Just a short FYI note. I went to an infopass appointment yesterday, as my fingerprint is about to expire. The immigration officer told me that since late 2006, USCIS does not schedule routine fingerprints every 15 months. They will only schedule fingerprint appointment once the name check is cleared. (same thing for citizenship interview as we already know).
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
I do not think there is a particular policy in that regard. My friend got an appointment in May, his FP were expired long ago and NC is still pending (I-485).
Marylanders and 4th circuiters don't give up
GC-Pending,
I am Marylander myself and my case was also MTD-ed after several "extensions" by AUSA
Don't give up,
File an opposing motion and include latest consideration of lazyCIS that
FBI violated procedures of delay (if your FIOPA is without records).
I am in the same boat
-----------------------------------
04/04/2003 - RD I-485
01/19/2006 -last 3rd FP
10/09/2004 -Transfer to Baltimore
08/10/2005 -Interview -Name Check pending announced
2004-2007- Contacted USCIS (Infopass and by phone, issued various non-working T-numbers, contacted Senators, wrote FBI,got "no record FIOPA)
12/22/2006 -WoM filed
04/11/2007-Amended Complain filed (FBI head included)
06/19/07 -Motion for Extension by AUSA (1 week granted)
06/26/07 -Motion to Extension by AUSA ( 2 days granted)
06/28/07- Motion to Dismiss "Lack of Jurisdiction".
Defendant supplied court with Michael McCannon boilder template and Declaration of Greg Collett
07/18/07 - Responded to MTD
08/10/2007 - MTD Granted by Judge (based on "other" case decision)
08/20/2007- Filed Motion to Reconsider ("other" judge similar motion was overturned by Appeal court)
GC-Pending,
I am Marylander myself and my case was also MTD-ed after several "extensions" by AUSA
Don't give up,
File an opposing motion and include latest consideration of lazyCIS that
FBI violated procedures of delay (if your FIOPA is without records).
I am in the same boat
-----------------------------------
04/04/2003 - RD I-485
01/19/2006 -last 3rd FP
10/09/2004 -Transfer to Baltimore
08/10/2005 -Interview -Name Check pending announced
2004-2007- Contacted USCIS (Infopass and by phone, issued various non-working T-numbers, contacted Senators, wrote FBI,got "no record FIOPA)
12/22/2006 -WoM filed
04/11/2007-Amended Complain filed (FBI head included)
06/19/07 -Motion for Extension by AUSA (1 week granted)
06/26/07 -Motion to Extension by AUSA ( 2 days granted)
06/28/07- Motion to Dismiss "Lack of Jurisdiction".
Defendant supplied court with Michael McCannon boilder template and Declaration of Greg Collett
07/18/07 - Responded to MTD
08/10/2007 - MTD Granted by Judge (based on "other" case decision)
08/20/2007- Filed Motion to Reconsider ("other" judge similar motion was overturned by Appeal court)
Different kind of Motz judges in Maryland and 4th district court
AGC4ME
As the matter of fact,
There are two different Judges with last name Motz here in the 4th District.
One works in regular Disctrict Court for Maryland and famous for his cases against Microsoft,
Another Motz is in Appeal court, fighting Gov't on immigration issues and detainee. She is very libertarian.
Are they husband and wife ? I do not know
But, their opinion are quite opposite recently on delayed immigration cases.
One recentrly sided with Chasanow decision and granted MTD based "on subject lack of matter of jurisdiction,
while another Motz overturn Chasanow decision in court of Appeal !!!
Anyway, so far 4th District Court of Appeal looks not so gloomy for immigrants
but it is 3x more efforts and probably time (not mentioning another $600 filing plus $10k to Attorneys if you don't do it yourself)
AGC4ME
As the matter of fact,
There are two different Judges with last name Motz here in the 4th District.
One works in regular Disctrict Court for Maryland and famous for his cases against Microsoft,
Another Motz is in Appeal court, fighting Gov't on immigration issues and detainee. She is very libertarian.
Are they husband and wife ? I do not know
But, their opinion are quite opposite recently on delayed immigration cases.
