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

[paz1960]

thanks here all help and right now I got oath mail, but it have 8 problems
-have you traveled outside the united states?
I have two time in six years to went to back my country and only for a month'
-have you brrn arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violation any law or ordinance, including traffic violations?

that is no or yes?
I have 2 times to paid fine for speeding and not given sign on turn right.
they can effect in that oath day ( have some trouble?).
I just got the letter of oath

July 26,2005 N-400 interview passed
Nov 6, 2006 made file for lawsue
Mar 3 ,2007 got the letter of oath
Mar 5, 2007 dismissed the case

You should not be worried. I also traveled several times abroad since my N-400 interview, each travel was less than 2 weeks. I made a list of my travels with the dates when I left and when I returned, number of days out of US, the country where I traveled, business or private and the page number of my passport where the entry stamps were associated to each travel. At the oath ceremony, the USCIS officer who checked the oath letters counted the total number of days I spent abroad, verified my passport and attached this list to my oath letter.

I didn't have any traffic violations but I would recommend to make a similar list and have your receipts, which prove that you paid your tickets. Make a copy of everything for your records.

 

[8970]

I didn't know how answer the problem....

You should not be worried. I also traveled several times abroad since my N-400 interview, each travel was less than 2 weeks. I made a list of my travels with the dates when I left and when I returned, number of days out of US, the country where I traveled, business or private and the page number of my passport where the entry stamps were associated to each travel. At the oath ceremony, the USCIS officer who checked the oath letters counted the total number of days I spent abroad, verified my passport and attached this list to my oath letter.

I didn't have any traffic violations but I would recommend to make a similar list and have your receipts, which prove that you paid your tickets. Make a copy of everything for your records.

but I paid the all and also say NO or yes?

 

[paz1960]

Gurus, need some help here and would really appreciate any answers.

****I know I may be able to find some answers from the now incredibly long thread, but i am tooooo beaten up by my teaching schedule now--so I greatly appreciate anyone who can help.****

I filed lawsuit in 10/06 and in our first pre-trial conference early January, the AUSA requested a two-month extension and the judge granted it.

Last week when the time came the AUSA requested again for extension, citing a conflict he had. So we will meet in court early April.

Today both my spouse and I got a package from USCIS asking us to do a fingerprint. This notice looks different from our first (and only) finger print request two years ago.

Here are some questions:

1. It says "INS must send my fingerprints to the FBI to continue processing my I-485". Didn't they get my finger print last time? What is the purpose for multiple-fingerprint?

2. It says I must bring my Alien Registration Card; if I don't have it, bring alternative IDs such as passport. I don't think I have ARC, so if I just bring my passport, that would be fine right?

3. The package also comes with a request for a visit to USCIS local office, asking us to ask for "immigration examiner". Is this an "interview"? What does it involve?What should I expect? How long does it usually take? I have to teach two hours after the set time--do you guys think it is sufficient?

4. The package also comes with an overwhelmingly long I-864 form. What is thta? Do I need to pay attention to anything completing the form?

5. Another form comes with it is a medical examination form (form I-693). We did a medical exam for I-485 when I submitted the I-485 about two years ago. Do we need to do it again and ask our doc to fill it up?

I know I may be able to find some answers from the now incredibly long thread, but i am tooooo beaten by my teaching schedule--so I greatly appreciate anyone who can help.

Many many thanks!
lenscrafterlen

1. Believe it or not but USCIS is not storing applicants' fingerprints so if the FP expires (15 months) they have to retake it.
2. You obviously don't have an ARC (common name "green card", that's what you are are asking). Your passport and just in case, you drivers licence (or state issued photo ID) will be good for identification.
3. Sounds like you will have a second interview. I didn't have one, so I don't know what are they going to ask you. Probably everything you put in your original application and everything about what happened since your first interview. If your petition is marriage based (you didn't mention this), USCIS likes to verify if the marriage is real and not fake only to get the immigration benefit. They sometimes can be really nasty with this. I remember somebody on this forum who told us a horror story about this part of the interview.

