1- what is the name of the senator you contacted?
2- that means the person u interviewed with is reviewing the case again and he will decide whether to grant it or not
3- did u file a lawsuit?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
1- what is the name of the senator you contacted?
2- that means the person u interviewed with is reviewing the case again and he will decide whether to grant it or not
3- did u file a lawsuit?
I had another conversation with my AUSA. He said that USCIS General counsel is stressing him to file Motion to Dismiss and try to get case dismissed. According to him he do not want to do that. He said his job is to make sure Justice is done. He is not about winning or losing case. According to him his job is about Justice not winning cases for USCIS or FBI. Apparently there is some communication gap between to agencies and that is what holding up my name check.
AUSA do not want to file Motion to dismiss but he said he has to if forced by client agency. He said USCIS is very hard to talk about these WOM lawsuits as they are over whelmed and they are trying to fight cases so that they can discourage people filling lawsuit. He said some task force is working which are coming up with arguments for fighting these cases instead of trying to work through them. Now it kind of scare me as he is trying to help but if agencies want to fight he has no choice and we have to go to all the way for getting Justice.
I have no idea how it will go he asked for another extension as he is trying his best but he himself have no idea what he will do when deadline comes.
I am planning to fight till end if that is what it takes.
AUSA do not want to file Motion to dismiss but he said he has to if forced by client agency. He said USCIS is very hard to talk about these WOM lawsuits as they are over whelmed and they are trying to fight cases so that they can discourage people filling lawsuit. He said some task force is working which are coming up with arguments for fighting these cases instead of trying to work through them. Now it kind of scare me as he is trying to help but if agencies want to fight he has no choice and we have to go to all the way for getting Justice.
I have no idea how it will go he asked for another extension as he is trying his best but he himself have no idea what he will do when deadline comes.
I am planning to fight till end if that is what it takes.
Hi all,
I want to thank you all for your comments in this forum. Long story short, I485 WOM Pro Se on 01/06/2007 in Eastern District of Virginia (and I know, god help me there!), MTD on 03/07/2007 (day of deadline), planning to OPP by 03/26/2007 (close to deadline).
AUSA argues,
1- Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6):
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over agency discretion based on 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Safadi vs Howard 466 F. Supp. 2d 696. 697 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Ellis, J.)
2- lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the WOM:
Because Plaintiff cannot show he has a clear right to adjudication within any particular time frame, or Defendants have a clear duty to complete the adjudication at any particular speed.
3- The court is precluded from reviewing Plaintiff's APA claim because the APA exempts from judicial review actions that are "committed to agency discretion by law". 5 U.S.C 701(a)(2)
4- The adjudication of an adjustment application is a discretionary action that does not give rise to a protected liberty or property interest.
later in her MTD, AUSA uses 8 U.S.C. 1255 to say the statue does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must be made whether to adjust an alien's status.
Here are the basic argument I am drafting:
1a) 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)
is not applicable to my WOM since I do not ask for adjusting my status, rather I ask for taking an action one way or another.
1b) 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
is not applicable because it protects decisions or actions, and it does not remove this court jurisdiction over reviewing "inaction"
2- I am plannig to use followings:
- the time should be reasonable,
- USCIS processing timelines and the fact that my case is outside that,
- Congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Jr. in July 2003, particularly where he talks about 120 days
3- same reason as 1
4- I am not sure about this part but I am thinking about arguing my job. the story is that I had to take two weeks of leave from my work because my EAD renewal took longer than what I expected. I can also argue that I am paying home mortgage and I might loose my job if something like this happens again.
I will appreciate if you guys could comment on my reasonings. I also understand that I should be careful not to loose the case and make another precedence for AUSAs.
At the end, I wonder if anybody has Safadi vs Howard document. Pacer does not show those documents, rather the summary, in my "BELOVED" Eastern District of Virginia.
Thanks again
Z.
I want to thank you all for your comments in this forum. Long story short, I485 WOM Pro Se on 01/06/2007 in Eastern District of Virginia (and I know, god help me there!), MTD on 03/07/2007 (day of deadline), planning to OPP by 03/26/2007 (close to deadline).
AUSA argues,
1- Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6):
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over agency discretion based on 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Safadi vs Howard 466 F. Supp. 2d 696. 697 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Ellis, J.)
2- lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the WOM:
Because Plaintiff cannot show he has a clear right to adjudication within any particular time frame, or Defendants have a clear duty to complete the adjudication at any particular speed.
