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

james_gmail said:
Hi, Mingjing and Friends,

I noticed that in some opposition to MTD case you posted, several pro-se withdrawed the prayer of "Requiring defendants to provide the plaintiff with a notice of approval".

My AUSA does not oppose this prayer (my pro se) at all in his MTD.

My question: in this case, should I mention that and withdraw this prayer
explicitly in my oppostion to MTD.

Thank you very much for your great efforts!
Click to expand...

YES WITHDRAW IT. It can come back and haunt you later. You can reply motion to dismiss and then they can response to your response and raise this issue that Plaintiff is asking approval of application which is completly descretionary (which is correct) and that leaves judge with no option but to dismiss your case.

YOU CAN NOT ASK FOR ARROVAL in your relief you can only ask for ADJUDICATION

It is been discussed many times in the past so please be sensitive to this issue as it is more likely to get MTD now then before.
 
Testimony of Mr. Cannon

Just thought it may be useful to post this. It has some interesting points,
like:

"Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual rime it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it."
In other words, analyst does not have to get to outstanding name check if s/he does not feel like it.

"The order in which these requests are resolved is random."
And in the next paragraph:
"As directed by USCIS specifically, the FBI processes name check requests on a first-in, first-out basis unless USCIS directs that a name check be expedited."

P.S. Mingjing, thanks for posting all those docs. Great job!
 
amyamy said:
Dear Sir,

May 21 is last day for "Meet and Confer" for my case. So I requested AUSA to meet to discuss:

1> discuss whether there is a way to resolve the case quickly?
2> how and when the check can be done? what else information is needed so to speed up the checking?
3> develop a proposed discovery plan and write a Joint Scheduling report?

I got a reply from AUSA -- only one sentence:

I will fax you standard forms we use for these adjustment cases by the
end of this week.

So horrible. I wrote back and requested her to fax the forms, plans, schedule to me tomorrow. But I do not believe that she will do it! Could you tell me where I can find some info about forms? What suggestions? I am really scared to make a mistake. Please help.

Thanks a lot.
Amy
Click to expand...


Amy,

I posted about 3 days ago the ADR joint plan. Other than that, I really don't have anything else, we're in the prior stage, just filed.

But I am pretty sure your court clerk will have an idea of what forms (or even give you samples) you need. Also, check your pro se handbook and and Court civil rules on the internet. CA court rules are attached:

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/L...b2106e6db882569b4005a23f1?OpenDocument#TOC2_1

AUSA is supposed to cooperate with you in the pretrial phase. so if s/he doesn't reply by the due date you can then check with our more experienced members what steps you can take to approach the judge about this.

Although I have no personal experience but it sounds that AUSA will reply at least 2-3 days in advance so you'll have a little time to take care of your part.

Good luck!
 
I just got back from the court. The clerk told me that I can only subpoena "producible" documents. They don't believe FBI has the producible documents on my case. So, I can't do that at this moment. :-( Again, they asked me to find a lawyer, which will cost me a lot. I don't know what I will do next.

wenlock said:
I would call court or some local lawyer and ask them if they know any local server who serve summons. Then call them and file subpoena with court and ask server to pick it up from court (If filed electronicaly) or hand it over to them and tell them to deliever it. If your name check is not complete you might want to hold subpoena to USCIS at this time because you know the reason why they are delaying. But definatly serve FBI. You have nothing to loose and you are 100% entitled to do so.

You definatly have advantage over people who got MTD then answer so use it well and as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
 
yvesliu said:
I just got back from the court. The clerk told me that I can only subpoena "producible" documents. They don't believe FBI has the producible documents on my case. So, I can't do that at this moment. :-( Again, they asked me to find a lawyer, which will cost me a lot. I don't know what I will do next.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to file the motion to ask Judge to shorten the extension given to defendants? Or file motion to oppose judge's grant on defendant's request for extension?
 
Dear fellow members:

It looks like my naturalization is around the corner now. Based on joint stipulation to dismiss, my case was closed by the judge on 05.02.07. According to the stipulation, USCIS had 30 days to grant my petition and issue the Oath letter. The Oath letter dated 05.14.07 has arrived in today’s mail and I am scheduled for Oath on June the 13th (fortunately it is not Friday).

I would like to thank everybody in this forum for their support and sharing most essential information, especially those, who, like paz1960, continue supporting forum participants long after resolving their personal cases. I would like to encourage new participants to do their best pushing their cases forward – this is the only way to stand for your rights and hope to eventually fix this broken system.