I would make arrangements to have somebody else to teach my class, just in case. It is likely that you will not make it back to the class if you have only two hours from the appointment time till your class begins.

4. The I-864 form is called Affidavit of Support. The purpose of this form is to show that an intending immigrant has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to become a public charge. I have no idea why they sent you this but as default, I would pay high attention to fill out everything they sent me.

5. In one of the recently posted I-485 case on this forum there was a lot of controversy about the petitioner medical papers (vaccination records). USCIS asked him to submit another vaccination record to correct some previous mistake the petitioner made.

I don't have enough info to guess why they asking you again this form. But as a general rule, I would not ignore anything what USICS sent me requesting to present it at my interview.

 

[paz1960]

but I paid the all and also say NO or yes?

I thought that this is obvious. You had to pay two traffic tickets for traffic violations. So you have to answer YES. Because the question is so broad, that's why is important to attach a list with explanations. Traffic ticket for speeding or not using turn sign will certainly not disqualify you. But if you don't report and put NO and somehow they find this out, that's bad because you lied under oath.

 

[lenscrafterslen]

Dear paz1960,

You are my hero! Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

A few things: my I485 is employment based. And this is my first interview. Last time when I had my fingerprint taken, there was no interview. After you mentioned the purpose of I-864, I read it again and it's "who needs this form" section seems having nothing to do with my case (mostly citizen related). I don't understand why they sent me this form. Anyways, I will try to fill it up. But it does seem to be a mistake.

Again, many thanks. I will update after the interview (btw, the fingerprint and interview actually are at two different locations and on two different dates. Is this normal? This is in NYC.)

Lenscrafterslen

1. Believe it or not but USCIS is not storing applicants' fingerprints so if the FP expires (15 months) they have to retake it.
2. You obviously don't have an ARC (common name "green card", that's what you are are asking). Your passport and just in case, you drivers licence (or state issued photo ID) will be good for identification.
3. Sounds like you will have a second interview. I didn't have one, so I don't know what are they going to ask you. Probably everything you put in your original application and everything about what happened since your first interview. If your petition is marriage based (you didn't mention this), USCIS likes to verify if the marriage is real and not fake only to get the immigration benefit. They sometimes can be really nasty with this. I remember somebody on this forum who told us a horror story about this part of the interview.

I would make arrangements to have somebody else to teach my class, just in case. It is likely that you will not make it back to the class if you have only two hours from the appointment time till your class begins.

4. The I-864 form is called Affidavit of Support. The purpose of this form is to show that an intending immigrant has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to become a public charge. I have no idea why they sent you this but as default, I would pay high attention to fill out everything they sent me.

5. In one of the recently posted I-485 case on this forum there was a lot of controversy about the petitioner medical papers (vaccination records). USCIS asked him to submit another vaccination record to correct some previous mistake the petitioner made.

I don't have enough info to guess why they asking you again this form. But as a general rule, I would not ignore anything what USICS sent me requesting to present it at my interview.

 

[paz1960]

AUSA has responded with a reply to response to AUSA's motion to dismiss in 1447B case. The MDT filed was adapted from Paz postings. What next ? Any comments to merits/holes in AUSA's arguments in reply ?

According to FRCP now it will be the court's turn. Defendants filed a Motion you opposed it they could reply and that's it (unless in special circumstances the court approves further filings). At this moment you can't do anything. The judge either will rule on their motion or will order a hearing. Reading the AUSA's reply looks that in your district the judges didn't buy this twisted interpretation of the "examination" what AUSA tries to sell again. I believe that the opposition what I drafted (using several successful similar oppositions, most of them written by professional attorneys) contains enough convincing arguments that any reasonable judge will deny AUSA's motion to dismiss. Of course, it is still a critical issue what will be the wording of the remand instruction. If this will not contain a precise timeframe, the fact that the court assumes jurisdiction will not help you at all.