3- The court is precluded from reviewing Plaintiff's APA claim because the APA exempts from judicial review actions that are "committed to agency discretion by law". 5 U.S.C 701(a)(2)
4- The adjudication of an adjustment application is a discretionary action that does not give rise to a protected liberty or property interest.
later in her MTD, AUSA uses 8 U.S.C. 1255 to say the statue does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must be made whether to adjust an alien's status.
Here are the basic argument I am drafting:
1a) 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)
is not applicable to my WOM since I do not ask for adjusting my status, rather I ask for taking an action one way or another.
1b) 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
is not applicable because it protects decisions or actions, and it does not remove this court jurisdiction over reviewing "inaction"
2- I am plannig to use followings:
- the time should be reasonable,
- USCIS processing timelines and the fact that my case is outside that,
- Congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Jr. in July 2003, particularly where he talks about 120 days
3- same reason as 1
4- I am not sure about this part but I am thinking about arguing my job. the story is that I had to take two weeks of leave from my work because my EAD renewal took longer than what I expected. I can also argue that I am paying home mortgage and I might loose my job if something like this happens again.
I will appreciate if you guys could comment on my reasonings. I also understand that I should be careful not to loose the case and make another precedence for AUSAs.
At the end, I wonder if anybody has Safadi vs Howard document. Pacer does not show those documents, rather the summary, in my "BELOVED" Eastern District of Virginia.
Thanks again
Z.
springbranch
Registered Users (C)
God be with you Wenlock
I would do the same. You got nothing more to loose than you already have.
Good luck.
I am planning to fight till end if that is what it takes.
I would do the same. You got nothing more to loose than you already have.
Good luck.
they have to file MTD when the deadline is coming
My ausa told me similar too. Too much WOM file since end of last year, that FBI has no enough people to expedite these cases. that's why ins can not put your NC on expedite automaticly after Dec 22. Because more and more case is coming, they decided to fight back and close the floodgate.
My ausa told me similar too. Too much WOM file since end of last year, that FBI has no enough people to expedite these cases. that's why ins can not put your NC on expedite automaticly after Dec 22. Because more and more case is coming, they decided to fight back and close the floodgate.
My ausa told me similar too. Too much WOM file since end of last year, that FBI has no enough people to expedite these cases. that's why ins can not put your NC on expedite automaticly after Dec 22. Because more and more case is coming, they decided to fight back and close the floodgate.
And my AUSA told me completely opposite. She said that it was never expedite NC for AOS cases. When I showed her a memo from Jan 2005 with criteria of expedition, she said that it does not specify that it is for AOS, but at the same time it does not specify that it is only for naturalization. So, who is right? The one who has more rights. In my case - she is. Also I checked PACER at least for CA district and not much WOM cases, so it is b.s. that they are overwhelmed. Also all cases that were represented by attorney already closed.
Hi all,
I want to thank you all for your comments in this forum. Long story short, I485 WOM Pro Se on 01/06/2007 in Eastern District of Virginia (and I know, god help me there!), MTD on 03/07/2007 (day of deadline), planning to OPP by 03/26/2007 (close to deadline).
AUSA argues,
1- Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6):
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over agency discretion based on 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Safadi vs Howard 466 F. Supp. 2d 696. 697 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Ellis, J.)
2- lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the WOM:
Because Plaintiff cannot show he has a clear right to adjudication within any particular time frame, or Defendants have a clear duty to complete the adjudication at any particular speed.
3- The court is precluded from reviewing Plaintiff's APA claim because the APA exempts from judicial review actions that are "committed to agency discretion by law". 5 U.S.C 701(a)(2)
4- The adjudication of an adjustment application is a discretionary action that does not give rise to a protected liberty or property interest.
later in her MTD, AUSA uses 8 U.S.C. 1255 to say the statue does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must be made whether to adjust an alien's status.
Here are the basic argument I am drafting:
1a) 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)
is not applicable to my WOM since I do not ask for adjusting my status, rather I ask for taking an action one way or another.
1b) 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
is not applicable because it protects decisions or actions, and it does not remove this court jurisdiction over reviewing "inaction"
2- I am plannig to use followings:
- the time should be reasonable,
- USCIS processing timelines and the fact that my case is outside that,
- Congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Jr. in July 2003, particularly where he talks about 120 days
3- same reason as 1
4- I am not sure about this part but I am thinking about arguing my job. the story is that I had to take two weeks of leave from my work because my EAD renewal took longer than what I expected. I can also argue that I am paying home mortgage and I might loose my job if something like this happens again.
