Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Well done! I am currently working on opposition to MTD for natz without interview so you can count on my support.
here it is
• Severe financial loss to an individual or company;
• Extreme emergent situation;
• Humanitarian situation;
• Nonprofit status of requesting organization with the expressed goal of furthering the cultural and social interests of the U.S.;
• A situation related to the Department of Defense or a national situation;
• A USCIS error; or
• A compelling interest of the case to the USCIS.
• Severe financial loss to an individual or company;
• Extreme emergent situation;
• Humanitarian situation;
• Nonprofit status of requesting organization with the expressed goal of furthering the cultural and social interests of the U.S.;
• A situation related to the Department of Defense or a national situation;
• A USCIS error; or
• A compelling interest of the case to the USCIS.
Last edited by a moderator:
AILF advises on how to expedite stallled I485 based on memo?
According to posting on www.bibdaily.com, AILF is advising folks with pending court actions and even those who haven't files WOM yet, to send a demand letter to Service for "immediate" adjudication of their I485s or applications covered by the memo.
Question for all of us is, should the demand letter try to justify the request for expedite for any of the other usual expedite criteria that lazycis posted earlier? And is there a special sort of special wording that needs to make it look like "demand" letter?
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml#fbi
"
All applicants with pending court actions to which the memo would apply may alert the court to the change in agency policy by filing a motion with the court with the USCIS memo attached. The motion may state that all prerequisites for immediate adjudication have been met: 1) the application is covered by the memo, e.g., it is an Application for Adjustment of Status (I-485); 2) the FBI and IBIS check have been completed and; 3) the FBI name check request has been pending for 180 days. The motion may request that the court issue an order remanding to the agency for immediate adjudication of the application.
Applicants who have not filed district court actions, but otherwise meet the requirements outlined in the memo, may send a demand letter to the agency with the memo attached requesting immediate adjudication of their application. This demand letter may cause the agency to move more quickly to adjudicate the application. If it does instigate action, the letter may be helpful if the applicant then decides to file a mandamus/APA action because the agency is not implementing its new policy.
If an applicant is unsure whether the delay in the adjudication of his or her application is caused by FBI name check delays, it may still be a good idea to send a demand letter to USCIS with the memo attached.
"
According to posting on www.bibdaily.com, AILF is advising folks with pending court actions and even those who haven't files WOM yet, to send a demand letter to Service for "immediate" adjudication of their I485s or applications covered by the memo.
Question for all of us is, should the demand letter try to justify the request for expedite for any of the other usual expedite criteria that lazycis posted earlier? And is there a special sort of special wording that needs to make it look like "demand" letter?
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml#fbi
"
All applicants with pending court actions to which the memo would apply may alert the court to the change in agency policy by filing a motion with the court with the USCIS memo attached. The motion may state that all prerequisites for immediate adjudication have been met: 1) the application is covered by the memo, e.g., it is an Application for Adjustment of Status (I-485); 2) the FBI and IBIS check have been completed and; 3) the FBI name check request has been pending for 180 days. The motion may request that the court issue an order remanding to the agency for immediate adjudication of the application.
Applicants who have not filed district court actions, but otherwise meet the requirements outlined in the memo, may send a demand letter to the agency with the memo attached requesting immediate adjudication of their application. This demand letter may cause the agency to move more quickly to adjudicate the application. If it does instigate action, the letter may be helpful if the applicant then decides to file a mandamus/APA action because the agency is not implementing its new policy.
If an applicant is unsure whether the delay in the adjudication of his or her application is caused by FBI name check delays, it may still be a good idea to send a demand letter to USCIS with the memo attached.
"
Last edited by a moderator:
battle for retrogression fellows continues...
I am affected by retrogression(so r many others on this forum).
Iam preparing a memo to court to establish that estoppel claims are valid in this case. Please let me know if you r affeced too and we can prepare a uniform document and cross reference each other. That ways a victory in a plaintiff friendly district can apply to others too.
We should also send the document to the USCIS adjudications officer whose declaration AUSA attached to their MTD's.
Iam sure.. USCIS is now employing a divide-and-conquer policy. For their mistakes, they havent yet admitted that visa numbers have ran out bcos of their errors.
I have the name of the IO who during infopass said that my application was preadjudicated under review on Nov 1, 2007.
We can also quote two specific lawsuits filed around Dec 2007 in D.D.C where two plaintiffs got GC's before Dec 31. I am not sure if their expedited namechecks was conducted and indeed completed before Dec 31.
If we fight united again.. we stand a better chance of winning sooner.
I am affected by retrogression(so r many others on this forum).
Iam preparing a memo to court to establish that estoppel claims are valid in this case. Please let me know if you r affeced too and we can prepare a uniform document and cross reference each other. That ways a victory in a plaintiff friendly district can apply to others too.
We should also send the document to the USCIS adjudications officer whose declaration AUSA attached to their MTD's.
