Houston Judge Sends Message To Uscis On Natz Delays

P

pollinh

Registered Users (C)
Benders Immigration Bulletin has posted
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Abusadeh 12-27-07.pdf


a really great mandamus decision by a federal district court judge in Houston ordering USCIS to adjudicate a naturalization case that has been delayed for nearly four years. Dan K. provides the money quote from Judge Rosenthal on the BIB page, but it's worth repeating:

This court orders as follows:

Within 14 days, the USCIS must order the FBI to expedite the name check on Abusadeh.

Within 60 days from the date the FBI completes the name check and reports the results to the USCIS, or by April 2, 2008, whichever is earlier, the USCIS must report to this court, in writing, as to whether the FBI has completed the name check on Abusadeh and reported the results to the USCIS. If not, the USCIS must report on the status of the name check and the reasons for the failure to complete it.

Within 30 days of receiving the report of the results of the name check from the FBI, the USCIS must decide Abusadeh's naturalization application.

If the decision is to grant the application, the USCIS must permit Abusadeh to be naturalized as a citizen within 30 days.
 
Unless I missed something here, the key word here is "from the date the FBI comletes the name check". USCIS only "obligate" to report the court with result or the reasons for continue delay by certain date, and make the judication within 30 days "AFTER" received FBI results.

So, if FBI took 5 years to get the results back to USCIS, you would still have to wait for 5 years. Am I correct?
 
Citizentobehz said:
Unless I missed something here, the key word here is "from the date the FBI comletes the name check". USCIS only "obligate" to report the court with result or the reasons for continue delay by certain date, and make the judication within 30 days "AFTER" received FBI results.

So, if FBI took 5 years to get the results back to USCIS, you would still have to wait for 5 years. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

The summary judgement states that the court will allow the FBI an opportunity to complete the name check in a "reasonably prompt period" after receiving a request to expedite from the USCIS. However, there is no delineation as to what is the exact duration of a time period that is deemed "reasonably prompt". I am not an attorney, but doesn't this verbiage invalidate the whole purpose of this lawsuit?
 
So, if FBI took 5 years to get the results back to USCIS, you would still have to wait for 5 years. Am I correct?
Click to expand...
They have to answer to the judge long before that:

Within 60 days from the date the FBI completes the name check and reports the results to the USCIS, or by April 2, 2008, whichever is earlier, the USCIS must report to this court, in writing, as to whether the FBI has completed the name check on Abusadeh and reported the results to the USCIS. If not, the USCIS must report on the status of the name check and the reasons for the failure to complete it.
Click to expand...
 
Vorpal said:
The summary judgement states that the court will allow the FBI an opportunity to complete the name check in a "reasonably prompt period" after receiving a request to expedite from the USCIS. However, there is no delineation as to what is the exact duration of a time period that is deemed "reasonably prompt". I am not an attorney, but doesn't this verbiage invalidate the whole purpose of this lawsuit?
Click to expand...
I don't know about the exact definition of what is reasonable, but there are prior WOM cases that stated what was unreasonable.
 
Jackolantern said:
They have to answer to the judge long before that:
Click to expand...

The only thing that the judge stated was that the USCIS must REPORT to the court whether or not the FBI has completed the name check. Nowhere did the judge state that the USCIS must adjudicate the case if the name check has not been completed by April 2, 2008, nor did he state that the FBI must complete the name check by April 2, 2008. I'm sure that the case will be adjudicated by then, but an experienced attorney would definitely be able to wage a successful argument in favor of the FBI...unless, of course, there has been a precedent where the exact duration of a "reasonably prompt period" has been set.
 
Jackolantern said:
I don't know about the exact definition of what is reasonable, but there are prior WOM cases that stated what was unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't know that. I'm sure the FBI is well aware of that, though, which would compel them not to delay the process any further.
 
Vorpal said:
The only thing that the judge stated was that the USCIS must REPORT to the court whether or not the FBI has completed the name check.
Click to expand...
They must report the status, including the reason. That reason is the key. They probably can't come up with a good and true reason for the delay, so it should motivate them to get it done. They can't say "we haven't assigned anybody to work on it, your honor."
 
Jackolantern said:
They must report the status, including the reason. That reason is the key. They probably can't come up with a good and true reason for the delay, so it should motivate them to get it done.
Click to expand...

This is true. Since the USCIS is ordered to send an expedite request to the FBI, the FBI can't use the name check backlog as the reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top