I was stuck for I485 purpose. Attached is an affidavit of support I wrote at request of my attorney detailing the damages. Some of the points may be helpful if you are in I485 related WOM. I posted this before, and have not changed it since.
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
james_gmail
Registered Users (C)
CMC vacated
Hi just received phone call from Judge's chamaber that our CMC is cancelled and postphoned to the MOD hearing date?
What does that mean?
Thanks!!!
Hi just received phone call from Judge's chamaber that our CMC is cancelled and postphoned to the MOD hearing date?
What does that mean?
Thanks!!!
snorlax,
I had a word with few attorneys and they all told me that there isn't any rule where you have to wait 120 days after your interview has started. It can certainly help, but it's not necessary. My case was filed in April of 2006 and this would be a decent time to file a law suit. My attorney is giving me a go signal so let's see.
Thanks for your response.
Atlanta_Brother,
In naturalization delay cases, the first and main cause of action is complaint under USC 1447(b):
"§ 1447. Hearings on denials of applications for naturalization
(b) Request for hearing before district court
If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter."
This is the chapter under which Snorlax won his/her case, and for most N-400 applicants who had their interview with CIS, it's the main reason for their complaint to court (-their cases were not decided by CIS within 120 days according to teh statute). If, as Snorlax pointed, you DID NOT have your interview, you cannot use it and your course of action would be Mandamus complaint. (We also used Mandamus because we want to compel FBI to produce the name check results, so we combined 1447(b) and WOM).
You either misunderstood your attorneys or they wanted to file under Mandamus statues where they don't have to wait 120 days (and some attorneys still prefer Mandamus). But the way you presented it, what they told you is nonsense. In your place, I would contact other attorneys. Please go back to the beginning of this thread to read great Publicus' points re. why it's better to file under 1447(b) if you had your interview (examination). Mandamus is harder to win because you have to show that CIS have a duty to decide you case, unlike 1447(b) where you can involve the court if no decision within 120 days.
Good luck! My advise, read more of this thread (especially the beginning).
Here is the attachment.
I was stuck for I485 purpose. Attached is an affidavit of support I wrote at request of my attorney detailing the damages. Some of the points may be helpful if you are in I485 related WOM. I posted this before, and have not changed it since.
I checked pacer today and found AUSA filed MTD after asking for two weeks extension. So now I have to file a response within 21 days. I am looking for some favourable recent 1447b rulings ie in the past 4 months. Guys, Please post any references of recent favourable 1447b rulings you have come across.
Hi lotechguy,
Here is a list of 1447b cases that you may find useful.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/natz_delay0806.shtml
Here is a list of 1447b cases that you may find useful.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/natz_delay0806.shtml
I checked pacer today and found AUSA filed MTD after asking for two weeks extension. So now I have to file a response within 21 days. I am looking for some favourable recent 1447b rulings ie in the past 4 months. Guys, Please post any references of recent favourable 1447b rulings you have come across.
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Consulted many attorneys
Hi Shivli,
Thank you for your note. I have actually consulted and talked to a number of good and experienced attorneys nationwide. When they found out that my case was filed in April of 2006 and now since it's been over a year and my interview has not been rescheduled keeping in mind that my FL and NC have been cleared for quite sometime now they strongly suggested me that filing law suit in my case will be the way to go. Ofcourse there isn't any 100% guarantee but it's worth a shot. What do I have to loose, probably the attorney's fees.....BIG DEAL, but I am not going to wait, wait and wait and watch the grass grow. These people definitly need a dandaa, coz for these people one month = one day. If my attorney feels comfortable, I guess I will take my chance and file mandamus. I will keep a positive hope.
Hi Shivli,
Thank you for your note. I have actually consulted and talked to a number of good and experienced attorneys nationwide. When they found out that my case was filed in April of 2006 and now since it's been over a year and my interview has not been rescheduled keeping in mind that my FL and NC have been cleared for quite sometime now they strongly suggested me that filing law suit in my case will be the way to go. Ofcourse there isn't any 100% guarantee but it's worth a shot. What do I have to loose, probably the attorney's fees.....BIG DEAL, but I am not going to wait, wait and wait and watch the grass grow. These people definitly need a dandaa, coz for these people one month = one day. If my attorney feels comfortable, I guess I will take my chance and file mandamus. I will keep a positive hope.
