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

[Olin]

I saw in your district another attorney filed identical to yours has got approved. Almost similar timeline to yours. Maybe in your district WOM through reputable attorney works best. Check pacer

Thanks. Could you give me that attorney's name?

Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006

 

[paz1960]

Today is WOM due day of 60 days. AUSA asks for extension and I was told they are working on my case. And no more information. What does not mean?Just concerned that they only try to buy time. I saw some cases got motion to dismiss after extension. Any comments? thanks

Well, what would be the reason that defendants want to buy time if they are already decided that they will not finish your name check and will not adjudicate your case anyway? They could simply file a Motion to Dismiss right after you filed your complaint. In my opinion, it is obvious that they are trying to solve your case that's why they file for an extension. Sometimes, indeed, I saw that after one or even two extensions, ultimately they filed a Motion to Dismiss, which in my reading means, that although they tried, they still were not able to complete the name check. Why? I don't know. But we should understand, that there can be many different reasons why somebody's name check got stuck initially, so the amount of time to ultimately decide, also may be different from case to case.

At this moment, you are in a situation where the only thing what you can do is to study and prepare for the fight. Best case scenario: you wasted that preparation time (but you will be able to help others on this forum) and your case will be solved befoe the extension is up (like happened in my case). Worst case scenario: you will need to oppose a Motion to Dismiss or go to trial and present essentially the same opposition in front of the judge.

 

[paz1960]

I have not heard anything from the judge yet, nor did I receive a letter from the clerk instructing me to respond. I will go to the clerk tomorrow and will keep you all informed.

Thanks.

Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006

There might be a possibility, which has to be explored. In many district courts (maybe in all, I don't know) there is a so called "Roseboro notice" in effect.

<<A “Roseboro Notice” should be filed with any dispositive or partially dispositive motion in which a pro se party is involved. See Local Civil Rule 7(K). >> (this is form the Eastern Virginia District, Richmond division court web site).

As I remember, this means that if you are a Pro Se Plaintiff and the defendants file, e.g., a Motion to Dismiss, they (or the court?) have to send you a notice that Plaintiff has XX days to Oppose the Motion, and otherways the Motion will be considered unopposed and treated accordingly.

Because you didn't receive any such notification, if this "Roseboro notice obligation" is in effect in your district, you can ask the court to accept your Opposition even now, when the deadline passed. I would give it a try...

 

[lotechguy]

Thanks. Could you give me that attorney's name?

Olin
_______
I-485 name check pending since March 2003
Filed WOM on October 23, 2006
AUSA filed Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 23, 2006

Tidwell & Swaim

 

[wenlock]

There might be a possibility, which has to be explored. In many district courts (maybe in all, I don't know) there is a so called Roseboro notice in effect.

<<A “Roseboro Notice” should be filed with any dispositive or partially dispositive motion in which a pro se party is involved. See Local Civil Rule 7(K). >> (QUOTE]


In my experiance every time I saw any case on pacer where plaintiff is pro se if defendents filed motion to dismiss either judge ruled that plaintiff should respond by this date or court clerk sent out notification to plaintiff about deadline to respond.

 

[kefira]

I didn't quite understand the 14 days deadline you mentioned. Where this came from? It is very important to follow daily your docket, and inform us if anything new shows up there. So far, unless I missed something, the last filing was the Answer from AUSA. Does anything filed AFTER the conference with the magistrate judge and AUSA?

You r right, I attached the document that I signed with AUSA before yesterday teleconference. I believe AUSA has to file motion to dismiss the case by tomorrow and then from this day I have 14 days. I attached the signed document. Thank you a lot for your help.

 

[gcok2006]

Was told "your case is being expedited"

Thanks a lot to paz, kefira, myang and all experts. Yes, in current circurmstance, extension request is normal and better than motion to dismiss. I was told today that AUSA is working on my case and NC is being expedited. I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Well, what would be the reason that defendants want to buy time if they are already decided that they will not finish you name check and adjudicate your case anyway? They could simply file a Motion to Dismiss right after you filed your complaint. In my opinion, it is obvious that they are trying to solve your case that's why the file for an extension. Sometimes, indeed, I saw that after one or even two extensions, ultimately they filed a Motion to Dismiss, which in my reading means, that although they tried, they still were not able to complete the name check. Why? I don't know. But we should understand, that there can be many different reasons why somebody's name check got stuck initially, so the amount of time to ultimately decide, also may be different from case to case.

At this moment, you are in a situation where the only thing what you can do is to study and prepare for the fight. Best case scenario: you wasted that preparation time (but you will be able to help others on this forum) and your case will be solved befoe the extension is up (like happened in my case). Worst case: you will need to Oppose a Motion to Dismiss or go to trial and present essentially the same opposition in front of the judge.

