My N-400 case has been pending since Dec 2006. I went to Infopass recently and was told the name check still remains pending, that is what I expect though. To my surprise, the IO showed me a piece of paper with the Apr 8 news published by USCIS regarding the FBI name check time frame. He told me to come back on Nov 2008 since I will have waited for 1-2 year at that time, hopefully my name check will be cleared at the time. I asked him if he knows more detail regarding this news. He said no and the reason why he showed this is that there was no time frame to be advised of before but now they have such public statement. Shall we keep our hope on what they said in the news? I plan to wait for 1 year and 9 months (till September this year) before file WOM. Would that be an issue since USCIS stated that they would clear all the 1 year+ case by Nov this year?
Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)
- Thread starter Publicus
- Start date
Lacycis and other gurus,
I filed my WOM case on April 2. Today I received an order to show cause. It orders the defendants to show cause why the writ should not be granted, and it also says that "Defendants shall file responsive papers to the complaint by May 16, 2008".
Is this normal for the judge to issue an order like this even before the 60-day ends?
I filed my WOM case on April 2. Today I received an order to show cause. It orders the defendants to show cause why the writ should not be granted, and it also says that "Defendants shall file responsive papers to the complaint by May 16, 2008".
Is this normal for the judge to issue an order like this even before the 60-day ends?
It's unusual, but a court has a power to do that. Your district is probably swamped with such cases
Anyway, it's a good development for you.Cllin123,
Don't believe in all of those USCIS memos; it's all BS. You have reached the point where you can file WOM and win it easily. If I were you I would have filed it a month ago. Anyhow, choice is yours; either wait indefinitely or fight for your rights...
Don't believe in all of those USCIS memos; it's all BS. You have reached the point where you can file WOM and win it easily. If I were you I would have filed it a month ago. Anyhow, choice is yours; either wait indefinitely or fight for your rights...
Agc4me
Hey, AGC4ME,
I have been doing some research on the cases in my district (North Ill.) and I found that the MSJ can be dismissed if the format doesn't follow the local rule. I tried to understand the rules (see below) and it is getting confusing for me. So to be on the safe side, I think I will file a opposition to MTD first. And then I will file MSJ. IN that case, even if the MSJ is denied due to the format issue, my case won't be dismissed.
After that, I may file the second amended complaint ( I would take Wom_ri as my role model for that) or even application for issuing a temporary restrain order.
a) Moving Party. With each motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 the moving party shall serve and file—
(1) any affidavits and other materials referred to in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);
(2) a supporting memorandum of law; and
(3) a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law, and that also includes:
(A) a description of the parties, and
(B) all facts supporting venue and jurisdiction in this court.
The statement referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph. Failure to submit such a statement constitutes grounds for denial of the motion. Absent prior leave of Court, a movant shall not file more than 80 separately-numbered statements of undisputed material fact.
If additional material facts are submitted by the opposing party pursuant to section (b), the moving party may submit a concise reply in the form prescribed in that section for a response. All material facts set forth in the statement filed pursuant to section (b)(3)(C) will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the moving party.
Hey, AGC4ME,
I have been doing some research on the cases in my district (North Ill.) and I found that the MSJ can be dismissed if the format doesn't follow the local rule. I tried to understand the rules (see below) and it is getting confusing for me. So to be on the safe side, I think I will file a opposition to MTD first. And then I will file MSJ. IN that case, even if the MSJ is denied due to the format issue, my case won't be dismissed.
After that, I may file the second amended complaint ( I would take Wom_ri as my role model for that) or even application for issuing a temporary restrain order.
a) Moving Party. With each motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 the moving party shall serve and file—
(1) any affidavits and other materials referred to in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);
(2) a supporting memorandum of law; and
(3) a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law, and that also includes:
(A) a description of the parties, and
(B) all facts supporting venue and jurisdiction in this court.
