National Security Clearance for citizenship

cafeconleche said:
Yeah, that sounds reasonable, Al and Bob. But, I don't think going for this second interview will give them another 120 days. I read somewhere that a second interview after the lawsuit is filed does nothing to change original 120 day timeframe, and that I can still deny any further requests for a time extension.
Click to expand...

They're trying to get you to drop the lawsuit, and they're not going to decide it administratively unless you drop it.

So when you drop it, they can again take as long as they want, unless you've structured an agreement with them that makes it hard for them to back out. Without you having a lawyer, they'll craft the agreement in a way that weakens their obligations, and you might still be waiting for them to act 6 months later. If you don't bring a lawyer with you, at least you should decline to sign anything on the spot, and tell them you'll take their proposed agreement to your lawyer to review it.
 
Will do. Thanks, Jack.

However, what if, after the interview, the AUSA and I agree to file a joint motion, I ask the judge to add a stipulation herself on my behalf, given me lack of knowledge of the legal mumbo jumbo? I'm asking because in the Lawsuit thread, it seems many got through this process without a lawyer and were able to file a joint motion with not too many problems?

So, for now, I am trying to get a lawyer to come with me (if I can afford one). If that doesn't work, I won't sign anything that looks complex, and take it or a copy to a lawyer. But, what about a simple form that I can understand?

One more question: If I say I'm submitting nothing more, and am not going to the interview, and that I'd like CIS to move forward based on what I've sent, then they can either comply, or refuse and then the case goes to a judge, right? Do you think they'd comply? What if I had a lawyer say this to them for me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cafeconleche said:
However, what if, after the interview, the AUSA and I agree to file a joint motion, I ask the judge to add a stipulation herself on my behalf, given me lack of knowledge of the legal mumbo jumbo?
Click to expand...
If you don't know how to file a joint motion and understand the legal mumbo jumbo and procedures, do you think you have a good chance of success without a lawyer?

I'm asking because in the Lawsuit thread, it seems many got through this process without a lawyer and were able to file a joint motion with not too many problems?
Click to expand...
Their situations were easier because AUSA/USCIS wasn't fighting back.


So, for now, I am trying to get a lawyer to come with me (if I can afford one). If that doesn't work, I won't sign anything that looks complex, and take it or a copy to a lawyer. But, what about a simple form that I can understand?
Click to expand...
If it's too simple, it might not have enough wording to strongly hold USCIS to the agreement.

One more question: If I say I'm submitting nothing more, and am not going to the interview, and that I'd like CIS to move forward based on what I've sent, then they can either comply, or refuse and then the case goes to a judge, right? Do you think they'd comply? What if I had a lawyer say this to them for me?
Click to expand...
If you refuse to agree to their demands, and they refuse to decide your case, it will go to the judge and they can't deny it while you're waiting for the court date. The judge will then either decide the case him/herself, or remand it back to USCIS with a strict deadline.
 
Ok, so I'm seeing a lawyer on Tuesday and we will decide on how much she needs to be involved.

I really am tempted to let a judge decide this, but that would involve a great deal of court time and I will probably need a lawyer anyway, so it's a tough call.
 
cafeconleche said:
I really am tempted to let a judge decide this, but that would involve a great deal of court time and I will probably need a lawyer anyway, so it's a tough call.
Click to expand...

Once it goes to court it's usually concluded quickly. It's not like a major criminal trial where you're in and out of court for several days or weeks or months. If your case doesn't involve something complex like establishing or challenging a precedent, you'll probably spend less than an hour in the courtroom. Maybe just 2 minutes, if the court remands the case to USCIS.

The main issue as far as time is concerned is getting a court date, which could take months.
 