I will appreciate if you guys could comment on my reasonings. I also understand that I should be careful not to loose the case and make another precedence for AUSAs.
At the end, I wonder if anybody has Safadi vs Howard document. Pacer does not show those documents, rather the summary, in my "BELOVED" Eastern District of Virginia.
Thanks again
Z.
zeegeel,
Number 4 is extreme hardship placed on you by results of agency's inaction. Also, I think AUSA confuses "discretioary" RESULT of processing your application with non-discretionary processing it. Like Snorlax said before, once you paid your fee for this processing, it stops being the "discretion", they MUST act on it. Please read these orders with judges decisions (I reposted them today already but here htey are again), and especially pages highlighted in file name, they give excellent judges opinions on same points (and you can also quote them).
Shvili
united2007
Registered Users (C)
my opinion
Please double check the contents of "Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)". According to my understanding, they are not something you should argue agaist. I think it is just the law to request each court should have subject-matter juridiction before the court can really take care the case. (My understanding may be wrong, please double check).
I think the key point here is "discretionary" vs. "non-discretionary". I think you should try your best to argue juridiction of your case is "non-discretionary". You can cite some laws, and some successful cases to support your points.
Trying to prove their delay is "unreasonable" the key. The other two points can be your supporting materials to this goal.
However, I have to say, the last two points are not so strong points in a court document, because they have no legal effect. Therefore, citing case orders is a better choice, because court orders are consdered as something close to law, according to my very limited understanding of "common law" principle.
I think what the AUSA tried to argume here is that AOS "is a grace, instead of a right" to us. (Since I didn't read the original language of your MTD, I am not 100% sure about my understanding.)
If my understanding is correct, you should again argue the non-discretionary nature of "acting on your case".
AUSA argues,
1- Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6):
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over agency discretion based on 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Safadi vs Howard 466 F. Supp. 2d 696. 697 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Ellis, J.)
2- lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the WOM:
Because Plaintiff cannot show he has a clear right to adjudication within any particular time frame, or Defendants have a clear duty to complete the adjudication at any particular speed.
3- The court is precluded from reviewing Plaintiff's APA claim because the APA exempts from judicial review actions that are "committed to agency discretion by law". 5 U.S.C 701(a)(2)
4- The adjudication of an adjustment application is a discretionary action that does not give rise to a protected liberty or property interest.
later in her MTD, AUSA uses 8 U.S.C. 1255 to say the statue does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must be made whether to adjust an alien's status.
Here are the basic argument I am drafting:
1a) 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)
is not applicable to my WOM since I do not ask for adjusting my status, rather I ask for taking an action one way or another.
Please double check the contents of "Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)". According to my understanding, they are not something you should argue agaist. I think it is just the law to request each court should have subject-matter juridiction before the court can really take care the case. (My understanding may be wrong, please double check).
1b) 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
is not applicable because it protects decisions or actions, and it does not remove this court jurisdiction over reviewing "inaction"
I think the key point here is "discretionary" vs. "non-discretionary". I think you should try your best to argue juridiction of your case is "non-discretionary". You can cite some laws, and some successful cases to support your points.
2- I am plannig to use followings:
- the time should be reasonable,
- USCIS processing timelines and the fact that my case is outside that,
- Congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Jr. in July 2003, particularly where he talks about 120 days
Trying to prove their delay is "unreasonable" the key. The other two points can be your supporting materials to this goal.
However, I have to say, the last two points are not so strong points in a court document, because they have no legal effect. Therefore, citing case orders is a better choice, because court orders are consdered as something close to law, according to my very limited understanding of "common law" principle.
3- same reason as 1
4- I am not sure about this part but I am thinking about arguing my job. the story is that I had to take two weeks of leave from my work because my EAD renewal took longer than what I expected. I can also argue that I am paying home mortgage and I might loose my job if something like this happens again.
I think what the AUSA tried to argume here is that AOS "is a grace, instead of a right" to us. (Since I didn't read the original language of your MTD, I am not 100% sure about my understanding.)
If my understanding is correct, you should again argue the non-discretionary nature of "acting on your case".
Hi paz and other seniors of this board,
I submitted my proof of service forms today in person. Since I cannot find my case in PACER, I asked the clerk how long it takes for a case to show up in PACER, the clerk said that there are lots of cases like mine these days, so it may take one or two weeks.
