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

[svv]

US Attorney threatens to dismiss complaint

Hi
I am new to this forum. I passed citizenship interview in June 2005, since then I am waiting for the namecheck to clear. I filed my complaint pro se in the beginning of November, 2006. Yesterday I talked to the US Attorney assigned to my case. He threatened to dismiss my complaint.
Has anyone had a similar experience? What can I do to stop the US Attorney from dismissing the case?

Can anyone recommend an immigration attorney in Boston area that successfully handled such cases?

Thanks in advance

 

[pearlgal]

got answer to my case, any clue what does it imply?

hi, all:

just got an answer to my case, here are the important part of it at least i think it is:

=====
....
cause of action

11. defendants deny that plaintiff had her naturalization examination on July, 2006. plaintiff was interviewed as a component of the naturalization examination. piror to contemporary procedues, background checks were not required to be completed before a naturalization interview was conducted, plaintiff's naturalization examination is not yet complete.

...
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

the court should dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) because plaintiff fail to state a claim upon relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

the court should dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray for relief as follows:

the judgment be entered for defendants and against plaintiff, dismissing plaintiff's petition with prejudice; that plaintiff take nothing; and that the Court grant such further relief as it deems just and proper under the circumstances.

=======

so what does this implies? good sign or bad sign, i know that i dont have to file anything to the answer since it's not a motion, but does this imply that AUSA will fight me on the court for my case?

please please give me some feedback and help. i am in north district court of california. filed in san jose, under judge RMW.

thanks,

pearl

 

[NameCheck2.0]

I did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally I was sworn in as a US citizen on friday, it's a great feeling. I have had my law suit under 1447(b) for over seven months. Finally, it happened. Now, I was led by someone to this forum after the fact I filed my own 1447(B). I see that the AUSA tries to dismiss the law suit using two ways:

1-Saying that the security check is an integral part of the interview and therefore the plaintiff has no ground to file a suit, because the 120 day clock hasn't started yet. They mainly use Danilov, and there are 100's of law suits out there that didn't accept Danilov argument and that shouldn't be our issue.

2-The main one that get people very confused is the new argument that the court is not equipped to handle investigation, and the case should be remanded back to the USCIS, and totally start from zero again
This argument is totally false because:
a- The court is not an investigative body, and nothing in 1447(B) says that the court should conduct its investigation, rather in a hearing for naturalization, if the government object to the naturalization of this person, it should bring it to the court and like any other litigation, it will have its day in court. A simple hearing, if the Judge sees that the evidence are clear and there are derogatory information on the applicant, he then can remand to the USCIS, otherwise he should grant naturalization.
b-The congress intent will be violated, clearly in the matter of Citizenship, the congress wasn't satisfied by the writ of mandamus, so it legislated 1447(b), because citizenship right is so important that it cannot be a subject of official inefficiency. therefore this argument is false.

look shalan VS Chertoff in the district of Massachusetts. The Judge refused the argument of the defendants and went ahead and approved the naturalization application of the individual. I have been reading a lot about the naturalization laws. One advise, don't rely on just filling the law suit and waiting for the AUSA call to dismiss, you have to know what you are doing, otherwise you are risking yourself, and others by having your case being a reference like Danilov who was a prose and didn't know what he was doing, and that resulted in many cases being dismissed, because every AUSA used his case. So know what at stake, and be very careful. And again it feels soooooooooooooooooooo good being a US citizen. God bless you all

 

[paz1960]

Hi
I am new to this forum. I passed citizenship interview in June 2005, since then I am waiting for the namecheck to clear. I filed my complaint pro se in the beginning of November, 2006. Yesterday I talked to the US Attorney assigned to my case. He threatened to dismiss my complaint.
Has anyone had a similar experience? What can I do to stop the US Attorney from dismissing the case?

Can anyone recommend an immigration attorney in Boston area that successfully handled such cases?