Iam sure.. USCIS is now employing a divide-and-conquer policy. For their mistakes, they havent yet admitted that visa numbers have ran out bcos of their errors.
I have the name of the IO who during infopass said that my application was preadjudicated under review on Nov 1, 2007.
We can also quote two specific lawsuits filed around Dec 2007 in D.D.C where two plaintiffs got GC's before Dec 31. I am not sure if their expedited namechecks was conducted and indeed completed before Dec 31.
If we fight united again.. we stand a better chance of winning sooner.
I want to congratulate everybody on this forum with this NC victory.
After waiting for almost 5 years my NC is still not completed and i-485 still pending. USCIS did not forget about me - they regularly check my employment status sending me RFEs every year to confirm my employment - similar job in similar occupation. This is torture - very slow and painful though. There is one difference in the last RFE: they asked about my finacial situation - what, they gonna support me? I'm ready to cry, I have so much feelings for them.
After waiting for almost 5 years my NC is still not completed and i-485 still pending. USCIS did not forget about me - they regularly check my employment status sending me RFEs every year to confirm my employment - similar job in similar occupation. This is torture - very slow and painful though. There is one difference in the last RFE: they asked about my finacial situation - what, they gonna support me? I'm ready to cry, I have so much feelings for them.
Will USCIS reveal it ?
So, NC memo came. Now question for those retrogressed is how soon the queue will move . Is there a way for one to get the USCIS reveal how many are there in the queue before one's PD ? I mean i want to Know how many are there in the India EB2 queue ( until PD 2002 ) waiting for visa numbers. If i know this , i can divide that number with 3000 and find the number of years i need wait.
So, NC memo came. Now question for those retrogressed is how soon the queue will move . Is there a way for one to get the USCIS reveal how many are there in the queue before one's PD ? I mean i want to Know how many are there in the India EB2 queue ( until PD 2002 ) waiting for visa numbers. If i know this , i can divide that number with 3000 and find the number of years i need wait.
stuckinins
Registered Users (C)
N400 no interview WOMs
Do you think the fact that it's the election year make any difference here? I can't imagine it does, but I am just wondering... would the judges maybe be more sympathetic to those of us, N400 applicants, who wouldn't be able to vote this fall because of the UCSIS/FBI? Do you think it makes any sense to consider filing a WOM before 18 months for this reason? I know it's a bit of a silly question...
Do you think the fact that it's the election year make any difference here? I can't imagine it does, but I am just wondering... would the judges maybe be more sympathetic to those of us, N400 applicants, who wouldn't be able to vote this fall because of the UCSIS/FBI? Do you think it makes any sense to consider filing a WOM before 18 months for this reason? I know it's a bit of a silly question...
I am wondering about the same thing. My deadline for documents was 1/31/08. Now this significant new info appears and this scenario pops up in my mind:
- So I should file something even though the deadline is passed? I think so because this is a material and significant change in facts and circumstances. I have no idea what or how to word such a motion/memo (new MSJ?) or if it would accepted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
-Now thinking like the AUSA, I counter motion that, yea, the Defendants admit waiting forever is now not policy. (See the email to Cannon) We are now deploying all available resources to address oldest first applications. We screwed up, we admit it, blah blah. Therefore Plaintiff is now clearly cutting in line (Has not this argument now been made stronger?)
- Now thinking like a judge, denying MTD and ruling in favor of the Plaintiff; would it not be allowing cutting in line? Yeah, Plaintiff has waited almost 4 years, but CIS needs to address the older ones first and ruling for Plaintiff would be preferential treatment. Flip side of that is, do I have any confidence CIS will be able to address this "new" backlog?
I am trying look at all sides of this recent development and trying to figure how to approach it.
Guru's, any thoughts?
Edit: This is an I-485 suit
Last edited by a moderator:
This just means that their system is messed up! Believe it or not, my AP got approved in August of 2007; two weeks ago, on a Sunday also, my LUD for the AP changed for the AP
I've had quite a few of these Sunday LUD's (yeah, specifically Sunday).
File motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings (see FRCP 15(d), I believe).
This forum is great. Thanks all for these info.
Just got letter from the senator's office saying that my NC was completed at March 2005. Apparently the senator's office knows someone in the FBI NC division. What a shock! USCIS has been claiming my NC pending for years. I called NSC and told them the situation. They said they can not do anything. After seeing the new memo, I called them right away. This time, they said NC is not an issue any more but my I485 still can not be processed because of visa number retrogression. I'd appreciate any suggestion about what I shall do.
Just got letter from the senator's office saying that my NC was completed at March 2005. Apparently the senator's office knows someone in the FBI NC division. What a shock! USCIS has been claiming my NC pending for years. I called NSC and told them the situation. They said they can not do anything. After seeing the new memo, I called them right away. This time, they said NC is not an issue any more but my I485 still can not be processed because of visa number retrogression. I'd appreciate any suggestion about what I shall do.