One recentrly sided with Chasanow decision and granted MTD based "on subject lack of matter of jurisdiction,
while another Motz overturn Chasanow decision in court of Appeal !!!
Anyway, so far 4th District Court of Appeal looks not so gloomy for immigrants
but it is 3x more efforts and probably time (not mentioning another $600 filing plus $10k to Attorneys if you don't do it yourself)
Thanks, AGC4ME. You even know this before me.
There is a glitch on the "Recommendations", my lawyer is still working with the court to sort that out.Let's do it, friends. Together we can bring down that obvious nonsense that the USCIS does not have to process an application within any timeframe. The appellate courts decisions are in our favor. I'm done with my reply brief so I'll have more time from now on to contribute.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you please explain this howcome FBI violated when FOIPA has no record. Any website or ???
see this one, USCIS can withhold adjudication only if it follows the regulations
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1762221&postcount=12668
Hey folks,
Been waiting for name check for 11 months now (N-400 naturalization). Followed suggestions on this board, got clean FOIPA, contacted senator and congressman, sent letters to local FBI headquarters and CIS Ombudsman. Nothing until last week when I got a letter from senator saying FBI reported my name check was completed. Today run to local USCIS office - they are telling me name check is still pending and has not cleared. Called 800 line - they obviously know nothing and sent email to CA service center and told me that the center will get back to me within 45 days.
How can this be? Has anyone heard about something like that - senator says FBI reported the case processed and USCIS saying that the name check has not been cleared? What now - any suggestions? Appreciate your thoughts...
Been waiting for name check for 11 months now (N-400 naturalization). Followed suggestions on this board, got clean FOIPA, contacted senator and congressman, sent letters to local FBI headquarters and CIS Ombudsman. Nothing until last week when I got a letter from senator saying FBI reported my name check was completed. Today run to local USCIS office - they are telling me name check is still pending and has not cleared. Called 800 line - they obviously know nothing and sent email to CA service center and told me that the center will get back to me within 45 days.
How can this be? Has anyone heard about something like that - senator says FBI reported the case processed and USCIS saying that the name check has not been cleared? What now - any suggestions? Appreciate your thoughts...
distagon
The most likely situation is that you name check has cleared (the FBI would not otherwise have written the letter to your US Senator) but...
1/ The hierarchical communications channels between FBI and USCIS can be much longer than for a Senator. In other words, a US Senator may get a letter in a matter of days while the transmission of the same information (name check cleared) may take much longer via the traditional communication channels between FBI and USCIS
2/ The USCIS databases won't be automatically updated just because the FBI has trnsmitted to the USCIS the results of your name check. Updating the USCIS databases may take some time.
3/ When your name check is cleared and all of the processing is done at the USCIS Service Center, the Service Center notifies the District Office serving your area that x number of N-400 cases have been processed and are ready for interview. This alone does not give you an interview date. The Distruct Office then starts scheduling interviews and sending Interview Letters.
My point is:
1/ According to the FBI letter to the Senator, your Name Check has cleared
2/ It may take some time (weeks) before your District Office sends an Interview Letter because a certain number of actions need to take place in the meantime.
You may understandably feel a little impatient (after 11 months) and confused.
The most likely situation is that you name check has cleared (the FBI would not otherwise have written the letter to your US Senator) but...
1/ The hierarchical communications channels between FBI and USCIS can be much longer than for a Senator. In other words, a US Senator may get a letter in a matter of days while the transmission of the same information (name check cleared) may take much longer via the traditional communication channels between FBI and USCIS
2/ The USCIS databases won't be automatically updated just because the FBI has trnsmitted to the USCIS the results of your name check. Updating the USCIS databases may take some time.
3/ When your name check is cleared and all of the processing is done at the USCIS Service Center, the Service Center notifies the District Office serving your area that x number of N-400 cases have been processed and are ready for interview. This alone does not give you an interview date. The Distruct Office then starts scheduling interviews and sending Interview Letters.
My point is:
1/ According to the FBI letter to the Senator, your Name Check has cleared
2/ It may take some time (weeks) before your District Office sends an Interview Letter because a certain number of actions need to take place in the meantime.