Thanks in advance

Hello svv,
The US Attorney doesn't have the power to dismiss a lawsuit. (S)he can only file a Motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but is up to the court to decide on that motion. This is rather common practice; Defendant will deny that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, because they try to convince the judge that their interpretation (see Danilov v. Aguirre) of the examination is correct, so the background check is part of the examination, that is not complete, so examination is not complete and the 120 days didn't even start ticking.

From your question I assume that you didn't read much about such cases, you simply were hoping that filing your complaint will be sufficient to have your background check completed and the whole case would be over soon, without going too far with the litigation process. Now you can see that this assumption was wrong and you should start preparing your Opposition to Defendants' Motion to dismiss. There is a lot of information out on this forum and I would recommend also to make a PACER subsription and study cases similar to yours, first in your district and and after that in other jurisdictions.

The other alternative would be to hire an immigration lawyer. If you don't get any name from other users, you can use PACER, go to your district and research similar cases. Probably you will find many of them, which were litigated by attorneys not only by Pro Se plaintiffs. From these documents, you will be able to get the name, address and phone number of the attorneys.

 

[paz1960]

Finally I was sworn in as a US citizen on friday, it's a great feeling. I have had my law suit under 1447(b) for over seven months. Finally, it happened. Now, I was led by someone to this forum after the fact I filed my own 1447(B). I see that the AUSA tries to dismiss the law suit using two ways:

1-Saying that the security check is an integral part of the interview and therefore the plaintiff has no ground to file a suit, because the 120 day clock hasn't started yet. They mainly use Danilov, and there are 100's of law suits out there that didn't accept Danilov argument and that shouldn't be our issue.

2-The main one that get people very confused is the new argument that the court is not equipped to handle investigation, and the case should be remanded back to the USCIS, and totally start from zero again
This argument is totally false because:
a- The court is not an investigative body, and nothing in 1447(B) says that the court should conduct its investigation, rather in a hearing for naturalization, if the government object to the naturalization of this person, it should bring it to the court and like any other litigation, it will have its day in court. A simple hearing, if the Judge sees that the evidence are clear and there are derogatory information on the applicant, he then can remand to the USCIS, otherwise he should grant naturalization.
b-The congress intent will be violated, clearly in the matter of Citizenship, the congress wasn't satisfied by the writ of mandamus, so it legislated 1447(b), because citizenship right is so important that it cannot be a subject of official inefficiency. therefore this argument is false.

look shalan VS Chertoff in the district of Massachusetts. The Judge refused the argument of the defendants and went ahead and approved the naturalization application of the individual. I have been reading a lot about the naturalization laws. One advise, don't rely on just filling the law suit and waiting for the AUSA call to dismiss, you have to know what you are doing, otherwise you are risking yourself, and others by having your case being a reference like Danilov who was a prose and didn't know what he was doing, and that resulted in many cases being dismissed, because every AUSA used his case. So know what at stake, and be very careful. And again it feels soooooooooooooooooooo good being a US citizen. God bless you all

First of all, welcome to this forum and congratulation for your successful lawsuit. It would be useful and interesting to find out more about your case, i.e., did you file Pro Se, at what stage of your lawsuit was the name check cleared, did you have to Oppose a motion to dismiss or remand, did you have a hearing in court?

I can't agree more with your recommendations about doing your homework and preparing well for the WHOLE process, not only hoping that filing a complaint will automatically clear the roadblock and your case will be solved before the lawsuit advances in further stages. This will be especially true now that sueing USCIS will not trigger automatically an expedited name check process.

Couple of days ago, I promised that I will post a case, where the judge naturalized Plaintiff, without remanding the case to USCIS. I couldn't find this case, but now thanks to NameCheck2.0, I realised that this case is Shalan v. Chertoff. I attached the final order in this case.

It would be very beneficial for the forum members if you can dedicate some of your time and try to help answering some of the questions raised. Looks to me that you accumulated lot of knowledge and it would be nice to pass on some of it to the newer members.

 

[paz1960]

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?

Hello kefira,
The document filed by AUSA was an Answer to your complaint or a Motion to dismiss? Depending on your answer, you will need to act differently. If it was a Motion, you need to Oppose it, if it was an Answer, you don't have to file anything. An another interesting detail: are you sure that FBI was asking the judge to dismiss your complaint? Who are your defendants?