The namecheck being complete only implies FBI forwarded the results of namecheck back to USCIS. In some cases, USCIS investigates these results further
See documents from Safadi v Howard case(E.D. Virginia)
Yes.. A large number of retrogression fellas like us(Indians,Chinese mainly)
were victims of namecheck and now bcos the govt sat on our cases for so long.. are now becoming unjustified victims of retrogression.
Retrogression should not have happened in our cases.. esp. in the light on the new memo.
Do did file a WOM ? If not.. consider it strongly.
Otherwise... this is a cat-and-mouse game that USCIS will always win with us..
See documents from Safadi v Howard case(E.D. Virginia)
Yes.. A large number of retrogression fellas like us(Indians,Chinese mainly)
were victims of namecheck and now bcos the govt sat on our cases for so long.. are now becoming unjustified victims of retrogression.
Retrogression should not have happened in our cases.. esp. in the light on the new memo.
Do did file a WOM ? If not.. consider it strongly.
Otherwise... this is a cat-and-mouse game that USCIS will always win with us..
Thanks, lazy. You are an invaluable asset to this forum.
(d) Supplemental Pleadings.
On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.
Here is one where the original complaint had 10 paragraphs added:
http://www.brokentrust.org/documents/0208CavTelsupp-complaintB.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,
I just went to INFOPASS in boston office. When I show the new memo to her, She did not look at it and told me that they have jsut received last Friday. They have been told how to implement it.
She did tell me that my file is in Boston office which she mentioned that they have less work load than service center. I ask if there is any number I could call or fax, she said no. I still need to talk to 1-800-xxx to send request, and they will response it. She mention it usually take some time to implement rule. She also complained FBI which she said CIS take all the blame. She mention to wait a week then go to infopass again to see is any new action?
I prepare to send demand letter to local office. But I don't know where should I send? I mean which dept I should send or fax? My case is married based, there is no visa number issue.
I just went to INFOPASS in boston office. When I show the new memo to her, She did not look at it and told me that they have jsut received last Friday. They have been told how to implement it.
She did tell me that my file is in Boston office which she mentioned that they have less work load than service center. I ask if there is any number I could call or fax, she said no. I still need to talk to 1-800-xxx to send request, and they will response it. She mention it usually take some time to implement rule. She also complained FBI which she said CIS take all the blame. She mention to wait a week then go to infopass again to see is any new action?
I prepare to send demand letter to local office. But I don't know where should I send? I mean which dept I should send or fax? My case is married based, there is no visa number issue.
Hi,
I just went to INFOPASS in boston office. When I show the new memo to her, She did not look at it and told me that they have jsut received last Friday. They have not been told how to implement it.
She did tell me that my file is in Boston office which she mentioned that they have less work load than service center. I ask if there is any number I could call or fax, she said no. I still need to talk to 1-800-xxx to send request, and they will response it. She mentioned it usually take some time to implement rule. She also complained FBI and she felt bad that CIS take all the blame. She suggested to wait a week then go to infopass again to see is there any new action?
I prepare to send demand letter to local office. But I don't know where should I send? I mean which dept I should send or fax? My case is married based, there is no visa number issue.
I just went to INFOPASS in boston office. When I show the new memo to her, She did not look at it and told me that they have jsut received last Friday. They have not been told how to implement it.
She did tell me that my file is in Boston office which she mentioned that they have less work load than service center. I ask if there is any number I could call or fax, she said no. I still need to talk to 1-800-xxx to send request, and they will response it. She mentioned it usually take some time to implement rule. She also complained FBI and she felt bad that CIS take all the blame. She suggested to wait a week then go to infopass again to see is there any new action?
I prepare to send demand letter to local office. But I don't know where should I send? I mean which dept I should send or fax? My case is married based, there is no visa number issue.
Everytime I taked to a person at NSC. They always say that my FBI name check is still pending and USCI can do nothing about it. So, it seems to me that my FBI name check results were lost somehow when sent by FBI to USCIS.
If I file a WOM, shall I include FBI as a defendant? In the letter from the FBI to the senator office, it says that the name check was completed long time and sent to the USCIS, and should contact USCIS instead.
If I file a WOM, shall I include FBI as a defendant? In the letter from the FBI to the senator office, it says that the name check was completed long time and sent to the USCIS, and should contact USCIS instead.
The namecheck being complete only implies FBI forwarded the results of namecheck back to USCIS. In some cases, USCIS investigates these results further
See documents from Safadi v Howard case(E.D. Virginia)
Yes.. A large number of retrogression fellas like us(Indians,Chinese mainly)
were victims of namecheck and now bcos the govt sat on our cases for so long.. are now becoming unjustified victims of retrogression.
Retrogression should not have happened in our cases.. esp. in the light on the new memo.
Do did file a WOM ? If not.. consider it strongly.
Otherwise... this is a cat-and-mouse game that USCIS will always win with us..