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

[paz1960]

Gurus / experts.

In any of the cases that you have seen, did any of the case get litigated? Did you (as pro se) or your attorney representing you had to physically appear in the court to defend your case?

Thanks.

Although I personally didn't have to go to court (my case was solved during the first 30 day extension), I saw plenty of reports here on this forum when Pro Se Plaintiff or attorney representing the Plaintiff had to go to a hearing. Sometimes just an Initial Case Management Conference, sometimes a hearing for a Motion to Dismiss, sometimes a real trial hearing.

I would strongly recommend that if you are not comfortable with appearing in person in the court room and defending vigurously your case, you should consider hiring a professional immigration lawyer. You should not count on the possibility that your case will be solved by simply filing a complaint or eventually opposing a Motion to Dismiss. Since Dec. 21, 2006 USCIS changed their policy and filing a lawsuit in a federal court is not considered anymore a reason to ask automatically FBI to expedite the name check process.

If you don't have the necessary time and patience to read through this forum and many posted cases here or on PACER, you would only harm your case and create a dangerous precedence what the Government will use in further similar cases to support their arguments. Sueing the Government is a serious business and shouldn't be taken lightly.

The good news is that practically all the info you need to go Pro Se was already posted here and there are several very knowledgeable active forum members willing to help you if you have questions. And, in my opinion, for hopelessly stuck cases lawsuit is the only working option.

 

[lotechguy]

In the past few weeks, we've seen several AOS cases that have passed the MTD stage where the courts have denied defendants' MTD. I checked one case that was mentioned in this forum about 3 weeks ago and noticed that defendants have filed an answer to the complaint shortly after the court denied the MTD. I'm wondering if anybody has any further updates regarding this particular case or any other similar cases.

Judging by what I've seen in Pacer for the cases assigned to the same AUSA, it looks like the naturalization cases do tend to get resolved before even getting to the MTD stage. The AOS cases are a different story though. Of course, this might only be specific to the district court where I'm in. However, in the last 3 weeks, the court has denied MTD on 3 cases in a row. Not sure if this will have any impact on how the defendants will approach the AOS cases from now on.... One woud think that they would think harder and may opt to do the right thing, which is to request expedite name checks and so forth.

I'm also wondering if Mingjing's success could be attributed to filing through an attorney. I think I did a fairly good job with my opposition to MTD. However, it just seems that Pro Se does not carry as much weight before AUSA since there's not much legal cost associated if defendants do end up having to reimburse that cost to plaintiffs.

Looking at pacer in my district it does not seem that an attorney is too much of a factor. AUSAs seem to be acting based on DHS feedback.

 

[SLIS]

SLIS, I think you pointed the biggest drawback for decision to go pro se. Some people on the forum complained a few mo. ago that their pre-hearing delays are likely to be a result of a pro se status: Govern-t simply doesn't worry so much as less $$ is involved even if the case goes to a hearing and they lose. At the same time, they should watch their success rate and this factor should still motivate them to avoid getting to a hearing... Maybe there're more variables that affect this balance, but that's my take on it.

But we still save ourselves some $$$ which we'd likely lose hiring an attorney... And hopefully in the end we will win!

I hope they do care about their success rate, as you said. That will mean some light for us! In the meantime, I'm waiting to see how the judge would rule on my case....

What's up with Kafka these days? Do you know? She was expecting and had decided to hire an attorney. I wonder if she's already got her case resolved....

 

[SLIS]

Looking at pacer in my district it does not seem that an attorney is too much of a factor. AUSAs seem to be acting based on DHS feedback.

My understanding is that they treat naturalization cases differently from AOS cases. At least, that's what was hinted by the AUSA assigned to my case. In other words, there's a greater chance that they would request expediting the name check when it's a naturalization case regardless of the new policy.

 

[DUDE12190]

Hi Dude

Where did you file your WOM? Did you contact the AUSA by email or phone?

