Congratulations. In your letter to first lady did you mention the 1447b lawsuit ?
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Congratulations. In your letter to first lady did you mention the 1447b lawsuit ?
Usually this is not true. Here is what the N.D. Cal. Pro Se Handbook says about the motions:
"Usually, the following things occur when a motion is filed. First, one side files a motion explaining what they want the court to do and why the court should do it. The party who files a motion is referred to as the “moving party.” Next, the opposing party files an opposition brief explaining why it believes the court should not grant the motion. Then the moving party files a reply brief in which it responds to the arguments made in the opposition brief. At that point, neither side can file any more documents about the motion without first getting permission from the court. Once all of the papers relating to the motion are filed, the court can decide the motion based solely on the arguments in the papers, or it can hold a hearing. If the court holds a hearing, each side has an opportunity to talk to the court about the arguments in their papers. The court then has the option of announcing its decision in the courtroom (ruling from the bench), or to further consider the motion (taking the motion under consideration) and send the parties a written decision."
There was a Motion to dismiss, Plaintiff (united2007) opposed this motion, AUSA filed a Reply to the Opposition. Unless the judge specifically instructs Plaintiff to file something in addition, there is not possible to file an answer to AUSA's Reply. The ball is now with the judge.
Last edited by a moderator:
ncblackhole
Registered Users (C)
Skill Act 2007
Hello guys,
I have just come across this skill act 2007 which was presented in the senate by Mr. Cornyn. Does any one know if this passed or not?
I think this act clearly tries to block any court from granting approval to adjustment of status or in fact any immigration status until the background check is completed.
I think some will argue that court never grants this status but only compels govt. to do its job but I still feel this can be used against all WOM cases as we have seen that lot of the cases used by AUSA are not directly relevant in MTD but close to the point they are trying to make.
I think if this passes (or if it has passed already) it will only hurt our chances.. what do you all think?
I guess I am being pessimistic.. May be this is just another desperate try by some senators to stop people from getting justice.
Hello guys,
I have just come across this skill act 2007 which was presented in the senate by Mr. Cornyn. Does any one know if this passed or not?
I think this act clearly tries to block any court from granting approval to adjustment of status or in fact any immigration status until the background check is completed.
I think some will argue that court never grants this status but only compels govt. to do its job but I still feel this can be used against all WOM cases as we have seen that lot of the cases used by AUSA are not directly relevant in MTD but close to the point they are trying to make.
I think if this passes (or if it has passed already) it will only hurt our chances.. what do you all think?
I guess I am being pessimistic.. May be this is just another desperate try by some senators to stop people from getting justice.
Hi guys,
I have REALLY good news to report! I have a Green Card (actually, it has off-white color) in my hands!!!!!!!!! And surprise, surprise!!!! It backdated to the date of my first entry to the US (not to the date of my I-485 application or marriage to the US citizen). Does it mean that I can apply for the citizenship already??? (Do you count from the date the card was issued or from the date you become a PR??
Moreover, the GC is valid for the next 10 years, meaning that I don’t need to spend my valuable time and another $275 to remove the conditions from marriage-based GC. I remember that few days ago somebody asked about the conditional status of GC. My case is a direct proof that if the marriage last more than 2 years on the date the permanent residency conferred, USCIS issues the regular GC (valid for 10 years), and not conditional (valid for 2 years only).
Again, I would like to THANK all members of this forum (especially Paz) for their help and advices! I really appreciate it! Good luck to everyone who is still fighting!
Alika
Congratulations on your GC!!
By the way, for naturalization you count from the day that is written on your GC.
This is S.1083, and according to a search on THOMAS, it was introduced on 4/10/2007 and it was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. My guess is that it is just one of the many proposed amendments to the INA, which ultimately will need a major overhault. The previous Congress tried but failed to reach a compromise. I think that nobody can predict at this point the fate of this bill. I personally don't see that it will be adopted quickly.
However, the real bad part for people stuck in the name check is sec. 401, par. (k), Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement. If this will be adopted with the proposed wording, will put an end on all of these lawsuits.
Correction
This is not correct your count for Naturalization start from the day you get registered for permanent residency NOT THE DATE ON THE GREEN CARD.
GREEN CARD is just the proof of permanent residency. I had friend of mine who had same thing where his date on green card was date he first arived in country instead of 1-485 approval date. He was excited because he came on H1b so after two years of I-485 approval (five year from date of green card) he applied for Citizenship and got refused when they received application. They did not even cashed the check and sent back letter that statutory requirement of 5 years permanent residancy is not met yet.
If you like you can get Date on green card corrected without paying any fee form I-90 and use USCIS error and request new Green card with correct date and 10 year validity.
This is not correct your count for Naturalization start from the day you get registered for permanent residency NOT THE DATE ON THE GREEN CARD.