I didn't read the newest cases what AUSA is citing in his/her support so I can't comment on these. But if you read all the favorable opinions and orders I listed in the opposition draft (and later posted on this forum) you should have more than enough arguments agains AUSA's if you have to present your case in front of the judge. Looks that this AUSA is really though but couldn't really come up with something substantially new. No wonder; it is really difficult to argue against the plain language of the statue.

I believe that you have a good chance for victory. Keep us posted with the outcome. I wish you good luck and don't stop studying, preparing for an eventual court hearing.

 

[paz1960]

Dear paz1960,

You are my hero! Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

A few things: my I485 is employment based. And this is my first interview. Last time when I had my fingerprint taken, there was no interview. After you mentioned the purpose of I-864, I read it again and it's "who needs this form" section seems having nothing to do with my case (mostly citizen related). I don't understand why they sent me this form. Anyways, I will try to fill it up. But it does seem to be a mistake.

Again, many thanks. I will update after the interview (btw, the fingerprint and interview actually are at two different locations and on two different dates. Is this normal? This is in NYC.)

Lenscrafterslen

Sorry for my ignorance, I thought that you already had your first interview.

My interview was in Detroit, MI, my FP were taken in an Application Support Center in Grand Rapids, MI. I live in a third town, about 70 and 80 miles from these cities...and of course, the interview and the FP appointment was on two different dates.

 

[united2007]

I have found the counter argument for 5 USC 704

Wenlock:

Could you tell me where you found this argument? I want to see if I should cite it or just directly use it.

 

[lenscrafterslen]

haha, you are probably the most knowledgeable person on this board (and probably more knowledgeable than some immigration lawyers)! .

thanks again.

Sorry for my ignorance, I thought that you already had your first interview.

My interview was in Detroit, MI, my FP were taken in an Application Support Center in Grand Rapids, MI. I live in a third town, about 70 and 80 miles from these cities...and of course, on two different dates.

 

[786riz]

According to FRCP now it will be the court's turn. Defendants filed a Motion you opposed it they could reply and that's it (unless in special circumstances the court approves further filings). At this moment you can't do anything. The judge either will rule on their motion or will order a hearing. Reading the AUSA's reply looks that in your district the judges didn't buy this twisted interpretation of the "examination" what AUSA tries to sell again. I believe that the opposition what I drafted (using several successful similar oppositions, most of them written by professional attorneys) contains enough convincing arguments that any reasonable judge will deny AUSA's motion to dismiss. Of course, it is still a critical issue what will be the wording of the remand instruction. If this will not contain a precise timeframe, the fact that the court assumes jurisdiction will not help you at all.

I didn't read the newest cases what AUSA is citing in his/her support so I can't comment on these. But if you read all the favorable opinions and orders I listed in the opposition draft (and later posted on this forum) you should have more than enough arguments agains AUSA's if you have to present your case in front of the judge. Looks that this AUSA is really though but couldn't really come up with something substantially new. No wonder; it is really difficult to argue against the plain language of the statue.

I believe that you have a good chance for victory. Keep us posted with the outcome. I wish you good luck and don't stop studying, preparing for an eventual court hearing.

Hi Team,
In my knowledge so far there are only four cases of 1447b in which court accepted that "examination = Interview". I will be looking all the cases referenced in the AUSA rebuttal brief. I am searching for some favorable ruling since Dec, 06, so far found nothing. I am following several cases in different districts, in which motions and counter motion have been filed, will be posting ruling as soon appeared in the PACER.
Thank you.

 

[paz1960]

haha, you are probably the most knowledgeable person on this board (and probably more knowledgeable than some immigration lawyers)! .

thanks again.

Thanks for the compliment but there are many other knowledgeable members on this forum.

And remember that my knowledge is very narrow in immigration issues, the subject is really vast and I don't think that I (or any of us) can compete with a professional immigration lawyer. We are only amateurs and that's fine if there is something else for all of us where WE are the professionals.

