-71832, (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2005) (ordering Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s N-400 application in 80 days from the date of the order)
2. Khelifa v. Chertoff, No. 06-10147 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 9, 2006) (instructing USCIS to promptly determine Plaintiff’s N-400 application in 90 days from the date of the order)
3. Ismail v. Jones, No. 2:06-cv-13320-PJD-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2006) (ordered Defendants to complete in 3 months the necessary security background checks needed to decide the naturalization application).
Hi wenlock, it is almost boring that we always agreewenlock said:
but again, the info I found somewhere and presented in the attached file, matches exactly with the info you posted. And looks that the one from the attached file is coming from the most authorized source, David Hardy, chief of the Record Management Division, FBI HQ. The interpretation is not mine; it was written by somebody who posted this info on the web.cheerup, man.
I just learned one lesson and hope this can apply to and help you.
I contacted the senator last year by mail, and they didn't respond.
I contacted the congressman last year by mail, and they did respond. I contact him again recently, but they didn't answer this time.
So called the congressman office, guess what, they couldn't find my mail.
But they took my information immediately, and promised to inqury my case and get me back in 1 or 2 days at most.
So I called the senator office aferwards and this time phonecall worked great. The lady took my information AND she called my back very shortly (maybe an hour) and informed my case status.
To be short, my suggeation is to call them directly. this works much faster. Mail could be lost and it is understanable since they may get piles of mails everyday.
I just learned one lesson and hope this can apply to and help you.
I contacted the senator last year by mail, and they didn't respond.
I contacted the congressman last year by mail, and they did respond. I contact him again recently, but they didn't answer this time.
So called the congressman office, guess what, they couldn't find my mail.
But they took my information immediately, and promised to inqury my case and get me back in 1 or 2 days at most.
So I called the senator office aferwards and this time phonecall worked great. The lady took my information AND she called my back very shortly (maybe an hour) and informed my case status.
To be short, my suggeation is to call them directly. this works much faster. Mail could be lost and it is understanable since they may get piles of mails everyday.
Comfused said:
wenlock said:
Actually I have seen two cases in this blog where one person waited for 6 years with no response what so ever and other one waited for 5 years. As soon they filed law suite in 2 months they were Americans.
I tried same and I got slapped by Motion to dismiss and than a Rebuttal. Hahazlp6945835
New Member
Hi Everyone:
Fist time come to this forum and found so many useful information. I decided to file WOM next week. but have some questions: my file was tranfered to Houston local office on 11-2004 from Texas Service Center. Whom should I complain to: Texas Service Center Director or Houston local office director? Is anybody from Houston or Texas had experience on this. Also who is Texas service center director. Following is my case and actions:
1. March 11, 2003 Concurrent file I-140 (outstanding researcher) with I –485 at Texas service Center. It was transferred to local office at 01-16-2004 (Houston office)
2. November 25, 2003, File I-140 (NIW) (Priority date November 24, 2003) at Texas Service Center, approved on Nov 2, 2004. Request transfer I-485 with I-140.
3. First FP 05-29-2003
4. Second FP 09-28-2004
5. Interviewed at Houston Office on 04-16-2005. Everything is fine, but name check is pending.
6. Letter to INS Houston District office 06-23-2005, no response
7. Letters to Michael A. Cannon, Chief, National name check program section, Record Management Division, FBI on 07-07-2005, no respons
8. Letter to David M. Hardy, FBI name check program, 05-27-2005, no response
9. Letter from Congress Tom Delay 08-04-2005 (found Name check was submitted by USCIS on Mach 21, 2003)
10. Letter from INS Houston District office 06-02-2006, name check is pending
11. Letter from Karen L.hass, congress office of Twenty-second congressional district of Texas 08-11-2006, name check is pending
12. Letter from Senator John Cornyn 09-22-2006, name check is pending
13. Letter to Laura Bush on 11-27-2006 no response
14. Many times infopass visit
15. 4 EAD cards
Fist time come to this forum and found so many useful information. I decided to file WOM next week. but have some questions: my file was tranfered to Houston local office on 11-2004 from Texas Service Center. Whom should I complain to: Texas Service Center Director or Houston local office director? Is anybody from Houston or Texas had experience on this. Also who is Texas service center director. Following is my case and actions:
1. March 11, 2003 Concurrent file I-140 (outstanding researcher) with I –485 at Texas service Center. It was transferred to local office at 01-16-2004 (Houston office)
2. November 25, 2003, File I-140 (NIW) (Priority date November 24, 2003) at Texas Service Center, approved on Nov 2, 2004. Request transfer I-485 with I-140.
