I am sorry to hear that. Your judge's order is one of the harshest I have ever seen. I guess since you have exhausted all the other alternatives, you will have to bite the bullet and try to win that appeal, which will depend on not only how strong your case is but also other factors such as luck, your AUSA, your judge, etc. But I would not lose hope and still give it 100%. After all, it will only be a matter of time before you get your GC eventually.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Name check Tolerance time
Can someone tell me what would be the reasonable time to file WOM against FBI and USCIS for name check delay? I know it’s only 10 moths since I am waiting But I have feeling that nothing will be happen in next few years If I don’t take any initiative to speed up the process.
I filed concurrent EB2 ROW application in Oct 2006.I I-40 approved in three weeks and 485 is pending because of name check/security check.
I contact congresswomen and they send letter three months ago to FBI and FBI never replied back. I contact USCIS they said they can’t process since background check is pending and contact us again after six months.
Can someone tell me what would be the reasonable time to file WOM against FBI and USCIS for name check delay? I know it’s only 10 moths since I am waiting But I have feeling that nothing will be happen in next few years If I don’t take any initiative to speed up the process.
I filed concurrent EB2 ROW application in Oct 2006.I I-40 approved in three weeks and 485 is pending because of name check/security check.
I contact congresswomen and they send letter three months ago to FBI and FBI never replied back. I contact USCIS they said they can’t process since background check is pending and contact us again after six months.
Lazycis,
I tend to disagree. I think it is a positive sign that your AUSA showed you respect. AUSAs always have to do their job and defend the government. But after you win a victory in the court, this respect will likely be very useful in having the AUSA help you get what you want.
I tend to disagree. I think it is a positive sign that your AUSA showed you respect. AUSAs always have to do their job and defend the government. But after you win a victory in the court, this respect will likely be very useful in having the AUSA help you get what you want.
LazyCIS, Sorry that you have to go the long way, but if that makes you feel better you are not alone. I don't know the details of your case, nevertheless I believe in a good outcome, since you are equipped with strong knowledge.
Is this GC or citizenship you are fighting for ?
Also, thanks for the replies to my posts, I'm waiting and keep on reading this forum
lena
LazyCIS, Sorry that you have to go the long way, but if that makes you feel better you are not alone. I don't know the details of your case, nevertheless I believe in a good outcome, since you are equipped with strong knowledge.
Is this GC or citizenship you are fighting for ?
Also, thanks for the replies to my posts, I'm waiting and keep on reading this forum
lena
Lena,
Maybe I have an unusual attitude, but I do believe that everything that's happening in my life has a purpose. So I am not necessarily upset about going all the way. Most likely, I would not be here helping others if I had my GC.
Having said this, looks like you like to be prepared beforehand. I like your style! When you finish working on summons, you can start working on opposition to MTD
continue
sorry, the post got eaten up...
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=19037
I found that it's better to include USA General as defendant because of the above case. Most of the people here do not do that, but only serve him with complaint+summonts. Why is that ?
"
sorry, the post got eaten up...
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=19037
I found that it's better to include USA General as defendant because of the above case. Most of the people here do not do that, but only serve him with complaint+summonts. Why is that ?
"
I guess, I found a browser bug: pasted text is cut out from the post using my current browser..trying Firefox now.
Despite finding jurisdiction over the petitions, most of the courts ultimately declined to adjudicate the applications because the FBI checks were not complete. In several cases, the courts remanded the naturalization applications to USCIS.
However, in one significant case, Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales, No. 05-1584 (D. Ore. Mar. 22, 2006) (unpublished), the district court ordered Attorney General Gonzales to instruct the FBI to complete a name check for a naturalization applicant awaiting a decision for several years. The court said that if USCIS did not receive a completed name check within 90 days, USCIS shall treat that failure as a successfully completed name check and issue the certificate of naturalization. In a footnote, the court observed that the FBI is a component of the Department of Justice. Thus, it was important that the petitioner in the INA § 336(b) action had named not only DHS officials, but the Attorney General as well.
Despite finding jurisdiction over the petitions, most of the courts ultimately declined to adjudicate the applications because the FBI checks were not complete. In several cases, the courts remanded the naturalization applications to USCIS.
However, in one significant case, Al-Kudsi v. Gonzales, No. 05-1584 (D. Ore. Mar. 22, 2006) (unpublished), the district court ordered Attorney General Gonzales to instruct the FBI to complete a name check for a naturalization applicant awaiting a decision for several years. The court said that if USCIS did not receive a completed name check within 90 days, USCIS shall treat that failure as a successfully completed name check and issue the certificate of naturalization. In a footnote, the court observed that the FBI is a component of the Department of Justice. Thus, it was important that the petitioner in the INA § 336(b) action had named not only DHS officials, but the Attorney General as well.
