my wife is here in the US on her own H1.
She then got her own h1.
does that help?
my wife was here in the US on a F1.
She then got her own h1.
does that help?
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
I did call the court clerk, but was told to figure out the due date myself. When I asked what I should do if the defendants still haven't respond after due date, I was told I may want to wait a bit longer and then I (not the court) need to decide what action I should take. I didn't get any mail clearly telling me the deadline.
The due date should be January 29th if you served by mail.
kcguy
She is in status as she carries her own H1. As far as applying for I-485 as your dependent, she may be eligible to file even if she didn't when you applied for your I-485. This google answer may be of some help.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=751752
Please do some research on applying for spouse when I485 of the primary gets approved and act accordingly.
This thread has some info you might be able to use:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455977
She is in status as she carries her own H1. As far as applying for I-485 as your dependent, she may be eligible to file even if she didn't when you applied for your I-485. This google answer may be of some help.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=751752
Please do some research on applying for spouse when I485 of the primary gets approved and act accordingly.
This thread has some info you might be able to use:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=455977
MTD denial is one big step forward
The judge denied the basic jurisdiction claims of the USCIS and agrees with right to relief under APA and Mandamus statutes in case of namecheck delays.
The judge gave sound reasoning in rejecting 103.2.b(18).
Judge also denied 1252 claims of USCIS :
Finally, sound policy reasons support a finding that the USCIS must adjudicate all properly submitted adjustment applications, and that the failure to do so is subject to judicial review.
Defendants now have to answer the complaint within 10 days.. The court will ascertain reasonableness of the delay based on answer.. which basically means.. adjudicate or tell why u cannot..Also since MTD was denied(even if USCIS moots the complaint by granting green card).. plaintiff prevailed in the complaint and could claim attorney fees under EAJA. ( Iam assuming that USCIS reasons for the delay are not
justifiable in any scenario)
MTD granted for FBI doesn't matter.. cos..USCIS has to expedite the
request now..
Remember.. this is the district where Jahani v. Neufield case, MTD was granted based on :
Although the parties do not address applicable statutory regulations, it is clear that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) provides USCIS with discretion to withhold adjudication of the adjustment of status application:
See also Karimine v USCIS, July 2006..
Lopez v Swacina case, MTD was denied in the same district in Sept 2006.. but no mention of 103.2(b)(18)
The judge denied the basic jurisdiction claims of the USCIS and agrees with right to relief under APA and Mandamus statutes in case of namecheck delays.
The judge gave sound reasoning in rejecting 103.2.b(18).
Judge also denied 1252 claims of USCIS :
Finally, sound policy reasons support a finding that the USCIS must adjudicate all properly submitted adjustment applications, and that the failure to do so is subject to judicial review.
Defendants now have to answer the complaint within 10 days.. The court will ascertain reasonableness of the delay based on answer.. which basically means.. adjudicate or tell why u cannot..Also since MTD was denied(even if USCIS moots the complaint by granting green card).. plaintiff prevailed in the complaint and could claim attorney fees under EAJA. ( Iam assuming that USCIS reasons for the delay are not
justifiable in any scenario)
MTD granted for FBI doesn't matter.. cos..USCIS has to expedite the
request now..
Remember.. this is the district where Jahani v. Neufield case, MTD was granted based on :
Although the parties do not address applicable statutory regulations, it is clear that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) provides USCIS with discretion to withhold adjudication of the adjustment of status application:
See also Karimine v USCIS, July 2006..
Lopez v Swacina case, MTD was denied in the same district in Sept 2006.. but no mention of 103.2(b)(18)
Last edited by a moderator:
LexisNexis is very very useful. Click on general search. toggle legal and search term "USCIS AND 1252"..etc..
enjoy your research...
enjoy your research...