Best of luck, everybody!
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
birdie said:
Is it possible to file the motion to ask Judge to shorten the extension given to defendants? Or file motion to oppose judge's grant on defendant's request for extension?
Click to expand...

Well, the judge recommend me to hire a lawyer. Since I will not do that and the time is almost up, I think I will just wait. I am thinking that writing an e-mail to AUSA to tell her that I will do the subpoena, I wonder if that can push her to do something. Anyone can comment on this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
w&w said:
First I'd like to say thank you to every member of this forum. I've been following this forum since February. Last week I filed WOM for I485 in Western Washington. It wouldn't be possible for me to do that without what I learned from the forum. Now it's time to prepare for MTD. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. :)

A special thank you to Mingjing. The cases you categorized will be very helpful to me. I'm tracking all the cases in Western Washington district. Let me know if you need information from this district.

BTW, writing to First Lady didn't work for me. I sent the letter in February and received a letter from FBI after a little more than 3 months. The letter just says that my name check is still pending (after 37 months).
Click to expand...

w&w,

good luck! I filed May 2 (as you can see). I am helping my husband but his case is naturalization. We may compare our time schedules.

Mingjing, anyone: Has anybody in CA Northern had AUSA E. Olson? I just learned we were assigned to him. I think I remember his name in connection to another case 2-3 mo. back... Please comment if you dealt with him.

Also, Mingjing, great job on posting the cases. Looks like judge is ready to rule in favor of one of our members. Congratulations to her/him!
 
snorlax said:
Dear fellow members:

It looks like my naturalization is around the corner now. Based on joint stipulation to dismiss, my case was closed by the judge on 05.02.07. According to the stipulation, USCIS had 30 days to grant my petition and issue the Oath letter. The Oath letter dated 05.02.07 has arrived in today’s mail and I am scheduled for Oath on June the 13th (fortunately it is not Friday).

I would like to thank everybody in this forum for their support and sharing most essential information, especially those, who, like paz1960, continue supporting forum participants long after resolving their personal cases. I would like to encourage new participants to do their best pushing their cases forward – this is the only way to stand for your rights and hope to eventually fix this broken system.

Best of luck, everybody!
snorlax
Click to expand...


Snorlax,

Happy for your victory! Great job! Also, thank you for your participation. As you can see, we just filed the day you got your case dismissed :) Took us a while to get ready. Please comment if you had E. Olsen as AUSA, or if you remember any comments about him. We got him as you can see.

Good luck and have a happy ceremony!
 
yvesliu said:
I just got back from the court. The clerk told me that I can only subpoena "producible" documents. They don't believe FBI has the producible documents on my case. So, I can't do that at this moment. :-( Again, they asked me to find a lawyer, which will cost me a lot. I don't know what I will do next.
Click to expand...

Why do they think FBI's file on you is not producible??? They have to produce it when you do FOIPA request, therefore it IS producible. They just don't want to produce it. But that's what subpoena is for;) And they can't hide by "sensitive/secret info" because then you can request the judge to consider "sealed docs" as I remember was done in a couple of cases. So they still have to produce them to the judge.
 
shvili said:
Snorlax,

Happy for your victory! Great job! Also, thank you for your participation. As you can see, we just filed the day you got your case dismissed :) Took us a while to get ready. Please comment if you had E. Olsen as AUSA, or if you remember any comments about him. We got him as you can see.

Good luck and have a happy ceremony!
Click to expand...
Thanks, shvili!

Mine was Ila Deiss and her paralegal. She is the one who handled that extraordinary case in San Jose resulted in naturalization granted directly by the judge (message #10983, page 733). She was very busy, but professional, polite and helpful (some people might have had different experience with her). Not that she was particularly happy about all this USCIS cases falling on her head, but she seemed to understand that it was not our fault that her clients screwed up big time.

Best of luck to you with your case!
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Recent cases in New York - Southern District

Hello everyone,

well, my case has been lingering on for the past few months with no discernible change. THE AUSA after initially sounding helpful, filed an 'Answer' on March 7th, right before the 60-day time limit. Then the District Judge assigned the case to a Magistrate Judge and after some time has passed, I got a call from her chambers that an in-person conference is set for next Friday (May 25th). I have 2 questions: first, at this in-person conference, does the Magistrate Judge decide upon the case..meaning can she ORDER the expedited name-check...given that it seems that these days USCIS will not do an automatic expedited name-check anymore and it requires a court order.