How long did you get the answer from your AUSA? Did you file WOM by Pro Se?

My case was not a WOM but 1447b. I filed in EDNY Pro Se and contacted AUSA by phone. Good luck!! regards, dude

 

[ncblackhole]

Is this our last Chance?

Hello All,

With this new bill coming, would you all agree that this is the last chance to file a WOM if the case is stuck? It looks like we would not be able to do this after the new immigration bill is passed and implemented?

I was going to wait for a while but now I feel this is it.. either do it now or never. What do you all think? I have a pending 485 case, now my case is pending for a year and that is why I wanted to wait but looks like there is nothing to lose now.. if I wait longer I will lose this final opportunity anyway.

 

[Hiram]

Scary News!!

ADC Action Alert:
Secret Evidence Amendment on Senate Floor

Cornyn Amendment Would Allow Use of Secret Evidence

Washington, DC | May 24, 2007 | Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced an amendment (#1148) to the on-going immigration debate that would deny lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence. This issue is of vital importance to the Arab-American community. Members and supporters of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) are urged to immediately phone both their senators asking them to VOTE NO on the Cornyn amendment.

Senators are voting on this amendment as early as 12:15 EST. As this late breaking amendment has just been added and will be voted on very shortly, we are asking everyone to call rather than email their senate offices.

The US Capitol operator is (202) 224-3121.

Find out who represents you in the US Senate: http://capwiz.com/adc/dbq/officials/. Keep in mind, everyone has two senators. Be sure to call both offices.

Talking Points:

Cornyn’s Amendment denies lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence:

• This amendment gives the Attorney General unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law.

• A person applying for naturalization could have her application denied and she would never know the reason for the denial.

• For example, if a lawful permanent resident was giving money for Tsunami relief and accidentally gave money to a charity controlled by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, then that person could be denied citizenship on the basis of secret evidence and there would be no review in the courts.

• In sum, it allows deportations based on the unreviewable determination by executive branch that a person lacks "good moral character"; determinations can be made based on secret evidence that the person cannot even see let alone challenge.

VOTE NO ON THE CORNYN AMENDMENT

 

[akram88]

Urgent

I am taking my oath tomorrow in Newark. after this I'm planing to go withdraw the lawsuit at the federal court. I just called them and they said I will need a letter to do so.
Does anyone here have an example or template for such a letter?
for those who got their NC cleared what did you do after oath?

Thanks and good luck to all

 

[hopeforall2]

Dear Friends , I need you help,

I received following order in responce to my lawsuit in which the AUSA filed an answer instead of MTD , Please inlight me what this is , is it discovery , conference or motion and what prove of documents should I prepare ?

Quote

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
--------------------------------------------------------------X
My Name ,
Individually,
--------------------- -----ORDER
Plaintiff,
ALBERTO GONZALES,
Officially as United States Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X

An initial conference will be held in this case on July 18, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge. All participants are directed to report to Court.

All counsel must be present.

All requests for adjournments must be made in writing on notice to all parties and no request will be considered unless made at least forty-eight (48) hours before the scheduled conference. Requests must disclose whether or not all parties consent to the adjournment.

The parties are reminded of their obligations under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all parties are directed to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than five days before the above scheduled conference.

Failure to make the required disclosures may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Judge Name
United States Magistrate Judge
May 17, 2007


NOTE: PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO CONFIRM WITH ALL
OTHER COUNSEL THAT ALL NECESSARY PARTIES ARE AWARE OF
THIS CONFERENCE.

Unquote

I need your kind help and advise on whether this good news , that the court are moving towards speeding up my case and what is ment by disclosures and documents I need in pursuant to Rules 26 (f) and 26 (a) (1) , please.

Thank you for all your valuable help.

