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

Hello - GC-Pending

I know one case which has been posted again and again in this forum.. ibrahim vs Chertoff..I can post that again if you want..

I am also looking for some solids 485 WOM cases but to be honest in this thread every second case is 1447 b and really there is a big difference in the two..

I know this has been debated in past couple of days here about how AOS is not a right and how Naturalization is a right... but in the end, my take home message is that its going to be easier to fight N400 case vs I-485 case as you have numerous live examples which will help + the mind set of the judges and the fact there there is written rule about 120 days... where as in AOS there is nothing written as such.

Seniors, can you please provide with good rather sucessful cases of WOM for I-485...

Thanks
 
ncblackhole said:
Hello - GC-Pending

I know one case which has been posted again and again in this forum.. ibrahim vs Chertoff..I can post that again if you want..

I am also looking for some solids 485 WOM cases but to be honest in this thread every second case is 1447 b and really there is a big difference in the two..

I know this has been debated in past couple of days here about how AOS is not a right and how Naturalization is a right... but in the end, my take home message is that its going to be easier to fight N400 case vs I-485 case as you have numerous live examples which will help + the mind set of the judges and the fact there there is written rule about 120 days... where as in AOS there is nothing written as such.

Seniors, can you please provide with good rather sucessful cases of WOM for I-485...

Thanks
Click to expand...

The case "ibrahim vs Chertoff" is indeed for 1447(b), and it is not for WOM of AOS.

There are a lot of confusions about good AOS cases in this forum. I read many of the recommended cases, and I found most of the successful cases were not really for AOS.

As I know so far, the real good AOS cases are:
(1) Yu vs. Agbemaple (it is old)
(2) Elkhatib vs. Bulter
(3) Aboushaban vs. Mueller (485 for Asylum-based)
(4) Singh vs. Still (485 for both Asylum-based and Relative-based)

If you know other good AOS cases, please let us know. Collecting a list of these cases is a critical step in our MTD defense.

Meanwhile, this forum also posted many bad cases of AOS. I wil not post it here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you sure??

united2007 said:
The case "ibrahim vs Chertoff" is indeed for 1447(b), and it is not for WOM of AOS.

There are a lot of confusions about good AOS cases in this forum. I read many of the recommended cases, and I found most of the successful cases were not really for AOS.

As I know so far, the real good AOS cases are:
(1) Yu vs. Agbemaple (it is old)
(2) Elkhatib vs. Bulter
(3) Aboushaban vs. Mueller (485 for Asylum-based)
(4) Singh vs. Still (485 for both Asylum-based and Relative-based)

If you know other good AOS cases, please let us know. Collecting a list of these cases is a critical step in our MTD defense.

Meanwhile, this forum also posted many bad cases of AOS. I wil not post it here.
Click to expand...

Hello United2007,

are you sure about ibrahim vs Chertoff case??? I think it is an AOS case..

I have attached it and please take a look and lets make sure we are on the same page and talking about the same case.. as I know there is one more ibrahim case on this forum..

See attached
 
ncblackhole said:
Hello - GC-Pending

I know one case which has been posted again and again in this forum.. ibrahim vs Chertoff..I can post that again if you want..

I am also looking for some solids 485 WOM cases but to be honest in this thread every second case is 1447 b and really there is a big difference in the two..

I know this has been debated in past couple of days here about how AOS is not a right and how Naturalization is a right... but in the end, my take home message is that its going to be easier to fight N400 case vs I-485 case as you have numerous live examples which will help + the mind set of the judges and the fact there there is written rule about 120 days... where as in AOS there is nothing written as such.

Seniors, can you please provide with good rather sucessful cases of WOM for I-485...

Thanks
Click to expand...

Hello ncblackhole,

You are complaining that every second case in this thread is about naturalization cases. If you check the very first page of this thread and read the administrator's remark (top of the first posting) you will understand why.
The AOS cases joined this thread later.