3. First FP 05-29-2003
4. Second FP 09-28-2004
5. Interviewed at Houston Office on 04-16-2005. Everything is fine, but name check is pending.
6. Letter to INS Houston District office 06-23-2005, no response
7. Letters to Michael A. Cannon, Chief, National name check program section, Record Management Division, FBI on 07-07-2005, no respons
8. Letter to David M. Hardy, FBI name check program, 05-27-2005, no response
9. Letter from Congress Tom Delay 08-04-2005 (found Name check was submitted by USCIS on Mach 21, 2003)
10. Letter from INS Houston District office 06-02-2006, name check is pending
11. Letter from Karen L.hass, congress office of Twenty-second congressional district of Texas 08-11-2006, name check is pending
12. Letter from Senator John Cornyn 09-22-2006, name check is pending
13. Letter to Laura Bush on 11-27-2006 no response
14. Many times infopass visit
15. 4 EAD cards
does any friend have sample document for Writ of Mandamus of I485 Applicants
I Just got to know this website. It is so useful. My I-485 application had been delayed over four years . I am beginning to Pro-Se filling case. I was wondering if some frineds can provide an Example document for Writ of Mandamus of I485 Applicants.
I will highly appreciate it.
wine06
I Just got to know this website. It is so useful. My I-485 application had been delayed over four years
. I am beginning to Pro-Se filling case. I was wondering if some frineds can provide an Example document for Writ of Mandamus of I485 Applicants. I will highly appreciate it.
wine06
I am stuck in name check since March 13, 2005. I had my interview for I485 on May 2, 2005 and was approved, but did not receive the GC due to the pending name check. On Oct 30, 2006 I filed WOM with San Francsico court and on Dec 31, 2006 received a letter where FBI ask judge to dismiss my case:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The court should dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because plaintiff cannot establish tht defendants' duty to act is ministerial, that no other adequate remedy is available, or that plaintiffs have a clear right to the relief sought. See 28 U.S.C. @1361.
WHEREFORE, defendants pray for the relief as follows:
That judgement be entered for defendants and against plaintiffs, dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice; that plaintiff take nothing; and that the Court grant such further relief as it deems and proper under the circumstances.
I used all materials to file my WOM from this forum. I wrote to senator, had couple infopasses, wrote personally to director of local INS and never received a reply from him. My second FP was cleared on Dec 16, 2006 (FP did on Nov 10, 2006). A talked to AUSA and she also told me that now there is no more expedited name checks.
On Jan 18 I will have a conference meeting with Judge and AUSA. Did somebody had to do this? Any suggestions what else should I add to my WOM to prevent my case be dismissed?
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The court should dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because plaintiff cannot establish tht defendants' duty to act is ministerial, that no other adequate remedy is available, or that plaintiffs have a clear right to the relief sought. See 28 U.S.C. @1361.
WHEREFORE, defendants pray for the relief as follows:
That judgement be entered for defendants and against plaintiffs, dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice; that plaintiff take nothing; and that the Court grant such further relief as it deems and proper under the circumstances.
I used all materials to file my WOM from this forum. I wrote to senator, had couple infopasses, wrote personally to director of local INS and never received a reply from him. My second FP was cleared on Dec 16, 2006 (FP did on Nov 10, 2006). A talked to AUSA and she also told me that now there is no more expedited name checks.
On Jan 18 I will have a conference meeting with Judge and AUSA. Did somebody had to do this? Any suggestions what else should I add to my WOM to prevent my case be dismissed?