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

I have question if defendents file an answer instead of Motion to dismiss and they decide to file motion for summary judgement after that. I know there is no thing as answer to defendents answers.

How do you handle that situation. What do you reply in response to Motion for summary Judgement?

When do you get the chance to explain to Judge relavent cases and opinions.
 
wenlock said:
I have question if defendents file an answer instead of Motion to dismiss and they decide to file motion for summary judgement after that. I know there is no thing as answer to defendents answers.

How do you handle that situation. What do you reply in response to Motion for summary Judgement?

When do you get the chance to explain to Judge relavent cases and opinions.
Click to expand...
As soon as they file a motion (Motion for Summary Judgement) you can file an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgement. They can't have the Answer and the Motion in the same document (either answer or motion).
 
Hiram said:
Do we know how many guys from this forum filed an opposition to
"a motion to dismiss"?
How many did it work for?
How many lost?

it is important to understand the process and the likelyhood of succeeding after receiving a motion to dismiss

Paz, thanks a lot for all your hard work !!!
do u know the answer to this?
Click to expand...
It used to be somebody who kept track of all the forum members cases on a separate thread on this portal. I forgot the link, maybe somebody has it.

As far as I can tell from what I read on this forum, there were only very few unsuccessful cases (I can't list anybody out of my head, right now).

I don't see much value to try to follow statistics. I would rather concentrate on MY case.
 
Law of Attraction

Kefira:


I'm also in N. Cal. I filed WOM I-485 based on 12/06. A request of expeditious name check was made on 12/18. AUSA asked for 30 days extention on 02/07.

I'm not sure where my case is heading, as I'm still waiting.

I think it will be important for you to maintain a sense of hope and optimism. Remember the Universal Law of Attraction: you manifest that which you think and focus on the most with your thoughts and underlying feelings.

Cheers,

:)
 
paz1960 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you Paz for your recommendations. I've emailed my AUSA about this and he told me to wait till he confirmed with CIS before dismissing the case. My understanding is I should join him for a motion to dismiss without prejudice once everything is confirmed OK, right? -- Just don't want to screw up the dismissal to become another 'Danilov' case! :)
 
Thanks Micahel,
PACER update on my case says : PTC ORDER.
The gist of the document is:

IT IS ORDERED that all dispositive motions to be filed during
the pendency of this matter, to include motions for summary
judgment, shall be accompanied by memoranda of law; opposing party
being given 20 days from receipt thereof to respond; and the moving
party l0 days from receipt of response to reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all motions for summary judgment
and other dispositive motions shall be served and filed not later
than April 1, 2007
Also, the judge set the tiral date.
04/26/2007 8:30 a.m. Court Trial
04/16/2007 1:15 p.m. Final Pretrial Conference.

Do you think my case might go to trial?
Trying to keep my spirits up, its never been harder.
 
swimfitness said:
Kefira:
I'm also in N. Cal. I filed WOM I-485 based on 12/06. A request of expeditious name check was made on 12/18. AUSA asked for 30 days extention on 02/07.

I'm not sure where my case is heading, as I'm still waiting.

I think it will be important for you to maintain a sense of hope and optimism. Remember the Universal Law of Attraction: you manifest that which you think and focus on the most with your thoughts and underlying feelings.

Cheers,

:)
Click to expand...

Swimfitness:
Are you sure that the request was specifically for expedite name check on 12/18? I posted the copy of my dismissal papers and if you read it, then you will see, that INS ordered SECOND name check on me on Nov 1, but it was regular one, although AUSA was telling to me all this time that it is an expedite one.
Also they put there an internal note that expedite name checks could not be ordered starting Dec 21, 2006. I am planning to use it in my opposition, since now it looks that the law was applied to me, before it. Anyway good luck to you and I hope if they asked for extension, then it is a good sign.
 
WoM lawyer in Northern VA?

I live in Northern VA, outside of DC and considering for WOM lawyer.
Can anyone recommend one?