Yes OLKO I realize that. one good Motz and another not-so-good Motz.... :-0) Good luck in your appeal.
FBI security procedures (FP, IBIS and the NC)+ "440,000 cases"
Here are FBI main steps (as Described by Greg Collett, the District Director of the USCIS Baltimore District Office. Mr. Greg Collett recently replaced Richard Caterisano- as was submitted with my MTD by Defendants)
Security and Background Check Applied:
1) Fingerprinting (against criminal convictions)- in my case it was done 3 times and cleared next day
2) IBIS - it contains info from 20 law inforcement and Intelligence Agencies
(in my case, According to Mr. Greg Collett IBIS checks were initiated and responses received on August 9, 2005 (1 day before my interview) and June 20, 2007 (1 day before response is due)
(both 1) and 2) are fast and sort of 1 day- if and/or when is needed)
and finally...
3) THE FBI name checks (that is why we all waiting)- your name is searched in FBI file record system. If you are "Ident"- you probably is tabled.
Here, the three different sources said/wrote to me/to Court three different things: Adjudicating officer at interview said that my name check was initiated ~ October 2003. Mr. Greg Collett states that it initiated near
April 10, 2003 (perfectly one week after Notice date), but then he adds exactly what is said in Michael A. Cannon declaration- April 16, 2003.
(A lot of contradictory statements here- and reason for that is simple: FBI did not initiate anything back then- they just tabled the clearance of my name check (as they did to many others) for some reason and haven't done anything with it since then.... becasue procedure is sort of manual and there is not enough resources; there is a lenghty explanation about procedures in his report)
Note: Michael A. Cannon is the Section Chief of National Name Check Program
(NNCP) at the Headquarters of FBI in Washington DC since March 7, 2005
Interestingly enough, in Mr. Michael Cannon boiler template there is a new addition with respect to what I have seen in other plaintiff's declarations.
He talked about 2.7 million cases that have been resubmitted..."In Dec 2002 and January 2003". Out of 2.7 millions,... "440,000 cases resubmitted (16%) may have information relating to the subject of inquiry". Then he stated "FBI is still in the process of resolving of those 440,000 applicants". All of the above is boiler template - I ve seen it other declarations.
There is something new right after those---"Currently less than 6,300 of those resubmitted requests remain pending"- Dated July 22, 2007. These 6,300 must be date-sensitive.
Questions here:
1)which of those procedures can and which cannot be documented according
8 CFR 103.2(b)(18) ?
"If it is pending more than 2.5 years, it should've been reviewed by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement." If it was not done, the USCIS "unlawfully withheld" adjudication.
It seems #3 "THE FBI name check" is above and beyond of reach of any normal and even high ranked mortal including majority of Senators so far
due to security reasons.
2) Another question to all members of the audience- is too see a pace of "NC-clearing" of those 440,000 applicants (those that "MAY have something"- according to Mr. Cannon)
especially those that remains (6,300 uncleared by or near July 22, 2007)
------------------------------------------------------
04/04/2003 - ND I-485
01/19/2006 -last 3rd FP
10/09/2004 -Transfer to Baltimore
08/10/2005 -Interview -Name Check pending announced
2004-2007- Contacted USCIS (Infopass and by phone, issued various non-working T-numbers, contacted Senators, wrote FBI,got "no record FIOPA)
12/22/2006 -WoM filed
04/11/2007-Amended Complain filed (FBI head included)
06/19/07 -Motion for Extension by AUSA (1 week granted)
06/26/07 -Motion to Extension by AUSA ( 2 days granted)
06/28/07- Motion to Dismiss "Lack of Jurisdiction".
Defendant supplied court with Michael McCannon boilder template and Declaration of Greg Collett
07/18/07 - Responded to MTD
08/10/2007 - MTD Granted by Judge (based on "other" case decision)
08/20/2007- Filed Motion to Reconsider ("other" judge similar motion was overturned by Appeal court)
Here are FBI main steps (as Described by Greg Collett, the District Director of the USCIS Baltimore District Office. Mr. Greg Collett recently replaced Richard Caterisano- as was submitted with my MTD by Defendants)
Security and Background Check Applied:
1) Fingerprinting (against criminal convictions)- in my case it was done 3 times and cleared next day
2) IBIS - it contains info from 20 law inforcement and Intelligence Agencies
(in my case, According to Mr. Greg Collett IBIS checks were initiated and responses received on August 9, 2005 (1 day before my interview) and June 20, 2007 (1 day before response is due)
(both 1) and 2) are fast and sort of 1 day- if and/or when is needed)
and finally...
