Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
I do not know what's the best solution to this. I have a big collection, but to make it searchable like this, somebody had to read thru all cases and connect them with the arguments. Probably we need to come up with the list of arguments first and then sort thru all cases?
Seems to me that Norton v southern utah wilderness alliance is used by both defendants and plaintiffs equally.
Take a look at AILF WOM clearinghouse (http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml). That could be the format/tructure for compiling and building the arguments. I think the natural holding place for this is on wikipedia. And by the way, the existing wikibook module (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check) isn't quite up to date and presents somewhat of a simplistic view that can be misleading, particularly given the latest development in WOM cases across the district/circuit courts. So, the new wiki module could either replace the current one or extend it or even exist in parallel.
In any event, it would perhaps need a bit of coordination. If you, Lazycis, can take the lead in getting it started, I would definitely squease some time out to contribute.
What I'm thinking is that we can put an initial structure of argument in place. And then we can just have people sign up to look through a number of cases and copy and paste citable arguments (with precise citation) into the appropriate sections of the module/structure. Initially, it doesn't have to be perfect, as long as we have the right citation/arguments in there. At some point, we can do a scrub of the whole module.
The advantage of the wiki module is that it becomes a collective effort and the result of the collective wisdom of this community. Also, none of us will have to worry about the backend/server space/location issue.
What do you guys think?
SLIS and lazycis
I have started doing this. I have started a simple excel spreadsheet and I'm going through cases filed in Jan 2007. My methodology is
1. Display all Chertoff related cases in Other Statutes in dockets. justia.com
2. Use Pacer to get the other details.
It's quite laborious but will finally pay off. I just found another MTD denied from Ohio filed on 8/13/2007. We need such latest decisions. I have uploaded my excel spreadsheet. I didn't capture the case # as we can easily get to the case with just the district.
Attached here is the ohio judgment and my xls file. May be we should have a google spreadsheet that a few of us maintain and others can refer to ?
I have started doing this. I have started a simple excel spreadsheet and I'm going through cases filed in Jan 2007. My methodology is
1. Display all Chertoff related cases in Other Statutes in dockets. justia.com
2. Use Pacer to get the other details.
It's quite laborious but will finally pay off. I just found another MTD denied from Ohio filed on 8/13/2007. We need such latest decisions. I have uploaded my excel spreadsheet. I didn't capture the case # as we can easily get to the case with just the district.
Attached here is the ohio judgment and my xls file. May be we should have a google spreadsheet that a few of us maintain and others can refer to ?
Regarding the Brief
Hi, lazycis
I have couple of questions regarding the Brief:
Can I request to assign a different attorney of the defendants, not only the judge? I would like to know if the case will definitely remand to the same district court for reconsider or further processings when we do an appeal, or if the circuit court can exercise independently or trasfer it to immigration court.
Thank you very much.
Xiaocao
Hi, lazycis
I have couple of questions regarding the Brief:
Can I request to assign a different attorney of the defendants, not only the judge? I would like to know if the case will definitely remand to the same district court for reconsider or further processings when we do an appeal, or if the circuit court can exercise independently or trasfer it to immigration court.
Thank you very much.
Xiaocao
That's a start. I like Excel format because it's possible to insert a reference to a different cell/worksheet behind a cell. Wiki is also good as we can create references to different articles. We can proceed in both directions and then see which one is better.
As for searching the cases, here is a tip I recently discovered: in pacer, click on "reports" link, then click on "written opinions". There you can search for opinions, which is free and it will save you a lot of time comparing to search in justia. Select "civil" as case type and search for all defendants names (chertoff, gonzales, gonzalez, mueller). It will save your money as well! A few courts have recent opinions pages (MA, MD, NH, PAED). However it does take time to search all district courts. Maybe we can split the load?
Hi Xiaocao,
You cannot ask appellate court to force defendants to change an attorney. Nor you can ask the circuit court to transfer venue unless the current venue is improper. What is possible is to ask the appellate court to convert your appeal into petition for review if the court agrees that indefinite delay in processing your application consitute the final agency decision for the purposes of 28 USC 1296. If the appellate court agrees to this, it may issue an order to compel USCIS to act upon your application (without remanding back to the district court). I assume that your case was dismissed for lack of subject matter. I may advance this argument in my reply brief.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the tip. It works. But some courts don't have written orders available on ECF (Alabama was one...). Let's split the work. Let's tackle this by state. I'll tackle states starting with "A" now.
vcs_victim
Registered Users (C)
8 USC 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii)
AGC4ME,
I also noticed that Eldeeb has a hit, but turned out to be a false positive. He was cleared later on for that.
