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

Northern Californians Demand End to Citizenship Application Delays (2/8/2007)

Hi Everyone,

Here is the class action law suit by ACLU. I do not know what impact it has on all of us waiting here?


SAN FRANCISCO - Civil rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit today against the federal government for its practice of indefinitely delaying citizenship applications in violation of the Constitution and federal statutes and regulations.

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/28284prs20070208.html
 
barani1000 said:
Hi Everyone,

Here is the class action law suit by ACLU. I do not know what impact it has on all of us waiting here?


SAN FRANCISCO - Civil rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit today against the federal government for its practice of indefinitely delaying citizenship applications in violation of the Constitution and federal statutes and regulations.

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/28284prs20070208.html
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post, but it is already 4th or 5th post with this link.

BTW, I called this organization today and unless you are asian or muslim - no hope for help, specially if you are waiting for GC. So, next time if somebody asian or muslim then these people will be served first and only then (if only then) the rest of us caucasians... :(
 
PACER update

I just checked PACER on my case, here is the latest info posted. "Record of Order by Judge *************: Setting a telephone Rule 16 Conference before Judge ***** on 3/1/2007 at 09:30AM. The court will initiate the conference call. Local Rules 16.2(b) and 26.1(a)(b) require that counsel confer prior to the conference. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of the case, relevant dates and deadlines, and any other significant issues. Plaintiff shall advise the court at the conference whether or not there will be full consent from all parties to proceed before the magistrate judge in the case. If consents are going to be filed, it is helpful if they are filed prior to the time of the conference, particularly with respect to the setting of trial. (da) (Entered: 02/12/2007)". Any suggestions?
 
786riz said:
Hi Team,
I need your comments and understating of your conversation to AUSA.
I have filed my 1447b on 2/1/07 in Michigan. Spoke to AUSA on 2/7/07, AUSA (Derri Thomas) was very nice and polite person; understand why the folks are filing suits. She told me that there is no more automatic expedite, USCIS is aware of your suit. Now, your name is entered in a list, like other folks who filed suit and I do not know how long will it take for USCIS to ask FBI to check your name. I will wait for 60 days then with your agreement we will file for 30 days extension, if case still not resolve then I will file a standard motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. I asked her if you know USCIS will not move, then why we need to wait that long? Why not you just file motion to dismiss and I will oppose you and judge will rule on it and we will be done very quickly? She said she can not do that. I asked her why; she said there are some general rules set by USCIS General Counsel which I have to obey. I want to go more deep in this topic but I just closed my big mouth. She told me in past she never called anyone to expedite anyone name.
Could you folks please share your experiences, folks who filed before December, 06 and folks who filed in January, 07 and onwards?
Thank you
Click to expand...
My case was assigned to the same person (Derri Thomas). My case was solved by end of Jan. 2007 (WOM was filed on middle of December, 2006. Basically, we was told samething, at that time I parepared everything to fight to the last step, but be my surprise....
What I can tell you are (1)what you did is right thing, you need put some pressure on AUSA but dont be pushing too much; (2)General Counsel of USCIS will make the decision depend on how they arrange your case in a low to high priority list; (3) AUSA doesn't know every details. Some of them have very good connection with USCIS, but some of them just waiting for USCIS instruction; (4) There is nothing to do with before or after December 22; (5) Derri Thomas has a very good connection with USCIS and she is a very passionate person but very professonal. (5) You are a luck one to get her assign to your case, be patient and keep a good relationship with her. (6) She doesn't want your case go to Judge, but there is nothing she can do if order from General Counsel Office.
 
Case update

Got some update on my case --

1447B filed in Central CA in January and served all defendants the same day. Filed proof of services the same week and contacted AUSA after about two weeks. Before filing the case I wrote to both senators in CA and Ms. Laura Bush's office and knew my name check was pending since 04/2005 with FBI.

Yesterday I received a letter from one of the senators who contacted FBI (the other one only contacted CIS) and told me my NC was cleared in January, the same day I filed my complaint. Not sure whether it's coincidence or maybe FBI backdated the completion date to make my lawsuit look stupid. Anyway happy that finally NC cleared.

Now I have a question to Paz -- Should I contact AUSA to update this or just wait for him to follow up? I also need to travel in March and read on this board that CIS sometimes revenge lawsuits by scheduling oath the very next day they call you, regardless whether you are out of town or not. In case that happens to me, is there any rule saying I must accept that forced oath date or maybe I can still reschedule?