 

[paz1960]

25,000 name checks pending more than 4 years

I came across this posting on a well known immigration attorney's web page:

Baltimore USCIS District Office
Posted Oct 08, 2006

Name-Check Delays in I-485 Processing
©MurthyDotCom
Baltimore suffers delays in case processing while waiting for name checks to clear, as does the rest of the country. Attendees of the meeting with the District Office were advised that, nationwide, there are more than 25,000 cases for which name checks have been pending for more than four years. This is apparently not within the control of the USCIS and creates more work and problems for them, as it renders USCIS unable to make final decisions in pending I-485 cases due to security- or name-check delays.

See the full buletin at http://www.murthy.com/news/n_bmoreo.html

 

[paz1960]

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

Hi zlp6945835,
Welcome to this forum. I believe that you waited long enough and did everything possible to prove that you exhaused all administrative avenues to solve your case peacefully, i.e., with no litigation.

Although I'm not in Texas, I faced the same dilemma: to include the DO director or the Service Center director (where my original N-400 application was filed). Because I already had my interview at the District Office, ultimately I decided to include the director of the District Office. However, I believe, that doesn't really matter who you include, because these litigation cases are handled centrally at the USCIS General Counsel's Office in Washington DC.

FYI, the Houston District Director is Sharon A. Hudson, the USCIS Houston DO address is: 126 Northpoint, Houston, TX 77060.
The Texas Service Center director is Evelyn Upchurch, for general correspondence I found the following address: USCIS TSC, P.O. Box 851488, Mesquite, TX 75185-1488

 

[zlp6945835]

filing WOM is not sufficient to have your background check completed?

Hellow PAZ1960:
I don't have any knowledge about law. but due to unlimited waiting for name clearance, I want to file WOM by following some complaint posted on this Forum. From your response to SVV, it seems simply file complaint is not sufficient to have your background check completed now. Do you have a statistic number, what percentage case filed pro se will go through litigation process? Is the failed lawsuit will effect my I-485 status?

Thanks

Hello svv,
The US Attorney doesn't have the power to dismiss a lawsuit. (S)he can only file a Motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but is up to the court to decide on that motion. This is rather common practice; Defendant will deny that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, because they try to convince the judge that their interpretation (see Danilov v. Aguirre) of the examination is correct, so the background check is part of the examination, that is not complete, so examination is not complete and the 120 days didn't even start ticking.

From your question I assume that you didn;t read much about such cases, you simply were hoping that filing your complaint will be sufficient to have your background check completed and the whole case would be over soon, without going too far with the litigation process. Now you can see that this assumption was wrong and you should start preparing your Opposition to Defendants' Motion to dismiss. There is a lot of information out on this forum and I would recommend also to make a PACER subsription and study cass similar to yours, first in your district and second, in other jurisdictions.

The other alternative would be to hire an immigration lawyer. If you don't get any name from other users, you can use PACER, go to your district and research similar cases. Probably you will find many of them which were litigated by attorneys not only by Pro Se plaintiffs. From these documents, you will be able to get the name, address and phone number of the attorneys.

 

[paz1960]

Hellow PAZ1960:
I don't have any knowledge about law. but due to unlimited waiting for name clearance, I want to file WOM by following some complaint posted on this Forum. From your response to SVV, it seems simply file complaint is not sufficient to have your background check completed now. Do you have a statistic number, what percentage case filed pro se will go through litigation process? Is the failed lawsuit will effect my I-485 status?

Thanks

Filing simply a lawsuit never was necessarily enough to have your name check completed. Unfortunately, there were enough cases when the lawsuit proceeded and judge actually ruled on the matter, either dismissing the lawsuit, or remanding it to the Agency with or without meaningful instructions, because the name check was still pending. Of course, a lot of cases were solved before the judge had to make any decision. Now that USCIS apparently decided that they will not request an expedited name check processing from FBI when a lawsuit is filed, most likely the lawsuits will proceed to further stages, making them more difficult to handle for Pro Se plaintiffs with little or no litigation experience.


