Here is an idea - ask AUSA if the USCIS adjudicated any EB I-485s in July. If yes, it means the numbers were requested in advance as DOS fax stated that there are no numbers left.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Here is an idea - ask AUSA if the USCIS adjudicated any EB I-485s in July. If yes, it means the numbers were requested in advance as DOS fax stated that there are no numbers left.
Should I wait to see AUSA's move?
Thanks, lazycis, I will ask that question when AUSA call again.
I do not know if I made a mistake by not asking USCIS to request a visa number from DOS, instead I only ask for expedite name check during the phone meeting.
I did not hear back from AUSA ever since. Should I promote a motion to the court, or simply response to AUSA if he file some thing to court?
Here is an idea - ask AUSA if the USCIS adjudicated any EB I-485s in July. If yes, it means the numbers were requested in advance as DOS fax stated that there are no numbers left.
Thanks, lazycis, I will ask that question when AUSA call again.
I do not know if I made a mistake by not asking USCIS to request a visa number from DOS, instead I only ask for expedite name check during the phone meeting.
I did not hear back from AUSA ever since. Should I promote a motion to the court, or simply response to AUSA if he file some thing to court?
lazycis
I found that people on this forum have been talking about adding DOS as defendant. Do you think this really is helpful for the case? Because I feel like writting an amendement for complaint and serve the defendant again and recount 60 days seem to be a lot of trouble. I don't want to go through that if I don't have to. THanks.
I found that people on this forum have been talking about adding DOS as defendant. Do you think this really is helpful for the case? Because I feel like writting an amendement for complaint and serve the defendant again and recount 60 days seem to be a lot of trouble. I don't want to go through that if I don't have to. THanks.
Hi All,
Can anyone please kindly answer a question of mine?
I received a stipulation proposal from the AUSA. It says both parties (me and the defendants) "stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice" and "In consideration of the dismissal, CIS agrees to adjudicate my citizenship application within 10 days of the date of the entry of the order of dismissal".
Is there any catch? What if the CIS doesn't adjudicate my citizenship application as they promised?
Please advice.
Thank you.
Phuzzypeach
It is safe to sign it. In the VERY unlikely event that USCIS is not adjudicating your application, you can either reopen the case or file another identical lawsuit, this is the meaning of the "dismiss without prejudice".
Congratulations!
Paz,lazycis,AGC4me,suthem others,
an aquaintaince of mine filed for nat. delay and now got a Order for Initial conference and disclosure. The order states : "Counsel shall file with the clerk a certificate listing all the persons, firms, partnerships,otherentities that are financially interested in this litigation."
When I did my 1447b I did not get anything like this, anybody have any experience with a certificate like this ? Can you please post a sample if you have seen this ?
Lotechguy, your aquaintance should not worry about this, basically doesn't apply for this type of a lawsuit filed pro se. Nevertheless, the form should be signed and filed with the court. I saw that lazycis was kind enough to provide you a link.
Hi all,
I am going to send my MSJ tomorrow to the court. and hope you could help answer a few of my questions.
Do I need to provide proof of service as well?
Do I need to send a copy to AUSA? and other defendants, like Chertoff?
Thanks very much for your help.
You do not need to provide proof of service (i.e. return receipt). You do need to include certificate of service (saying that you mailed the motion by first class mail to AUSA). Send motion to AUSA only.
do you have pacer a/c ? check yong_tang_docket report
Iam working on my amendment. (am using google and pacer). I will let you know soon.
I would suggest you look up yong_tang's docket report in pacer(Mass Fed Court). He amended his complaint to add his spouse.
Iam working on my amendment. (am using google and pacer). I will let you know soon.
I would suggest you look up yong_tang's docket report in pacer(Mass Fed Court). He amended his complaint to add his spouse.
Wom_ri,
How would you add your spouse as plaintiff in the amendment? I think I might need to make the same amendment. I did not add my wife in the complaint since she had name check cleared. Is there any template?
Thanks.