Another question: Should I send my summons and complaint to both the US Attorney's office in my district as well as the US Attorney's Office in the division that my city belongs to? For example, Northern District of California has three divisions (San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose), Central District of California has three divisions (Western, Eastern and Southern divisions).
I understand that the US attorney's offices are government defendants' legal counsels, they are not defendants, but I listed the US attorney's office on my "notice of interested parties" form. I delivered the summons and complaints to both US attorney's offices in my district as well as my division. But I don't know which office the AUSA will come from. When I asked the court clerk which office will provide the AUSA to interact with me and deal with my case, whether it's the district AUSA or the AUSA in my division, the clerk said she doesn't know. Any ideas? Thanks!
hi whatsnamecheck,
Which address did you use for the Northern District of California? I can only find the addresses for San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. I plan to send to San Jose since it's the closest one.
last update
Hello All
Today I went to downtown Los Angeles and I have done my oath, they were almost 78 people, went in at 12:30 and done by 1:30.
I remember 10 moths ago before I filed my lawsuit I used to come here and see people talking about how to sue the USCIS and get what theirs, and to file lawsuit, how and talk about oath ceremony .. Today I look back and say if I did not act and sue them, I won’t be here, I won’t be citizen. The law is clear and easy to understand.
My advice for you all, don’t worry about anything just go after your right, ask equations, if you make mistakes, that is ok, everyone does… try to find someone who you really trust and talk to that person, I know sometimes we go through time where you think NOONE understand you. My advice to you when you come to this forum, you come for advice and sharing information, NOT to fight with each other, I am so sure if you some of the guys who is here, you will love to be their friend …. Just try to take care of your self ..
Good lucky to all, and wish you all the best
Hello All
Today I went to downtown Los Angeles and I have done my oath, they were almost 78 people, went in at 12:30 and done by 1:30.
I remember 10 moths ago before I filed my lawsuit I used to come here and see people talking about how to sue the USCIS and get what theirs, and to file lawsuit, how and talk about oath ceremony .. Today I look back and say if I did not act and sue them, I won’t be here, I won’t be citizen. The law is clear and easy to understand.
My advice for you all, don’t worry about anything just go after your right, ask equations, if you make mistakes, that is ok, everyone does… try to find someone who you really trust and talk to that person, I know sometimes we go through time where you think NOONE understand you. My advice to you when you come to this forum, you come for advice and sharing information, NOT to fight with each other, I am so sure if you some of the guys who is here, you will love to be their friend …. Just try to take care of your self ..
Good lucky to all, and wish you all the best
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..
Dear ncblackhole,
I wasn't annoyed at all. I just wanted to give you an explanation, why every second post in this thead is about naturalization cases. I'm sorry if I created an impatient impression using the word "complain". I really didn't want to offend you or anybody else. Let's try stay focused on the job we have to do: win our cases in court and help each other with everything we can.
GC-Pending
Registered Users (C)
Where to find cases:
Hi Zeegeel,
There is a pay-for service on the web that you can download cases and judge's opinions. it's located at www.versuslaw.com
I haven't used it myself but a co-worker of mine who used to be a lawyer said she used to use it.
Hi all,
I want to thank you all for your comments in this forum. Long story short, I485 WOM Pro Se on 01/06/2007 in Eastern District of Virginia (and I know, god help me there!), MTD on 03/07/2007 (day of deadline), planning to OPP by 03/26/2007 (close to deadline).
AUSA argues,
1- Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6):
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over agency discretion based on 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Safadi vs Howard 466 F. Supp. 2d 696. 697 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Ellis, J.)
2- lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the WOM:
Because Plaintiff cannot show he has a clear right to adjudication within any particular time frame, or Defendants have a clear duty to complete the adjudication at any particular speed.
3- The court is precluded from reviewing Plaintiff's APA claim because the APA exempts from judicial review actions that are "committed to agency discretion by law". 5 U.S.C 701(a)(2)
4- The adjudication of an adjustment application is a discretionary action that does not give rise to a protected liberty or property interest.
later in her MTD, AUSA uses 8 U.S.C. 1255 to say the statue does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must be made whether to adjust an alien's status.
Here are the basic argument I am drafting:
1a) 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6)
is not applicable to my WOM since I do not ask for adjusting my status, rather I ask for taking an action one way or another.