3) THE FBI name checks (that is why we all waiting)- your name is searched in FBI file record system. If you are "Ident"- you probably is tabled.
Here, the three different sources said/wrote to me/to Court three different things: Adjudicating officer at interview said that my name check was initiated ~ October 2003. Mr. Greg Collett states that it initiated near
April 10, 2003 (perfectly one week after Notice date), but then he adds exactly what is said in Michael A. Cannon declaration- April 16, 2003.
(A lot of contradictory statements here- and reason for that is simple: FBI did not initiate anything back then- they just tabled the clearance of my name check (as they did to many others) for some reason and haven't done anything with it since then.... becasue procedure is sort of manual and there is not enough resources; there is a lenghty explanation about procedures in his report)
Note: Michael A. Cannon is the Section Chief of National Name Check Program
(NNCP) at the Headquarters of FBI in Washington DC since March 7, 2005
Interestingly enough, in Mr. Michael Cannon boiler template there is a new addition with respect to what I have seen in other plaintiff's declarations.
He talked about 2.7 million cases that have been resubmitted..."In Dec 2002 and January 2003". Out of 2.7 millions,... "440,000 cases resubmitted (16%) may have information relating to the subject of inquiry". Then he stated "FBI is still in the process of resolving of those 440,000 applicants". All of the above is boiler template - I ve seen it other declarations.
There is something new right after those---"Currently less than 6,300 of those resubmitted requests remain pending"- Dated July 22, 2007. These 6,300 must be date-sensitive.
Questions here:
1)which of those procedures can and which cannot be documented according
8 CFR 103.2(b)(18) ?
"If it is pending more than 2.5 years, it should've been reviewed by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, with the concurrence of the Associate Commissioner, Enforcement." If it was not done, the USCIS "unlawfully withheld" adjudication.
It seems #3 "THE FBI name check" is above and beyond of reach of any normal and even high ranked mortal including majority of Senators so far
due to security reasons.
2) Another question to all members of the audience- is too see a pace of "NC-clearing" of those 440,000 applicants (those that "MAY have something"- according to Mr. Cannon)
especially those that remains (6,300 uncleared by or near July 22, 2007)
------------------------------------------------------
04/04/2003 - ND I-485
01/19/2006 -last 3rd FP
10/09/2004 -Transfer to Baltimore
08/10/2005 -Interview -Name Check pending announced
2004-2007- Contacted USCIS (Infopass and by phone, issued various non-working T-numbers, contacted Senators, wrote FBI,got "no record FIOPA)
12/22/2006 -WoM filed
04/11/2007-Amended Complain filed (FBI head included)
06/19/07 -Motion for Extension by AUSA (1 week granted)
06/26/07 -Motion to Extension by AUSA ( 2 days granted)
06/28/07- Motion to Dismiss "Lack of Jurisdiction".
Defendant supplied court with Michael McCannon boilder template and Declaration of Greg Collett
07/18/07 - Responded to MTD
08/10/2007 - MTD Granted by Judge (based on "other" case decision)
08/20/2007- Filed Motion to Reconsider ("other" judge similar motion was overturned by Appeal court)
Olko
Investigation covers all three. And if USCIS decides to impose any more checks, the word investigation will cover those too. USCIS which arbitrarily changes its "security screening" should also take care to change the regulations else it is on the hook for not following it.
As for as Cannon's declaration, I really don't care about it. I'm going to follow Totonchi and will file a motion to strike if his declaration ever gets filed.
Now here's a question to learned people. Even after losing so many cases in ND Cal why do the AUSAs try MTD there ? Aren't they wasting the court time and money ?