I have my FOIPA results, and it came back clean.
I have found and attached an excellent analysis of the interpretation of the 8 USC 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) that was used by the government to attack our cases. I will use it in my reply along with other documents that you guys shared with me.
vcs_victim
AGC4ME,
I also noticed that Eldeeb has a hit, but turned out to be a false positive. He was cleared later on for that.
I have my FOIPA results, and it came back clean.
I have found and attached an excellent analysis of the interpretation of the 8 USC 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) that was used by the government to attack our cases. I will use it in my reply along with other documents that you guys shared with me.
vcs_victim
vcs_victim
1252 comes in to play only after the decision is rendered. But the AUSA's broaden its application so much. One of the ways you can argue is this way
1255 says "An alien may be adjusted by the AG, in his discretion and under regulations prescribed to, if
1. Alien makes an application
2. Alien is eligible
3. A visa number is available when the application is filed.
"
So, you can argue that the discretion of AG doesn't come in to play untill all the three conditions are satisfied. To claim that the entire process is discretionary is not valid, as the process itself is started not by the defendants but by the Plaintiff. When the AG doesn't even have the discretion to start the process how can he claim discretion ? USCIS and FBI are conducting eligibility validation which is not a discretionary process. 8 C.F.R lays down the required eligibility conditions, medical examination, interviews when needed and criminal background check. Except for interviews all the other are mandatory. Any delay in this eligibility determination is subject to APA. Those are my thoughts anyway.
1252 comes in to play only after the decision is rendered. But the AUSA's broaden its application so much. One of the ways you can argue is this way
1255 says "An alien may be adjusted by the AG, in his discretion and under regulations prescribed to, if
1. Alien makes an application
2. Alien is eligible
3. A visa number is available when the application is filed.
"
So, you can argue that the discretion of AG doesn't come in to play untill all the three conditions are satisfied. To claim that the entire process is discretionary is not valid, as the process itself is started not by the defendants but by the Plaintiff. When the AG doesn't even have the discretion to start the process how can he claim discretion ? USCIS and FBI are conducting eligibility validation which is not a discretionary process. 8 C.F.R lays down the required eligibility conditions, medical examination, interviews when needed and criminal background check. Except for interviews all the other are mandatory. Any delay in this eligibility determination is subject to APA. Those are my thoughts anyway.
15th_year_in_US
Registered Users (C)
Why we are here(delayed by FBI)/root cause
Dear AGC4ME and lazycis,
In my humble opinion, when you collect data, in order not to waist time,
couple of columns "National Origin" and "FIOPA response empty?"
should be added into spreadsheet.
They can be not fully filled so far, but this could be very valuable
column for a future litigants.
Many complains/decisions [incuding MTDs by Defense, Judge decisions] start with/mention national origin of plaintiff. So this information should be available.
Explanation below.
=================================================
So far, when we considered each event of delay as an [unjustified/unknown/arbitrary/capricious] delay by FBI all this topic held.
When we analyze statistically who is being held, denied, dismissed,
we can arrive to more interesting statistics and conclusions.
In the long run, our endeavors can be directed into slighly different channel.
The best channel is to sue Government in category "Discrimination based on national origin".
The proof is only possible with large statistical facts. These facts already probably exist in the hands of some people but full set maybe classified for a general public (for us, peons)
In my humble opinion, in order not to waist time,
we need to include column "National Origin" and "FIOPA response empty?"
into spreadsheets.
Let them be not fully filled so far, but this is very important.
=================================================
While we try to get our life back one by one (and try to argue that our case should not be dismissed based on lack of matter of jurisdiction), we, who do not have any information about why is Gov't [FBI] holds us in limbo while our FIOPA files are empty and application and interviews are without any flaws,
we are simply discriminated based on NATIONAL ORIGIN.
