It’s true that a lawsuit must need to be filed within the jurisdiction where plaintiff resides, otherwise such a lawsuit will get dismissed because of court’s lacking of jurisdiction over the plaintiff. However, when I previously said that a lawsuit can be filed anywhere, I was just simply trying to mention that- (1) an immigration lawyer can represent anyone at any place because immigration is a federal matter; (2) a lawsuit of this nature can still be filed against USCIS in ANY district court if- (a) the lawsuit is a ‘class action’ lawsuit; and (b) only if a presiding judge will grant a motion in advance to pursue this kind of action in his/her jurisdiction where plaintiffs are not appeared to be residing in that particular jurisdiction. Earlier I was not talking about an individual plaintiff’s case here; instead I was talking about a ‘class action’ lawsuit on behalf of many plaintiffs. So, when we talk about a ‘class action’ lawsuit and if presiding judge will allow including all the plaintiffs in one complaint, then a case can surely be filed at any district court. Nevertheless, I do understand where is the confusion is coming from. I think I was not clear in explaining this as much as I should have been.
About other stuffs, then let me explain some of them. First off, yes- I am personally aware of at least 5 cases wherein USCIS asked for a second interview on those people who had filed this kind of lawsuit against USCIS. They were highly scrutinized. Three of them were denied because USCIS said that they found something “disturbing” in their green card file, while other two were kept in a limbo situation for at least 18 months by saying that their cases were being reinvestigated in the light of “new evidences”. By the way, none of these people had any criminal record. One more thing, if these lawsuits are intended to force USCIS to make a timely decision on a case, then I guess everyone will file such a lawsuit in order to have a quick decision on their case. Further, law only state that USCIS must need to make a decision within 120 days after the interview, but it doesn’t state that decision must has to be positive one. Law also doesn't state that USCIS must need to make a decision without having FBI report on applicant even though USCIS mistakenly interviewed the applicant without having complete FBI report on applicant first. Furthermore, if USCIS will reinvestigate the case or will ask for a second interview or something else then it cannot be construed that it is an act of retaliation. And even though laws say many things, such as that court system is a system of check and balance of U.S. govt., or keeping our democracy healthy, or not to retaliate against the plaintiffs, but yet still we all see how these retaliations or laws play out in our daily life. Most of times, even judges are involved in retaliations. No need me to mention that hundreds of immigrants are still detained without being charged even though law states very clearly that govt. cannot detain a person more than 7 days unless a person is charged for a crime first. And no need me to mention that many of those people’s hearing was held in “closed door” as per the Order of Attorney General even though law states that a court hearing should be in open court. I think I don’t need to mention more about retaliation, or check and balance, or democracy or nation of laws or other things. Life and things are not as fair as it should have been.
I, myself was a victim of ‘flaw judicial system’ of this nation. A judge previously made a wrong ruling in my case, which was completely without the basis in the laws and facts. I appealed that ruling, but lost. Then I filed the appeal in the Supreme Court of that State, but lost again. None of these courts ever made any finding even though laws require them to make a finding. I don’t want to write an essay here about my case, but in brief- the judicial system needs to be reformed here. As far as Terri Schivo's case goes, then her case doesn’t prove that America is a nation of laws. I personally don’t think anyone has spent as much time on Terri Schivo’s case over here as much I did. Actually Congress passed a law in the middle of night at that time to allow Terri’s case for a federal review as her case had only State courts review so far. But instead of reviewing her case from the start as per the intent of Congress, the federal judge just affirmed the decision made by a probate State judge. Besides, how come this federal judge was able to reach a conclusion on Terri’ case within 2-5 hours as a fresh review when it took almost 15 yrs for State Courts to review her case? When the Congress passed the law for Terri, they specifically noted for federal review. Congress did not give the authority to federal judge to review state’s courts decision as if it was an appeal. That said, federal judge should have reviewed her whole case from the start, which is almost impossible for anyone to do within 2-5 hours. And then, 11th circuit court did the same, means-reviewing the whole case within few hours. And then the Supreme Court of the United States refused to take the case. I meant- her life was on line, but Supreme Court did not even care to take the case. Am I missing something? If a court cannot intervene then what is the use of having such court especially when so much contradictory facts and conflicts of interests were involved in Terri Schivo’s case. Back to the initial point- I’m not here to comment on whether or not USCIS should have done such a thing against those who filed lawsuit against USCIS; instead I’m here to tell to people about what I know on this subject matter so that people can make up their own minds in the light of information that I came to know thru dealing with some people in the past.
By the way, mandamus cases are not only the cases subject to a public record; instead each and every case filed with any court is a public record. Further, if you check with any federal court across the nation then you will find that each federal court in this nation is overloaded with thousands of pending cases against USCIS. So obviously, these lawsuits don’t intimidate or bother to USCIS, otherwise they would not have let those cases to be ended up in courts at first place if they even cared a little bit about having these lawsuits as a public record, or a depressing matter to them, or make them look bad in front of others. That being said, if you honestly believe that these kinds of lawsuits make USCIS looks bad in front of the President of the United States, or Attorney General, or Immigration Commissioner then I’ve really nothing more to say on this. I cannot change your mind on this, nor I’m here to change your opinion as well.
Besides, no need me to mention what our Army did in Abu Garib Prison in Iraq, but instead of firing those who ordered to do so, our govt. furiously defended “big guys” even if it looked so bad in front of President and to the President. Neither I need to mention that nobody cared how things looked bad in front of President on many occasions. For example, the former Secy. of State- Collin Powell, made a speech in United Nation before the Iraq war wherein he said that “we have evidences that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”, but later on it is found that Iraq doesn’t have. Similarly, the former CIA Director- George Tenant has said in the congress that “we have evidence beyond the reasonable doubt that Iraq is involved in building weapon of mass destruction”, but then later on it is found to be false. That said, did anyone from the govt. care how it would look in front of President or others? If not, then why USCIS would care how bad these lawsuits will look in front of President or in front of others? Matter of fact, President already has said many times that he doesn’t care about the public opinions or polls because he will do what he will believe a right thing to do.
I've only tried to help as much I could than judging right and wrong. If someone disagrees with my opinions, then it is their choice, but I would still stand by to the facts that I know for sure.