Good luck to all!
 
hi,everyone, here is my case, pls help

What a wonderful forum!!! I will learn a lot from you guys.

I am stuck with FBI name check of N-400 over 30 months. recently I got the FBI letter forwarded by congressman. knowing my name check is still pending.

BUT the letter also says: The FBI is sensitive to the impact of the delays in processing name check requests. At the same time, the consequence of the FBI's mission on homeland security requires that our name check process be primarily focused on an accurate and thorough result. While an exact date for completion of this review cannot be given, please be assured that the results will be made available to the immigration authorities as quickly as possible.

Is this the standard answer or a little bit good sign, should I file lawsuit or just wait for one or two months to see what will happen? really frustrated with this ordeal.

If anybody have the same experience or any input, please give me some advice.Thank you

Filed N-400 on June, 2004,
Passed interview on Oct, 2004
Inquired my name check twice through congressman
 
This is standard answer and I've got the same thing. However, my impression is that although FBI does not expedite anything based on congressional inquiry, they may have done it differently to requests from First Lady's office, just based on my own experience so far. Of course this is just guess not concrete.

yiyi05 said:
What a wonderful forum!!! I will learn a lot from you guys.

I am stuck with FBI name check of N-400 over 30 months. recently I got the FBI letter forwarded by congressman. knowing my name check is still pending.

BUT the letter also says: The FBI is sensitive to the impact of the delays in processing name check requests. At the same time, the consequence of the FBI's mission on homeland security requires that our name check process be primarily focused on an accurate and thorough result. While an exact date for completion of this review cannot be given, please be assured that the results will be made available to the immigration authorities as quickly as possible.

Is this the standard answer or a little bit good sign, should I file lawsuit or just wait for one or two months to see what will happen? really frustrated with this ordeal.

If anybody have the same experience or any input, please give me some advice.Thank you

Filed N-400 on June, 2004,
Passed interview on Oct, 2004
Inquired my name check twice through congressman
Click to expand...
 
yvesliu said:
I just checked PACER on my case, here is the latest info posted. "Record of Order by Judge *************: Setting a telephone Rule 16 Conference before Judge ***** on 3/1/2007 at 09:30AM. The court will initiate the conference call. Local Rules 16.2(b) and 26.1(a)(b) require that counsel confer prior to the conference. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of the case, relevant dates and deadlines, and any other significant issues. Plaintiff shall advise the court at the conference whether or not there will be full consent from all parties to proceed before the magistrate judge in the case. If consents are going to be filed, it is helpful if they are filed prior to the time of the conference, particularly with respect to the setting of trial. (da) (Entered: 02/12/2007)". Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Why do not you read previous posts? I and not only me already went through this not long time ago (less then 2 weeks)
 
yiyi05 said:
What a wonderful forum!!! I will learn a lot from you guys.

I am stuck with FBI name check of N-400 over 30 months. recently I got the FBI letter forwarded by congressman. knowing my name check is still pending.

BUT the letter also says: The FBI is sensitive to the impact of the delays in processing name check requests. At the same time, the consequence of the FBI's mission on homeland security requires that our name check process be primarily focused on an accurate and thorough result. While an exact date for completion of this review cannot be given, please be assured that the results will be made available to the immigration authorities as quickly as possible.

Is this the standard answer or a little bit good sign, should I file lawsuit or just wait for one or two months to see what will happen? really frustrated with this ordeal.

If anybody have the same experience or any input, please give me some advice.Thank you

Filed N-400 on June, 2004,
Passed interview on Oct, 2004
Inquired my name check twice through congressman
Click to expand...
It is a STANDARD answer.
 
cacd07 said:
Got some update on my case --

1447B filed in Central CA in January and served all defendants the same day. Filed proof of services the same week and contacted AUSA after about two weeks. Before filing the case I wrote to both senators in CA and Ms. Laura Bush's office and knew my name check was pending since 04/2005 with FBI.

Yesterday I received a letter from one of the senators who contacted FBI (the other one only contacted CIS) and told me my NC was cleared in January, the same day I filed my complaint. Not sure whether it's coincidence or maybe FBI backdated the completion date to make my lawsuit look stupid. Anyway happy that finally NC cleared.

Now I have a question to Paz -- Should I contact AUSA to update this or just wait for him to follow up? I also need to travel in March and read on this board that CIS sometimes revenge lawsuits by scheduling oath the very next day they call you, regardless whether you are out of town or not. In case that happens to me, is there any rule saying I must accept that forced oath date or maybe I can still reschedule?

