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

yvesliu said:
Just called and she said there is no update and she is going to file MTD again. Sucks.
Click to expand...

Hi yvesliu,
Does not worry about MTD; just have your counter motion ready. I can say that we could do a better job in preparing a counter motion than an attorney. I have seen counter motions that are filed by Pro Se are way better than attorneys.
In my opinion it is better if the final ruling comes with just motion and counter motion because if the case is goes beyond this stage it will be tough for a Pro Se to handle it.
Best of luck
 
786riz said:
Hi yvesliu,
Does not worry about MTD; just have your counter motion ready. I can say that we could do a better job in preparing a counter motion than an attorney. I have seen counter motions that are filed by Pro Se are way better than attorneys.
In my opinion it is better if the final ruling comes with just motion and counter motion because if the case is goes beyond this stage it will be tough for a Pro Se to handle it.
Best of luck
Click to expand...

Hi 786riz, thank you very much for the encouraging words.

My understanding is I need to get the MTD before I can prepare for the counter motion because we need to know what the MTD is stands on and what to counter. Right? Or did I miss something here?
 
Where is the source of this messge?

Hello Friends:

I am still finalizing my OPP, which is due next Monday. I need the source of the following message that I saw before in this forum. I remember, PAZ or somebody mentioned that:

According to a USCIS document, a big change in security check procedure, which led to a period of surge in the number of security check requests, was happened around 2002 and 2003.

I forget from which UCCIS document we got this message. Could anybody give me hint?

Thank you very much for your help!
 
A list of cases listed in my MTD for your reference

Hello Friends:

Here is a list of cased cited by my MTD to argue against WOM and APA. I post them here for your reference. Some of these cases are really complicated but weak cases, such as the Castillo case, and the Dridi case.

Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (mandamus inappropriate)
Li v. Agagan, 2006 WL 637903 (8th Cir) (non-precedential)(same)
Safadi v. Howard, 2006 WL 3780417 (E.D.Va.) (rejecting mandamus and APA, citing 5 USC 701[a][2])
Keane v. Chertoff, 419 F. Supp.2d 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (same, citing, inter alias, 5 USC 701[a][2])
Sharkey v. Ganter, 2006 WL 177156 (S.D.N.Y.) (neither WOM nor APA applicable, citing 5 USC 701[a][2])
Mustafa v. Pasquerell, 2006 WL 488399 (W.D. Tex.) (rejecting mandamus and APA. citing Norton v. So. Utah);
Karan v. McElroy, 2003 WL 21209769 (S.D.N.Y.) (rejecting mandamus and APA)
Zhang v. Reno, 166 F. Supp. 2d 875, 879-880 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (judicial creation of duty to act on AOS application within specified time frame, where none is prescribed by statute, "would have potential for mischievous intereference with the functioning of already overburdened administrative agencies", quoting Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1182 [2d cir. 1978])
Rahman v. McElroy, 884 F. Supp.2d 782 (S.D.N.Y.) 1995) (Mandamus does not lie to require immigration service to schedule AOS interviews at specific time or in specific sequence).
Dridi v. Chertoff, 412 F. Supp.2d 465 (E.D.Pa.2005) (McLaughlin, J.) (action to compel adjudication of I-129F petition for alian fiance -- held, mandamus in appropriate assent specified time for adjudicating petition).
 
A good case!

lazycis said:
This opinion explains why court has jurisdiction to compel USCIS to expedite processing of stalled I-485s. Court uses APA and "federal question" 28 USC 1331 to assume jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Lazycis, it is another good case that we can cite. Great!
 
yvesliu said:
Hi 786riz, thank you very much for the encouraging words.

My understanding is I need to get the MTD before I can prepare for the counter motion because we need to know what the MTD is stands on and what to counter. Right? Or did I miss something here?
Click to expand...

Hi yvesliu,
If you review different MTD from different districts, you will find that AUSA are arguing on same points again and again. As soon a new argument shows up in a MTD, other AUSA start taking that item into their MTD. So basically MTD are not much differing from district to district. Thus, you can create a counter motion that will be applicable in your case not 100% but I will say more than 80%. It is better if you do it now because you are not under pressure, so you will do a better job. You need to response to a MTD in certain number of days, so to meet a deadline could case you not to do a better job.
In my opinion there are two ways of preparing a counter motion, 1. Find out main arguments of MTD and you present your side of arguments for each by quoting favorable cases, laws, etc. 2. Or argue line by line or paragraph by paragraph. I think former is simpler.
I just do not want us to loose and government stat using that case as an example.
Best wishes.
 
