Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)

Hello awudu,
I am trying to get a tally of persons waiting for 4+ years. Please post on this link
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=278674

THe FBI/USCIS said they have already completed name checks for all persons waiting for 4+ years. If they have not done yours then it will be prove that they are lying which will not be new or surprising
If you can provide us with some sort of documentation that as at April 02 your name check was still pending, it will help those filing WOM as they will use this to show that the press release was nothing more than a publicity stunt to stem lawsuits.
I personally will like to get such documentation as I intend to file my WOM next week pro se

awudu said:
Hi to all

I will like to get advise from my fellows.

My case with the immigration is 5yrs old for my N-400.
I was interviewed in february 2003 since then my case is pending for fbi name check.
I recently filed a lawsuit in January, on the 59th day of the 60 days, the immigration request for an extention, the extention was granted which will expire May 9th in 3 days, up till today I heard nothing from the immigration and I am assuming they will ask for another extention, in this case what should I do?
Thank you all for your advise
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
awudu said:
thank you lazycis.
because I never prepare any motion in my life, is there any samples or guide lines of how to file motion? I spoke to the court clerk this morning, they told me the defendant requested for another 60 days extension.

Again thank u
Click to expand...

Here is a sample motion. Since you are in a different circuit, you can rework it a little bit, but 90% is suitable for your case. When talking about harm to the plaintiff, mention that you will not be able to vote if TRO is not granted. State that you need to register to vote 3 months before the elections (if that's the case in your state). Insert this paragraph to support your position regarding likelihood of success (in the memoradmum):

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), this Honorable Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s naturalization application after the complaint is filed and may either adjudicate the application on the merits or remand the matter with instructions to the USCIS. See e.g., U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004); Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007); Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2007).
The Appellate authority is unanimous in holding that federal district court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over a naturalization application after § 1447(b) complaint is filed and is unanimous in its interpretation of the “examination” as the initial naturalization interview. See, e.g. U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“[Section 1447(b)] provides that, if the INS fails to make a decision regarding a naturalization application within 120 days of an applicant’s first interview the applicant may [seek a judicial hearing] on the matter”) (emphasis added); Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“[W]here the INS had not acted within 120 days of the applicants’ initial interviews, upon the applicants’ filing suit the district court took exclusive jurisdiction over their naturalization applications”) (emphasis in original); Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379,379-405 (4th Cir. 2007) (“The 120-day period under § 1447(b) does not even begin to run until after the initial naturalization examination; because many of the CIS’s investigatory functions take place before or during that initial naturalization examination . . . .”) (emphasis added). The waiver of sovereign immunity in 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) gives individuals who have waited 120 days from the time of their naturalization interview and have still not received an adjudication of their N-400 application the opportunity to bring an action in federal court to compel the CIS to make a decision on their N-400. See 8 U.S.C. §1447(b).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a letter from CIS?

Lazycis and others,
I received a letter from CIS today, "A review of the record reflects that this case is currently pending final review, before it is scheduled for an Oath Ceremony. You have not been scheduled yet; however once you have been scheduled for a ceremony, you will be notified by mail."
This made me confused, AUSA told me my application was adjudicated and appoved on 04/23/2008. But from this letter, still pending for final review? I cannot believe such low efficiency of CIS.
Is this normal?

Basic information:
N-400 Filing on 03/23/2006
Fingerprint taken on 04/27/2006
Passed interview on 07/10/2006
waiting for the oath letter because of the name check...
Lawsuit(Pro Se) Filed on 01/02/2008
AUSA asked 2 weeks extension to answer on 03/04/2008
AUSA second motion for extension of time to answer on 03/13/2008
AUSA filed ANSWER to Complaint on 04/01/2008
Judge Order that Proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be filed by April 25, 2008
Filed MSJ on 04/09/2008
AUSA asked 2 weeks extension to respond MSJ
Fingerprint re-taken on 04/21/2008
Application was adjudicated and approved on 04/23/2008
AUSA filed Motion to dismiss plaintiff's lawsuit as moot on 04/28/2008
Filed unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant's
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Lawsuit As Moot on May 6,2008

Waiting for the oath letter...

Civil No. 08-0003-CV-W-FJG
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
 
us attorney

hi lazycis,
thank u very much, this is the letter I received from US attorney's office and need your input.

see the attachment.

Thank you
 
Finally mailed out my suit to the district court in Philadelphia. Hopefully, it will have some impact on my case. (N400, Priority date 3/15/2007. no interview yet. Pending due to name check)

Anyone in the Philadelphia area filed suit before? Wonder how things are in the area.
 
4 Questions for Lazy

I need some sorts of official source/documents so that I can include them in my response to motion to dismiss as moot. They should be official enough to be presentable to the court


1-Do we have the statistics of the number of AOS mandamus lawsuits in 2007?

2- Also the number of N400 cases with or without interview?

3- Is there any official account saying that the FBI name check procedure is not specifically applicable to citizenship applications?

4- Any strong evidence indicating that FBI name check is not required for citizenship and only finger print is required?

Thanks,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used this statement in my N-400 WOM:

USCIS have a common custom and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of immigration applications. More than 4400 cases of Writ of Mandamus (WOM) were filed against USCIS in 2007 alone and that undoubtedly proves the level of its service to customers. http://www.murthy.com/news/n_numand.html. For this year lawsuits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050602603.html


3- For this you can refer the new USCIS memo in which they explicitly mentioned it.