GREEN CARD is just the proof of permanent residency. I had friend of mine who had same thing where his date on green card was date he first arived in country instead of 1-485 approval date. He was excited because he came on H1b so after two years of I-485 approval (five year from date of green card) he applied for Citizenship and got refused when they received application. They did not even cashed the check and sent back letter that statutory requirement of 5 years permanent residancy is not met yet.
If you like you can get Date on green card corrected without paying any fee form I-90 and use USCIS error and request new Green card with correct date and 10 year validity.
united2007
Registered Users (C)
I still think we have nothing to lose
Obviously, it has become fairly difficult to get your GC by a simple WOM. Although it hasn't become an obvious trend, I clearly can see more court rulings are siding with the government.
The reason behind this trend is complicated. At least one of the contributing facts is the number of relatively "low quality AOS cases", which are featured with relatively short-waiting period, mistakes made in the WOM, weak argument in the OPP, etc. That is, the bar of the AOS case is rising a lot recently.
However, if you do think (1) you have a very long-delayed case (over three years), (2) you are sure you can devote your time to this, and (3) you are sure that you are capable of learning, I still think taking the government to the court is something worthwhile doing. The fundamental reason is that "we anyway have to wait, and why not!".
Last night, I wrote an email to my AUSA. (He never replies to me, and I anyway wrote to him).
"
......
Since we all can see that this is still a topic constantly generating divided court ruling, everything is indeed depending on the judge's personal opinion. I hope the judge can carefully consider my Opposition. Meanwhile, I am preparing for the worst. That is, I am now studying how to go to the appeal court. I do believe that I have a strong case, because there are unique elements in my case. My chance of success will definitely be increased if I expose my case to more judges, because the more judges review my case, the bigger chance that one of the judges will pay attention to the unique feature in my case. I will win if any one of them agrees with me.
In fact, I have nothing to lose during this course. I have been quietly waiting for over three and half years. The worse situation to me is to go back to my current waiting status. Meanwhile, I have been so excited to be exposed to a field that is amazingly challenging to me. If I finally win, I will be thrilled. Otherwise, I will still gain a new set of knowledge and life experience. I consider this legal procedure as my new "waiting" status. I know I have to enjoy it, as long as I am still in this "waiting" black hole.
......
"
Obviously, it has become fairly difficult to get your GC by a simple WOM. Although it hasn't become an obvious trend, I clearly can see more court rulings are siding with the government.
The reason behind this trend is complicated. At least one of the contributing facts is the number of relatively "low quality AOS cases", which are featured with relatively short-waiting period, mistakes made in the WOM, weak argument in the OPP, etc. That is, the bar of the AOS case is rising a lot recently.
However, if you do think (1) you have a very long-delayed case (over three years), (2) you are sure you can devote your time to this, and (3) you are sure that you are capable of learning, I still think taking the government to the court is something worthwhile doing. The fundamental reason is that "we anyway have to wait, and why not!".
Last night, I wrote an email to my AUSA. (He never replies to me, and I anyway wrote to him).
"
......
Since we all can see that this is still a topic constantly generating divided court ruling, everything is indeed depending on the judge's personal opinion. I hope the judge can carefully consider my Opposition. Meanwhile, I am preparing for the worst. That is, I am now studying how to go to the appeal court. I do believe that I have a strong case, because there are unique elements in my case. My chance of success will definitely be increased if I expose my case to more judges, because the more judges review my case, the bigger chance that one of the judges will pay attention to the unique feature in my case. I will win if any one of them agrees with me.
In fact, I have nothing to lose during this course. I have been quietly waiting for over three and half years. The worse situation to me is to go back to my current waiting status. Meanwhile, I have been so excited to be exposed to a field that is amazingly challenging to me. If I finally win, I will be thrilled. Otherwise, I will still gain a new set of knowledge and life experience. I consider this legal procedure as my new "waiting" status. I know I have to enjoy it, as long as I am still in this "waiting" black hole.
......
"
I was just reading from N400 instructions that say:
Date you became a Permanent Resident - Write the official date when your lawful permanent residence began, as shown on your Permanent Resident Card. To help locate the date on your card, see the sample Permanent Resident Cards inthe Guide. Write the date in this order: Month,Day,Year. For example, write August 9, 1988 as 08/09/1988
I didn't realize that there is actually a different date somewhere else.
I don't have another date on my card. There are only two dates: one -when residency has started, and another - the expiration date.
Before the GR has arrived, I received a letter from the District Office Director indicating that permanent recidency has been granted, and after I received several E-mails and welcome Notices that I-181 was approved. Each letter has a different date. I quess I should consult with the lawyer or call USCIS for clarification.
Thanks for the correction. I will definitely check on it.
I've also heard several times that after WoM people received GCs backdated to the application date or to the interview date. So, I don't know whether it's an error I need to correct.
mailing address
Hi Whatsnamecheck,
would you mind sharing the mailing address for First Lady with us?
Thanks,
Joyeia
-------------------------------
Hi Whatsnamecheck,
would you mind sharing the mailing address for First Lady with us?