 

[wenlock]

You r right, I attached the document that I signed with AUSA before yesterday teleconference. I believe AUSA has to file motion to dismiss the case by tomorrow and then from this day I have 14 days. I attached the signed document. Thank you a lot for your help.

yes looks like defendents will file motion to dismiss and you have to respond with opposition in 14 days.

 

[Olin]

There might be a possibility, which has to be explored. In many district courts (maybe in all, I don't know) there is a so called "Roseboro notice" in effect.

<<A “Roseboro Notice” should be filed with any dispositive or partially dispositive motion in which a pro se party is involved. See Local Civil Rule 7(K). >> (this is form the Eastern Virginia District, Richmond division court web site).

As I remember, this means that if you are a Pro Se Plaintiff and the defendants file, e.g., a Motion to Dismiss, they (or the court?) have to send you a notice that Plaintiff has XX days to Oppose the Motion, and otherways the Motion will be considered unopposed and treated accordingly.

Because you didn't receive any such notification, if this "Roseboro notice
obligation" is in effect in your district, you can ask the court to accept your Opposition even now, when the deadline passed. I would give it a try...

Thanks Paz. I am in the process of hiring a lawyer to fight for me. I will keep you all informed of my case.

 

[Olin]

Tidwell & Swaim

Thanks, I will contact them.

 

[zevs]

Hi, Kefira

Hi Kefira,

I don't know whether this info will help you, but here is the link to the congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Acting Assistant Director, RMD, FBI dated July 10, 2003 regarging the FBI's visa name check process.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm

This topis was basically devoted to NC for business visas, however, in the Processing Times paragraph he stated,

"The FBI's goal is to have all requests completed within 120 days. .....

A common question we receive is, How long does it take to complete a visa request name check? As shown on these graphs, 86 to 92% are completed in 30 days. For both types of visa requests, 98-99% of the requests are resolved in 120 days.

Most name check requests that are over 30 days old are the result of the time required to retrieve and review field office record information. Some delay occurs at substantive analysts' desks, but this is to be expected. These analysts are assigned to the investigative divisions and are primarily assigned to the analysis of intelligence reports from around the world in order to support on-going investigations, or to support the flow of intelligence to policy makers. These are the best professionals, however, to review information in our records and to then make an informed decision on whether a requester of a visa represents a threat to our homeland, or is interested in illegally acquiring our targeted technology. Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, the FBI's resolves 99% of all types of visa requests within 120 days."

Kefira, can you please elaborate more on how your meeting with AUSA/magistrate judge went? What questions/arguments did they have? I will have the similar procedure in a few weeks. Can you please send PM or post your answer here in more details. My case is also WoM (I-485, marriage-based).

Thank you,
Alika
(Busy mom with full time job....)

I just had a conference call with my AUSA and the magistrate judge where we were trying to resolve my case. (pending NM since March 2005, GC-marriage based). AUSA position is that FBI is planning to dismiss my case, since they do NOT have any timeframe to clear the NC by law and they fill file the dissmisal of my case and I of course requested a trial. Now I have 14 days to refuse dismissal, but did somebody really see some timeframe for clearing NC for the GC? I will go through Paz's posted documents, but I believe they are all for citizenship. Any other idea what else should I put in my petition? It looks that I do not have any grounds to request adjustication of my status in a timeley matter. I know that AUSA ordered expedited NC for me, but I do not know the exact day. If my case will be dismissed then it will give ground to dismiss all other WOM GC cases to FBI.

 

[pearlgal]

missing proposed order part

hi, kefira:

i did not find your document contains proposed order part, is it list one the fourth page? or there's no part like that... i find some of the joint statement with proposed order some doesn't, but the example on court website contains it also a lots of deadline associated with it, i'm quite confused, i cannot get a hold of my AUSA, my ADR conference is not being scheduled as of today after i called the ADR department to ask...

anyway, i think i need to prepare my document just in case i cannot get hold of my ausa...

thanks a lot,

pearl

You r right, I attached the document that I signed with AUSA before yesterday teleconference. I believe AUSA has to file motion to dismiss the case by tomorrow and then from this day I have 14 days. I attached the signed document. Thank you a lot for your help.

 

[kefira]

Kefira, can you please elaborate more on how your meeting with AUSA/magistrate judge went? What questions/arguments did they have? I will have the similar procedure in a few weeks. Can you please send PM or post your answer here in more details. My case is also WoM (I-485, marriage-based).

Thank you,
Alika
(Busy mom with full time job....)

It was TELEPHONE conference and not meeting. Basically Magistrate Judge listed 4 options and explained them to me for the ADR process and we had to select one of them. AUSA reply was that FBI does not agree to any ADR option and they will be filing papers for dismissing my case. I said that it is OK, I will be filing motion not to dismiss my case and I want to go to the trial with my judge (whoever was assigned 3 month ago). Magistrate judge said, that he will update my case and will let the judge know about the result of teleconference. We said bye bye and that is it.