I agree with your assessments, indeed, I think that a WOM lawsuit for AOS is more difficult to win than a simple plain N-400 case, where the 120 days limit is a big help.
 
ncblackhole said:
Hello United2007,

are you sure about ibrahim vs Chertoff case??? I think it is an AOS case..

I have attached it and please take a look and lets make sure we are on the same page and talking about the same case.. as I know there is one more ibrahim case on this forum..

See attached
Click to expand...

There is another Ibrahim v. DHS et al. case (# C-05-139, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division) which is indeed a naturalization lawsuit.
 
united2007 said:
The case "ibrahim vs Chertoff" is indeed for 1447(b), and it is not for WOM of AOS.

There are a lot of confusions about good AOS cases in this forum. I read many of the recommended cases, and I found most of the successful cases were not really for AOS.

As I know so far, the real good AOS cases are:
(1) Yu vs. Agbemaple (it is old)
(2) Elkhatib vs. Bulter
(3) Aboushaban vs. Mueller (485 for Asylum-based)
(4) Singh vs. Still (485 for both Asylum-based and Relative-based)

If you know other good AOS cases, please let us know. Collecting a list of these cases is a critical step in our MTD defense.

Meanwhile, this forum also posted many bad cases of AOS. I wil not post it here.
Click to expand...

There is no such case Yu v. Agbemaple. Both Yu and Agbemaple were Plaintiffs in two different cases. The correct citations are:

Agbemaple v. INS, No. 97-8547, 1998 WL 292441 (N .D. Ill. May 18, 1998)
Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 925 (D.N.M. 1999)

There are a couple of other good cases, posted in the past on this forum.

Abdel Razik v. Perryman, No 2-CV-05189 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2003)
Basova et al. V. Ashcroft, case no. CV-03-4929 (E.D. New York 2004)
Dang v Gonzales, Case 2:06-cv-00217-RHW, (E.D. Washington 2006)
Faraj v. Chertoff, Case No. 4:06cv177-WS/WCS (N.D. Florida 2006)
Krishnamoorthy v. Ridge Case no. 1:03-cv-00415 (N.D. Illinois 2003)
Iddir v. INS, 301 F 3d, 492, 500 (7th Cir., 2002)
 
ncblackhole said:
Hello - GC-Pending

I know one case which has been posted again and again in this forum.. ibrahim vs Chertoff..I can post that again if you want..

I am also looking for some solids 485 WOM cases but to be honest in this thread every second case is 1447 b and really there is a big difference in the two..

I know this has been debated in past couple of days here about how AOS is not a right and how Naturalization is a right... but in the end, my take home message is that its going to be easier to fight N400 case vs I-485 case as you have numerous live examples which will help + the mind set of the judges and the fact there there is written rule about 120 days... where as in AOS there is nothing written as such.

Seniors, can you please provide with good rather sucessful cases of WOM for I-485...

Thanks
Click to expand...
You made a very good point, I have no objection to that.
In my personal opnion, it doesn't matter you have 120 days or not, WOM or 1447b are not very strict formal lawsuit, there are a lot of space for plaintiff and defentdent to argue. Judges more likely use "Freeheart" principle as jurisdiction. Maybe it is just waste of time to debate if there is absolutly written code indicate USCIS should or shouldn't adjuridiction your case. I suggest yuo guys more focus on how you can impress judge this is unbearable and unreasonable delay. Do you know any of goverment agent could let people wait 3~4 years for their pending application? for example, If you was a US citizen, applying a passport or driver's license, and goverment ask you to wait 3~4 years for some checks, do you think it is bearable? why USCIS can treat us like that and without any trouble? they even dont need a good attitude to you. The other point I want to make is: USCIS always said this is in best interest of US to make such complicated check, let's assume that one of terriost planning a attack and he/she apply a citizenship or AOS at same time. In this long 3~5 years name check pending time period, he/she can do or planng whatevenhe/she wanted. Does it make any diffrence with or without approval? If this democrcy contry turn into a police state to use any excuse take away our right, is terroist or us losing this anti-terroist war? I believe judges are also human being and they will make fair decison if you really use yor mind and make some good point to your argument.
 