Your questions are all hard questions, I believe nobody has the right answers. Obviously, the USCIS General Counsel Office has a statistics about all lawsuits, because all of these cases go through them, but I'm not aware of any published data. Theoretically, a lost lawsuit should not affect your I-485 case, but again, nobody can really guarantee you anything...

 

[gmlvsk]

example to oppose motion to dismiss for I-485 cases

Hey Paz,
Do you have any example to oppose motion to dismiss for I-485 cases?
Thanks

 

[paz1960]

Hey Paz,
Do you have any example to oppose motion to dismiss for I-485 cases?
Thanks

My case is a N-400 application, so I don't have many I-485 related cases. I send some what I had to wenlock, I believe he has a better collection of Oppositions to Motions to dismiss in WOM cases (his case is also a naturalization, but because he didn't have his interview, he was forced to file WOM, instead of 1447(b)).

 

[gmlvsk]

Wenlock, could you post collection of Oppositions to Motions for I-485 or email to me. Thanks

My case is a N-400 application, so I don't have many I-485 related cases. I send some what I had to wenlock, I believe he has a better collection of Oppositions to Motions to dismiss in WOM cases (his case is also a naturalization, but because he didn't have his interview, he was forced to file WOM, instead of 1447(b)).

 

[kefira]

Hello kefira,
The document filed by AUSA was an Answer to your complaint or a Motion to dismiss? Depending on your answer, you will need to act differently. If it was a Motion, you need to Oppose it, if it was an Answer, you don't have to file anything. An another interesting detail: are you sure that FBI was asking the judge to dismiss your complaint? Who are your defendants?

Thank you for your reply. It was the ANSWER.
I will be able only tomorrow to scan this document and publish it on the forum.

 

[wine06]

questions about efilling for I-485 lawsuits

I am working efilling on lawsuits again following guys for my I-485 applactions. The names and addresses are still correct? Is there some way to email them the materials?

In addition, I am getting account in http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/. Should I use this account, or apply for another account in local district court website to do efilling?

Thanks a lot,

Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pensylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Washington, DC 90258

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pensylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001

 

[paz1960]

I am working efilling on lawsuits again following guys for my I-485 applactions. The names and addresses are still correct? Is there some way to email them the materials?

In addition, I am getting account in http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/. Should I use this account, or apply for another account in local district court website to do efilling?

Thanks a lot,

Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pensylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Washington, DC 90258

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pensylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001

You should make shure that in your district Pro Se Plaintiffs are allowed to file electronically. This is regulated by the Local Rules. In my district Pro Se Plaintiff can file documents with the court only traditionally (i.e., paper).

I used the following addresses:

Michael Chertoff
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 4025, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20528

Emilio T. Gonzales
Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 4025, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20528

Alberto R. Gonzales
United States Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Robert S. Mueller
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Office of the General Counsel FBI
935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001

I also included in the list of defendants the director of the USCIS District Office, where I was interviewed and my file is located and I also served a copy of the complaint and a summons to the US Attorney's Office, Civil Process Clerk, in my district.

 

[ashlie23]

N-400 stuck in name check for 3 yrs

Dear Publicus,

First of all, I can not say "thank you" enuf for the posts and kinda info you've provided for people like us. Here's my situation.

My situation seems to have gone out of control since early 2004. My family composed of 4 members. There are 2 members (me and my sister) in my family still waiting to receive their citizenships.

BRIEF SUMMARY :

I am a resident of state Tennessee. We applied for N-400 in Nov 2003 at Texas service center. Things were working out just fine. Four of us received our interviews in October 2004. My parents became naturalized citizens in Feb 2005; however, I and my sister's oath is still pending. We both passed our interviews in 2006 and 2004, respectively. We still have not received the call for an oath.

-Upon many inquiries to USCIS, we were told that our files are under "FBI: name check."
-We made many trips to Memphis center, where out interviews were conducted- made appointments with InfoPass.
-Wrote letters to Senator of Tennessee -twice and visited his secretary in person.
-Wrote letter to Vice president - Cheney
-Emails to FBI
- we are not able to check the case status on USCIS website either.