1b) 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
is not applicable because it protects decisions or actions, and it does not remove this court jurisdiction over reviewing "inaction"
2- I am plannig to use followings:
- the time should be reasonable,
- USCIS processing timelines and the fact that my case is outside that,
- Congressional Testimony of Robert J. Garrity, Jr. in July 2003, particularly where he talks about 120 days
3- same reason as 1
4- I am not sure about this part but I am thinking about arguing my job. the story is that I had to take two weeks of leave from my work because my EAD renewal took longer than what I expected. I can also argue that I am paying home mortgage and I might loose my job if something like this happens again.
I will appreciate if you guys could comment on my reasonings. I also understand that I should be careful not to loose the case and make another precedence for AUSAs.
At the end, I wonder if anybody has Safadi vs Howard document. Pacer does not show those documents, rather the summary, in my "BELOVED" Eastern District of Virginia.
Thanks again
Z.
Hi Zeegeel,
There is a pay-for service on the web that you can download cases and judge's opinions. it's located at www.versuslaw.com
I haven't used it myself but a co-worker of mine who used to be a lawyer said she used to use it.
I-485 transferred after filing WOM
Thank you Myang1969 for the advice! Here is the online message I got for my case:
The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS that was transferred to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location is now pending there. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. This case is at our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
And this one is for my wife:
On March 2, 2007, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location for processing and sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
And in the letters we received from USCIS, they said "in order to speed up processing we have transferred" both to me and my wife's cases.
Do you know whether these mean name check pending or cleared?
Thank you,
Angtus
I do remember there is a similar case which plaintiff forget put his wife's name in the plaintiff list. The case was filed in North California and back to Nov. 2006 time frame. He argued with AUSA and Court, but they said it is invalid argument. Fortrunately, his wife's case got approval after one week of his approval. Hope you will be the same lucky one!if there has been previous case with similar amendment filed, sure you can ask court to do so. I still think you need find out your wife's name check status. If you login to your on line case status, the msg will show different between name check pending and name check cleared. Do you notice that?
Thank you Myang1969 for the advice! Here is the online message I got for my case:
The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS that was transferred to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location is now pending there. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done, counting from when USCIS received it. This case is at our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
And this one is for my wife:
On March 2, 2007, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location for processing and sent you a notice explaining this action. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our TEXAS SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
And in the letters we received from USCIS, they said "in order to speed up processing we have transferred" both to me and my wife's cases.
Do you know whether these mean name check pending or cleared?
Thank you,
Angtus
Hello All
Today I went to downtown Los Angeles and I have done my oath, they were almost 78 people, went in at 12:30 and done by 1:30.
I remember 10 moths ago before I filed my lawsuit I used to come here and see people talking about how to sue the USCIS and get what theirs, and to file lawsuit, how and talk about oath ceremony .. Today I look back and say if I did not act and sue them, I won’t be here, I won’t be citizen. The law is clear and easy to understand.
My advice for you all, don’t worry about anything just go after your right, ask equations, if you make mistakes, that is ok, everyone does… try to find someone who you really trust and talk to that person, I know sometimes we go through time where you think NOONE understand you. My advice to you when you come to this forum, you come for advice and sharing information, NOT to fight with each other, I am so sure if you some of the guys who is here, you will love to be their friend …. Just try to take care of your self ..
Good lucky to all, and wish you all the best
Mission well accomplished, enjoy your victory and freedom from the assholes.
By the way, i was driving my cab last weekend in WPB, FL. Guess who was my customer on Sunday, Thomas Freedman, from New york times.
I told him my whole story with the bastards, and that i get my citizenship only once i sued them. He was imparessed, and told me:that's the american way. you have to fight to get your rights, it's not easy any more when you get a goverment like the one we have, in charge.
Regards,
Moody
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Mr. LA, congratulations!
I searched through your old posts, it appears FBI finished your name check in August 2006, which about 2.5 months after you initiated the 1447b lawsuit, correct? Then why did you take oath in March 2007? What else USCIS was looking for between August 2006 and March 2007? Isn't name check the only remaining issue on your otherwise complete application?
I am curious because I wonder if the fact that USCIS spent 7 more months after FBI name check was cleared was due to your lawyer's premature dismissal agreement of your 1447b? What I intend to do is that I will only agree to dismiss after I have taken oath.
In my case. the name check was cleared on 7/27/04, one day after the bastards requested it.
Yet my case was still pending background bullshit clearance till 11/9/06, NINE-again nine- days after i filed WOM.
You do the math, and tell me what do you think about these SOB's.
