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

worried2007 said:
lazycis

im still waiting for my oath letter after my interview june 18 and they told me that they are still waiting for my A file to transfer from Nebraska to detroit.

i called customer service today and what the IO told me all u have to do is wait , USCIS will not work on ur calendar u have to work on theirs , how conveinant.

what do u suggest i would do?

is it safe to file a lawsuit after the 120 days pass or should i just wait indefinetly?

i know people that went for interview and in 1 month got their oath ?

any info is greatly appreciated
Click to expand...

worried,
I suggest asking help from senators/congressman for now and file 1447b immediately after 120 days if you did not get a response from USCIS.
I believe we are all mortals so waiting indefinitely is not an option, but you have to make a decision yourself regarding the lawsuit. I think it is safe, the USCIS cannot deny your application after you file a lawsuit and you can ask court to adjudicate your application.
It seems that some people do not have a problem with USCIS, but for those who got stuck lawsuit seems to be the only workable solution as USCIS "customer service" does not understand another language.
 
shvili said:
Yesterday we received the letter from CIS that my husband's oath is scheduled for August 22. Looks like they do move after stipulation and the AUSA's promise.

This question is to members who have "been there, done that" (I mean the Oath ceremony):) The letter asks to list any offenses (including traffic violations) but does NOT ask to provide any docs. Since the date of his N-400 interview (May 04) my husband had one speeding ticket and one parking ticket (both paid and driving school passed for the speeding). For the driving school we have his certificate, but I can't find his parking ticket or receipt. Do you think we really need to try to get a proof of his paid parking receipt? I remember Paz and other members mentioned that they brought the paid receipts to the ceremony. However, the form does not request to supply any documents, or receipts of paid fines. Also, we traveled three times to Europe (for a 10-14 days vacations each). Do you think his passport (his current citizenship country) with stamped dates of travel and visa attached would be sufficient? I think Paz said he wrote a list of all his travel, would that be necessary?

I'll appreciate any feedback...

As for the legal process, today is the deadline for our "meet and confer" and paralegal told me yesterday that nothing else is needed to file since the "stipulation to dismiss has been filed already". I have no other confirmation that this is correct but hope it is. Judge hasn't signed it into an order but hopefully she will soon.
Click to expand...


Shvilli,
Congratulations on the oath letter!
 
brendroba said:
Hi,

I am desparate to complete my naturalization and I am asking for your help and advise.

My case:
1. Applied on November 6th, 2006
2. Fingerprinted in December 2006
3. Interviewed on February 2007
4. Case pending due to delays in A-file transfer from Vermont Service Center to NY field office. Immigration officer that he is only waiting for that to complete the case and that I will be done in about two months.
5. 120 days were up in June 2007
6. I have written letters to immigration officer --> no response
7. I called USCIS in May 2007 and asked them for case status update. They sent me the letter in the mail asking me to call them back if they don't get back to me within 6 months.
8. As soon as the case was outside processing times (on website it is noted that they are now processing Applications with priority date Dec 12, 2006, and as you can see I applied in November 2006), I called them again and asked for status update. Since the case was now outside of processing time, the immigration officer on the phone created referral and asked for update to be sent to me.
9. Update was sent to me around June 15, and in that letter now I was told that USCIS shouuld get back to me within 60 days.


It looks like they just keep sending me letters that state that they will respond within xx days, and if they don't bla bla bla I should call them back.


WHAT DO I NEED TO DO PLEEEEAAASSSSEEE???????

I WANT TO FIGHT THIS.

Should I wait? Should I write to senators, congressmens? Should I take them to the court? If I take them to the court, should I hire a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Dear brendroba!
I think first thing you want to find out is what is the main problem? I mean why are they not sending you the oath letter. Different Geniuses at USCIS will tell you differnt stories, but I think the best way to find out is to call the 800 number and ask them to transfer your call to the Immigration officer. In my personal opinion, u should not wait more and file 1447b as soon as possible. PM me if you need help in filing 1447b. Good luck to you!! regards, dude
 
DUDE12190 said:
Dear brendroba!
I think first thing you want to find out is what is the main problem? I mean why are they not sending you the oath letter. Different Geniuses at USCIS will tell you differnt stories, but I think the best way to find out is to call the 800 number and ask them to transfer your call to the Immigration officer. In my personal opinion, u should not wait more and file 1447b as soon as possible. PM me if you need help in filing 1447b. Good luck to you!! regards, dude
Click to expand...

Hey Dude,
It's nice to see you back helping others! I really have limited experience with 1447b so it'd be great if you can share yours.
It seems that brendroba's case is stuck waiting for A-file transfer. Needless to say, USCIS has a tendency to lose A-files (OIG report, anyone?) so I think lawsuit is the only option at this point.
 