S.D.N.Y and E.D.Va are really bad

After reading those "bad cases", my general feeling is that if anybody live in
S.D.N.Y or E.D.Va, please try to file your lawsuit in a different district. I don't know if it is feasible. But you may be allowed to file an lawsuit in your Service center's district.


united2007 said:
Hello Friends:

Here is a list of cased cited by my MTD to argue against WOM and APA. I post them here for your reference. Some of these cases are really complicated but weak cases, such as the Castillo case, and the Dridi case.

Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (mandamus inappropriate)
Li v. Agagan, 2006 WL 637903 (8th Cir) (non-precedential)(same)
Safadi v. Howard, 2006 WL 3780417 (E.D.Va.) (rejecting mandamus and APA, citing 5 USC 701[a][2])
Keane v. Chertoff, 419 F. Supp.2d 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (same, citing, inter alias, 5 USC 701[a][2])
Sharkey v. Ganter, 2006 WL 177156 (S.D.N.Y.) (neither WOM nor APA applicable, citing 5 USC 701[a][2])
Mustafa v. Pasquerell, 2006 WL 488399 (W.D. Tex.) (rejecting mandamus and APA. citing Norton v. So. Utah);
Karan v. McElroy, 2003 WL 21209769 (S.D.N.Y.) (rejecting mandamus and APA)
Zhang v. Reno, 166 F. Supp. 2d 875, 879-880 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (judicial creation of duty to act on AOS application within specified time frame, where none is prescribed by statute, "would have potential for mischievous intereference with the functioning of already overburdened administrative agencies", quoting Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1182 [2d cir. 1978])
Rahman v. McElroy, 884 F. Supp.2d 782 (S.D.N.Y.) 1995) (Mandamus does not lie to require immigration service to schedule AOS interviews at specific time or in specific sequence).
Dridi v. Chertoff, 412 F. Supp.2d 465 (E.D.Pa.2005) (McLaughlin, J.) (action to compel adjudication of I-129F petition for alian fiance -- held, mandamus in appropriate assent specified time for adjudicating petition).
Click to expand...
 
united2007 said:
Hello Friends:

I am still finalizing my OPP, which is due next Monday. I need the source of the following message that I saw before in this forum. I remember, PAZ or somebody mentioned that:

According to a USCIS document, a big change in security check procedure, which led to a period of surge in the number of security check requests, was happened around 2002 and 2003.

I forget from which UCCIS document we got this message. Could anybody give me hint?

Thank you very much for your help!
Click to expand...

United,

I remember this on page 8 of the class action in SF allegations: (see the link)

Other than that, check the FBI (Cannon/Garrity) declarations for clues. I remember the post but don't remeber any more details, sorry!
 
shvili said:
United,

I remember this on page 8 of the class action in SF allegations: (see the link)

Other than that, check the FBI (Cannon/Garrity) declarations for clues. I remember the post but don't remeber any more details, sorry!
Click to expand...

Do you mean these FBI declarations?

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/garrity022504.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm

BTW, in my MTD they claimed that FBI is working hard and has processed 3.4 mill of name checks in FY 2006. My response was: "Assuming FBI is working 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, the average name check should take about 9 seconds".

You may find this report interesting:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/0609/index.htm
Looks like FBI spent 3 years and $170 mil to automate name checks and the project failed. Now we have to pay for it.

And another story, coming from USCIS citing average processing times 8.32 (months, not years!) for I-485 and 5.79 for N-400.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/backlog_FY06Q3.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazycis said:
BTW, in my MTD they claimed that FBI is working hard and has processed 3.4 mill of name checks in FY 2006. My response was: "Assuming FBI is working 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, the average name check should take about 9 seconds".
Click to expand...

