Could you post any details
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
Could you post any details
ncblackhole
Registered Users (C)
Take a look at attached case. Can somebody find the Pacer case number for this case, or download the related Pacer document? I can't find it from Pacer, but would like to research this case.
If you already know about this case, please share your evaluation. Is this a classic case where filing AOS WOM actually trigger USCIS to deny an otherwise sound AOS application? Or is there individual specific informaiton that would lead to an eventual denial regardless if WOM was filed or not?
I have already posted this case if you look back few pages.. I guess people have already discussed it here.
I don't think any one here believes that simple WOM can trigger this denial. There has to be more to it.
lotech
i do not have details more than the above.. i dont know what those silly reasons are... i cannot get the names/details of course bec of confidentiality...
but I dont think it is a trend... otherwise we would have heard about it here...
but we need to keep watching this news...
I heard of another case where a guy who filed a WOM on his delayed 485 based on employment was assigned a second interview which lasted 8 hours... but the guy ended up getting his card !
i do not have details more than the above.. i dont know what those silly reasons are... i cannot get the names/details of course bec of confidentiality...
but I dont think it is a trend... otherwise we would have heard about it here...
but we need to keep watching this news...
I heard of another case where a guy who filed a WOM on his delayed 485 based on employment was assigned a second interview which lasted 8 hours... but the guy ended up getting his card !
lotech
i do not have details more than the above.. i dont know what those silly reasons are... i cannot get the names/details of course bec of confidentiality...
but I dont think it is a trend... otherwise we would have heard about it here...
but we need to keep watching this news...
I heard of another case where a guy who filed a WOM on his delayed 485 based on employment was assigned a second interview which lasted 8 hours... but the guy ended up getting his card !
It is still an abuse in my opinion. I mean, come on!!! 8 hours!!! Did he kill or rape somebody? It was a punishment that CIS wanted to give that guy just becaue he filed a lawsuit because the agency is breaking its own rules. Shame on CIS.
lotech
i do not have details more than the above.. i dont know what those silly reasons are... i cannot get the names/details of course bec of confidentiality...
but I dont think it is a trend... otherwise we would have heard about it here...
but we need to keep watching this news...
I heard of another case where a guy who filed a WOM on his delayed 485 based on employment was assigned a second interview which lasted 8 hours... but the guy ended up getting his card !
I tried to look for it but can not find it in the past posts. Can you point me to exact post number please. I would like to take a look at this one. I am surprised I missed this one I usually stay on top of these kind of cases.
Hi, folks,
I found following notes I took a while back ago. Can someone help me find these cases (either a case document downloaded from Pacer, or a case number so I can find them in Pacer)? I am mostly interested in #1 and #3 given they are newer cases. I don't know how to find these cases as the citations are not how Pacer recognizes. Thanks!
1. Razik, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, at *5-8 (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitioners’ case; noting that applications had “languished for two years and yet the INS has done nothing”);
2. Yu, 36 F. Supp. At 935 (denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings; noting that plaintiff’s application had been pending for two and a half years);
3. Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902-03 (ordering defendants to process plaintiffs’ applications; noting that application had been pending for two years, that plaintiffs were “the victims of a bureaucratic nightmare,” and that the delay was largely attributable to the government’s “misfeasance”);
4. cf. Galvez v. Howerton, 503 F. Supp. 35, 39-40 (C.D. Cal. 1980) (finding that the INS engaged in affirmative misconduct in processing petitions for adjustment of status and that therefore defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiffs permanent resident status; noting that one example of affirmative misconduct was a six-month delay by defendants in processing).
Mingjing,
I found the three but the second one is Popescu, not what you're need I think, and it is his opposition to MTD.He has naturalization.
Good luck!
Hi, folks,
I found following notes I took a while back ago. Can someone help me find these cases (either a case document downloaded from Pacer, or a case number so I can find them in Pacer)? I am mostly interested in #1 and #3 given they are newer cases. I don't know how to find these cases as the citations are not how Pacer recognizes. Thanks!
1. Razik, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, at *5-8 (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitioners’ case; noting that applications had “languished for two years and yet the INS has done nothing”);
2. Yu, 36 F. Supp. At 935 (denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings; noting that plaintiff’s application had been pending for two and a half years);
3. Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902-03 (ordering defendants to process plaintiffs’ applications; noting that application had been pending for two years, that plaintiffs were “the victims of a bureaucratic nightmare,” and that the delay was largely attributable to the government’s “misfeasance”);
4. cf. Galvez v. Howerton, 503 F. Supp. 35, 39-40 (C.D. Cal. 1980) (finding that the INS engaged in affirmative misconduct in processing petitions for adjustment of status and that therefore defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiffs permanent resident status; noting that one example of affirmative misconduct was a six-month delay by defendants in processing).