Thanks
 
Hiram said:
Do we know how many guys from this forum filed an opposition to
"a motion to dismiss"?
How many did it work for?
How many lost?

it is important to understand the process and the likelyhood of succeeding after receiving a motion to dismiss

Paz, thanks a lot for all your hard work !!!
do u know the answer to this?
Click to expand...
OK, I found the thread where the cases filed by the forum members are listed with the status and timeline. The last update is Jan. 2, 2007

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=213297&page=5&pp=15
 
wenlock said:
I am preparing arguments in reference to opposition to motion to dismiss
I was reading this following code

1446(d)

(d) Determination to grant or deny application
The employee designated to conduct any such examination shall make a determination as to whether the application should be granted or denied, with reasons therefor.

Now I want to use this statue in my argument that Defendents have none descretionary duty to adjudicate application.

What do you guys think I do not see any language like descretion it uses word "shall" in making determination to grant or deny application.

I did not see any attorney using this but I am not able to find single case on pacer about pending N-400 application with out interview. So no one probabaly needed this argument they all use 1447(b) for arguments.
Click to expand...
My understanding of American English is that “shall” in this context means “will inevitably”, “will necessarily”, “will surely” or “will most certainly”.

Best of luck, yall!
snorlax
 
My name check is finally done!!!!!!!!

Hello,

I don’t know if anyone remembers my case but I was interviewed for my citizenship in Mar 2005 and my name check had been stuck since then.

I filed a law suit in Houston in Aug 2006. Unfortunately the judge remanded the case back to USCIS without any time guidelines. My lawyer filed an appeal with supporting opinion from some ACLU lawyer, but even that was struck down.

After I posted the results of my lawsuit here a very helpful member of this board suggested I request my FOIPA name check be done and write to USCIS and others for help.

In Sep-Oct I wrote 20-30 letters with all supporting documents(including no hits from the FOIPA name check) to USCIS, FBI, White House, All Members of Congress from Texas and Members of Senate Intelligence Committee.

I don’t know what worked, but my name check got cleared and I had my new fingerprints done last week.

My oath ceremony is next month.

I again want to thank everyone for their helpful suggestions and encouraging words.

Also, kudos to Publicus for starting the thread and to Paz1960 for so diligently answering everyones questions.

Sakun
 
Address

Can Somebody Help Me With The Mailing Address Of .Secretary Homeland Security

Director Homeland Security


General Counsel
 
iak65 said:
Can Somebody Help Me With The Mailing Address Of .Secretary Homeland Security

Director Homeland Security


General Counsel
Click to expand...
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
 
ipoh said:
Thanks Micahel,
PACER update on my case says : PTC ORDER.
The gist of the document is:

IT IS ORDERED that all dispositive motions to be filed during
the pendency of this matter, to include motions for summary
judgment, shall be accompanied by memoranda of law; opposing party
being given 20 days from receipt thereof to respond; and the moving
party l0 days from receipt of response to reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all motions for summary judgment
and other dispositive motions shall be served and filed not later
than April 1, 2007
Also, the judge set the tiral date.
04/26/2007 8:30 a.m. Court Trial
04/16/2007 1:15 p.m. Final Pretrial Conference.

Do you think my case might go to trial?
Trying to keep my spirits up, its never been harder.
Click to expand...

Dont worry, this PTC is from court. It is very active court arrange some time line for your civil case. I would be more focus on AUSA attitude. I hope this PTA order put some pressure on them, and force them put your name check expedite on high priority, but if they can't get your name check solved, they will fight by then. I dont think you need worry about trial since for civil case, there is no jury, no witness call, Judge will read your complain and make their mind before trial. Prehearing or pretrial only take some minites, dont need alot of stress. I would try to contact AUSA to understand their opinoin first, it may help reduce your worry somehow. Most of time, they would not tell you all info behind, but they will leak some to you. Good Luck!
 
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Examples for I485 WOM

Does anyone have examples of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for employement based I-485 WOM cases? There are a lot of naturalization examples but not any 485 WOM cases. I've started looking at the previous posts beginning at the first page and have not completed all of them.

I appreciate everyone's contribution to the forum and this is really very helpful.

Thanks,

vcs_victim
 
congratulation!

sakun said:
Hello,

I don’t know if anyone remembers my case but I was interviewed for my citizenship in Mar 2005 and my name check had been stuck since then.

I filed a law suit in Houston in Aug 2006. Unfortunately the judge remanded the case back to USCIS without any time guidelines. My lawyer filed an appeal with supporting opinion from some ACLU lawyer, but even that was struck down.

After I posted the results of my lawsuit here a very helpful member of this board suggested I request my FOIPA name check be done and write to USCIS and others for help.