Lena,
Maybe I have an unusual attitude, but I do believe that everything that's happening in my life has a purpose. So I am not necessarily upset about going all the way. Most likely, I would not be here helping others if I had my GC.
Having said this, looks like you like to be prepared beforehand. I like your style! When you finish working on summons, you can start working on opposition to MTD
I already started collecting different reasons for dismissals and look for texts of oppositions. Just don't have enough time... there's too much to read. This board is really great, dont' know what I'd have done without it, thankfully to you and many others taking their time to answer questions.
My dear friend,
It is a good sign. The e-mail itself is very encouraging. I did not expect getting updates from my AUSA. The bad part is that it's not over yet and AUSA told me that she did not get an answer regarding the reason for the delay. She sounded upset that she is a government attorney yet she was not able to get details from the FBI. So I am not sure if she is able to help me (I mean, she is not in position to change anything).
She also wrote "Whatever happens with this appeal, I'll continue to see what I can do". So I am not complaining.
Yes. Mr.Paul Papak delivered this judgment and my case is pending with him too. He knows that an FBI name check is not a statutory requirement but rather an administrative decision by USCIS in response to 9-11. For your question yes you have to include Attorney General of USA (Alberto Gonzales) as a defendant in your complaint. Everyone does. What we also do is send a copy to the Assistant US Attorney for the state, he represents Alberto Gonzales and other federal defendants.
lazy,
did you write to first lady yet ? in my case name check was done early May and neither the AUSA nor CIS knew about it. AUSA's function thru Dept. paralegals who follow up with their clients and prepare briefs etc. Paralegals have their own frequency of checking with different agencies so chances are the AUSA is getting info from paralegal which may be about a month old. My attorny told me to keep legislative efforts (like contacting senator, first lady etc) on even while fighting in court.
Yes, I did write to Mrs. Bush and to her husband as well. No response from either one yet.
Catching up...
SLIS,
I have not posted my complaint, because I choose to combine 1447 with WOM and this was (and still is) not a standard practice in 1447 cases. If your friend wants to combine, he can pm me and I'll provide him with my complaint draft. Mine also has some "legalese" in the text and I would recommend the Mohamed 1447+WOM (attached) to use as a template. Also below is a couple of 1447 complaints from my district, (warning! Xiao asks to grant his Nat-n, which is incorrect).
Overall, 2 yrs is a long time to wait, your friend should file! WOM complaint of Raessi (also N-400 case, posted) is somewhat similar to mine. Good luck to him!
SLIS,
I have not posted my complaint, because I choose to combine 1447 with WOM and this was (and still is) not a standard practice in 1447 cases. If your friend wants to combine, he can pm me and I'll provide him with my complaint draft. Mine also has some "legalese" in the text and I would recommend the Mohamed 1447+WOM (attached) to use as a template. Also below is a couple of 1447 complaints from my district, (warning! Xiao asks to grant his Nat-n, which is incorrect).
Overall, 2 yrs is a long time to wait, your friend should file! WOM complaint of Raessi (also N-400 case, posted) is somewhat similar to mine. Good luck to him!
Paz1960 and gurus on naturalization cases,
I have an AOS case. So, that's what I've been focusing on up to this point.
Now, I have a friend who wants to file a citizenship case. He's had an interview and his name check has been pending for 2 years now. I'd like to give him some help if possible.
Do you know if shvili posted her complaint as a sample? I can't seem to find it. Any pointer to a recent sample complaint would be greatly appreciated.
Halotinman,
There is no mistake in your quoting 336(b), if you referred to INA 336 (b). As you can see from the docs I attached above, it is done and is quite standard. The confusion you may have comes from two intersecting systems, INA and the United States Code. When INA was enacted quite a while ago, it simply combined United States Code statues pertinent to Immigration to one system, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In parallel, there is a United States Code (USC) which includes 1447(b). So although it is a bit redundant to quote both 336(b) and 1447 (b), they are in effect two (identical) laws you use in your complaint.
Also, your confusion is similar to mine which I had in the beginning: since #336 applies to Denials, 336(b) should also apply to DENIALS. (The same holds for 1447 section). Logically, it should be this way but for some reason these sub chapters are also referred in cases outside of denials, so both 336 (b) and 1447 (b) are applicable in delayed Nat-n cases (with interview).
SO you do not need to amend at all, according to this.
Good luck!
There is no mistake in your quoting 336(b), if you referred to INA 336 (b). As you can see from the docs I attached above, it is done and is quite standard. The confusion you may have comes from two intersecting systems, INA and the United States Code. When INA was enacted quite a while ago, it simply combined United States Code statues pertinent to Immigration to one system, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In parallel, there is a United States Code (USC) which includes 1447(b). So although it is a bit redundant to quote both 336(b) and 1447 (b), they are in effect two (identical) laws you use in your complaint.