Investigation covers all three. And if USCIS decides to impose any more checks, the word investigation will cover those too. USCIS which arbitrarily changes its "security screening" should also take care to change the regulations else it is on the hook for not following it.
As for as Cannon's declaration, I really don't care about it. I'm going to follow Totonchi and will file a motion to strike if his declaration ever gets filed.
Now here's a question to learned people. Even after losing so many cases in ND Cal why do the AUSAs try MTD there ? Aren't they wasting the court time and money ?
This could be more complicated.
First of all, this is the problem with more than two bodies.
We have a triangle to consider, at least here in 4th District COurt.
Pardon my sexism, but we have two female Judges- and opinion of one is professionally opposing of another....while husband(?) is siding not with wife(?)...a week after appeal decision was made in the same district court ( I doubt he didn't know- but everything can happen- they may never talked about work)...
All decisons with subject "Lack of Matter of Jurisdiction" are obviously highly political- that is why I doubt he didn't know.
(Well, at least he knows now.)
These decision are highly political becasue this is where Judges are split throughout US and reports dismissing MTD are very passionate with proffesional arguments. By
stating "Lack of Matter of Jurisdiction" one judge automatically professionally disagree with many others and automatically siding with current Government.
And when it is vice versa Judge is siding with us poor immigrants who stuck
in limbo for many years
We are just sacrificial pawns in this game (well, at least me and all my derivatives )
why AUSA
Very simple. You do not have to be learned.
AUSA are told what they have to do and they do it (even if they personally abhor it).
Or they lose their job.
If FBI and USCIS start losing all this cases they abandon
the practice of delaying name checks (and then they must invent something else to deny people with certain national origin) and they also get very negative publicity. (it is already negative for sure- but majority of US heard about this
for few seconds or minutes in car talks)
Very simple. You do not have to be learned.
AUSA are told what they have to do and they do it (even if they personally abhor it).
Or they lose their job.
If FBI and USCIS start losing all this cases they abandon
the practice of delaying name checks (and then they must invent something else to deny people with certain national origin) and they also get very negative publicity. (it is already negative for sure- but majority of US heard about this
for few seconds or minutes in car talks)
why AUSA fight in ND Cal
AGC4ME,
I certainly missed on economic part of this.
You need to take into account "profit maximizing technique".
Let EAD(t), AP(t) = rate of submission of EAD and AP (there should be many other documents that alien must file before they are approved)
Let AUSA(t) = rate of burning money by AUSAs for writing MTD
With costs of each EAD and AP and relevant AUSA sucess rate (the more DHS spent on AUSA the more MTD will be granted)
We get a problem-which one is more profitable for DHS?
Note that EAD(t) and AP(t) may be monotonous functions of AUSA(t). The more you delay and the more you MTD the more people be deterred from suing and so EAD(t) and AP(t) will maintain or even increase
One could take various models assumtions and fees (and increase them if needed for a given situation) and maximize DHS profit.
Remember that ND Cal decisions may affect the whole profit of DHS, so I doubt it is profitable for DHS to renege on each single fight.
If you file EAD and AP money goes to DHS, while if you file WoM or Naturalization Hearing, the money go to Court system
AGC4ME,
I certainly missed on economic part of this.
You need to take into account "profit maximizing technique".
Let EAD(t), AP(t) = rate of submission of EAD and AP (there should be many other documents that alien must file before they are approved)
Let AUSA(t) = rate of burning money by AUSAs for writing MTD
With costs of each EAD and AP and relevant AUSA sucess rate (the more DHS spent on AUSA the more MTD will be granted)
We get a problem-which one is more profitable for DHS?
Note that EAD(t) and AP(t) may be monotonous functions of AUSA(t). The more you delay and the more you MTD the more people be deterred from suing and so EAD(t) and AP(t) will maintain or even increase
One could take various models assumtions and fees (and increase them if needed for a given situation) and maximize DHS profit.
Remember that ND Cal decisions may affect the whole profit of DHS, so I doubt it is profitable for DHS to renege on each single fight.
If you file EAD and AP money goes to DHS, while if you file WoM or Naturalization Hearing, the money go to Court system
Last edited by a moderator: