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

paz1960 said:
Several of the cases in the list you posted are not good examples. (El-Daour, or Shveilem). Remanding the case with such an instruction to adjudicate the application as soon as the FBI completes your name check, is really not what a Plaintiff would want, this is what Defendants want.

If you would listen to 786riz's advice, you would have already a couple of more cases in which the courts made some meaningful instructions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. I see Shalan, El_Dour and Sveliem may not be good examples because remand did not have instructions. Do you have any insights into why others on that list would not be appropriate.
 
About USCIS Memo

Dear Paz and other Seniors,
Thank you so much for all your help that you are giving in this forum. I have a question. Does anyone know about CIS Memo or statement of 2006( I do not know which month was it) that explains that no case should go for the interview unless all the background checks are completed. Please post it if anyone has it. I am thinking, and please let me know if I am wrong, that this Memo can be used againist CIS in 1447b cases if or when AUSA files a Motion to dissmiss and says in Motion that interview was the part of the investigation. The fact that USCIS changed their policy and now they do not call people for interview unless these checks are completed(and that's why some people can only file WOMs), this fact proves that before, they were making a mistake and voilating the 120 days rule. Please tell me what do you folks think about it! Thanks again!! and please keep up the good work. regards, dude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DUDE12190 said:
Dear Paz and other Seniors,
Thank you so much for all your help that you are giving in this forum. I have a question. Does anyone know about CIS Memo or statement of 2006( I do not know which month was it) that explains that no case should go for the interview unless all the background checks are completed. Please post it if anyone has it. I am thinking, and please let me know if I am wrong, that this Memo can be used againist CIS in 1447b cases if or when AUSA files a Motion to dissmiss and says in Motion that interview was the part of the investigation. The fact that USCIS changed their policy and now they do not call people for interview unless these checks are completed(and that's why some people can only file WOMs), this fact proves that before, they were making a mistake and voilating the 120 days rule. Please tell me what do you folks think about it! Thanks again!! and please keep up the good work. regards, dude.
Click to expand...

See post 9039 and the reference there.
 
lotechguy said:
Thanks for your feedback. I see Shalan, El_Dour and Sveliem may not be good examples because remand did not have instructions. Do you have any insights into why others on that list would not be appropriate.
Click to expand...

Tadjdeh v. Gonzales has nothing to do with a stalled N-400 application due to background check. Here the issue was that Plaintiff was a conditional permanent resident, admitted on an EB-5 preference, USCIS argued that the conditional permanent residency doesn't count toward the required 5 year permanent residency and they lost. The court ordered to adjudicate the case in 120 days and USCIS also had to pay some hefty attorney's fee.

The other 4 examples are good. (Aslam v. USCIS, Elshorbagi v. Gonzales, Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales and Essa v. USCIS). In my draft opposition I listed about 8 more cases.
 
Thank you Paz!

Thanks Paz,
That post is very important. I am sorry that I missed it. I have saved evrything now. talk to you later, regards, dude
 
Thank you, Paz!

Thanks, Paz! You are the best!

Yes, I also anticipate that the events will go as you described. I’ve followed this forum for a while. I’ve already started my draft of opposition. It's still work in progress, but at least I put the discussion/arguments about lack of jurisdiction, process of name check, congressional testimonies, etc. Of course, I need to wait and see what the Defendants will state in their motion to dismiss.

My hearing will be 2.5 weeks before the 60 days deadline. By local rules, the Judge can set the case hearing anytime within 60 days from the lawsuit initiation. By regulation both parties should be present on this hearing, so I think that US Attorney office will assign somebody to my case on the last day (or close to that day).

Thanks, again!


paz1960 said:
Hello zevs,

Basically, it is their problem, how they run their business, you can't influence that. I would try to call them again just 1-2 days before the status hearing; it is likely that they will have somebody assigned by then. At least you can try to figure out what is likely the AUSA's position. But seems now more and more probable, that these cases will go like this: defenants wait till the end of 60 days, they will askfor a 30 day extension and if the name check is not cleared during te extension period, they will file a motion to dismiss. This means that you should prepare at least a draft of your opposition which can be quickly adapted to the specifics of the actual motion what AUSA will file (if name check is not cleared before the expiration of the extension).

Good luck,
paz1960
Click to expand...
 
I think we have to prepare for fighting with motion to dismiss

Thanks 786riz for encouraing words.
I think since Dec. 22 06, for all of us, we have to prepare for fighting wih motion to dismiss. I strongly suspect FBI could just do what they want. We fully understand fighting with terrorist, but that should not be an execuse for affecting normal life of normal people. I am not familiar with their laws, but based on what they claimed, stopping expetetizing name checking by wom is not right, that is not fair to all of us, who will protect the right of us even we are paying tax??
 