DUDE12190 said:
Hello Shvili, Paz, Lazycis and all other members!
Shvili, congratulations to you and your husband. You have worked very hard one this and I am really very happy for your victory.

Yes, I think it is a good idea to call your local DMV office and ask them if they could send the proof that you have paid for that ticket. You are going to answer "YES" to that question in the oath letter, so they may ask you to show that you paid. For me, I answered no to all questions, so they did not ask me anything, but I remember, they were asking for some documents for some people who answered "Yes". It also depends who is the supervisor of that oath ceronomy. I mean is she/he strict or not. And also for travel, you should bring everything and if you went to any country in Europe where you did not get stamped, just write it down and tell them. Otherwise, if you have stamp, you husband should be fine as long as he brings his passport there. Good luck to you and your husband!! And best of luck to all those still fighting!!! regards, dude
Click to expand...
Congratulations again!

I happened to see quite a few people that were sent to Traffic Court to get the evidence of clearing the tickets. Traffic school papers did not work. The ones bounced were usually re-scheduled either for the later ceremony on the same day or for the next ceremony. The people returning from the Traffic Court were presenting some printout forms for which they had to drive to the court and wait in a 15-20 min line there. Probably it would be good idea to get that printout from the Traffic Court prior to the oath ceremony.

http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/contact/contacts_traffic.htm

The officer only wanted to know when and how long I was absent. She penciled down dates without asking for proof.

Best of luck,
snorlax
 
snorlax said:
Congratulations again!

I happened to see quite a few people that were sent to Traffic Court to get the evidence of clearing the tickets. Traffic school papers did not work. The ones bounced were usually re-scheduled either for the later ceremony on the same day or for the next ceremony. The people returning from the Traffic Court were presenting some printout forms for which they had to drive to the court and wait in a 15-20 min line there. Probably it would be good idea to get that printout from the Traffic Court prior to the oath ceremony.

http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/contact/contacts_traffic.htm

The officer only wanted to know when and how long I was absent. She penciled down dates without asking for proof.

Best of luck,
snorlax
Click to expand...

Snorlax,

Thank you for the very valuable info. I was not sure if our dr. school "certificate" would suffice, but now (thanks to your and Dude's answers) we'll get printouts from the traffic court. It's better be safe than sorry, and the last thing we want is my husband's ceremony rescheduled (after almost 4 yrs of waiting):eek:

Thank you again!
 
DUDE12190 said:
Hello Shvili, Paz, Lazycis and all other members!
Shvili, congratulations to you and your husband. You have worked very hard one this and I am really very happy for your victory.

Yes, I think it is a good idea to call your local DMV office and ask them if they could send the proof that you have paid for that ticket. You are going to answer "YES" to that question in the oath letter, so they may ask you to show that you paid. For me, I answered no to all questions, so they did not ask me anything, but I remember, they were asking for some documents for some people who answered "Yes". It also depends who is the supervisor of that oath ceronomy. I mean is she/he strict or not. And also for travel, you should bring everything and if you went to any country in Europe where you did not get stamped, just write it down and tell them. Otherwise, if you have stamp, you husband should be fine as long as he brings his passport there. Good luck to you and your husband!! And best of luck to all those still fighting!!! regards, dude
Click to expand...

Dude,

thank you for your help! I'm now calling the Trafffic court number (from the link Snorlax provided) We'll see what they say (-looong waiting on phone trying to talk to records division).

Technically speaking, I wonder what happens to those who put "no" in all fields even while they had a minor offence??? I suspect, CIS would not search it on those guys and even if this later becomes known what are they going to do? Take away citizenship because a person failed to disclose a traffic (minor) offence??? I don't think so! But in our case, my husband actually had a prior traffic ticket (also paid and dr. school cleared 9 yrs ago) which (under the old CIS rules) he did not report when he filed his N-400. Since the form only asks "since you had your naturalization interview" not disclosing it should not violate anything.

Just spoke to the tr. court clerk: she said that we have to go there and make a request, they then search microfilm and it takes several weeks to get the answer! When I explained that the ceremony is Aug 22, she said "get it requested right away, you may not get it on time". So now I'm going to the traffic court.

I'll post later on the developments.
 
MTD denied on my case

Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.
 
shvili said:
Dude,

thank you for your help! I'm now calling the Trafffic court number (from the link Snorlax provided) We'll see what they say (-looong waiting on phone trying to talk to records division).

Technically speaking, I wonder what happens to those who put "no" in all fields even while they had a minor offence??? I suspect, CIS would not search it on those guys and even if this later becomes known what are they going to do? Take away citizenship because a person failed to disclose a traffic (minor) offence??? I don't think so! But in our case, my husband actually had a prior traffic ticket (also paid and dr. school cleared 9 yrs ago) which (under the old CIS rules) he did not report when he filed his N-400. Since the form only asks "since you had your naturalization interview" not disclosing it should not violate anything.