Actually, Popescu is the attorney, the Plaintif is El Kassemi.
Anyone can suggest a good lawyer in San-Francisco
area?
I am in n400 stuck in namecheck (filed in 2005),
passed interview in March 2006.
Thanks
Igor
I spoke to an attorney about a year ago, but don't know anything about him. His name is Jim Burne: (415) 777-4444 He asked $500 to talk to the judge and $3000 to sue INS back then..
Also, someone on the forum mentioned an attorney in the famous Hovsepian case: Kip Steinberg: (415) 453-2855.
Good Luck!
Shall means Shall
Also an useful argument on "Shall means "Shell"" for our Opposition to MTD in refernece to APA and compelling a gvnt. agency to act. Look especially on pg. 7 of the 1st case. Other cases also discuss APA. I got this from the same forum-Plaintiffs cases site. Although the cases are not INS related but judges opinion is good.
Also an useful argument on "Shall means "Shell"" for our Opposition to MTD in refernece to APA and compelling a gvnt. agency to act. Look especially on pg. 7 of the 1st case. Other cases also discuss APA. I got this from the same forum-Plaintiffs cases site. Although the cases are not INS related but judges opinion is good.
Does this mean I am done?
Our WOM were filed on 12/13/2006 (Pro Se, I-485, NC initiated 12/2004, I am the primary applicant). Attended first status hearing on 2/14/2007. Second hearing was scheduled on 5/16/2007. Never heard anything from AUSA except for an answer to complaint on 2/21/2007. Today I received an email from CRIS as below:
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On April 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this
customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions
on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within
60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT
processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you
move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also
receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the
link below to register.
Does this mean that my case has been resolved? If it does, when am I supposed to dismiss our case? In addition, since there is no progress with my wife's case yet, are we supposed to hold until everything is settled?
Thank this forum for so much invaluable information from so many warm-hearted selfless friends. I am really touched.
Our WOM were filed on 12/13/2006 (Pro Se, I-485, NC initiated 12/2004, I am the primary applicant). Attended first status hearing on 2/14/2007. Second hearing was scheduled on 5/16/2007. Never heard anything from AUSA except for an answer to complaint on 2/21/2007. Today I received an email from CRIS as below:
Current Status: Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident.
On April 26, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this
customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions
on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within
60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT
processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you
move before you get your new card call customer service. You can also
receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the
link below to register.
Does this mean that my case has been resolved? If it does, when am I supposed to dismiss our case? In addition, since there is no progress with my wife's case yet, are we supposed to hold until everything is settled?
Thank this forum for so much invaluable information from so many warm-hearted selfless friends. I am really touched.
Summary Judgment
Hi, every one,
I just want to update the progress of my case here.
I filed WOM for my delayed I485 application on December 11, 2006. In February 2007, the US attorney filed Motion to Dismiss. Then I filed an immediate response with the help of members on this board, especially Paz and Wenlock. On April 18, 2007, the judge denied US attorney’s Motion to Dismiss. He also ordered both parties to prepare a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parsfalcon has kindly sent me a sample of combined motion for summary judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. It may not fit my case very well, since in my case the court has already denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I would appreciate any advice on how to prepare this Motion, and anyone who can share a sample Motion with me. My email address is yellowstonepark@gmail.com.
Thanks in advance.
Hi, every one,
I just want to update the progress of my case here.
I filed WOM for my delayed I485 application on December 11, 2006. In February 2007, the US attorney filed Motion to Dismiss. Then I filed an immediate response with the help of members on this board, especially Paz and Wenlock. On April 18, 2007, the judge denied US attorney’s Motion to Dismiss. He also ordered both parties to prepare a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parsfalcon has kindly sent me a sample of combined motion for summary judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. It may not fit my case very well, since in my case the court has already denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I would appreciate any advice on how to prepare this Motion, and anyone who can share a sample Motion with me. My email address is yellowstonepark@gmail.com.
Thanks in advance.
WOM Lawyer recommendation in Houston?