This is in my opinion root cause and this must be
proven in the long run. IF this be mentioned in our individual cases
this may be considered as unproven nonsense.
When statistic exist this may become arguable.
==============================
We don't need to go to far to understand that certain indications already exist from a Government to stop/check influx of foreigners of certain national origin.
For example let's take a look
at Green Card lottery- 2008 announcement.
For example on
http://www.visalaw.com/06oct1/06oct1.html
there is a list of (~16) countries indicated for exclusion by visa lottery.
Here is the list and reason (gov't version) why they excluded:
Natives of which countries are excluded?
The list has changed from DV 2007. Countries added to this list for DV 2008 are in bold:
· Brazil · Canada
· China - mainland China (nationals of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan ARE included)
· Colombia
· Dominican Republic
· El Salvador
· Haiti
· India
· Jamaica
· Mexico
· Pakistan
· Philippines
· Poland
· Peru · Russia
· South Korea
· United Kingdom (natives of Northern Ireland and Hong Kong are eligible, but natives of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, and the Turks and Calicos Islands are not eligible)
· Vietnam
Why was my country excluded?
The DV lottery is designed to increase the diversity of the overall pool of immigrants coming to the US . Countries that are proportionately over-represented in the immigrant population are excluded. Countries that have sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the past five years are put on to the list above.
People with national origin in the list above are over-represented-
so they are being held-off "a little". Name check is a good excuse.
It is interesting to know how many people in this forum and in lawsuits in the delayed list (especially with "empty" FIOPA response ) belong to the same national origin. I bet a lot by number and by percentage.
Certianly, there will be a lot of additions to the "delayed by unknown reason" list:
1) from Muslim countries (esp one where either there is disturbance or a war)
2) From all counties of the East which are/were considered as [potential] enemy
(for example: all Eastern ex Soviet Union block people must be obviously included)
3) countries with west-considered dictatorial regimes
===========================
More interesting column to include to proof the idea (although more difficult to dig in) is "Name check for derivative is cleared?"
Reason is simple. I ve heard for many cases where, misteriously or not mistreriously enough,
derivative(s) name check is cleared (typically quickly) while main applicant check
is pending. These are the cases that can be served as the good examples
for "Discrimination based on National Origin". The best example be when
main applicant is female while dependent is male.
Dear AGC4ME and lazycis,
In my humble opinion, when you collect data, in order not to waist time,
couple of columns "National Origin" and "FIOPA response empty?"
should be added into spreadsheet.
They can be not fully filled so far, but this could be very valuable
column for a future litigants.
Many complains/decisions [incuding MTDs by Defense, Judge decisions] start with/mention national origin of plaintiff. So this information should be available.
Explanation below.
=================================================
So far, when we considered each event of delay as an [unjustified/unknown/arbitrary/capricious] delay by FBI all this topic held.
When we analyze statistically who is being held, denied, dismissed,
we can arrive to more interesting statistics and conclusions.
In the long run, our endeavors can be directed into slighly different channel.
The best channel is to sue Government in category "Discrimination based on national origin".
The proof is only possible with large statistical facts. These facts already probably exist in the hands of some people but full set maybe classified for a general public (for us, peons)
In my humble opinion, in order not to waist time,
we need to include column "National Origin" and "FIOPA response empty?"
into spreadsheets.
Let them be not fully filled so far, but this is very important.
=================================================
While we try to get our life back one by one (and try to argue that our case should not be dismissed based on lack of matter of jurisdiction), we, who do not have any information about why is Gov't [FBI] holds us in limbo while our FIOPA files are empty and application and interviews are without any flaws,
we are simply discriminated based on NATIONAL ORIGIN.
This is in my opinion root cause and this must be
proven in the long run. IF this be mentioned in our individual cases
this may be considered as unproven nonsense.
When statistic exist this may become arguable.
==============================
We don't need to go to far to understand that certain indications already exist from a Government to stop/check influx of foreigners of certain national origin.
For example let's take a look
at Green Card lottery- 2008 announcement.
For example on
http://www.visalaw.com/06oct1/06oct1.html
there is a list of (~16) countries indicated for exclusion by visa lottery.
Here is the list and reason (gov't version) why they excluded:
Natives of which countries are excluded?