 

[1995]

Foipa

I am also stuck in name check for long time and thinking about file WOM. Based on the information on this forum, I am preparing to file FOIPA to FBI first. When I went through the FOIPA request form, I have some questiones about filling the form
1) What is the "subject" in the form? Should I fill "my own name in it because I am going to request information about myself? or something else?
2)Enter the maximum amount you are willing to pay, explanation for a request for a waiver of fee. What did you guys answer those two questions?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.

Hi Jow.

This is what I've done to find an attorney (over this weekend). Go to url : http://dockets.justia.com/search?qu...year=2006&max-day=4&max-month=5&max-year=2007

Select the Illinois/chicago court dist. from dropdown, and then select the case type to be 'Mandamust and other'. Then open each case individually. There is a link for 'Attorney'. I copied and pasted links for attornies who have fought such cases in my dist. and am going to call them today. I'm personally interested in 3 attornies who have fought more than 3 such cases in recent past.

Maybe someone has a better technique. If yes - please share.

 

[lotechguy]

I am also stuck in name check for long time and thinking about file WOM. Based on the information on this forum, I am preparing to file FOIPA to FBI first. When I went through the FOIPA request form, I have some questiones about filling the form
1) What is the "subject" in the form? Should I fill "my own name in it because I am going to request information about myself? or something else?
2)Enter the maximum amount you are willing to pay, explanation for a request for a waiver of fee. What did you guys answer those two questions?

Thank you very much for sharing your experience.

You will need to fill the privacy act form. In this form if I recall you can put your name date and place of birth and past few addresses and employers. then you get this notarized and attach a letter and send it. For maximum fee you can leave it blank.

 

[DUDE12190]

Dear Friends , I need you help,

I received following order in responce to my lawsuit in which the AUSA filed an answer instead of MTD , Please inlight me what this is , is it discovery , conference or motion and what prove of documents should I prepare ?

Quote

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
--------------------------------------------------------------X
My Name ,
Individually,
--------------------- -----ORDER
Plaintiff,
ALBERTO GONZALES,
Officially as United States Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X

An initial conference will be held in this case on July 18, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge. All participants are directed to report to Court.

All counsel must be present.

All requests for adjournments must be made in writing on notice to all parties and no request will be considered unless made at least forty-eight (48) hours before the scheduled conference. Requests must disclose whether or not all parties consent to the adjournment.

The parties are reminded of their obligations under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all parties are directed to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than five days before the above scheduled conference.

Failure to make the required disclosures may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Judge Name
United States Magistrate Judge
May 17, 2007


NOTE: PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO CONFIRM WITH ALL
OTHER COUNSEL THAT ALL NECESSARY PARTIES ARE AWARE OF
THIS CONFERENCE.

Unquote

I need your kind help and advise on whether this good news , that the court are moving towards speeding up my case and what is ment by disclosures and documents I need in pursuant to Rules 26 (f) and 26 (a) (1) , please.

Thank you for all your valuable help.

This is an initial conference.My case did not go that far, thats why, I am not an expert in this topic. It is neither a good news nor a bad news, but your case is moving to the next stage. Some Magistrate judges hold these conferences and some do not. Some hold it after the Defendentds files an answer or MTD and some hold it even before. It depends on the judge. I have a notice from a judge from my district that she wrote after the initial confernce. Most likely, there is not going to be anything new at this initial confernce in your case. Judge may ask AUSA why is teh reief can not be granted. I am saying this beacsue I read many initial confernces on PAcers .

You need to talk with AUSA and tell him/her your situation. Have u talked with your AUSA?? Are u watiching his/her cases on the Pacers? What is he/she doing in most of the cases?? Extensions? Answers? or MTD?? If u want me to send u this PDF document of initial hearing, please PM me and I will mail it you. That document contains the case #, Name, address and phone # of the Planitiff and I think it is not a good idea to brake someone's privacy. But just to let you know in that doc, judge is just saying that Status confernce will be held after two months if there is no progrss on the case. Thats why I am emphasizing that u need to speak with your AUSA. Good luck!! regards, dude

 

[WhyThisDelay]

Is notarizing it required if you are doing it for yourself??