Lazycis,
You are always there to help. Thanks so much and have a great holiday.
You are always there to help. Thanks so much and have a great holiday.
You do not need to provide proof of service (i.e. return receipt). You do need to include certificate of service (saying that you mailed the motion by first class mail to AUSA). Send motion to AUSA only.
Amending a complaint
Guys amending a complaint is very easy. Just keep your original complaint as it is. Add your spouse to the list of Plaintiffs. Add relevant information about their case in the body of the case.
Title the Complaint as "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" and then submit it. This is important.
First amending does not require court's permission. Second amending requires Court's permission. For second amending title the complaint as "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT". You'll have to submit a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that includes a "FACTS AND REASONS" section.
Guys amending a complaint is very easy. Just keep your original complaint as it is. Add your spouse to the list of Plaintiffs. Add relevant information about their case in the body of the case.
Title the Complaint as "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" and then submit it. This is important.
First amending does not require court's permission. Second amending requires Court's permission. For second amending title the complaint as "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT". You'll have to submit a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that includes a "FACTS AND REASONS" section.
parsfalcon
Registered Users (C)
hold and behold! I'm a happy U.S. citizen as of yesterday noon!
I wish to thank everyone on this website. I'd not have the courage to file a lawsuit on my own to take the US government to the court. God bless the justice system and the judges who uphold the laws of the land. No one is above the law, not even the US government!
My journey took 4.5 years from filing the N-400 and my lawsuit took an unprecedented time, from Jan. 2007 till Nov. 2007, but I came out as a victor at last.
This land is founded on the spirit of the "fight for justice and liberty", keep this spirit alive and fight for your human rights.
God bless America, and may justice prevail for each one of you.
Good luck to everyone!
parsfalcon
I wish to thank everyone on this website. I'd not have the courage to file a lawsuit on my own to take the US government to the court. God bless the justice system and the judges who uphold the laws of the land. No one is above the law, not even the US government!
My journey took 4.5 years from filing the N-400 and my lawsuit took an unprecedented time, from Jan. 2007 till Nov. 2007, but I came out as a victor at last.
This land is founded on the spirit of the "fight for justice and liberty", keep this spirit alive and fight for your human rights.
God bless America, and may justice prevail for each one of you.
Good luck to everyone!
parsfalcon
Has anyone filled a motion to reopen/reconsider after their law suit was dissmissed?
I do.
An idea about retrogression
When I was reading Galvez v Howerton again, this idea has struck me. Why can't we use the fact that the USCIS did not follow its own regulations regarding withholding of adjudication (8 CFR § 103.2(b)(18)) as a prove of affirmative misconduct?
The Galvez court said that
"This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law")."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). "
When I was reading Galvez v Howerton again, this idea has struck me. Why can't we use the fact that the USCIS did not follow its own regulations regarding withholding of adjudication (8 CFR § 103.2(b)(18)) as a prove of affirmative misconduct?
The Galvez court said that
"This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law")."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). "
Vorontsova
Lazycis,others:
Vorontsova_v_Chertoff_Mass_Nov_2_2007:
How do we argue with about a judge order that says:
Given defendants’ representation that the FBI processed 3.4
million name checks in fiscal year 2006 alone, a twenty-one month delay in adjudicating Vorontsova’s application is not per se unreasonable.
Surely, he has no idea about what goes on in FBI and USCIS. Those depts are not models of bureaucratic efficiency.
He has no clue about the facts of namechecking.. that 90% of the cases are run thru one system alone. and 100% of the namecheck delays are on account of common surnames..etc..
He has not read the Ombudsman report that USCIS is interested in fasttracking simpler cases..
Once this case is published.. it is going to be quoted in many MTD's.
Lazycis,others:
Vorontsova_v_Chertoff_Mass_Nov_2_2007:
How do we argue with about a judge order that says:
Given defendants’ representation that the FBI processed 3.4
million name checks in fiscal year 2006 alone, a twenty-one month delay in adjudicating Vorontsova’s application is not per se unreasonable.