Good luck to all!
Click to expand...
I certainly would recommend to contact AUSA and let him/her know this important news. Because you have a new piece of information, contacting AUSA doesn't seem that you are bothering him/her. And because this pending name check is presumably the only roadblock in the adjudication, AUSA can use this to put some pressure on USCIS to adjudicate your application.

Don't worry that your lawsuit looks stupid or not. You didn the right thing, 1447(b) clearly sets the time limit when they need to adjudicate your application. They didn't do it, so they exposed themselves to a lawsuit.

With the oath date and travel. This is a tricky question. If you absolutely can't postpone your travel, you should negotiate with USCIS through AUSA and let them know when do you need to travel and ask them to schedule the oath ceremony outside of that interval. I think that you have a good chance to arrange that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
question

Hey Paz, Wenlock and all
Thank you very much for you guys' contributions to this forum.

There is a question about the case citation. There are lots of cases cited Yu 36 f supp. 2d at 935. However, how to search this case in pacer. What kind of format this is? Aslo, there is another case citation like Paunescu, 76F. Supp.2d at 902.

Thank you very much!

Philipimi
 
phlipimi said:
Hey Paz, Wenlock and all
Thank you very much for you guys' contributions to this forum.

There is a question about the case citation. There are lots of cases cited Yu 36 f supp. 2d at 935. However, how to search this case in pacer. What kind of format this is? Aslo, there is another case citation like Paunescu, 76F. Supp.2d at 902.

Thank you very much!

Philipimi
Click to expand...
F. Supp. stands for Federal Suppliment.

Federal Supplement®

A set of legal reference books containing decisions of federal courts in chronological order.

The first volume of the Federal Supplement was published in 1933, and successive volumes have been numbered consecutively. Volume 900 was published in 1994. A citation to an opinion printed in the Federal Supplement gives, first, the volume and then the page number on which the case begins. For example, 465 F.Supp. 1286 means that the case can be found in volume 465 on page 1286. (from http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-supplement)

F.Supp 2d This set is a federal case law reporter series in West’s® National Reporter System. This product covers opinions and decisions from 1998 to date issued by U.S. District Courts. (from http://west.thomson.com/product/16008763/product.asp)

Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896, 900 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (district court jurisdiction to review INS’s failure to timely adjudicate adjustment application is not barred by § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because INS had not yet granted or denied relief). The court concluded that it had mandamus jurisdiction over the challenge. Id. at 901.

Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 929-30, 935 (D. N.M. 1999)

These two cases are probably too old to find them on-line with PACER. You need to go to a law library where you can find them in the federal Suppliment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yiyi05 said:
What a wonderful forum!!! I will learn a lot from you guys.

I am stuck with FBI name check of N-400 over 30 months. recently I got the FBI letter forwarded by congressman. knowing my name check is still pending.

BUT the letter also says: The FBI is sensitive to the impact of the delays in processing name check requests. At the same time, the consequence of the FBI's mission on homeland security requires that our name check process be primarily focused on an accurate and thorough result. While an exact date for completion of this review cannot be given, please be assured that the results will be made available to the immigration authorities as quickly as possible.

Is this the standard answer or a little bit good sign, should I file lawsuit or just wait for one or two months to see what will happen? really frustrated with this ordeal.

If anybody have the same experience or any input, please give me some advice.Thank you

Filed N-400 on June, 2004,
Passed interview on Oct, 2004
Inquired my name check twice through congressman
Click to expand...
If you have enough time and you are determined to do it yourself, read this forum, you will get all the necessary info to file a lawsuit Pro Se. If you don't feel comfortable with this, and you have the money, you should hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit through him/her. Just don't wait any longer, because it is unlikely that your case will be solved anytime soon without taking action.
 
2 nd interview

hello team
i have a second interview this friday, after taking a second set of finger prints 3 weeks ago. on the letter the cis sent me it seems that they dont know that i already had an interview like 8 months ago.
do i have to take the civic test again?, and is this good news?


Filed 1447b in Nov 06
everyone served 12 dec 06
 
yiyi05 said:
What a wonderful forum!!! I will learn a lot from you guys.

I am stuck with FBI name check of N-400 over 30 months. recently I got the FBI letter forwarded by congressman. knowing my name check is still pending.
If anybody have the same experience or any input, please give me some advice.Thank you

Filed N-400 on June, 2004,
Passed interview on Oct, 2004
Inquired my name check twice through congressman
Click to expand...