The instructions said that notarization is required only if you are doing it on someone else.

(Maybe it is required even for self, that's why FBI is not responding to my foipa request)

You will need to fill the privacy act form. In this form if I recall you can put your name date and place of birth and past few addresses and employers. then you get this notarized and attach a letter and send it. For maximum fee you can leave it blank.

 

[GC4wait05]

Need Help

In AUSA's MTD: Except 8 U.S.C. $ 1252 and Norton case (APA), AUSA argued that
"Plaintiffs fail to state a clain under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause"

How can I opposite?

 

[1995]

Foipa

I think the notary is not necessary because the FBI instructions say the notary is for doing the FOIPA on behalf of someone else. But what do you guys put in the item: subject____________________ in the request form? Thanks.

Is notarizing it required if you are doing it for yourself??

The instructions said that notarization is required only if you are doing it on someone else.

(Maybe it is required even for self, that's why FBI is not responding to my foipa request)

 

[Ninyte]

Is notarizing it required if you are doing it for yourself??

The instructions said that notarization is required only if you are doing it on someone else.

(Maybe it is required even for self, that's why FBI is not responding to my foipa request)

I sent in FOIPA without notarizing it (cause I thought just like you that I didn't have to) and FBI sent it back to me saying that I had to notarize it and send again.

 

[1995]

Foipa

Can you please clarify what the "subject" means in the FOIPA request form?

I sent in FOIPA without notarizing it (cause I thought just like you that I didn't have to) and FBI sent it back to me saying that I had to notarize it and send again.

 

[Ninyte]

Can you please clarify what the "subject" means in the FOIPA request form?

I don't see no "subject" line in FOIPA request form.
http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_request.htm

 

[OKO]

Epedited name check question

Does anybody in this forum have an idea how long expedited namecheck request takes nowadays?
Mine is stuck already for two and a half month, if I can trust USCIS document which they filed in my 1447 case. It is interesting, that they requested expedited NC right away after I file the suit, a month before they assigned the case to AUSA.
Thanks,
OKO

 

[mas06]

ADC Action Alert:
Secret Evidence Amendment on Senate Floor

Cornyn Amendment Would Allow Use of Secret Evidence

Washington, DC | May 24, 2007 | Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced an amendment (#1148) to the on-going immigration debate that would deny lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence. This issue is of vital importance to the Arab-American community. Members and supporters of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) are urged to immediately phone both their senators asking them to VOTE NO on the Cornyn amendment.

Senators are voting on this amendment as early as 12:15 EST. As this late breaking amendment has just been added and will be voted on very shortly, we are asking everyone to call rather than email their senate offices.

The US Capitol operator is (202) 224-3121.

Find out who represents you in the US Senate: http://capwiz.com/adc/dbq/officials/. Keep in mind, everyone has two senators. Be sure to call both offices.

Talking Points:

Cornyn’s Amendment denies lawful permanent residents the opportunity to become U.S. citizens based on secret evidence:

• This amendment gives the Attorney General unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law.

• A person applying for naturalization could have her application denied and she would never know the reason for the denial.

• For example, if a lawful permanent resident was giving money for Tsunami relief and accidentally gave money to a charity controlled by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, then that person could be denied citizenship on the basis of secret evidence and there would be no review in the courts.

• In sum, it allows deportations based on the unreviewable determination by executive branch that a person lacks "good moral character"; determinations can be made based on secret evidence that the person cannot even see let alone challenge.

VOTE NO ON THE CORNYN AMENDMENT

I could not verify the source of this information. Amendement #1148 is not by Sen. Cornyn. It is rather Sen. Dodd. It is not related to the subject. Sen. Cornyn's amendement is #1184 and it did not touch on secret evidence in the amendement text. It just expands the scope of effect certain crimes on denying immigration benefits. It will be voted on next week.