The statement referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph. Failure to submit such a statement constitutes grounds for denial of the motion. Absent prior leave of Court, a movant shall not file more than 80 separately-numbered statements of undisputed material fact.
If additional material facts are submitted by the opposing party pursuant to section (b), the moving party may submit a concise reply in the form prescribed in that section for a response. All material facts set forth in the statement filed pursuant to section (b)(3)(C) will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement of the moving party.
another victory for Womers who are affected by retrogression of priority date
Another well-deserved victory for womers who are affected by retrogression of the priority date. The court ordered that USCIS should adjudicate I485 within 60 days although the priority date is not current. It was current when the WOM was filed. That is a great finding, thanks to Lazycis!!
I have another question though. I thought we don't have to pay for court order in PACER. But it seems that I was still charged when I open this court order. Do you know some other website that I can access the court orders without paying for it?
Another well-deserved victory for womers who are affected by retrogression of the priority date. The court ordered that USCIS should adjudicate I485 within 60 days although the priority date is not current. It was current when the WOM was filed. That is a great finding, thanks to Lazycis!!
I have another question though. I thought we don't have to pay for court order in PACER. But it seems that I was still charged when I open this court order. Do you know some other website that I can access the court orders without paying for it?
Will make an interesting reading on the beach!!
This is 50 pages long document but a pretty good discussion of AOS related delays, jurisdiction issues, USCIS's duty to adjudicate AOS applications in a reasonable time. It covers the name check policy change [02/04/2008 , NC pending > 180 days].
Waiting in Immigration Limbo: The Federal Courts Split Over Suits To Compel Action On Stalled Adjustment Of Status Applications
"
Part I explains the adjustment process and examines various institutional impediments to quickly concluding applications.
Part I then surveys recent government policies for AOS applications and introduces the statutes and regulations governing the process.
Part II presents the conflict over whether to grant defendants’ motions to dismiss. First, it examines cases granting dismissal, including the legal and policy justifications for that decision.
Part II goes on to evaluate the cases asserting jurisdiction and the reasons therefor.
Part III seeks to resolve the conflict by advocating for the position taken by federal courts declining the government’s motions to dismiss. It argues that such a position is the most faithful to the letter and intent of the relevant immigration laws, the most workable, and best serves the issues underlying the AOS process and broader policy concerns."
Source: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3.ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=2755
This is 50 pages long document but a pretty good discussion of AOS related delays, jurisdiction issues, USCIS's duty to adjudicate AOS applications in a reasonable time. It covers the name check policy change [02/04/2008 , NC pending > 180 days].
Waiting in Immigration Limbo: The Federal Courts Split Over Suits To Compel Action On Stalled Adjustment Of Status Applications
"
Part I explains the adjustment process and examines various institutional impediments to quickly concluding applications.
Part I then surveys recent government policies for AOS applications and introduces the statutes and regulations governing the process.
Part II presents the conflict over whether to grant defendants’ motions to dismiss. First, it examines cases granting dismissal, including the legal and policy justifications for that decision.
Part II goes on to evaluate the cases asserting jurisdiction and the reasons therefor.
Part III seeks to resolve the conflict by advocating for the position taken by federal courts declining the government’s motions to dismiss. It argues that such a position is the most faithful to the letter and intent of the relevant immigration laws, the most workable, and best serves the issues underlying the AOS process and broader policy concerns."
Source: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3.ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=2755
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for posting this. I do have a question, when is a WOM considered filed? Is it the date the complaint delivered to court and it gets a case number?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think so although I am not a law expert.
about how to access LEXIS online?
I want to create an account on LEXIS online and to be able to download court orders and so on. But somehow I couldn't create an account. Any idea about how to do that?
Could anyone upload the court order for this case for me? Thanks a lot.
SHAHRAM ABDOLLAHI ALIBEIK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,
No. C-07-01938 EDL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86289
I want to create an account on LEXIS online and to be able to download court orders and so on. But somehow I couldn't create an account. Any idea about how to do that?