If you are muslim/from muslim country/asian, then you can talk to American Liberty Group (couple posts before had 4 links to them) - people from these countries now considered to be the most affected (that is obviously lie IMHO) ... and they will file the case for you or may be you can join them in their class action suit that they filed last week.
 
new CIS changes - please help!

Hi Guys,
I am really desperate for your help. I am in NJ, and I have applied for an I-485

Date Applied: Nov 1, 2005
Finger Prints: December 2005
Interview: May 2006 – Case pending due to name check

I called the USCIS 3 times since then, and my case is still pending due to name checks.
I am determined to file the WOM but I have 3 questions, I would really appreciate if you can help me

I have a friend lawyer who is not in NJ who will prepare the WOM for me, but I have to file it myself.

1- will the new internal regulation by USCIS not to expedite name checks anymore affect me?
2- Would I need to appear in court? What is the likelihood for that to happen?
3- Would it be a grilling session?

I hope you guys can help !!!
 
Thank you

paz1960 said:
F. Supp. stands for Federal Suppliment.

Federal Supplement®

A set of legal reference books containing decisions of federal courts in chronological order.

The first volume of the Federal Supplement was published in 1933, and successive volumes have been numbered consecutively. Volume 900 was published in 1994. A citation to an opinion printed in the Federal Supplement gives, first, the volume and then the page number on which the case begins. For example, 465 F.Supp. 1286 means that the case can be found in volume 465 on page 1286. (from http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-supplement)

F.Supp 2d This set is a federal case law reporter series in West’s® National Reporter System. This product covers opinions and decisions from 1998 to date issued by U.S. District Courts. (from http://west.thomson.com/product/16008763/product.asp)

Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d 896, 900 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (district court jurisdiction to review INS’s failure to timely adjudicate adjustment application is not barred by § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) because INS had not yet granted or denied relief). The court concluded that it had mandamus jurisdiction over the challenge. Id. at 901.

Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 929-30, 935 (D. N.M. 1999)

These two cases are probably too old to find them on-line with PACER. You need to go to a law library where you can find them in the federal Suppliment.
Click to expand...

Hey Paz:
Thank you very much for your help!
Now I understanded the format.

I have another question.
The cases in the pacer with opposing motion to dismiss must cite some cases. All the cited cases have to come from the federal supplyment?

Because I filed pro se, I don't know which cases can be cited. I have to reference the cases cited by other case. Do I have to read through the case before I cite it?

Are there any handbook or procedures on how to cite cases?

Again, thank you very much!

Philipimi
 
kefira said:
If you are muslim/from muslim country/asian, then you can talk to American Liberty Group (couple posts before had 4 links to them) - people from these countries now considered to be the most affected (that is obviously lie IMHO) ... and they will file the case for you or may be you can join them in their class action suit that they filed last week.
Click to expand...

Can you post the number the call ? are there also any residency requirements to join, like location etc ?
 
Can I file ann exhibit...?

gctarget06 said:
Dear Paz and other seniors...
I have one question and I've been thinking about it but couldn't conclude from my end.
The question is " Can I file an exhibit or some additions to previous complaint once the complaint has been filed with the court ?? " I just wanted to add few more things to my filed complaint and provide some more exhibits in support of it. to me it appears that I should be able to, but Not sure if I could do that ??

Please comment...
Thanks a lot for doing the good work...
Click to expand...
Dear gctarget06,

From reading much earlier posts (year-old, I think), I saw number of members adding exhibits after they filed. Here is one of the blank forms a member posted back then:
___________________________________________________________
Haddy, here what I send to court to file more exhibits without amending the complaint.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PRO SE

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of FBI

Defendants. :
:
:


CIVIL ACTION No. XXXXXXXXX



NOTICE OF FILING
EXIBIHTS 19 THROUGH 20

I, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Plaintiff, Pro Se, hereby file two more exhibits to civil action No. XXXXXXXX, and served the Assistant US attorney copies of these exhibits, from exhibit 19 through exhibit 20.


_________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PRO, SE
______________________________________________________

The member who posted this blank also said, (s)he almost overwhelmed the AUSA with adding exhibits, which helped in that case. (S)he advised to file them after initial law suit is filed.

Also, your pro se handbook should deal with properly adding an exhibit.

Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top