Hi Shivli,
Thank you for your note. I have actually consulted and talked to a number of good and experienced attorneys nationwide. When they found out that my case was filed in April of 2006 and now since it's been over a year and my interview has not been rescheduled keeping in mind that my FL and NC have been cleared for quite sometime now they strongly suggested me that filing law suit in my case will be the way to go. Ofcourse there isn't any 100% guarantee but it's worth a shot. What do I have to loose, probably the attorney's fees.....BIG DEAL, but I am not going to wait, wait and wait and watch the grass grow. These people definitly need a dandaa, coz for these people one month = one day. If my attorney feels comfortable, I guess I will take my chance and file mandamus. I will keep a positive hope.
I think filing mandamus complaint for N-400 without interview with only 14 months delay will be hard to prove in court. Remember in your complaint you have to convince Judge that delay in adjudicating application is unreasonable.
If your name check and FBI fingerprints are cleared already You might have IBIS hit. If you have IBIS hit it can be any of 20 agencies holding some record about you. I would contact Senator office and make a inquiry from there office with FBI and USCIS. This will confirm that name check is complete. Also place FOIPA with FBI.
Certainly you can file complaint but remember if you are not able to resolve your case with in 60 days after serving defendents it will be hard to fight MTD untill you have all your acts together.
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Question
wenlock,
Thanks for taking out your time to write this detailed note. Please advice me if I am not able to resolve my case within 60 days, what will happen ? What's the downside to it? Will I have regrets other than that I had paid the attorney his fees. Just wanted to know if there is any downside to it or later on I will realize that I should have been better off waiting for my IL. Let me know what are your thoughts on this. By the way I did contact the senator's office to make another inquiry and see if they can help me out with my situation. Waiting for your response. Thank you.
I think filing mandamus complaint for N-400 without interview with only 14 months delay will be hard to prove in court. Remember in your complaint you have to convince Judge that delay in adjudicating application is unreasonable.
If your name check and FBI fingerprints are cleared already You might have IBIS hit. If you have IBIS hit it can be any of 20 agencies holding some record about you. I would contact Senator office and make a inquiry from there office with FBI and USCIS. This will confirm that name check is complete. Also place FOIPA with FBI.
Certainly you can file complaint but remember if you are not able to resolve your case with in 60 days after serving defendents it will be hard to fight MTD untill you have all your acts together.
wenlock,
Thanks for taking out your time to write this detailed note. Please advice me if I am not able to resolve my case within 60 days, what will happen ? What's the downside to it? Will I have regrets other than that I had paid the attorney his fees. Just wanted to know if there is any downside to it or later on I will realize that I should have been better off waiting for my IL. Let me know what are your thoughts on this. By the way I did contact the senator's office to make another inquiry and see if they can help me out with my situation. Waiting for your response. Thank you.
always.wired
Registered Users (C)
The Immigration Bill
I am worried that if the Bill passes before my case is ripe enough for Legal action, there will be no recourse of any kind. I am thinking of sending the following e-mail to the President, Senators from my state who are currently working on the Immigration Bill. What do you guys think? I think if enough of us contact our congressmen, we may at least make our point:
" Thanks for your commitment and resolve to make Comprehensive Immigration reform a reality. I have the following request that I submit respectfully:
Thousands of good lawful immigrants are going thru untold misery because of delays in FBI Name Check process which is affecting their immigration processing. Many of these are people who never had a problem with the Law, paid their taxes, and stayed truthful to the laws of this country.
I read thru the bill and found that there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this specific problem. In fact, Section 531. subsection K removes the jurisdiction of courts to require that excessively delayed cases of Name Checks be expedited, which makes it worse for all the good people who are already suffering.
This great country has shown kindness to illegal immigrants by granting them a path to legalization. I request that similar kindness be extended to legal immigrants by providing a way to expedite background checks where there are inordinate delays. "
I am worried that if the Bill passes before my case is ripe enough for Legal action, there will be no recourse of any kind. I am thinking of sending the following e-mail to the President, Senators from my state who are currently working on the Immigration Bill. What do you guys think? I think if enough of us contact our congressmen, we may at least make our point:
" Thanks for your commitment and resolve to make Comprehensive Immigration reform a reality. I have the following request that I submit respectfully:
Thousands of good lawful immigrants are going thru untold misery because of delays in FBI Name Check process which is affecting their immigration processing. Many of these are people who never had a problem with the Law, paid their taxes, and stayed truthful to the laws of this country.