Hi,
My name check has been pending for 3 years for my I-485 case. I filed the WOM through Pro Se in Feb. 2007. The US attorney told me that she would file a motion to dismiss. Anyone can recommend a good lawyer in Houston, Texas for writing the Opposite to motion to dismiss and attending the hearing before the judge? Or anyone can send me a sample for Opposite to motion to dismiss? My email is sunman1972@hotmail.com.
Thanks a lot!
davy72
Hi,
My name check has been pending for 3 years for my I-485 case. I filed the WOM through Pro Se in Feb. 2007. The US attorney told me that she would file a motion to dismiss. Anyone can recommend a good lawyer in Houston, Texas for writing the Opposite to motion to dismiss and attending the hearing before the judge? Or anyone can send me a sample for Opposite to motion to dismiss? My email is sunman1972@hotmail.com.
Thanks a lot!
davy72
Last edited by a moderator:
Veryfree,
Glad to hear judge denied motion to dismiss. Many of us are fighting MTD now. Can you share your case details - it will be good for rest of us to mention your case as support in our opposition to motion to dismiss.
Thanks,
Mingjing
Glad to hear judge denied motion to dismiss. Many of us are fighting MTD now. Can you share your case details - it will be good for rest of us to mention your case as support in our opposition to motion to dismiss.
Thanks,
Mingjing
Hi, every one,
I just want to update the progress of my case here.
I filed WOM for my delayed I485 application on December 11, 2006. In February 2007, the US attorney filed Motion to Dismiss. Then I filed an immediate response with the help of members on this board, especially Paz and Wenlock. On April 18, 2007, the judge denied US attorney’s Motion to Dismiss. He also ordered both parties to prepare a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parsfalcon has kindly sent me a sample of combined motion for summary judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. It may not fit my case very well, since in my case the court has already denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I would appreciate any advice on how to prepare this Motion, and anyone who can share a sample Motion with me. My email address is yellowstonepark@gmail.com.
Thanks in advance.
Msj
Veryfree, here is what I have saved (posted previously on the forum):
(see attachments) Unfortunately, I can't find a text of MSJ but the orders here are very helpful, I think, to build one. I have some more so if you want me to share them, post to me privately.
Good LucK
Hi, every one,
I just want to update the progress of my case here.
I filed WOM for my delayed I485 application on December 11, 2006. In February 2007, the US attorney filed Motion to Dismiss. Then I filed an immediate response with the help of members on this board, especially Paz and Wenlock. On April 18, 2007, the judge denied US attorney’s Motion to Dismiss. He also ordered both parties to prepare a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parsfalcon has kindly sent me a sample of combined motion for summary judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. It may not fit my case very well, since in my case the court has already denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I would appreciate any advice on how to prepare this Motion, and anyone who can share a sample Motion with me. My email address is yellowstonepark@gmail.com.
Thanks in advance.
Veryfree, here is what I have saved (posted previously on the forum):
(see attachments) Unfortunately, I can't find a text of MSJ but the orders here are very helpful, I think, to build one. I have some more so if you want me to share them, post to me privately.
Good LucK
I am reading following case from Pacer:
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05189
1. Razik, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, at *5-8 (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitioners’ case; noting that applications had “languished for two years and yet the INS has done nothing”);
The last docket report entry is "12/31/2003 9 MINUTE ORDER of 12/31/03 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held. This order is entered nunc pro tunc 10/22/03. Government's oral motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice as stated in open court. All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. terminating case Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 01/02/2004)"
This happened after Judge denied MTD on Aug. 2003.
What happened to this case? Is this case eventually dismissed by judge and plaintiff did not get relief?
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05189
1. Razik, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, at *5-8 (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitioners’ case; noting that applications had “languished for two years and yet the INS has done nothing”);
The last docket report entry is "12/31/2003 9 MINUTE ORDER of 12/31/03 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held. This order is entered nunc pro tunc 10/22/03. Government's oral motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice as stated in open court. All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. terminating case Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 01/02/2004)"
This happened after Judge denied MTD on Aug. 2003.