summary of recent victories(Jan)
The majority of courts court have expressed that APA requires adjudication be completed within a reasonable time frame. Ren v. Mueller, Case No. 6:07-cv-790-Orl-19DAB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4300(M.D. Florida, January 20, 2008); Jiang v. Chertoff, Case No. 06-CV-2816-L(LSP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5908(S.D. Cal., Jan 20, 2008); Camerena v. Chertoff, Case No. 07 C 822, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3283(N.D. Illinois, January 16, 2008); Chen v. Chertoff, Case No. C 07-2816 MEJ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4891(N.D. Cal., January 23, 2008); Kurdy v. Chertoff, Case No. 8:07CV225, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5730 (Dist. Nebraska, January 10, 2008); Mitova v. Chertoff, Case 07-2631, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91900(E.D. Pa, Dec. 13 2007); Xia v. Gonzalez, Case No. C07-728 MJP, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 3273(W.D. Wash. January 15, 2008), Lindems v. Mukasey, Case No. 07C0476, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5021 (E.D. Wisc., Jan 16, 2008); Singh v. Riding, Case No. CV-F-07-1198 OWW/SMS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3585 (E.D. Cal., January 16, 2008); Chao v. Gonzales, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76257, 1007 WL 3022548 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2007); See also Clayton v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76514, 2007 WL 2904049 at *5 (N.D.Cal. Oct 01, 2007) (Defendants' argument would "eviscerate § 706(1) of the APA, which clearly gives the Court the power to 'compel agency action … unreasonably delayed.'). Plaintiff argues that the passage of time requires the government to demonstrate some evidence that he poses a national security risk. The Court should agree and adopt the framework suggested in Razaq v. Poulos, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, 2007 WL 61884 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007). In order to prevail, a Plaintiff must first show that an amount of time has passed that is presumptively unreasonable. At that point, the burden shifts to the government to show "by competent evidence that speaks in detail to special circumstances and justifications, that a period that appears presumptively excessive is not unreasonable.
In cases asserting unreasonable delay by the USCIS in processing adjustment of status applications, many courts have noted that analysis of jurisdiction and relief under the Mandamus Act and the APA is coextensive. See Bondarenko v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67143, at *32 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2007) (gathering recent cases); see also Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 928 (D.N.M. 1999), Zhu v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91089(W.D.Missouri, Dec 2007); Mocanu v. Mueller, No. 07-445, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2876(E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2008);
As recently concluded in Aslam v Mukasey, case number 07 cv 331, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5616, (E.D. Va., January 25, 2008), while rejecting the prior precedent in Safadi v Howard, 466 F. Supp. 2d 696 {E.D. Va. 2006), observed that the majority of district courts addressing the issue have found jurisdiction and granted relief.
The majority of courts court have expressed that APA requires adjudication be completed within a reasonable time frame. Ren v. Mueller, Case No. 6:07-cv-790-Orl-19DAB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4300(M.D. Florida, January 20, 2008); Jiang v. Chertoff, Case No. 06-CV-2816-L(LSP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5908(S.D. Cal., Jan 20, 2008); Camerena v. Chertoff, Case No. 07 C 822, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3283(N.D. Illinois, January 16, 2008); Chen v. Chertoff, Case No. C 07-2816 MEJ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4891(N.D. Cal., January 23, 2008); Kurdy v. Chertoff, Case No. 8:07CV225, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5730 (Dist. Nebraska, January 10, 2008); Mitova v. Chertoff, Case 07-2631, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91900(E.D. Pa, Dec. 13 2007); Xia v. Gonzalez, Case No. C07-728 MJP, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 3273(W.D. Wash. January 15, 2008), Lindems v. Mukasey, Case No. 07C0476, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5021 (E.D. Wisc., Jan 16, 2008); Singh v. Riding, Case No. CV-F-07-1198 OWW/SMS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3585 (E.D. Cal., January 16, 2008); Chao v. Gonzales, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76257, 1007 WL 3022548 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2007); See also Clayton v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76514, 2007 WL 2904049 at *5 (N.D.Cal. Oct 01, 2007) (Defendants' argument would "eviscerate § 706(1) of the APA, which clearly gives the Court the power to 'compel agency action … unreasonably delayed.'). Plaintiff argues that the passage of time requires the government to demonstrate some evidence that he poses a national security risk. The Court should agree and adopt the framework suggested in Razaq v. Poulos, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, 2007 WL 61884 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007). In order to prevail, a Plaintiff must first show that an amount of time has passed that is presumptively unreasonable. At that point, the burden shifts to the government to show "by competent evidence that speaks in detail to special circumstances and justifications, that a period that appears presumptively excessive is not unreasonable.
In cases asserting unreasonable delay by the USCIS in processing adjustment of status applications, many courts have noted that analysis of jurisdiction and relief under the Mandamus Act and the APA is coextensive. See Bondarenko v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67143, at *32 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2007) (gathering recent cases); see also Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 928 (D.N.M. 1999), Zhu v. Chertoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91089(W.D.Missouri, Dec 2007); Mocanu v. Mueller, No. 07-445, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2876(E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2008);
As recently concluded in Aslam v Mukasey, case number 07 cv 331, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5616, (E.D. Va., January 25, 2008), while rejecting the prior precedent in Safadi v Howard, 466 F. Supp. 2d 696 {E.D. Va. 2006), observed that the majority of district courts addressing the issue have found jurisdiction and granted relief.