I read thru the bill and found that there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this specific problem. In fact, Section 531. subsection K removes the jurisdiction of courts to require that excessively delayed cases of Name Checks be expedited, which makes it worse for all the good people who are already suffering.
This great country has shown kindness to illegal immigrants by granting them a path to legalization. I request that similar kindness be extended to legal immigrants by providing a way to expedite background checks where there are inordinate delays. "
I am worried that if the Bill passes before my case is ripe enough for Legal action, there will be no recourse of any kind. I am thinking of sending the following e-mail to the President, Senators from my state who are currently working on the Immigration Bill. What do you guys think? I think if enough of us contact our congressmen, we may at least make our point:
" Thanks for your commitment and resolve to make Comprehensive Immigration reform a reality. I have the following request that I submit respectfully:
Thousands of good lawful immigrants are going thru untold misery because of delays in FBI Name Check process which is affecting their immigration processing. Many of these are people who never had a problem with the Law, paid their taxes, and stayed truthful to the laws of this country.
I read thru the bill and found that there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this specific problem. In fact, Section 531. subsection K removes the jurisdiction of courts to require that excessively delayed cases of Name Checks be expedited, which makes it worse for all the good people who are already suffering.
This great country has shown kindness to illegal immigrants by granting them a path to legalization. I request that similar kindness be extended to legal immigrants by providing a way to expedite background checks where there are inordinate delays. "
Can you post which version of the bill you got information about Section 531. subsection K and is this the current version ?
always.wired
Registered Users (C)
Can you post which version of the bill you got information about Section 531. subsection K and is this the current version ?
I got the version from the following site. I believe this is the current version?
Look at section 531 and scroll down to subsection K:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110wzEEnT::
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/C...eport_2007.pdf
Please add the quotes from the USCIS Ombudsman (Mr. Khatri) who thinks that name check provides no security and feels it should be done away with.
This is on page 36 of the report.
FBI Name Checks
(Annual Report pp. 37-45)
FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period.
As of May 2007, USCIS reported 329,160 FBI name check cases pending;
Approximately 64% (211,341) of those cases have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32% (106,738) have been pending more than one year;
There are now 93,358 more name check cases pending than last year, and 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 21,570 last year;
......
current FBI name check process relative to considerations of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The Ombudsman agrees with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction.
The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 25) that the FBI name check process be re-examined. Delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence in the United States while the check is pending. In this sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.....
Please add the quotes from the USCIS Ombudsman (Mr. Khatri) who thinks that name check provides no security and feels it should be done away with.
This is on page 36 of the report.
FBI Name Checks
(Annual Report pp. 37-45)
FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period.
As of May 2007, USCIS reported 329,160 FBI name check cases pending;
Approximately 64% (211,341) of those cases have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32% (106,738) have been pending more than one year;
There are now 93,358 more name check cases pending than last year, and 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 21,570 last year;
......
current FBI name check process relative to considerations of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The Ombudsman agrees with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction.
The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 25) that the FBI name check process be re-examined. Delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence in the United States while the check is pending. In this sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.....
I am worried that if the Bill passes before my case is ripe enough for Legal action, there will be no recourse of any kind. I am thinking of sending the following e-mail to the President, Senators from my state who are currently working on the Immigration Bill. What do you guys think? I think if enough of us contact our congressmen, we may at least make our point:
" Thanks for your commitment and resolve to make Comprehensive Immigration reform a reality. I have the following request that I submit respectfully:
Thousands of good lawful immigrants are going thru untold misery because of delays in FBI Name Check process which is affecting their immigration processing. Many of these are people who never had a problem with the Law, paid their taxes, and stayed truthful to the laws of this country.
I read thru the bill and found that there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this specific problem. In fact, Section 531. subsection K removes the jurisdiction of courts to require that excessively delayed cases of Name Checks be expedited, which makes it worse for all the good people who are already suffering.