Moody
My case is also transfered from VSC to TSC after filing WOM on 2/28/07.
I agree with michael1008 that it should be OK since we have USCIS and FBI as the defendents.
What I am concerned is that USCIS may argue that they are actively acting on your case, since in the notification they say " to speed up the processing, we transfered your case...". But we are trying to show that they are not acting on our case for years, so that the delay is unreasonable.
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. So that the transfer is yet another delay.
Any insights from the gurus?
thanks!
mmz
Thank you Mmz! Any gurus can provide more clues as of how to argue with the possible dismiss by defendant quoted to the "case transfer to speed up processing" after WOM?
Thanx GC-Pending for the website. I think I should subscribe to the professional membership to make sure I can find necessary cases.
United2007,
thank you for your comments. so you suggest I should not mention 12(b)(1)/(6) in my response.
also, #4 is the AUSA exact words, and it could mean that AOS is a grace, as you mentioned; but I think "protected liberty and property interest" has a specific meaning; I googled and found some non-immigration cases where they tried to argue that a job is a property interest, so I thought I could argue that my job is at risk so AOS is related to property interest.
Shvili,
thank you for those documents, definitely encouraging.
United2007,
thank you for your comments. so you suggest I should not mention 12(b)(1)/(6) in my response.
also, #4 is the AUSA exact words, and it could mean that AOS is a grace, as you mentioned; but I think "protected liberty and property interest" has a specific meaning; I googled and found some non-immigration cases where they tried to argue that a job is a property interest, so I thought I could argue that my job is at risk so AOS is related to property interest.
Shvili,
thank you for those documents, definitely encouraging.
Name check done once in Feb. 2005, now back into FBI name check again. Please advice!
Guys,
Just filed WOM 1/16/07. I need advice from you guys here.
My case is a little bit different. My FBI name check has done (consumed 8 months) once in Feb. 2005 when I using consulate process (CP) for my green card, as I have the FBI email as evidence said that my name check is done, and forward to Department of State. However, I filed I-485 in March 2005, as I am not sure that how long it will take for the name check and I need the EAD. My CP got canceled, and now stuck in the FBI name check again.
Questions for expert in this forum:
1. AUSA is trying to figure out if the Name check for Consulate Process is the same as name check for 485. I believe it is same, but I could not find the evidence, like online document. Anybody can help? Thanks so much!
2. If they are same, can I use the Feb. 2005 name check for my 485? I understand that name check only last 15 months.
3. How to use this as a point to persuade judge not to dismiss my case? AUSA is trying to dismiss my case, sooner or later. Currently she is trying get two weeks extension.
Thanks,
Motown
Guys,
Just filed WOM 1/16/07. I need advice from you guys here.
My case is a little bit different. My FBI name check has done (consumed 8 months) once in Feb. 2005 when I using consulate process (CP) for my green card, as I have the FBI email as evidence said that my name check is done, and forward to Department of State. However, I filed I-485 in March 2005, as I am not sure that how long it will take for the name check and I need the EAD. My CP got canceled, and now stuck in the FBI name check again.
Questions for expert in this forum:
1. AUSA is trying to figure out if the Name check for Consulate Process is the same as name check for 485. I believe it is same, but I could not find the evidence, like online document. Anybody can help? Thanks so much!
2. If they are same, can I use the Feb. 2005 name check for my 485? I understand that name check only last 15 months.
3. How to use this as a point to persuade judge not to dismiss my case? AUSA is trying to dismiss my case, sooner or later. Currently she is trying get two weeks extension.
Thanks,
Motown
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys one thing that i learned from my conversation with Ausa is that USCIS general counsel are very very pissed now a days. According to him they don't even talk to him properly so i guess things are really bad at USCIS end.
According to him they use to be fine but due to many many cases they are getting cranky now. They are working on some work arounds and legal arguments for fighting cases.
He said that they simply told him just wait till end of time and we will send you some thing just file it with court. In other words AUSA is just proxy for General counsel all the laws and arguments comes from high above not AUSA.
I would say one thing is for sure many people high up are feeling heat due these law suits now.
According to him they use to be fine but due to many many cases they are getting cranky now. They are working on some work arounds and legal arguments for fighting cases.
He said that they simply told him just wait till end of time and we will send you some thing just file it with court. In other words AUSA is just proxy for General counsel all the laws and arguments comes from high above not AUSA.
I would say one thing is for sure many people high up are feeling heat due these law suits now.