What happened to this case? Is this case eventually dismissed by judge and plaintiff did not get relief?
sksharma76
Registered Users (C)
Extension to file reply for MTD
Ok guys today i got the MTD from the AUSA.I have 20 days to reply.My case is N400 WOM without interview. you can see it on pacer Sharma v. Gonzales, et al. 7:07-CV-13-F.Interstingly its not based on what has been going on my case ie USCIS has already scheduled a interview but standard MTD stating that court has no jurisdiction and Naturalization is a 4 step process 1st the Application,2nd Background check,3rd Interview and 4th Oath letter they have attached badier vs gonzales as exhibit
In the mean time i need to file an extension to file for reply.Can anybody guide me to the format for the extension.Would How easy is it to get extension.Whats reason should i put for extension i was thinking about what wenlock advised that i am Scheduled for May 18th Interview and all progress indicate that N-400 application will get adjudicate in next few days
Ok guys today i got the MTD from the AUSA.I have 20 days to reply.My case is N400 WOM without interview. you can see it on pacer Sharma v. Gonzales, et al. 7:07-CV-13-F.Interstingly its not based on what has been going on my case ie USCIS has already scheduled a interview but standard MTD stating that court has no jurisdiction and Naturalization is a 4 step process 1st the Application,2nd Background check,3rd Interview and 4th Oath letter they have attached badier vs gonzales as exhibit
In the mean time i need to file an extension to file for reply.Can anybody guide me to the format for the extension.Would How easy is it to get extension.Whats reason should i put for extension i was thinking about what wenlock advised that i am Scheduled for May 18th Interview and all progress indicate that N-400 application will get adjudicate in next few days
line-jumping ???
My case had been stucked by NC for 24 months before I filed WOM in Jan. 2007. The CIS filed Motion To Dismiss in March 2007. I am now preparing the opposition letter to fight back. There is one thing I want your help, so that I can make a solid fight back.
In the MTD, CIS said: "Plaintiff's complaint boils down to an attemp at judically authorized "line-jumping. ... Thus, granting the relief Plaintiff's seek would necessarily mean that other applicantions would be pushed back. Inevitable, for the Court to grant relief, it must impose some greater hardship on other applicants who are patiently waiting in front of the Plaintiffs and who may be suffering much greater harm as a result of the delays. Such line-jumping would be manifestly unfair".
Could anybody give suggestions how to response this so as to let the judge know this CIS claim is rediculous?
Thanks!
My case had been stucked by NC for 24 months before I filed WOM in Jan. 2007. The CIS filed Motion To Dismiss in March 2007. I am now preparing the opposition letter to fight back. There is one thing I want your help, so that I can make a solid fight back.
In the MTD, CIS said: "Plaintiff's complaint boils down to an attemp at judically authorized "line-jumping. ... Thus, granting the relief Plaintiff's seek would necessarily mean that other applicantions would be pushed back. Inevitable, for the Court to grant relief, it must impose some greater hardship on other applicants who are patiently waiting in front of the Plaintiffs and who may be suffering much greater harm as a result of the delays. Such line-jumping would be manifestly unfair".
Could anybody give suggestions how to response this so as to let the judge know this CIS claim is rediculous?
Thanks!
Line jumping
Emma gc,
Please go to posts #9800 and 9818 (pg 654-655), Where Paz (later -my comments) talked about line jumping. Again, the logic is crooked because since the FBI and CIS claim they process nc-s on the "first-come, first -serve" basis, our cases (which were delayed) must be processed BEFORE they process any later cases. Therefore,
It is them who try to line-jump in front of us, we merely ask them to process according to the 1st come 1st serve order. So in a nutshell, stis is the argument. Ask seniors re. cases where this was argued.
My case had been stucked by NC for 24 months before I filed WOM in Jan. 2007. The CIS filed Motion To Dismiss in March 2007. I am now preparing the opposition letter to fight back. There is one thing I want your help, so that I can make a solid fight back.
In the MTD, CIS said: "Plaintiff's complaint boils down to an attemp at judically authorized "line-jumping. ... Thus, granting the relief Plaintiff's seek would necessarily mean that other applicantions would be pushed back. Inevitable, for the Court to grant relief, it must impose some greater hardship on other applicants who are patiently waiting in front of the Plaintiffs and who may be suffering much greater harm as a result of the delays. Such line-jumping would be manifestly unfair".
Could anybody give suggestions how to response this so as to let the judge know this CIS claim is rediculous?
Thanks!
Emma gc,
Please go to posts #9800 and 9818 (pg 654-655), Where Paz (later -my comments) talked about line jumping. Again, the logic is crooked because since the FBI and CIS claim they process nc-s on the "first-come, first -serve" basis, our cases (which were delayed) must be processed BEFORE they process any later cases. Therefore,
It is them who try to line-jump in front of us, we merely ask them to process according to the 1st come 1st serve order. So in a nutshell, stis is the argument. Ask seniors re. cases where this was argued.