Hiram said:
HI Akram
thanks for the reply.
As for my 3rd question,
"3- how long did the whole process take at the Federal Court in Newark, NJ? any suggestions on what time to go etc?"

I meant, when you went to the Fed Court in NJ, how long did you spend there waiting for your turn and filing the lawsuits and paper work? I need to know how much time off work I need to get this thing over with. Is there any suggestions as to what time to go? (Morning vs Afternoon)

Thanks again
Click to expand...

if you have everything ready you should be done in 10-15 mins. there was no line when I got there at around noon time but It took me about one hour because I had to go photocopy some papers (in the same building, there is a library there and it cost 25 cents a copy) twice and every time I was back there was 1-2 person in line.
the lady is helpful and understanding and u can ask her whatever question u want.
 
P400A said:
Akram,

Question about summons, did you prepare and submit just one summons or
multiple summons (one for each defendant). If only one summons is required,
what would one write in the section where the defendants name
and address is required (or do we leave this blank until the court
clerk returns the summons signed and then make copies and fill it with each defendant's name and address). Also what about page 2 of
the summons (certificate of service), did you submit this page (as blank)
as well or just page 1 of the summons?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I had one summon per defendant (one address per summon), page 2 I left it blank
 
What Do You Think!

pankajkandhari said:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ExpediteNameChk022007.pdf

I have also attached this file
Click to expand...

Paz and other Seniors,
What do you think about this Memo. I do not know if I am reading it right. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it saying that USCIS is not requesting FBI to expediate the name check IF SOMEONE FILES A LAWSUIT OR Is it saying that the lawsuit is the only way USCIS going to request FBI to expediate the anme check.

If my first guess is correct, then, I think people like me, who are going to file very soon, are stuck. Please reply!! Thanks!
 
DUDE12190 said:
Paz and other Seniors,
What do you think about this Memo. I do not know if I am reading it right. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it saying that USCIS is not requesting FBI to expediate the name check IF SOMEONE FILES A LAWSUIT OR Is it saying that the lawsuit is the only way USCIS going to request FBI to expediate the anme check.

If my first guess is correct, then, I think people like me, who are going to file very soon, are stuck. Please reply!! Thanks!
Click to expand...

It says that USCIS policy of "routinely" asking FBI to expidite pending name check when you file WOM will end. It means when you file a WOM they will let it go thru all its motions till it gets to a judge and only when the judge issues an order or AUSA indicates to them that this may be a loosing case they will do something. It means, they have seen judges all over the country are not uniform and some will give them deadlines others wont on a WoM. So they will determine internally if the case needs expedite or not on a case by case basis and not as a matter of "routine". Now in the next two months if judges start remanding cases with instructions to complete, they will probably continue expiditing but if cases get remanded back with no instructions they wont do anything.
Its all up to the judiciary now and how good the motions to oppose filed by plaintiffs are to convince judges to grant them relief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
akram88 said:
I had one summon per defendant (one address per summon), page 2 I left it blank
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Akram.

The US attorney in NJ has to be served a copy of the complaint and
summons, correct? Which summons would go to the US attorney in
NJ (as each summon is addressed to a specific defendant)? Did you
prepare a summons addressed to the US Attorney in NJ as well?
 
I agree

lotechguy said:
It says that USCIS policy of "routinely" asking FBI to expidite pending name check when you file WOM will end. It means when you file a WOM they will let it go thru all its motions till it gets to a judge and only when the judge issues an order or AUSA indicates to them that this may be a loosing case they will do something. It means, they have seen judges all over the country are not uniform and some will give them deadlines others wont on a WoM. So they will determine internally if the case needs expedite or not on a case by case basis and not as a matter of "routine".
Click to expand...


I agree with you but this memo is not only saying it for the WOM. It clearly says Mandamus(or other federal court Petition). So, this means that people with 1447b cases should also be ready and prepare for a fight. Actually, in many cases on this forum(especially with WOM cases), people were hearing this from AUSA that USCIS is no longer automatically expediating the name check when a case is filed in the federal court, but there was no official notice or memo. This memo is newest, so now we can not say in the court that there is no official USCIS statement about it. Anyway, I am not discourged with this memo. I will file next month and will fight with them. I think no one should get scared from this Memo. Thanks!!
 
Ok i know this issue has been discussed here many times but i served the summons on 02/05/2007 via USPS certified mail but filed the summons return papers with court yesterday and today when i looked at pacer clerk of court put them as served 02/21/2007 and answer due 03/13/07.
I know the answer is not due till 60 days in court as this is a goverment defendant. and the 60 days should start from the day defendants got the summons ie 02/05/2007 not 02/21/2007 the day i filed the return proof in court right .Should i call the clerk and ask her to fix it or this is something they are going to take care of
thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top