 

[shvili]

I found some things for you... I have been collecting attachments from previous threads. I am educating myself at this time.. please keep me posted of your developments and if you need anything which was posted on this thread, I might have it..

Good Luck

pankajkandhari,

good cases but I wanted to point out, the judge's order deals with DIFFERENT Ibrahim, and the case is totally different. The MTD and Response to the MTD are in WOM case, while judge's order is in Naturalizationcase (with deportation initiated).

Speaking of hard job for FBI-same last name, different persons...

 

[Olin]

To Netrin only -- I did not file the opposition

I posted the case which I got from AUSA's MTD. It is tough to respond to the case for me as well....

Netrin,

I got your PM, but somehow your setting does not allow response to you privately -- you may need to check your setting.

You asked me if I could share you the opposition to the MTD. In fact, I did not file the opposition because I thought I would receive an order from the judge to respond to the MTD. When I realized that I need to respond by myself and asked for help from this forum, everyone told me that it was too late and most likely the case would be dismissed because I had already passed the 20 day deadline. Fortunately, the judge called for a telephone conference/hearing last month and he denied the MTD during that conference. I hope my story will increase your confidence -- even you did not fight back to MTD, there is still chance that judge will read your case and make the call. Meanwhile, you need to prepare for the hearing and be able to defend yourself and convince the judge that you have a good case--I got the phone call from the court 30 minutes before the hearing and there was no time to prepare for that, so you need to have your complaint and other paperwork with you whenever possible.


Best luck,

Olin

 

[pankajkandhari]

pankajkandhari,

good cases but I wanted to point out, the judge's order deals with DIFFERENT Ibrahim, and the case is totally different. The MTD and Response to the MTD are in WOM case, while judge's order is in Naturalizationcase (with deportation initiated).

Speaking of hard job for FBI-same last name, different persons...

Thanks Shivili for pointing this out.. I guess its time to read all the atachments I have and then sort them better... The thread with 630 pages, its hard to keep track of everything.. and I just started looking 2 weeks ago.. just skimmed through every page and saved the attachments for later..

Anyway, will be more careful next time..

 

[joey101]

4. The package also comes with an overwhelmingly long I-864 form. What is thta? Do I need to pay attention to anything completing the form?

If I am not mistaken, I filed I-864 on behalf of my wife when I filed for my I-485 back in 1996. I-864 form was filled because my attorney told me to do it since my wife was not working at that time and was sitting home to take care of our newborn baby.

 

[786riz]

I found a couple of 1447 cases in Central District California through PACER, filed around October or December 2006, closed around Feb, 2007. They were dismissed. In one case, the AUSA asked for 30 day extension and said that USCIS would be able to make a decision within 30 days so the suit is unnecessary after the extension. The other the judge ordered USCIS to adjudicate within 30 days.

Hi whatsnamecheck,
The cases that you are talking about are they went through motion and counter motion phase and then judge ruled or both parties agreed to dismiss and then judge agreed to dismiss but asked USCIS to complete within 30 days? Also, please let me know the case numbers if you know, I will include them into paz’s counter motion.
I found some cases in Massachusetts and one in Washington, in which judge dismissed the case but asked the USCIS to complete in 30 days but in all those cases both parties were agree to dismiss.
Also, would you please post the “inter-office memo for scheduling interview” that you mentioned in you post?
Thank you so much.

 

[P400A]

Paz/Wenlock and others,

I had my N400 natz interview Dec'2006. I was informed that my NC is still pending.
Subsequent Infopass appointments revealed that my NC has been cleared and that I have been
resubmitted for a second time NC (after my natz interview). The second NC has been submitted
based on a name variation based on my birth certificate (BC). The name variation is that
BC has name without initials and all my other documents (including Green card and passport)
has my name with initials expanded. The name subjected to repeat name check is already part
of the name that has been cleared by FBI.