After too many attempts, all we have heard is that our files are still under "FBI:name check."

It has been more than 3 years and we are still desperately waiting for our citizenship. This has caused a lot of major problems in the family.

Upon inquiring with different attorneys, we have been told that "there is nothing they can do about it, and we will have to wait and see." We have been eagerly waiting and it seems like it will become worse and worse and time goes by.

I have heard that we can get attorneys to sue the USCIS - however, attorneys are not willing to help out ..
We are really confused and not sure what should be our next step since it seems as if we have done everything possible in our power.

If you can help answer any questions or guide us in the right direction, we would really really appreciate your help.

Desperately waiting for your reply!!

Thanks!!

 

[wenlock]

Dear Publicus,

First of all, I can not say "thank you" enuf for the posts and kinda info you've provided for people like us. Here's my situation.

My situation seems to have gone out of control since early 2004. My family composed of 4 members. There are 2 members (me and my sister) in my family still waiting to receive their citizenships.

BRIEF SUMMARY :

I am a resident of state Tennessee. We applied for N-400 in Nov 2003 at Texas service center. Things were working out just fine. Four of us received our interviews in October 2004. My parents became naturalized citizens in Feb 2005; however, I and my sister's oath is still pending. We both passed our interviews in 2006 and 2004, respectively. We still have not received the call for an oath.

-Upon many inquiries to USCIS, we were told that our files are under "FBI: name check."
-We made many trips to Memphis center, where out interviews were conducted- made appointments with InfoPass.
-Wrote letters to Senator of Tennessee -twice and visited his secretary in person.
-Wrote letter to Vice president - Cheney
-Emails to FBI
- we are not able to check the case status on USCIS website either.

After too many attempts, all we have heard is that our files are still under "FBI:name check."

It has been more than 3 years and we are still desperately waiting for our citizenship. This has caused a lot of major problems in the family.

Upon inquiring with different attorneys, we have been told that "there is nothing they can do about it, and we will have to wait and see." We have been eagerly waiting and it seems like it will become worse and worse and time goes by.

I have heard that we can get attorneys to sue the USCIS - however, attorneys are not willing to help out ..
We are really confused and not sure what should be our next step since it seems as if we have done everything possible in our power.

If you can help answer any questions or guide us in the right direction, we would really really appreciate your help.

Desperately waiting for your reply!!

Thanks!!

Welcome to forum. First Publicus is no longer active member of this forum. But many thanks to him who started this thread.

I recommend start educating your self about law suit process and file as soon as possible.

If you are willing to spend many we can tell you how to find attorney who will be willing to file in your district.

If you are not willing to spend money and have lot of time in your hand you can do it your self. But remember it takes time and patiance.

First read start of this thread and learn how you can start collecting information about filling law suit. If you have questions we can help you with that.

 

[ashlie23]

Thanks

Dear Wenlock,

Thanks a bunch for the reply. After reading your reply and messages from other members on this forum, I am convinced to hire a lawyer.
I am from Knoxville, Tennessee (TN) and I was wondering if you someone can help me find a lawyer. I have list of attornies who practice immigration laws in Knoville. I think the first step would be to call them and find out what they have to say about it - suing the USCIS.
Do you have any suggestions?
Please let me know. Many thanks!!

 

[wine06]

You should make shure that in your district Pro Se Plaintiffs are allowed to file electronically. This is regulated by the Local Rules. In my district Pro Se Plaintiff can file documents with the court only traditionally (i.e., paper).

I used the following addresses:

Michael Chertoff
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 4025, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20528

Emilio T. Gonzales
Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 4025, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20528

Alberto R. Gonzales
United States Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Robert S. Mueller
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Office of the General Counsel FBI
935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001

I also included in the list of defendants the director of the USCIS District Office, where I was interviewed and my file is located and I also served a copy of the complaint and a summons to the US Attorney's Office, Civil Process Clerk, in my district.

Thanks.