Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Congratulations !
Congratulation! cases like yours make me wish I'd filed long time ago !
If I may ask you, could you post the text of MTD and the answer to MTD ? I'm curious about the reason.
Congratulation! cases like yours make me wish I'd filed long time ago !
If I may ask you, could you post the text of MTD and the answer to MTD ? I'm curious about the reason.
Thank you.
Also to MT100 (whose AO told there was no need to disclose travel tickets):
That CIS doc said, "some misrepresentations do not necessarily disqualify you form naturalization... an innocent omission or misstatement of a fact may be excused in some circumstances" It's a "repeated omissions" that counted. Back when my husband had an interview, the N-400 form didn't even have the questions on traffic tickets so he answered "no" there. 2 wks ago this IO lied to him when she asked to appear for a routine signing-she should have told, it was a repeated interview. That's what made me angry. I simply don't think we should "bend over and smile" when they abuse their power by lying and picking on non-existent excuses. But I definitely think everyone should make sure all facts in their files are truthful and clear, to avoid any reason for the bad outcome.
Good job!
Congratulations to you and your husband. This is a lucky day on the forum, 2 victories
Have you filed all papers Pro Se or with a lawyer ?
I also will be filing in SF next month, Pro Se, can't wait to get all this settled one way or another.
Congratulations to you and your husband. This is a lucky day on the forum, 2 victories
Have you filed all papers Pro Se or with a lawyer ?
I also will be filing in SF next month, Pro Se, can't wait to get all this settled one way or another.
I am looking for WOM victory case in S.D. NY
Hi AGC4ME,
I am looking for WOM victory case in S.D. NY. Because the court schedules the conference for my case next month.
Hi AGC4ME,
I am looking for WOM victory case in S.D. NY. Because the court schedules the conference for my case next month.
Lenaf,
My case was wiered. On or about July 05 AUSA filed MTD stating name check pending. However on July 14 I received reply from FBI to my first lady letter that name check was done in early May and sent to CIS. So My attorney filed an opposition to MTD stating that defendents are making contradictory claims . That got the ball rolling and AUSA finally sprung into action. I will get the documents from my attorney and post them here soon.
In your case there is no better time like now for you to file. Why ? During May06-Jan07 there was a great period where every mandmus case was getting automatic name check expedite, then came the ugly Feb07-June07 period where AUSA's started filing MTDs and answers to mandmus cases. Now in Aug 07--?? is a period where most N400 mandmus cases are getting expidited name check. Hopefully AOS mandmus will also follow suit soon as we are seeing more and more AOS MTD's being denied. I am thinking that you will see a return to the old May06-Jan07 automatic expedite period soon. So I suggest you file now.
I was exactly in your position in April 07 when 786riz got his oath by filing in Feb. while I sat and watched him. In April 786riz helped me to file pro-se. Thanks to help from 786riz, paz1960 and shvilli I managed to file pro-se and was prepared to handle MTD using paz1960's now famous oppostion to MTD, variants of which have now been filed in many mandmus cases. However, I decided that if judge orders hearing then I need an attorney, so I decided to go with one for the MTD itself.
Great giants of federal mandmus litigation are all around us in this forum. So just feel free to dip into this vast resourse that is this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for posting this one, AGC4ME!!!!
This case has almost identical timeline as mine. I'm waiting for a ruling on my MSJ. I'm thinking I should file this as a supplemental support for my MSJ.Have been swamped the last few days and just got the first chance to breathe and checked this forum. You've made my day!
You're welcome SLIS
4th Circuit is one of the tough places to fight I485 WoMs. It includes Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina which are all kinda places where Judges are not sympathetic to WoMs. In fact Maryland had 2 WoMs MTD granted in each case just recently. Chasanow and Motz granted defendants MTD.
4th Circuit is one of the tough places to fight I485 WoMs. It includes Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina which are all kinda places where Judges are not sympathetic to WoMs. In fact Maryland had 2 WoMs MTD granted in each case just recently. Chasanow and Motz granted defendants MTD.
Great news for 5th circuit. More details:
http://www.ailf.org/lac/natz_delay0806.shtml
as per this document
Also, Westlaw, at the court’s request, withdrew the court’s opinion from the bound volume. Because the publication has been withdrawn, the original Walji citation (489 F.3d 738) cannot be cited.
So does that mean 5th circuit is good now for 1447b ? ie AUSA cannot pull Walji in MTDs any more ? This would be great news for 5th circuit N400s
Congratulations, shvili! Well-deserved victory. So, it looks like the full-blown official letter from the Traffic Court came handy after all...
Do not get angry at poor bureaucrats, they just do not want to get bothered by all those pesky immigrants while collecting their decent salaries and fat governmental benefits. You have won, so just put all this behind and focus on home schooling.
Congratulations once again!
snorlax
Congratulations, lotechguy! Great victory!
Also many thanks for supporting others in this forum and providing important documents!
All the best to you in your future endeavors.
snorlax
Wow! I read the whole document and tried to see if I can come up with some opinions but apparently I'm not knowledgable enough to give you any at this time.
However, I do have a question regarding to the arguments about "unlawfully withheld". How did you find out who has reviewed you petition? Was it through discovery or was it in administrative record? If it was from discovery, did the defendants agreed to do this kind of discovery, or did the court forced them to do it. How did you phrase your discovery requests?
Thanks!
shvili,
congratulations on your well deserved victory and thanks for your encouragement!
That is great news for me as I just filed in SD of Texas. Even though I filed an I-485 case, I expected to see this case in the MTD. Unfortunately, I am in the one of the worst District's and have one of the worst judge's.
I would like to express my enormous gratitude for this thread and the active posters. I lurked for months while preparing/researching and then pulled the trigger at 36 months. I never could have done this without this forum and thread.
Congrats to shvili & lotechguy
It's so good to hear that your cases resulted in hard-fought but sweet victories! I applaud your boldness and courage to stand against injustice and to fight for your rights. Apathy is a big (if not the biggest) problem in this country. As I see people like you, I believe that not everything is lost for this country.
It's so good to hear that your cases resulted in hard-fought but sweet victories! I applaud your boldness and courage to stand against injustice and to fight for your rights. Apathy is a big (if not the biggest) problem in this country. As I see people like you, I believe that not everything is lost for this country.
Sadly, yes. It does not mean that it's useless to file an AOS civil action in the 4th Cir. I've seen that many cases in NC, MD were dismissed because plaintiffs received their GCs.
Sorry to hear about your situation. Divorce may have an adverse effect as you have to prove "good moral character". Not sure what to advise. If possible, preserve your marriage. I do not believe you have to inform the USCIS or mention it in the interview unless specifically asked about you marriage status. When asked, though, be truthful.