Just spoke to the tr. court clerk: she said that we have to go there and make a request, they then search microfilm and it takes several weeks to get the answer! When I explained that the ceremony is Aug 22, she said "get it requested right away, you may not get it on time". So now I'm going to the traffic court.

I'll post later on the developments.
Click to expand...
Hi Shvili,

People that I talked to drove straight to the Traffic Court and stood in a line there without making any requests. Once they reached the clerk – they just asked for a receipt for their traffic ticket payment. The clerk would find their name in the database, print something out of his/her computer and hand it over. The printouts looked like something that anyone could have generated using a laser printer – so seals or stamps. I saw people missed their morning ceremony driving to the Traffic Court and back, but later attending afternoon ceremony no problem. Certainly no requests of any kind…

Best of luck,
snorlax
 
snorlax said:
Hi Shvili,

People that I talked to drove straight to the Traffic Court and stood in a line there without making any requests. Once they reached the clerk – they just asked for a receipt for their traffic ticket payment. The clerk would find their name in the database, print something out of his/her computer and hand it over. The printouts looked like something that anyone could have generated using a laser printer – so seals or stamps. I saw people missed their morning ceremony driving to the Traffic Court and back, but later attending afternoon ceremony no problem. Certainly no requests of any kind…

Best of luck,
snorlax
Click to expand...

Snorlax,

I also went to the traffic court and the clerk said, the most recent ticket is available (and I guess she could print it) but the 2003 citation is on microfilm and the charge for searching for it is 15.00. I paid, and she said someone will be in touch with me within 2 weeks to pick up official printout. Either she was a bit greedy or it's a newer rule, but she didn't actually say she can just print right away even the recent ticket receipt. She asked if I need the official letter with the letter head, and I said yes (the more official the better) and she said that's what other naturalization applicants request. Perhaps if I directly requested the printout of the most recent receipt she would do it. But now it's too late and if anything, I'm $15.00 short. You see, his 2003 citation happened BEFORE his interview, so he doesn't have to provide it according to the letter. But since he never disclosed it (was not asked in 2003), it's probably better to get it. Clerk said, they keep records for 5 yrs and then store them on microfilm. There are earlier citations which I have to get from a different court (it was in another city in CA) But the first thing, we'll call CIS or even the AO directly and ask him if we need receipts for those earlier ones (6 and 9 yrs ago).
 
how to find what other cases my AUSA/Judge have

Is there a way to find out how a particular AUSA replies generally, and how a specific judge rules on mandamus cases? Or any experiences of the current forum members about my AUSA and District and Magistrate Judge. Here are the details:
AUSA: Marcus M Kerner
Court: California Central District Court
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Andrew J. Guilford
Referring Judge: Marc L. Goldman
 
shvili said:
Snorlax,

I also went to the traffic court and the clerk said, the most recent ticket is available (and I guess she could print it) but the 2003 citation is on microfilm and the charge for searching for it is 15.00. I paid, and she said someone will be in touch with me within 2 weeks to pick up official printout. Either she was a bit greedy or it's a newer rule, but she didn't actually say she can just print right away even the recent ticket receipt. She asked if I need the official letter with the letter head, and I said yes (the more official the better) and she said that's what other naturalization applicants request. Perhaps if I directly requested the printout of the most recent receipt she would do it. But now it's too late and if anything, I'm $15.00 short. You see, his 2003 citation happened BEFORE his interview, so he doesn't have to provide it according to the letter. But since he never disclosed it (was not asked in 2003), it's probably better to get it. Clerk said, they keep records for 5 yrs and then store them on microfilm. There are earlier citations which I have to get from a different court (it was in another city in CA) But the first thing, we'll call CIS or even the AO directly and ask him if we need receipts for those earlier ones (6 and 9 yrs ago).
Click to expand...
I would agree that $15 is not much compared to the possibility of the Oath ceremony being postponed… Probably people that I saw had recent tickets and did not request official letterhead.

Best of luck,
snorlax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
missingpa said:
Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.
Click to expand...


Missingpa,

that's a great victory! I'm so happy for you! The judge said he's not convinced the delay is reasonable, so what you have to do is to persuade him in your MSJ that it is in fact UNREASONABLE. With your very good language I think you can do a great job. Cite other cases which ruled a 20 + months delay was unreasonable. The only thing, some of those are 1447 naturalization cases, but since we discuss the same exactly delay-your security check and since your judge confirmed that it is necessary in I-485 cases ( re. Lazycis point that it's not statutory-maybe, but as I said before, hardly any judge, even a reasonable one, would say that it is not required in AOS/485 cases)- so since it is exactly the same delay and in very similar cases (both for immigration benefit and both - apparently - require security checks), you can argue that those rulings on unreasonable delays from different districts are applicable to your delays. So IMHO, you should start preparing your Motion for Summary Judgement.