 

[Freebird2]

"1447(b) Petition for Hearing" or "Writ of Mandamus"

I know this topic has been talked about over and over in this thread. But I do have something new on this, and any comments is sincerely looked forward to as I need to decide which route to go.
I live in Houston, Texas. My N-400 citizenship case has been pending for about 24 months. I found many cases filed to the district courts in Texas in PACER. What surprised me was that every N-400 case represented by a lawyer was filed for "Writ of Mandamus", yet many Pro Se cases were filed for "1447(b) Petition for Hearing". I consulted a Houston lawyer, he insisted Writ of Mandamus was the way to go for citizenship cases. The I consulted a couple of California lawyers, they pointed out "Writ of Mandamus" approach might easily ruin my case. I'm now totally lost. Is there anyone here from Texas? Can anyone offer me his/her point of view? Help needed! Thanks.

 

[sksharma76]

Doesn anybody has any idea since when the USCIS stopped scheduling interview for the N400 if the name check is not cleared.I filed on Aug 2005 and my interview was scheduled for March 06 and then Descheduled.But i see pearlgal filed in 2/06 and was interviewed on 07/06.
And i have been told 2 diffrent things about the interview my Military lmmigration liasion told me that my file wasnt in USCIS charlotte and it was in USCIS Texas.But USCIS told me they descheduled interview because of name check just curious to see who was right

 

[zevs]

Thank you, Kefira!

Thank you, Kefira!
A.

It was TELEPHONE conference and not meeting. Basically Magistrate Judge listed 4 options and explained them to me for the ADR process and we had to select one of them. AUSA reply was that FBI does not agree to any ADR option and they will be filing papers for dismissing my case. I said that it is OK, I will be filing motion not to dismiss my case and I want to go to the trial with my judge (whoever was assigned 3 month ago). Magistrate judge said, that he will update my case and will let the judge know about the result of teleconference. We said bye bye and that is it.

 

[paz1960]

I know this topic has been talked about over and over in this thread. But I do have something new on this, and any comments is sincerely looked forward to as I need to decide which route to go.
I live in Houston, Texas. My N-400 citizenship case has been pending for about 24 months. I found many cases filed to the district courts in Texas in PACER. What surprised me was that every N-400 case represented by a lawyer was filed for "Writ of Mandamus", yet many Pro Se cases were filed for "1447(b) Petition for Hearing". I consulted a Houston lawyer, he insisted Writ of Mandamus was the way to go for citizenship cases. The I consulted a couple of California lawyers, they pointed out "Writ of Mandamus" approach might easily ruin my case. I'm now totally lost. Is there anyone here from Texas? Can anyone offer me his/her point of view? Help needed! Thanks.

Although I am not in Texas, I followed couple of cases there. I found at least one case represented by a lawyer, filed in the Southern District of Texas, in Houston, which was a stalled N-400 application and it was a Petition for Hearing on Naturalization based on 1447(b). This case is Torok v. Chertoff, 4:06-mc-00345, filed on 6/26/2006. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff opposed this motion (I liked this Opposition, and I used some parts in my draft). Ultimately Plaintiff was naturalized before the judge actually had to rule on the motion or conduct a hearing.

However, there is a judge in that district (Hon. Kenneth M. Hoyt) who remanded sua sponte several cases (some of them represented by lawyers), without any meaningful instruction to USCIS, immediately after the filing.

You can read about this on the American Immigration Law Foundation web site at: http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_natdelay.shtml and http://www.ailf.org/lac/natz_delay0806.shtml

I saw cases filed in the Eastern District of Michigan where in the same complaint both 1447(b) and the mandamus was invoked.

 

[paz1960]

Doesn anybody has any idea since when the USCIS stopped scheduling interview for the N400 if the name check is not cleared.I filed on Aug 2005 and my interview was scheduled for March 06 and then Descheduled.But i see pearlgal filed in 2/06 and was interviewed on 07/06.
And i have been told 2 diffrent things about the interview my Military lmmigration liasion told me that my file wasnt in USCIS charlotte and it was in USCIS Texas.But USCIS told me they descheduled interview because of name check just curious to see who was right

I have serious doubts that you will ever figure out who was right. But to answer your question, USCIS Acting Associate Director for Domestic Operations, Michael Aytes issued an Interoffice Memorandum on April 25, 2006, where he instructed Regional, Sevice Center and District Directors to not schedule naturalization interviews before the full criminal background check is not complete.

 

[mgzh]

paz, update my case

got phone call from AUSA today, they want extra one month extention, good sign?

 

[paz1960]

got phone call from AUSA today, they want extra one month extention, good sign?

I would think so. If they would not work on your case, they simply would file a Motion to Dismisss. Let's hope that your case will be finished by the time when the extension expires.