Could anyone upload the court order for this case for me? Thanks a lot.
SHAHRAM ABDOLLAHI ALIBEIK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,
No. C-07-01938 EDL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86289
I got fingerprinted for naturalization on May 2, 07. I am in San Diego. I contemplated filing WOM to seek adjucation of application, by asking FBI to complete namecheck, but in light of new USCIS memo considering eliminating backlog of FBI name check, I am wondering if I should wait another few months to see how FBI/USCIS move to clear the backlog
LAZYCIS and other folks, can you advise me on the best course of action.
LAZYCIS and other folks, can you advise me on the best course of action.
Amazing story!
This is very useful information. Thank you for sharing this with us. I have been in the Us on a H4 visa for 2 years and often joke with my husband that I want to sue the US govt agency for not allowing h4 visa holders to work when other temporary visa holders can. it is esp excruciating due to the back log. there seems to be no end in sight.
But which organization/agency within the government should I sue?
and would is be better if i did it on my own, or if several h4 visa holders got together?
Thanks!
This is very useful information. Thank you for sharing this with us. I have been in the Us on a H4 visa for 2 years and often joke with my husband that I want to sue the US govt agency for not allowing h4 visa holders to work when other temporary visa holders can. it is esp excruciating due to the back log. there seems to be no end in sight.
But which organization/agency within the government should I sue?
and would is be better if i did it on my own, or if several h4 visa holders got together?
Thanks!
soccergirl
Registered Users (C)
I have just receieved the letter back from the FBI and the FOIPA request and it came back with "No record". FOIPA is a little different from the NNCP. Does anyone know how to contact someone in the FBI to check on the actual Name check status that the USCIS requested? There is no such request form on the FBI site and they say you have to contact USCIS but there must be another way. USCIS does not respond. Anyone with any luck on this?
about estoppel claims
Lazycis and other womers,
I know what "estoppel" means. BUt now I am a bit confused about the purpose of estoppel claims. If I only want to argue that my I485 case should be adjudicated now by USCIS because a visa number was available when it is filed with USCIS/federal court, do I need to use estoppel argument? Or maybe estoppel claims are only for those people who want to back-date their green cards? Thanks.
Additionally, there have been 2 cases that the court ordered to adjudicate AOS cases despite the visa numbers are not available right now in Northern Cal. Dist. court. Did plaintiffs have the argument of estoppel in their MSJ or complaints?
Lazycis and other womers,
I know what "estoppel" means. BUt now I am a bit confused about the purpose of estoppel claims. If I only want to argue that my I485 case should be adjudicated now by USCIS because a visa number was available when it is filed with USCIS/federal court, do I need to use estoppel argument? Or maybe estoppel claims are only for those people who want to back-date their green cards? Thanks.
Additionally, there have been 2 cases that the court ordered to adjudicate AOS cases despite the visa numbers are not available right now in Northern Cal. Dist. court. Did plaintiffs have the argument of estoppel in their MSJ or complaints?
Soccergirl,
It's hard to get to know in which stage the namechaeck process is but atleast you could find out that it's in the namecheck process by different ways specially writing to your congressional members. I know some folks who were stuck in the application process and were thinking that it's becasue of namecheck but they found out later taht it was USCIS who keeps delaying the process not the FBI. It's better to get to know for sure what is the main hindrance rather than sitting and hoping for a miracle.
It's hard to get to know in which stage the namechaeck process is but atleast you could find out that it's in the namecheck process by different ways specially writing to your congressional members. I know some folks who were stuck in the application process and were thinking that it's becasue of namecheck but they found out later taht it was USCIS who keeps delaying the process not the FBI. It's better to get to know for sure what is the main hindrance rather than sitting and hoping for a miracle.
soccergirl
Registered Users (C)
The USCIS said it was stuck in Namecheck but it's hard to know who to believe. I will write my congressperson and see what they can do. Thank you so much for you advice.