Lazycis has posted several more great cases, and one forum member's denial of MTD is very good.

And here's the important thought: just from following the forum and my district, I see quite a few rulings on MTD (in Plaintiffs favor) and then-no rulings at all for later stages (like MSJ or hearings). There are hardly any later orders on MSJs instructing to complete nc within XX days. If this is indeed true, it only means one thing: once judge denies MTD defendants expedite for sure even in AOS cases and so cases are resolved before any further stage is involved. Because after MTD, is denied, case looks even more hopeless for AUSAs so they can push for expediting security checks. Once these results are received by CIS, it hurries up to adjudicate-they want to save $$$ and even more $$$ if case prolongs in court.. This scenario excludes cases where case is delayed indefinitely in transfer in route from one CIS center to another, and in these cases, especially in N-400 cases I really think people shouldn't wait and just sue the suckers as soon as 120 days are due. If anyone can follow up a disappeared case (once MTD was denied) my logic can easily be checked on Pacer. But the only logical explanation of "disappeared cases" after denied MTD is that these cases are resolved!

Based on these thoughts, Missingpa, I really hope your chances of good news are increasing by every passing minute now. Meanwhile prepare your next brief and feel proud- you won one crucial stage in your battle!
 
Hi Missingpa, which state are you in?


missingpa said:
Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.
Click to expand...
 
lazycis said:
Check this post
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?p=1733461#post1733461
Basically, they cannot justify such delay by A-file transfer. They have to proceed using T-file (temporary file) if A-file is not received within 30 days. Prepare and file 1447b suit, it will cost you $350+mailing expenses, but you will see the results very quickly.
There is no need to write to senators/etc as it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies for 1447b suit.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and DUDE's advice to Brendroba that waiting in his/her case is no use. If you had a nc delay, I would suggest to wait as the issue of "reasonableness" of the delay is considered. But in a case stalled between CIS centers defendants would have a hard time answering to judge why sending your file from, say, Nebraska to CA took more than 120 days...;)

So Brandroba, go ahead and sue the suckers! You can get plenty of 1447 templates from us on the forum. Good luck!
 
missingpa said:
Hi everyone,

I am glad to report that the judge on my case has issued an order denying Defendants' MTD. To bring everyone up to speed, my case is in the central district of CA and my AOS application has been delayed for 2.25 years. Two weeks after I filed my OPP in late June, the AUSA filed a reply brief where she attached 4 recent court orders in my district all favoring the government. Fortunately, the judge on my case is really immigrant-friendly and denied the MTD despite that.

In the opinion the judge says:

In conclusion, the Court is not prepared, at this stage, to compel immediate adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications; nor does it express an opinion as to the proper outcome of their review. However, assuming that Plaintiffs' factual allegations are true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the inference that Defendants' delay is potentially unreasonable. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court recognizes that district courts are split on this issue and that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address it. The Court also understands Defendants' need to ensure that a full and complete background check is conducted before granting or denying and I-485 application. Nevertheless, the Count does not believe that Congress intended to exempt the pace at which Defendants process these applications from all judicial review. Because, at the pleading stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it cannot hold as a matter of law that Defendants' 27-month delay is reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion must be denied. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment in this matter.

How should I proceed at this point, gurus? Please give me some suggestions.
Click to expand...

great victory for you missinpa !!!!
 
What does Id. stand for?

Hi everybody,

Could you tell me what Id. stands for in the following paragraph?


"On December 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed I-485
applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent
residents. (Comp. PP 2, 11). The applications were filed
by Plaintiff Lei Xu through her company lawyer with the
Vermont Service Center. :confused: (Id. at P 11):confused: ".
 
aryin said:
Hi everybody,

Could you tell me what Id. stands for in the following paragraph?


"On December 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed I-485
applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent
residents. (Comp. PP 2, 11). The applications were filed
by Plaintiff Lei Xu through her company lawyer with the
Vermont Service Center. :confused: (Id. at P 11):confused: ".
Click to expand...

From http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/:

Idem -
Latin, same

: something previously mentioned: the same authority (used in citations to cases and other works to refer to an immediately preceding reference)
(compare infra supra)
Note: Idem is usu. used in the form of its abbreviation id.
Example: In Bally, the plaintiff also claimed . . . 403 Mass. at 720-21. The [court] denied the claim . . . Id. at 721 -- R. T. Gerwatowski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top