Surely, he has no idea about what goes on in FBI and USCIS. Those depts are not models of bureaucratic efficiency.
He has no clue about the facts of namechecking.. that 90% of the cases are run thru one system alone. and 100% of the namecheck delays are on account of common surnames..etc..
He has not read the Ombudsman report that USCIS is interested in fasttracking simpler cases..
Once this case is published.. it is going to be quoted in many MTD's.
When I was reading Galvez v Howerton again, this idea has struck me. Why can't we use the fact that the USCIS did not follow its own regulations regarding withholding of adjudication (8 CFR § 103.2(b)(18)) as a prove of affirmative misconduct?
The Galvez court said that
"This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law")."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). "
This will work only if you are filing the MSJ and your FBI name check is not yet complete. If your name check is complete you do not have a locus standi on how USCIS conducted your investigation because the investigation is complete.
Does anyone have a template of reconsider motion?
Thank you
imcis,
Usually the local rule requires you to file motion to reconsider within 10days after the opinion is issued. If i remember correctly, they do not count the weekends. Knowing that the judge issued his opinion on 11/30 you have already missed that deadline. However, since your judge was far off the mark in his judgment as he ignored the 4th Circuit opinion in Etape case, he may grant your motion to reconsider. If he did not reconsider/reopen, you can file for appeal within 60 days from the judgment. You should also tell the AUSA about your intent about filing for reconsider or appeal in the light of Etape case, and they would probably finish adjudicating your case.
Lazycis,others:
Vorontsova_v_Chertoff_Mass_Nov_2_2007:
How do we argue with about a judge order that says:
Given defendants’ representation that the FBI processed 3.4
million name checks in fiscal year 2006 alone, a twenty-one month delay in adjudicating Vorontsova’s application is not per se unreasonable.
Surely, he has no idea about what goes on in FBI and USCIS. Those depts are not models of bureaucratic efficiency.
He has no clue about the facts of namechecking.. that 90% of the cases are run thru one system alone. and 100% of the namecheck delays are on account of common surnames..etc..
He has not read the Ombudsman report that USCIS is interested in fasttracking simpler cases..
Once this case is published.. it is going to be quoted in many MTD's.
Here is how my favorite judge Armstrong rebuffs the argument in Dong v. Chertoff:
"[t]he fiscal and administrative burden of processing the name checks is not insignificant and the Court is not unsympathetic to this concern.The Court, however, is not in a position to relieve the defendants’ of their obligation to comply with their mandatory duties. Under the APA, a court “shall” “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). In this instance, it is not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff’s clear right to administrative action against the agency’s burdens in complying. Cf. Tang, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 158 (“defendants . . . ask the Court to relieve the pressure of excusing them from their statutory duty, and letting the cost fall on immigrant plaintiffs. I will follow the law and leave it for the political branches to fix the system”). The question of whether there are adequate resources to process the volume of name checks is a policy decision for the legislative and executive branches. Cf. Eldeeb v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2209231, at *12 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (“It is not this Court’s place to decide for the executive branch that it needs to hire more CIS employees to process I-485 applications, or more FBI employees to perform background checks. That decision is theirs”). It is clearly not appropriate for the Court to attempt to address this issue by sanctioning the defendants’ non-compliance. This argument is, therefore, more appropriately presented to the political branches in support of allocating additional resources or to Congress for modification of the governing statutes and regulations."
BTW, Vorontsova filed an appeal on 11/20.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rep Lofgren's letter to USCIS about visa numbers
Somebody might as well check with Rep. Lofgren about her related enquiries with DHS about pre-requested visa numbers(item # 7)
See her letter online at:
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1810
Somebody might as well check with Rep. Lofgren about her related enquiries with DHS about pre-requested visa numbers(item # 7)
See her letter online at:
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1810
Here is an idea - ask AUSA if the USCIS adjudicated any EB I-485s in July. If yes, it means the numbers were requested in advance as DOS fax stated that there are no numbers left.