nt5 said:
I filed a WOM for delay of my I-485 application on Jan.2007. The application is stuck in FBI name check. AUSA replied that she is going to file a MTD, and what she uses is: "...Instead of conferring subject-matter jurisdiction, the INA, as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005 (“RIDA”), deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. " Basically she said the judge does not have rights to order FBI because of the national security interest.
Any idea on how to response?
Click to expand...

nt5,

Here is the petitioner's argument that RIDA doesn't strip jurisdiction from courts.

Good luck!

Shvili
 
paz1960 said:
Hello ncblackhole,

You are complaining that every second case in this thread is about naturalization cases. If you check the very first page of this thread and read the administrator's remark (top of the first posting) you will understand why.
The AOS cases joined this thread later.

I agree with your assessments, indeed, I think that a WOM lawsuit for AOS is more difficult to win than a simple plain N-400 case, where the 120 days limit is a big help.
Click to expand...

Wow, I am surprised to see you so annoyed.. I was not complaining at all.. I was just stating a mere fact. I always thought you are very cool headed and patient..

Anyway, thanks for clarifying some things..and sory if I caused any distress.. I did not mean to...

Do you think there should be a separate thread for AOS cases.. Problem is its going to take some one who has gone through the process to help build the foundation like publicus did for 1447 b cases..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
micahel1008 said:
You made a very good point, I have no objection to that.
In my personal opnion, it doesn't matter you have 120 days or not, WOM or 1447b are not very strict formal lawsuit, there are a lot of space for plaintiff and defentdent to argue. Judges more likely use "Freeheart" principle as jurisdiction. Maybe it is just waste of time to debate if there is absolutly written code indicate USCIS should or shouldn't adjuridiction your case. I suggest yuo guys more focus on how you can impress judge this is unbearable and unreasonable delay. Do you know any of goverment agent could let people wait 3~4 years for their pending application? for example, If you was a US citizen, applying a passport or driver's license, and goverment ask you to wait 3~4 years for some checks, do you think it is bearable? why USCIS can treat us like that and without any trouble? they even dont need a good attitude to you. The other point I want to make is: USCIS always said this is in best interest of US to make such complicated check, let's assume that one of terriost planning a attack and he/she apply a citizenship or AOS at same time. In this long 3~5 years name check pending time period, he/she can do or planng whatevenhe/she wanted. Does it make any diffrence with or without approval? If this democrcy contry turn into a police state to use any excuse take away our right, is terroist or us losing this anti-terroist war? I believe judges are also human being and they will make fair decison if you really use yor mind and make some good point to your argument.
Click to expand...
I am afraid, I strongly disagree with most of the points made here. The judges are indeed human beings, but they are professionals too. If one submits a sloppy case that can be easily shredded by the AUSA, the judge will have no choice other than to dismiss. Weeping on the judge’s shoulder will be of no help. And later those lost cases will become legal precedents cited against future plaintiffs, so please be careful not to foul the battlefield. Absolutely do not submit your Pro Se case unless you know what you are doing and intend to fight to the victorious end. Danilov has created enough mess already.

All the best!
snorlax
 
Response from US Senator's office

Here is what the response says:

"My staff has contacted the BCIS's Newark District Office on your behalf. The Newark District Office has
informed me that BACKGROUND CHECK has been COMPLETED. Your application is currently undergoing review by the officer of record".

What does "review by officer of record" mean? I had my interview in
Dec'06.

Anybody had such a "Review" experience, please share!
 
ncblackhole said:
Hello - GC-Pending

I know one case which has been posted again and again in this forum.. ibrahim vs Chertoff..I can post that again if you want..

I am also looking for some solids 485 WOM cases but to be honest in this thread every second case is 1447 b and really there is a big difference in the two..

I know this has been debated in past couple of days here about how AOS is not a right and how Naturalization is a right... but in the end, my take home message is that its going to be easier to fight N400 case vs I-485 case as you have numerous live examples which will help + the mind set of the judges and the fact there there is written rule about 120 days... where as in AOS there is nothing written as such.

Seniors, can you please provide with good rather sucessful cases of WOM for I-485...

Thanks
Click to expand...

GC-Pending,

Here are other WOM cases that won, posted here before.
The last two ones have great arguments (on pages quoted in file name) and are very recent.

Good Luck!
 
snorlax said:
Not much of a “legalese” – just plain language and several references to appropriate statues. No Mandamus, I preferred not to dilute clear 1447b with anything else. My thinking was to keep things as simple as possible and not to get the judge distracted by possible arguments whether my 15-month name check delay was reasonable or unreasonable. Any delay beyond statutory 120 days is a violation of law – period. Plain and simple.

Those are just my personal preferences – nothing more, please do not take this as advice. It is better for everybody to think for oneself.

Best of luck,
snorlax
Click to expand...

Snorlax,

the reason I am thinking of using WOM statues is the very probable scenario, (which Kefira just posted, in yesterday's downloads): judge remands case back to USCIS with NO TIMELIMIT FOR FBI TO COMPLETE NC. So you finish up just where you started. So yes, USCIS must act within 120 days, but they wiggle away by saying, that FBI does not have this time restriction. And since it is FBI that holds your name check (-as I understand)- you have to convince the judge that FBI also owes you to act on it's part of work-the nc, and act SOON.

How did you address this issue in your complaint?

Thank you for your replies,

Shvili
 
Many thanks for the list

paz1960 said:
There is no such case Yu v. Agbemaple. Both Yu and Agbemaple were Plaintiffs in two different cases. The correct citations are:

Agbemaple v. INS, No. 97-8547, 1998 WL 292441 (N .D. Ill. May 18, 1998)
Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 925 (D.N.M. 1999)

There are a couple of other good cases, posted in the past on this forum.

Abdel Razik v. Perryman, No 2-CV-05189 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2003)
Basova et al. V. Ashcroft, case no. CV-03-4929 (E.D. New York 2004)
Dang v Gonzales, Case 2:06-cv-00217-RHW, (E.D. Washington 2006)
Faraj v. Chertoff, Case No. 4:06cv177-WS/WCS (N.D. Florida 2006)
Krishnamoorthy v. Ridge Case no. 1:03-cv-00415 (N.D. Illinois 2003)
Iddir v. INS, 301 F 3d, 492, 500 (7th Cir., 2002)
Click to expand...

PAZ and others:

Thank you very much for the list! I will try to study these cases.
 
786riz said:
Hi shvili,
Mine is 8 pages long plus exhibits. In my opinion venue and prayer are the most important part, so I paid most attention to it. I prepared mine after reviewing 100s of complaints. I copied prayer from paz’s complaint. After completing I sent it to some members of this forum for review including paz. I also had my son and department secretary to review for any mistakes. I stayed away from “legalese”; I just explained my situation and referenced appropriate laws.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

786riz,

I agree, the venue and prayer are most important, also jurisdiction. I am writing mine these days.

Thanks for your answer and good luck!

Shvili
 
shvili said:
Snorlax,

the reason I am thinking of using WOM statues is the very probable scenario, (which Kefira just posted, in yesterday's downloads): judge remands case back to USCIS with NO TIMELIMIT FOR FBI TO COMPLETE NC. So you finish up just where you started. So yes, USCIS must act within 120 days, but they wiggle away by saying, that FBI does not have this time restriction. And since it is FBI that holds your name check (-as I understand)- you have to convince the judge that FBI also owes you to act on it's part of work-the nc, and act SOON.

How did you address this issue in your complaint?

Thank you for your replies,

Shvili
Click to expand...
I do not believe that every single twist and turn that a legal case might take in the future can be foreseen and properly addressed in the Complaint. Once the Director of FBI along with the Attorney General are named as defendants in one’s case, legally there is very little wiggle room for the AUSA as both the USCIS and the FBI are two branches of the same government and it is the Attorney General’s job to make sure that their actions (or inactions) do not violate the law, regardless of whether they do it individually or in accord. Again, I do not think that all this has to be overanalyzed in the Compliant. If/when it comes to MTD, once you see it – you will have plenty of clues on AUSA’s tactics and what can be done to effectively argue against him/her in you OPP.

As to the case you mentioned – yes – one might stumble into a conservative judge ready to sacrifice the law on the altar of misunderstood security, especially in central states. Hopefully this is not going to be the case in our rather liberal Northern California district.

All the best!
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doing nothing seems to be the common wisdom with regard to our situation. I only felt like asking because I havent been able to reach the court to ask questions like this. I have the additional problem of not seeing any PACER update 3 weeks after submitting the proof of service to the court probably because of a stupid document descrepancy. According to some seniors on this board, these days the judge could be reviewing my case to make sure it's not frivolous, but I am still keeping fingers crossed. I am planning on resending the proof of service in a few days if I still dont see any update.

As to our case transfer, I think it could be good or bad. Bad thing is more TSC officers will have to review our case and there is also a potential for file misplacement. Good thing is they will probably send another inquiry to FBI which will trigger some response. I dont think they can argue that our wait time has been shortened because they only count the time after the transfer.

Do you know anyone here whose case was approved at the new service center after the law suit?

mmz said:
Hi, missingpa,
My case is in southern district of new york. I didn't do anything to my case. I think it should be ok since we have USCIS and FBI as defedents, although our case is no longer in Vermont, USCIS has the full authority to adjudicate the case.
What I am concerned is that USCIS may argue that they are acting on your case, since in the notification they say " to speed up the processing, we transfered your case...". Right now the only argument I can think of is to try to show that even transfered to TSC, the case is still pending name check.
Any other thoughts?

regards,
mmz
Click to expand...
 
snorlax said:
I do not believe that every single twist and turn that a legal case might take in the future can be foreseen and properly addressed in the Complaint. Once the Director of FBI along with the Attorney General are named as defendants in one’s case, legally there is very little wiggle room for the AUSA as both the USCIS and the FBI are two branches of the same government and it is the Attorney General’s job to make sure that their actions (or inactions) do not violate the law, regardless of whether they do it individually or in accord. Again, I do not think that all this has to be overanalyzed in the Compliant. If/when it comes to MTD, once you see it – you will have plenty of clues on AUSA’s tactics and what can be done to effectively argue against him/her in you OPP.

All the best!
snorlax
Click to expand...

I think this logic is fair enough. I agree that you can easily bring the argument up at the Opposition to MTD stage, if/when it comes. I just have one comment:

Although USCIS and FBI both fall under Attny General supervision, the statue 1447 deals just with the agency's (i.e. USCIS) delay. You'd have to argue that if USCIS contracts FBI to do the nc, then FBI also falls under the 120 days provision. And more and more decisions I see just remand 1447 to USCIS with no meaningful instructions for FBI to act.

But you are right, you can address it IF/WHEN it becomes an issue...


Shvili
 
Thank you Shvili, paz1960, and others

shvili said:
GC-Pending,

Here are other WOM cases that won, posted here before.
The last two ones have great arguments (on pages quoted in file name) and are very recent.

Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Thank you Shvili and others for the files and the info.
It seems as if to win the case, we should focus on proving the "unreasobleness" in the delay. Since we don't knwo what exactly FBI does during the name check process, is it possible to request discovery and ask FBI to reveal what has been searched in what databases and what has been found and why it has taken so long to conclude?
I'm pretty much clueless how discovery works but I think this is the best way to show that the delay is unreasonable. any thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top