This great country has shown kindness to illegal immigrants by granting them a path to legalization. I request that similar kindness be extended to legal immigrants by providing a way to expedite background checks where there are inordinate delays. "
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with wenlock. If your security check is not resolved in 60 days, the AUSA will have to file MTD (or Answer + MTD). The danger is that 14 months may be considered a “reasonable delay” by the judge and if you loose your case with prejudice because of that – you will be barred from bringing your case under the same statues in front of the judge ever again (even after your delay does become unreasonable). I am sure your lawyer should be able to explain you all the underwater rocks you may encounter.wenlock,
Thanks for taking out your time to write this detailed note. Please advice me if I am not able to resolve my case within 60 days, what will happen ? What's the downside to it? Will I have regrets other than that I had paid the attorney his fees. Just wanted to know if there is any downside to it or later on I will realize that I should have been better off waiting for my IL. Let me know what are your thoughts on this. By the way I did contact the senator's office to make another inquiry and see if they can help me out with my situation. Waiting for your response. Thank you.
Best of luck,
snorlax
I checked pacer today and found AUSA filed MTD after asking for two weeks extension. So now I have to file a response within 21 days. I am looking for some favourable recent 1447b rulings ie in the past 4 months. Guys, Please post any references of recent favourable 1447b rulings you have come across.
Lo,
That is a bad development, but only in a sense you now have to finalize your opposition. It probably means AUSA didn't get resolution from CIS after they requested to expedite. Have they commented on this to you? How bad is their MTD, is it a Danilov's argument once again recycled? I think you can use Paz's version for this and now is the time to hope the judge is reasonable and would order to complete with a time limit. Please let me know (pm), I may try to help, or are you going to use an attorney? I'll look on the Docket about more recent cases, have you checked?
Good luck and don't feel bad, it simply means they can't produce anything at this point, but hopefully with the judge's order they will!
Lo,
That is a bad development, but only in a sense you now have to finalize your opposition. It probably means AUSA didn't get resolution from CIS after they requested to expedite. Have they commented on this to you? How bad is their MTD, is it a Danilov's argument once again recycled? I think you can use Paz's version for this and now is the time to hope the judge is reasonable and would order to complete with a time limit. Please let me know (pm), I may try to help, or are you going to use an attorney? I'll look on the Docket about more recent cases, have you checked?
Good luck and don't feel bad, it simply means they can't produce anything at this point, but hopefully with the judge's order they will!
I hired an attorney who recently handled some 1447b cases, couple of them with the same judge, both had MTDs and responses filed but resolved before the hearing date set by the judge so no judgement. AUSA keeps saying they asked for expedite, so wait and see. Per AUSA, MTD is pretty much his standard response when DHS does not give them a definite completion date.
Atlanta_Brother
Registered Users (C)
Consulted with the lawyer already
snorlax,
I have not talked to one, not two, not three but four different attorneys regarding my case and they all feel comfortable and adviced me that probably end of Juky or early Aug would be a good time to file a law suit (Madamus). By end of July, it would have been 15 months already since I filed my N-400 and they all think 15 months is a decent time to file a law suit. I had asked the attorneys many times and they all confirmed that there isn't any downside or negative impact if we don't get a positive response from the court. I will keep positive hope that hopefully by end of July I will get my IL in the mail. I am really hoping that since my NC is cleared, this last check from USCIS should be a quick one. I always hear that NC is a big deal and that could take months to clear but in my case I feel fortunate that NC is not the issue here.
I agree with wenlock. If your security check is not resolved in 60 days, the AUSA will have to file MTD (or Answer + MTD). The danger is that 14 months may be considered a “reasonable delay” by the judge and if you loose your case with prejudice because of that – you will be barred from bringing your case under the same statues in front of the judge ever again (even after your delay does become unreasonable). I am sure your lawyer should be able to explain you all the underwater rocks you may encounter.
Best of luck,
snorlax
snorlax,
I have not talked to one, not two, not three but four different attorneys regarding my case and they all feel comfortable and adviced me that probably end of Juky or early Aug would be a good time to file a law suit (Madamus). By end of July, it would have been 15 months already since I filed my N-400 and they all think 15 months is a decent time to file a law suit. I had asked the attorneys many times and they all confirmed that there isn't any downside or negative impact if we don't get a positive response from the court. I will keep positive hope that hopefully by end of July I will get my IL in the mail. I am really hoping that since my NC is cleared, this last check from USCIS should be a quick one. I always hear that NC is a big deal and that could take months to clear but in my case I feel fortunate that NC is not the issue here.