Secondly, as I need to be prepared in case the judge CAN order an expedited name-check (hopefully after I make a compelling argument) next week, I am looking for some recent 'wins' in NY Southern District. I have searched through PACER and the only things I have found are closed cases where it seems the cases were settled but none that I can find that has actually gone through the entire process with a Judge's opinion. I know I can use cases from other jurisdictions to argue my case such as Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales, Shalan v. Chertoffand El-Daour v. Chertoff, but I'd like to have some cases from NY and especially in Southern District. Given the number of immigrants in NY and the immigration issues here, I am certain there must be some cases available...any help in finding them is highly appreciated...
 
amyamy said:
Dear Sir,

May 21 is last day for "Meet and Confer" for my case. So I requested AUSA to meet to discuss:

1> discuss whether there is a way to resolve the case quickly?
2> how and when the check can be done? what else information is needed so to speed up the checking?
3> develop a proposed discovery plan and write a Joint Scheduling report?

I got a reply from AUSA -- only one sentence:

I will fax you standard forms we use for these adjustment cases by the
end of this week.

So horrible. I wrote back and requested her to fax the forms, plans, schedule to me tomorrow. But I do not believe that she will do it! Could you tell me where I can find some info about forms? What suggestions? I am really scared to make a mistake. Please help.

Thanks a lot.
Amy
Click to expand...
I do not think that there is a “standard form”. It sounds like your AUSA just wants you to sign whatever s/he sends you. Most likely it is going to be CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT. You may consider producing your own and sending it to AUSA.

What AUSAs usually want in that statement are the following 2 items:
Disclosures: The parties agree that this Court’s review will be confined to the administrative record and therefore this proceeding is exempt from the initial disclosure requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
Discovery: There has been no discovery to date and the parties believe this matter can be resolved without discovery

Usually Plaintiff does want both the Disclosures and the Discovery – as this would push AUSA to work with his clients – USCIS and FBI resolving the case.

Best of luck to you with your case!
snorlax
 
New Immigration legelslation

Dear Friends,

How will this new Immigration legislation currently debated in the congress affect our ability to continue with our lawsuits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/washington/17immig.html?ref=us

There is a rumor circulating that, if passed, there is a clause in it which will end our ability to sue or to continue our lawsuit for delayed immigration decisions.

Your input is highly appreciated.

Thanks.
 
This is short description but no mention of name check
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/DHS CIR 5-17-07.pdf

hopeforall2 said:
Dear Friends,

How will this new Immigration legislation currently debated in the congress affect our ability to continue with our lawsuits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/washington/17immig.html?ref=us

There is a rumor circulating that, if passed, there is a clause in it which will end our ability to sue or to continue our lawsuit for delayed immigration decisions.

Your input is highly appreciated.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
yvesliu said:
I just got back from the court. The clerk told me that I can only subpoena "producible" documents. They don't believe FBI has the producible documents on my case. So, I can't do that at this moment. :-( Again, they asked me to find a lawyer, which will cost me a lot. I don't know what I will do next.
Click to expand...


That is correct you can only subpoena producible document and in your case producible document that FBI posseses is name check request from USCIS and what triggered name check hit.

Here is the list that you can request.

name check request from USCIS
All internal memerandum in reference to name check process
All communication that took place between uscis and fbi
All steps taken in reference to obtain documents that name check identified.

You can get all these and these are "producible" documents.
 
I just got an email from my Senator's office which says that an officer was assigned to my I-485 application on 5/11. I filed my opposition to AUSA's MTD on 5/4. I was wondering whether my name check is cleared or not. Did anybody know the tricks to call USCIS and talk to an officer? I remember it was posted before, I just can't find it.

Thanks a lot
 
hopeforall2 said:
Dear Friends,

How will this new Immigration legislation currently debated in the congress affect our ability to continue with our lawsuits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/washington/17immig.html?ref=us

There is a rumor circulating that, if passed, there is a clause in it which will end our ability to sue or to continue our lawsuit for delayed immigration decisions.

Your input is highly appreciated.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you are right. Here is the appropriate text that might make WOM or 1447b suits ineffective once this is passed:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c11061ZXrU:e511769:
 
Yes it prohibits court actions, it has this as well

(2) CONTENT- The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) a description of the background and security check program;

(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;

(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and

(D) the steps the Federal Bureau of Investigations is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 60 days.

lotechguy said:
It sounds like you are right. Here is the appropriate text that might make WOM or 1447b suits ineffective once this is passed:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c11061ZXrU:e511769:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top