In Sep-Oct I wrote 20-30 letters with all supporting documents(including no hits from the FOIPA name check) to USCIS, FBI, White House, All Members of Congress from Texas and Members of Senate Intelligence Committee.

I don’t know what worked, but my name check got cleared and I had my new fingerprints done last week.

My oath ceremony is next month.
Sakun
Click to expand...

I am in Houston too, and I am preparing 1447b lawsuit by myself, but your case really scared me, seems the judges here are really hard on N-400 cases.
since even you hired a lawyer doesn't help, Now I have no idea what i should do. did you know any sucess 1447b case(pro se) in houston?
 
sakun said:
Hello,

I don’t know if anyone remembers my case but I was interviewed for my citizenship in Mar 2005 and my name check had been stuck since then.

I filed a law suit in Houston in Aug 2006.
Sakun
Click to expand...

And how to use the pacer to search 1447(b) case in houston district? does anybody or sakun can give me a tip? thank you very much.
 
paz1960 said:
Good point! You should use this. However, the biggest difficulty, in my opinion, will be to convince the judge that the delay is unreasonable. This is the hardest in each WOM suit because there is no clear definition in any statue what is reasonable and what is not.
Click to expand...

Dear Paz:

I received the following email from my AUSA.

Greetings Dr. W.:

I have tried calling you today, but your answering machine is set to receive faxes and I have not been able to communicate with you or leave a message. Please call me back at

The FBI has advised that your name check was completed on February 6, 2007. It has now been referred back to USCIS for review and adjudication. Since your name check has been completed, which was the gravamen of your complaint, we can either move the court to remand your case back to USCIS as they are statutorily charged to adjudicate your application or continue the case an additional 60 days for the adjudication. Please call me so that we can file a motion with the court.

R.R., AUSA

After the conversatiion he asked whether I wanted a 60 day extension or whether the court should remand the case.
I told him the extension would be unopposed and that I would not be happy with a remand of the case. He is going to file an extension but told me that of course the court has the right to remand or dismiss the case which is up to the Federal Judge. So in case the court wants to remand/dismiss I should oppose until I have the naturalization letter in my hand, shouldn't I?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saarlaender said:
Dear Paz:

I received the following email from my AUSA.

Greetings Dr. W.:

I have tried calling you today, but your answering machine is set to receive faxes and I have not been able to communicate with you or leave a message. Please call me back at ....

The FBI has advised that your name check was completed on February 6, 2007. It has now been referred back to USCIS for review and adjudication. Since your name check has been completed, which was the gravamen of your complaint, we can either move the court to remand your case back to USCIS as they are statutorily charged to adjudicate your application or continue the case an additional 60 days for the adjudication. Please call me so that we can file a motion with the court.

R.R., AUSA

After the conversatiion he asked whether I wanted a 60 day extension or whether the court should remand the case.
I told him the extension would be unopposed and that I would not be happy with a remand of the case. He is going to file an extension but told me that of course the court has the right to remand or dismiss the case which is up to the Federal Judge. So in case the court wants to remand/dismiss I should oppose until I have the naturalization letter in my hand, shouldn't I?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, if the Court wants to remand/dismiss your case, you can't oppose that; you can oppose only a motion filed by the defendant. The judge has total fredom to oredr whatever s/he wants. Of course, if you are not happy with the judge's order and you think that htere is a strong legal basis on your favor, you always can appeal the order of a district judge and the case would go to the Circuit Court. But this is just a general remark.

For your particular case I believe that you are fine and the judge will grant the 60 days extension. The general governing rule is that the Agency should do the initial adjudication and the courts step in only if there is a clear violation of a statue or regulation. So the Courts are reluctant to do the Agency's job; if there is an indication that your case will be solved without their intervention, they will just wait, and grant the extension. I guess that your AUSA will request the 60 days extension based on the likeliness that now you have your name check cleared so USCIS will be able to adjudicate your application during the 60 days extension.

Remanding would be equally fine if the judge would mandate USCIS to adjudicate your case in 60 days. Most likely, from the point of view of the outcome, this would have the same effect. You will get your application adjudicated fairly soon and this is the most important thing. If the judge would remand your case with a specific instruction, you probably would qualify as a prevailing party and you would be entitled to recover your costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top