Thanks,
Joyeia
-------------------------------
I read this from namechecktracker@yahoogroups.com:
"Posted by: "mondayrain1" mondayrain1@yahoo.com mondayrain1
Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:28 pm (PST)
Does the SKIL bill of 2007 (S. 1083), as introduced by Senator John
Cornyn (R-TX) on 4/10/07 effectively prohibit any mandamus action due
to delayed nc?
http://www.aila. org/content/ default.aspx? docid=22114 - Sec 401 (i)-(k)
any comments?"
"Posted by: "mondayrain1" mondayrain1@yahoo.com mondayrain1
Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:28 pm (PST)
Does the SKIL bill of 2007 (S. 1083), as introduced by Senator John
Cornyn (R-TX) on 4/10/07 effectively prohibit any mandamus action due
to delayed nc?
http://www.aila. org/content/ default.aspx? docid=22114 - Sec 401 (i)-(k)
any comments?"
Repost: the link should be
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22114
Go read section 401 (i)-(k)
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22114
Go read section 401 (i)-(k)
It is OK to be optimisitic, but I don't think one should put in Opposition that plaintiff qualifies for naturalization. Defendants will attempt to confuse judge by stating it is not judge's role to decide who is and is not qualified for naturlization. The issue we focuses on is compelling defendants to take an action. Touching on approval does not serve the purpose of the suit.
I think may not be bad idea to mention plaintiffs' clean record, and eligibility for naturlization to prove that the whole process of defendants taking action should never have taken so long. But be skillful so there is no confusion to the fact that you are NOT asking approval as relief.
I am not suggesting to or not to amend the compaint to change approval to adjudication. I don't know what is the right approach to this issue.
I think may not be bad idea to mention plaintiffs' clean record, and eligibility for naturlization to prove that the whole process of defendants taking action should never have taken so long. But be skillful so there is no confusion to the fact that you are NOT asking approval as relief.
I am not suggesting to or not to amend the compaint to change approval to adjudication. I don't know what is the right approach to this issue.
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
Question...
I am on PACER now..... In northern Georgia District...
Court clerk has been in touch with my attorney but I have something I didn't understand in the email correspondance...
Jury Selection???? Opening Statements??? I wonder this is talking about a different case...
I am on PACER now..... In northern Georgia District...
Court clerk has been in touch with my attorney but I have something I didn't understand in the email correspondance...
Jury Selection???? Opening Statements??? I wonder this is talking about a different case...
Last edited by a moderator:
Bushmaster
Registered Users (C)
Keep praying...
COURT HEARING set for Thursday 1400 hours. I will be appearing in dress uniform. AUSA indicated she would see if there was a resolution short of a hearing that could be reached.
COURT HEARING set for Thursday 1400 hours. I will be appearing in dress uniform. AUSA indicated she would see if there was a resolution short of a hearing that could be reached.
I did an infopass today. And my name check is still pending. that means the FP (two weeks ago) I got does nothing to do with name checks.
So, here is my situation. I filed the lawsuit (I-485) in Nov. 2006 and the AUSA asked for 4 months extension (due July this year) and the judge granted it. And every time I talk to AUSA and she always tell me that she will file the MTD but she never did. So, I am thinking that maybe I should push her to file MTD, which at least can get my case moving instead of waiting. Any thoughts on this? Or I should just wait till end of the 4 months.
So, here is my situation. I filed the lawsuit (I-485) in Nov. 2006 and the AUSA asked for 4 months extension (due July this year) and the judge granted it. And every time I talk to AUSA and she always tell me that she will file the MTD but she never did. So, I am thinking that maybe I should push her to file MTD, which at least can get my case moving instead of waiting. Any thoughts on this? Or I should just wait till end of the 4 months.
Was this the second extension which is due in July. If it is, then, I think your AUSA will most likely file a MTD just before the end of extension if your case is not resolved at that point. Instead of pushing AUSA to file MTD, why don't u push AUSA to work on your case. I believe you did that before, but it is not going to hurt u if you can ask again. I am not saying that u should call AUSA every seconed week, but in your case, the extension is too long (4 months). I am seeing almost all extension of 2 months in my district. May be it's different in your district. Another thing I will say is that even though AUSA told u that he/she is going to file MTD, it is possible that they may be working on your case and thats why AUSA wants to wait until the end of extension to file MTD. Also please understand taht your AUSA may have alot of cases assinged to him/her and she/he may be overwhlemed. It is not a bad idea to remind him/her about your case. By the way, can u share which district are u in?? good luck, regards, dude
Thanks DUDE12190. I am in Oregon. I will contact AUSA again to see if she can do anything. Do you have any recommendation about the wording? She is pretty new and sometime I have a feeling that she does not know what she can do. My previous AUSA was very experenced and he was very helpful and nice. Too bad he retired and then this new one took over. I even checked Oregon lawyer Association list 2007 and her name is not listed. But the previous one is listed. Sigh....