It's 10 business days. Anyway, a party can get away with missing the deadline by filing a motion for extension of time along with another filing.
mmlulin,
Can you let me know where I can find this PACER account? I'm new to this term and I want to take a look.
In Eastern District of Detroit, I really feel AG and the Court are like the same organization. I wish I have chance to win this GC struggle.
Can you let me know where I can find this PACER account? I'm new to this term and I want to take a look.
In Eastern District of Detroit, I really feel AG and the Court are like the same organization. I wish I have chance to win this GC struggle.
Agree with Lazycis. Usually, you can find the due date via your PACER account. Read the Docket Text associated with your Proof of service. I just wish that the court could grant hyyz a green card due to AUSA delayed response
Use "Search this thread" feature, put an official name and you'll get an address. Also, check complaint templates on wiki, there are addresses embedded in those.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check
here some of the most common addresses:
Michael Mukasey
Attorney General
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Emilio T. Gonzalez in his Official Capacity as the USCIS Director
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Michael Chertoff in his official capacity as DHS Director
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of the General Counsel
U. S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20258
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Christina Poulos, Director
California Service Center
24000 Avila Road, 2nd Floor, Room 2312
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Paul Novak, Director
Vermont Service Center
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
75 Lower Welden Street
St. Albans, VT 05479-0001
Evelyn Upchurch, Director,
USCIS Texas Service Center
4141 St. Augustine Rd.
Dallas, TX 75227
Gerard Heinauer, Director
Nebraska Service Center
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
850 S. Street
Lincoln, NE 68501
Check these links:
registration:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/psco/cgi-bin/register.pl
after you register, find a link to your court here:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/psco/cgi-bin/links.pl
You have an uphill battle in your district. You may want to talk to Slow_CIS.
lazycis,
Thanks. I just did it. But where in PACER to find the due date? Sorry for the questions.
Thanks. I just did it. But where in PACER to find the due date? Sorry for the questions.
Find your case in PACER using query feature and your case#. Then click on History/documents link. Click "OK' and you'll get a history of your case with due dates for filings that require a reply.
Yes, if it's more than 10 days, it goes by calendar days. Date of service does not count, plus a party gets 3 more days if the service was done by mail. And if a deadline falls on weekend, it moves to the next business day. Arizona Pro Se guide has good explanation (see page 28 http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/court/files/$file/prose.pdf).
Last edited by a moderator:
looks this is exactly how the deadline for my case is calculated: 60days + 3 days extention.
Looks the AUSA now is routinely filing MTD, and they cite same or similar reasons, and many courts deny their MTD. Are there cases the MTD granted recently?
Looks the AUSA now is routinely filing MTD, and they cite same or similar reasons, and many courts deny their MTD. Are there cases the MTD granted recently?
most cases in Eastern District of Michigan..
Carter v DHS Case No. 07-12953(E.D. Mich, Jan 24, 2008)
maybe even District of New Jersey by that one judge Chesler or his clonies..
orlov v Howard , D.D.C (Dec 10, 2007)
Carter v DHS Case No. 07-12953(E.D. Mich, Jan 24, 2008)
maybe even District of New Jersey by that one judge Chesler or his clonies..
orlov v Howard , D.D.C (Dec 10, 2007)
pattern of deliberate lie
Lazycis others:
My I-485 says this:
Processing time:
Processing times vary by kind of case.
- Most of the time your case is pending the processing status will not change because we will be working on others filed earlier.
---> however granting 485 for those filed later make the above a deliberate lie..
???
Lazycis others:
My I-485 says this:
Processing time:
Processing times vary by kind of case.
- Most of the time your case is pending the processing status will not change because we will be working on others filed earlier.
---> however granting 485 for those filed later make the above a deliberate lie..
???
Hey..Don't let one Judge's thinking or even one courts opinion affect you. This is a national epidemic. Justice demands that all namecheck sufferers get prompt relief. WOM take time.. couple of months or more for AUSA to file MTD(maybe they will grant you GC by then. )..
BTW, we might hear a circuit opinion on this issue too..
Maybe.. there will be a class settlement like Kaplan
BTW, we might hear a circuit opinion on this issue too..
Maybe.. there will be a class settlement like Kaplan