1447b case success!
I was interviewed April 2006 before the FBI name check was completed. My wife's application was quickly approved and she was naturalized Sept 2006. I waited until Feb 2007 and then filed a 1447b case pro se. Name check was expidited and when 60 days were up US Attorney filed motion for extension and stated I was being scheduled for my Oath ceremony. We signed a joint motion to dismiss. I was sworn in last Wednesday.
I just want to thank Paz and the many other contributers to this site that made this possible. While my wait was not nearly as long as other's I had no desire to repeat the three year wait for my green card!
I am from Canada and was born there. So definately not a country on the watch list... so your experience might vary.
I do want to encourage others that despite previous government statements some 1447b cases are resulting in expidited name checks. Winning these cases may still be a long shot so I am not encouraging anyone to spend a fortune on lawyers, but for a $350 court fee and the cost of mailing summons it was definately worth my while!
One note of caution if you do chose to file pro se be commited enough to study the rules of civil procedure and the advice of the contibuters to this site. Every case that is lost becomes a precedent that can be used against those who come after you. I would suggest that you not file pro se unless you feel confident that you can at least prepare an opposition to a motion to dismiss!
Thanks again everyone and good luck!
I was interviewed April 2006 before the FBI name check was completed. My wife's application was quickly approved and she was naturalized Sept 2006. I waited until Feb 2007 and then filed a 1447b case pro se. Name check was expidited and when 60 days were up US Attorney filed motion for extension and stated I was being scheduled for my Oath ceremony. We signed a joint motion to dismiss. I was sworn in last Wednesday.
I just want to thank Paz and the many other contributers to this site that made this possible. While my wait was not nearly as long as other's I had no desire to repeat the three year wait for my green card!
I am from Canada and was born there. So definately not a country on the watch list... so your experience might vary.
I do want to encourage others that despite previous government statements some 1447b cases are resulting in expidited name checks. Winning these cases may still be a long shot so I am not encouraging anyone to spend a fortune on lawyers, but for a $350 court fee and the cost of mailing summons it was definately worth my while!
One note of caution if you do chose to file pro se be commited enough to study the rules of civil procedure and the advice of the contibuters to this site. Every case that is lost becomes a precedent that can be used against those who come after you. I would suggest that you not file pro se unless you feel confident that you can at least prepare an opposition to a motion to dismiss!
Thanks again everyone and good luck!
I was interviewed April 2006 before the FBI name check was completed. My wife's application was quickly approved and she was naturalized Sept 2006. I waited until Feb 2007 and then filed a 1447b case pro se. Name check was expidited and when 60 days were up US Attorney filed motion for extension and stated I was being scheduled for my Oath ceremony. We signed a joint motion to dismiss. I was sworn in last Wednesday.
I just want to thank Paz and the many other contributers to this site that made this possible. While my wait was not nearly as long as other's I had no desire to repeat the three year wait for my green card!
I am from Canada and was born there. So definately not a country on the watch list... so your experience might vary.
I do want to encourage others that despite previous government statements some 1447b cases are resulting in expidited name checks. Winning these cases may still be a long shot so I am not encouraging anyone to spend a fortune on lawyers, but for a $350 court fee and the cost of mailing summons it was definately worth my while!
One note of caution if you do chose to file pro se be commited enough to study the rules of civil procedure and the advice of the contibuters to this site. Every case that is lost becomes a precedent that can be used against those who come after you. I would suggest that you not file pro se unless you feel confident that you can at least prepare an opposition to a motion to dismiss!
Thanks again everyone and good luck!
Congratulations. Can you post your timeline ?
always.wired
Registered Users (C)
Anybody knows a good Name-Check WOM Lawyer in Seattle?
Folks,
Does anybody know a Lawyer in Seattle wh has a good history of success with Name Check WOM cases?
Folks,
Does anybody know a Lawyer in Seattle wh has a good history of success with Name Check WOM cases?