The list has changed from DV 2007. Countries added to this list for DV 2008 are in bold:
· Brazil · Canada
· China - mainland China (nationals of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan ARE included)
· Colombia
· Dominican Republic
· El Salvador
· Haiti
· India
· Jamaica
· Mexico
· Pakistan
· Philippines
· Poland
· Peru · Russia
· South Korea
· United Kingdom (natives of Northern Ireland and Hong Kong are eligible, but natives of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, and the Turks and Calicos Islands are not eligible)
· Vietnam
Why was my country excluded?
The DV lottery is designed to increase the diversity of the overall pool of immigrants coming to the US . Countries that are proportionately over-represented in the immigrant population are excluded. Countries that have sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the past five years are put on to the list above.
People with national origin in the list above are over-represented-
so they are being held-off "a little". Name check is a good excuse.
It is interesting to know how many people in this forum and in lawsuits in the delayed list (especially with "empty" FIOPA response ) belong to the same national origin. I bet a lot by number and by percentage.
Certianly, there will be a lot of additions to the "delayed by unknown reason" list:
1) from Muslim countries (esp one where either there is disturbance or a war)
2) From all counties of the East which are/were considered as [potential] enemy
(for example: all Eastern ex Soviet Union block people must be obviously included)
3) countries with west-considered dictatorial regimes
===========================
More interesting column to include to proof the idea (although more difficult to dig in) is "Name check for derivative is cleared?"
Reason is simple. I ve heard for many cases where, misteriously or not mistreriously enough,
derivative(s) name check is cleared (typically quickly) while main applicant check
is pending. These are the cases that can be served as the good examples
for "Discrimination based on National Origin". The best example be when
main applicant is female while dependent is male.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you very much, Lazycis.
My case was dismissed not only for lack of jurisdiction but also for failure to state a claim. As the attorney does not agree with that the delay is unreasonable. He has argued that the goverment does not have clear duty and we do not have clear right to adjudicate the case in any particular time frame. The judge used the same sentences in his order. They even do not admit that there is any delay in processing a namecheck for more than 4 years, simply say some cases can take longer.
Thanks again.
Xiaocao,
Did the judge actually say that your claims failed on both grounds: lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim? That would be very surprising because most opinions I have seen dismiss cases based on jurisdiction bar and decline to comment on their merits... Giving such unfavorable opinions on both grounds seems a little over the top. Nevertheless, I feel you have a strong case based on the long wait you have suffered, but it might take you a few extra steps to earn the eventual victory.
Meanwhile, have you explored other alternatives, e.g. writing to First Lady Laura Bush, your senators, and congressman? You never know what will work for you so better try everything you can think of. Like the saying goes: knock on every door and one of them will open.
Did the judge actually say that your claims failed on both grounds: lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim? That would be very surprising because most opinions I have seen dismiss cases based on jurisdiction bar and decline to comment on their merits... Giving such unfavorable opinions on both grounds seems a little over the top. Nevertheless, I feel you have a strong case based on the long wait you have suffered, but it might take you a few extra steps to earn the eventual victory.
Meanwhile, have you explored other alternatives, e.g. writing to First Lady Laura Bush, your senators, and congressman? You never know what will work for you so better try everything you can think of. Like the saying goes: knock on every door and one of them will open.
Approved
Just got a phone call from AUSA that my I-485 has been approved after having been pending for 3 year and 4 months for name check.
Thanks to WOM, otherwise gods know how much longer it will take.
AUSA said I can expect to receive the card in two weeks. We will see.
Thanks you all the people on this board who give me courage and support to fight this case.
Just got a phone call from AUSA that my I-485 has been approved after having been pending for 3 year and 4 months for name check.
Thanks to WOM, otherwise gods know how much longer it will take.
AUSA said I can expect to receive the card in two weeks. We will see.
Thanks you all the people on this board who give me courage and support to fight this case.
Just got a phone call from AUSA that my I-485 has been approved after having been pending for 3 year and 4 months for name check.
Thanks to WOM, otherwise gods know how much longer it will take.
AUSA said I can expect to receive the card in two weeks. We will see.
Thanks you all the people on this board who give me courage and support to fight this case.
Congratulations. Can you give us your timeline and state in which you filed ?