I agree with you in how inefficient they are in completing the name checks. However your 9 second/name check argument, in my opinion and in all due respect, is flawed. FBI does not complete these checks by using just one agent. There are maybe tens, hundreds of agents working on the cases.
 
vcs_victim said:
I agree with you in how inefficient they are in completing the name checks. However your 9 second/name check argument, in my opinion and in all due respect, is flawed. FBI does not complete these checks by using just one agent. There are maybe tens, hundreds of agents working on the cases.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how many agents involved. We are talking about processing rate of the whole system here. Divide the number of processed checks by the number of hours in a year and you will find that the system is processing about 400 name checks per hour.
Of course, it's a simplification, but I think it will help to push aside claims that they are working hard and do not have enough resources. Our goal is to show the judge that delays are unreasonable.
 
good news come today

3 days before the deadline for me to file OPP, got email from AUSA this morning, my name check cleared. he will get my case approved asap.
it is a big surprise for me. I don't know what to do now, i will call him later today.
 
Citizenship Application Approve and Scheduled for Oath

Hi Team,
Here is the big news that I was waiting for anxiously. With the concurrence of Mighty Allah and the help of this forum my citizenship application has been approved as of March 30th and I am scheduled for oath on April 30th in Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan. My AUSA is unaware that my citizenship application is approved, per her that my name was not expedited but she spoke to USCIS and FBI about my case. I do not know this is happened due to my law suit or itself. It took less than two months for my case to get resolved.
Here is my timeline.
Application sent to USCIS: Mid December 05
Name check initiated: 1/9/06
Finger print: 3/2/06
Finger print cleared: 3/2/06
Interview: 5/17/06, passed name check pending
Filed law suit: 2/1/07
Application approved: 3/30/07
Oath: 4/30/07

This forum is something that I can not believe. We are helping each other like we belong to each other. Please continue to help each other and I will do the same.
Folks who are still fighting and folks who are planning to fight, please read, read and read. Do not give up, this forum is big help continue to ask each other.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for helping me in my case and encourage me to fight this battle.

Sajjad
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congratulations! this is great news!
Did you have to hire a lawyer? did you have a MTD request?

786riz said:
Hi Team,
Here is the big news that I was waiting for anxiously. With the concurrence of Mighty Allah and the help of this forum my citizenship application has been approved as of March 30th and I am scheduled for oath on April 30th in Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan. My AUSA is unaware that my citizenship application is approved, per her that my name was not expedited but she spoke to USCIS and FBI about my case. I do not know this is happened due to my law suit or itself. It took less than two months for my case to get resolved.
Here is my timeline.
Application sent to USCIS: Mid December 06
Name check initiated: 1/9/06
Finger print: 3/2/06
Finger print cleared: 3/2/06
Interview: 5/17/06, passed name check pending
Filed law suit: 2/1/07
Application approved: 3/30/07
Oath: 4/30/07

This forum is something that I can not believe. We are helping each other like we belong to each other. Please continue to help each other and I will do the same.
Folks who are still fighting and folks who are planning to fight, please read, read and read. Do not give up, this forum is big help continue to ask each other.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for helping me in my case and encourage me to fight this battle.

Sajjad
Click to expand...
 
In listing defendents for the 1447b suit I have seen some attorneys list only

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigations;
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Others also include :

The local USCIS director and Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General.

What is the correct listing ? Are they pro-cons of each of the above approaches?
 
mgzh said:
3 days before the deadline for me to file OPP, got email from AUSA this morning, my name check cleared. he will get my case approved asap.
it is a big surprise for me. I don't know what to do now, i will call him later today.
Click to expand...
Congratulations – this is big step forward!
I would try to contact USCIS (INFOPASS or phone) and see if they know anything about the name check has been cleared. Since your OPP is almost done – I would consider filing it just in case.

Cheers!
snorlax
 
lotechguy said:
In listing defendents for the 1447b suit I have seen some attorneys list only

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigations;
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Others also include :

The local USCIS director and Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General.

What is the correct listing ? Are they pro-cons of each of the above approaches?
Click to expand...

It's better to list more defendants, it's much harder to add a party aftewards.
The only cons is you have to make extra copies of your complaint and spend more $$ to mail it to additional defendants. Since you have to send a copy to US AG anyway, you may as well include him as a defendant
 
zoro3 said:
Congratulations! this is great news!
Did you have to hire a lawyer? did you have a MTD request?
Click to expand...

Thank you zoro3,
When you have a great forum like this, who wants an attorney, I went Pro Se. No MTD in my case, ruling came in my case with out any filing from AUSA. Judge remanded my case back to USCIS without any specific instruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top