Slow_CIS said:
I need some sorts of official source/documents so that I can include them in my response to motion to dismiss as moot. They should be official enough to be presentable to the court


1-Do we have the statistics of the number of AOS mandamus lawsuits in 2007?

2- Also the number of N400 cases with or without interview?

3- Is there any official account saying that the FBI name check procedure is not specifically applicable to citizenship applications?

4- Any strong evidence indicating that FBI name check is not required for citizenship and only finger print is required?

Thanks,
Reza
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waitforsolong,

Mine case is similar as yours as I had my N-400 interview but they kept it hold due to the supervisor's approval. I'm planning to make my 1447B and will file within month or so. Would you mind sharing your WOM with me so that I could improve mine as well get you some tips. Thanks in advance...

OK-Boy

waitforsolong said:
After 3 months of waiting of the n400 supervisor's final approval, I lost my faith on waiting.:(

Since my name check is cleared, I did not put FBI into my dependence. ( Can you believe that I have to file the lawsuit even my name check is finished!!):mad:

I filed case in San Jose North California district court.

The clerk gave us a bunch of documents to serve/read. She also quickly mentioned that my case is assigned to a magistrate judge instead of district judge. She said if we don't like it, she can reassign the case to a district judge.

My question is, does it matter for my 1447b case to switch to a district judge? Will it help if we go back and ask the clerk to change the judge?

Many thanks!!
Click to expand...
 
Slow_CIS said:
Do you think Murthy.com or Washington post would be official enough for that purpose?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Here are the references you can use as well:

Pamela A. MacLean, Immigrants Look to Speed Process: Suits to Compel Action on Stalled Visas Split Courts, Nat’l L.J., July 16, 2007, at 1; see also Emily Bazar, Immigrants Sue to Speed Citizenship: Residents Tired of Long Delays in Background Checks Turn to Courts to Remove Barriers, USA Today, Feb. 22, 2008, at 3A (“In 2005, about 270 lawsuits filed against USCIS were over delayed name checks . . . . [In 2007], there were more than 4,400 such suits.”).

Check also the previous page where I pointed out that only fingerprint check is required for N400.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1901383&postcount=16461

See also this link, you can refer to this document as it's been cited by other courts as well (jefkorn posted an opinion citing it, see the previous page)
http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3.ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=2755
 
awudu said:
hi lazycis,
thank u very much, this is the letter I received from US attorney's office and need your input.

see the attachment.

Thank you
Click to expand...

See attached opposition and motion for preliminary injunction. Don't delay, file it asap. Don't forget to put your information where necessary.
 
au071 said:
Finally mailed out my suit to the district court in Philadelphia. Hopefully, it will have some impact on my case. (N400, Priority date 3/15/2007. no interview yet. Pending due to name check)

Anyone in the Philadelphia area filed suit before? Wonder how things are in the area.
Click to expand...

Au071, can you share a copy of your complaint? I'm thinking of filing WOM for my spouse and myself. If I do, it will be the same court in Philli.
 
difference between TRO and preliminary injunction?

Hey, Lazycis,

Do you mind to explain a little bit about the difference between TRO and preliminary injunction? I couldn't make up my mind which weapon to use when the oppertune moment comes.:)
Thanks a lot!

lazycis said:
See attached opposition and motion for preliminary injunction. Don't delay, file it asap. Don't forget to put your information where necessary.
Click to expand...
 
wommei said:
Hey, Lazycis,

Do you mind to explain a little bit about the difference between TRO and preliminary injunction? I couldn't make up my mind which weapon to use when the oppertune moment comes.:)
Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...

Both are being used when you need an emergency ruling. TRO is easier to obtain as it may be issued without notice to the opposite party. But it's valid for 10 days only. So if you need to reserve a visa number, TRO is good enough. Preliminary injuction is being used to prevent further damage and it can have the same effect as the final ruling on the merits (MSJ) in some cases (our cases do not require trials so they fit this pattern). Both TRO and preliminary injunction require showing that you will be harmed if it's not granted. Wherefore it fits perfectly our scenarios. If you need to renew EAD/AP soon, you may ask, inter alia, for preliminary injunction.
Do I sound like an attorney? :)
 
I pretty much used the one ACLU used for their class action lawsuit.
You can find it on their website. I just replaced the timeline with my own information.

albertr said:
Au071, can you share a copy of your complaint? I'm thinking of filing WOM for my spouse and myself. If I do, it will be the same court in Philli.
Click to expand...
 
Lazycis

Hey, Lazycis,

You sound like an outstanding attorney from one of the prestigious law firms, especially when you use fancy words like "inter alia".:) This is very educational and helpful. I think I could mix up these two as a recipe for a super-duper secret weapon.

lazycis said:
Both are being used when you need an emergency ruling. TRO is easier to obtain as it may be issued without notice to the opposite party. But it's valid for 10 days only. So if you need to reserve a visa number, TRO is good enough. Preliminary injuction is being used to prevent further damage and it can have the same effect as the final ruling on the merits (MSJ) in some cases (our cases do not require trials so they fit this pattern). Both TRO and preliminary injunction require showing that you will be harmed if it's not granted. Wherefore it fits perfectly our scenarios. If you need to renew EAD/AP soon, you may ask, inter alia, for preliminary injunction.
Do I sound like an attorney? :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top