Also, your confusion is similar to mine which I had in the beginning: since #336 applies to Denials, 336(b) should also apply to DENIALS. (The same holds for 1447 section). Logically, it should be this way but for some reason these sub chapters are also referred in cases outside of denials, so both 336 (b) and 1447 (b) are applicable in delayed Nat-n cases (with interview).
SO you do not need to amend at all, according to this.
Good luck!
NC-Pending,
I agree with DUDE's reply which agrees with my experience: if FP is scheduled, it is often a sign of completed name check (that's what happened in my husband's case).
According to CIS regulations, FP must be updated every 15 months (why is a mystery to me, though). So if in your case they requested one out of order, it's especially encouraging sign. I'd hope for the best in your case (but of course be always prepared for the worst
).halotinman
Registered Users (C)
Thanks lazycis! I talked to the AUSA about my mistake in quoting 336(b) and he said it was not such a big problem. I asked if the mistake was going to be problematic. He did not respond to that question but he did say that if it would make me more comfortable, i should file an amended complaint. So i think this is what i am going to do. Do i have to have a page that describes the changes?
I contacted AUSA today since it's been about 6 weeks since i filed the complaint. AUSA told me that he has no update for me and if he does not see any update (from USCIS/FBI) a few days prior to the deadline, he will most likely file a 60-day extension. He said he would discuss with me if he's going to file an extension. Should i agree to this? What are my options?
Thanks again for your help as usual.
Missingpa, Congratulations!!! You deserved your victory more than many of us as you had to fight for it so hard. I'm very happy for you and hope, by the time u're ready for nat-n all this delay mess will be over.
AGC4ME, 1447 (b) is based on the very 120 days rule in nat-n cases, which lacks in AOS cases. So this distinction is very useful to all 1447(b) plaintiffs to quote. U're right about the new regulations, but unfortunately CIS continues to violate their own reg-ns as we see more cases with delays after the interview.
This is a great find! I think that everyone who plans to write MSJ or Opp MTD (which is based on 1252 jurisdiction limitations) should read it before writing their briefs! It gives great overview of all pro/con arguments and favors plaintiffs in its logic.
Haolitnman,
please read my previous post before making a decision to amend: you really should not trust your AUSA to provide you with a sound legal advice
.A little correction: both 336 (b) and 1447 (b) are not illogical because both of them refer to sections 335 and 1446 respectively. These referred sections are NOT about denials but about the Nat-n process itself, so both statues are actually quite logical. I forgot about it in my previous post, but everything else in it is correct.
SO again, you made NO MISTAKE in quoting 336 (b), it's only a tautology as it repeats section 1447 (b).
andrew_sun
Registered Users (C)
My I-485 approved after WoM
Dear All,
I just want to thank you all in this forums and espacially those senior members, such as lazycis and others.
I-485 filed July 2003, EB2.
I filed my Complaint in May 19, 2007;
AUSA filed MTD, in July 3;
I filed opposition in July 19;
I filed Motion for Summary judgment on Aug 3, 2007.
I received the welcome notices and cards last Saturday.
However, there are still something I have to handle painfully. All the greed cards (including my wife's and my son's) have an error: Country of Birth is filled with "UNKNOWN".
I informed AUSA to seek her help and told her I wound not voluntary dissmiss the case now, so she filed a reply (today) to court to support the previous MTD and said that the application were approved and the case in this court became moot, and should be dismissed.
Can I ask the court to continue to hold the case? To make sure the USCIS to send me the correct green card. Can I augue that the USCIS did not finish the process for my case because they send incorrect cards to us?
I appriecates all your help and time.
Andrew
Dear All,
I just want to thank you all in this forums and espacially those senior members, such as lazycis and others.
I-485 filed July 2003, EB2.
I filed my Complaint in May 19, 2007;
AUSA filed MTD, in July 3;
I filed opposition in July 19;
I filed Motion for Summary judgment on Aug 3, 2007.
I received the welcome notices and cards last Saturday.
However, there are still something I have to handle painfully. All the greed cards (including my wife's and my son's) have an error: Country of Birth is filled with "UNKNOWN".
I informed AUSA to seek her help and told her I wound not voluntary dissmiss the case now, so she filed a reply (today) to court to support the previous MTD and said that the application were approved and the case in this court became moot, and should be dismissed.
Can I ask the court to continue to hold the case? To make sure the USCIS to send me the correct green card. Can I augue that the USCIS did not finish the process for my case because they send incorrect cards to us?
I appriecates all your help and time.
Andrew