Recent CIS policy memo (from M.Aytes dated 12/21/2006) clearly states that:
(1) Only one definitive NC response is required from FBI per application and CIS should
continue with adjudication if CIS has a definitive response from FBI.

(2) No duplicate/repeat name checks are required for name variations and aliases as the FBI
Name check program searches for all name possibilities based on name provided on application
(that is switching order of names, similar names, spelling variations and so on).

My adjudicating officer does not seem to be aware of this memo and has subjected my name
to a repeat name check.

I am very much planning on challenging this action based on 1447(b). However, recent
forum postings on 1447(b) case outcomes indicate that the judiciary is drifting towards
the idea that 120 day clock only starts after the NC is cleared and NOT after initial interview/examination.

In my case however, CIS already has a CLEARED name check on me. With recent 1447(b) case outcomes,
it makes me think twice before I proceed with legal action (even though I am in the process
of preparing lawsuit documentation).

Question is would there be govt arguments like 120 day clock begins only after all Name Checks on
application is cleared. Would it be a valid argument from myside that "ONE DEFINITIVE RESPONSE
FROM FBI is sufficient enough for adjudication" based on USCIS's own NC policy/guidelines.

I know, this is possibly moot at this point, however I just wanted
to throw it out there for ideas. Please respond.

Thanks.

 

[DUDE12190]

USCIS Interoffice Memo

Hi whatsnamecheck,
The cases that you are talking about are they went through motion and counter motion phase and then judge ruled or both parties agreed to dismiss and then judge agreed to dismiss but asked USCIS to complete within 30 days? Also, please let me know the case numbers if you know, I will include them into paz’s counter motion.
I found some cases in Massachusetts and one in Washington, in which judge dismissed the case but asked the USCIS to complete in 30 days but in all those cases both parties were agree to dismiss.
Also, would you please post the “inter-office memo for scheduling interview” that you mentioned in you post?
Thank you so much.

Here it is. It was posted before. Good luck to you and to all of us!! regards, dude

 

[8970]

Thanks PAZ1960

I thought that this is obvious. You had to pay two traffic tickets for traffic violations. So you have to answer YES. Because the question is so broad, that's why is important to attach a list with explanations. Traffic ticket for speeding or not using turn sign will certainly not disqualify you. But if you don't report and put NO and somehow they find this out, that's bad because you lied under oath.

Thanks PAZ1960....
I got so much learning and the most impotant thing is
you can help here's people with ....

Best Regards

 

[snorlax]

According to FRCP now it will be the court's turn. Defendants filed a Motion you opposed it they could reply and that's it (unless in special circumstances the court approves further filings). At this moment you can't do anything. The judge either will rule on their motion or will order a hearing. Reading the AUSA's reply looks that in your district the judges didn't buy this twisted interpretation of the "examination" what AUSA tries to sell again. I believe that the opposition what I drafted (using several successful similar oppositions, most of them written by professional attorneys) contains enough convincing arguments that any reasonable judge will deny AUSA's motion to dismiss. Of course, it is still a critical issue what will be the wording of the remand instruction. If this will not contain a precise timeframe, the fact that the court assumes jurisdiction will not help you at all.

I didn't read the newest cases what AUSA is citing in his/her support so I can't comment on these. But if you read all the favorable opinions and orders I listed in the opposition draft (and later posted on this forum) you should have more than enough arguments agains AUSA's if you have to present your case in front of the judge. Looks that this AUSA is really though but couldn't really come up with something substantially new. No wonder; it is really difficult to argue against the plain language of the statue.

I believe that you have a good chance for victory. Keep us posted with the outcome. I wish you good luck and don't stop studying, preparing for an eventual court hearing.

Dear Paz1960:

Have you noticed how persistently the AUSA is calling the cited cases "unpublished"? If one can access those cases through PACER how can those cases be unpublished? Any comments?

Many thanks!
snorlax