Well, then the AUSA is definitely trying to scare me, because when I mentioned that I was not happy about complying with all of CIS's document demands, and that I am tempted to let the court decide, he said that when it goes to court, CIS will direct the proceedings anyway and and the same documents they are demanding now will need to be shown in court (on this forum you're all saying that any judge will throw out CIS's demands in court). He also said it will be time consuming and that I will have to take much more time off work, as opposed to just going to the interview. What a punk. So, the consultation with the lawyer will definitely help, and will be worth it.
 
cafeconleche said:
(on this forum you're all saying that any judge will throw out CIS's demands in court).
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. You will have to provide your evidence to the court. In order to strengthen your case, it may help to add some of the evidence USCIS asked for, such as your ties to NY, to counteract their arguments that you moved to California.

But you may decide against providing other evidence like your parents' tax returns. Essentially, you choose what to provide or not provide based on how you think it will help your case when the judge looks at it; you are not obligated to provide every pile of nuisance evidence just because USCIS wants it.

However, if the judge remands the case, USCIS may again start asking for more evidence or another interview. So in your request to the court, in addition to asking the court to decide the case, you should also ask that if they remand it to USCIS, that they remand it with the instruction for USCIS to decide the case based on the merits of the evidence on already file and the new evidence presented to the court, without any further interviews or requests for evidence.

He also said it will be time consuming and that I will have to take much more time off work, as opposed to just going to the interview. What a punk. So, the consultation with the lawyer will definitely help, and will be worth it.
Click to expand...
There may be some time-consuming aspects involved with filing various papers with the court, but those shouldn't require personal appearances other than maybe to drop off something at the courthouse. And your lawyer can take care of most or all of that for you.
 
Thanks a lot. Yeah, the lawyer is the main issue. I'll speak to her next week and see if she things we have a good chance of being awarded fees if I do retain her, in which case it'd be great.
As for the evidence CIS is now asking for, I really have no issue providing it because, again, I have nothing to hide, and I do have the documents, especially the letters from my boss and landlord, which I feel will be strong evidence of retaining ties to the city. I sort of also want to prove a point, though, that CIS is at fault and failed to do their job, so I should not have to run around because of their incompetence. But, that could also be seen as petty of me since I'm really only concerned with the end goal of GETTING CITIZENSHIP!

This is turning into a nightmare.
 
cafeconleche said:
Thanks a lot. Yeah, the lawyer is the main issue. I'll speak to her next week and see if she things we have a good chance of being awarded fees if I do retain her, in which case it'd be great.
As for the evidence CIS is now asking for, I really have no issue providing it because, again, I have nothing to hide, and I do have the documents, especially the letters from my boss and landlord, which I feel will be strong evidence of retaining ties to the city. I sort of also want to prove a point, though, that CIS is at fault and failed to do their job, so I should not have to run around because of their incompetence. But, that could also be seen as petty of me since I'm really only concerned with the end goal of GETTING CITIZENSHIP!

This is turning into a nightmare.
Click to expand...

By agreeing to supply the documents USCIS is asking for you're accepting to have the case adjudicated administratively. Make sure you discuss this with your lawyer.
 
cafeconleche said:
Thanks a lot. Yeah, the lawyer is the main issue. I'll speak to her next week and see if she things we have a good chance of being awarded fees if I do retain her, in which case it'd be great.
As for the evidence CIS is now asking for, I really have no issue providing it because, again, I have nothing to hide, and I do have the documents, especially the letters from my boss and landlord, which I feel will be strong evidence of retaining ties to the city. I sort of also want to prove a point, though, that CIS is at fault and failed to do their job, so I should not have to run around because of their incompetence. But, that could also be seen as petty of me since I'm really only concerned with the end goal of GETTING CITIZENSHIP!

This is turning into a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Fees will be awarded to you as soon as USCIS lose their case against you. Find an honest lawyer, very hard for NY because so many low-life lawyers act like big shots up there, discuss this issue very clearly and with detailed points. Given that we have discussed this issue on this forum, it might be advantageous for you to print this thread, glean each point of important and write them up in a word document, 2 page of key issues. I abhor people who meet with lawyers, pay a consultation fee and don't get a bang out of their buck, be prepare to the teeth. AUSA is just trying to scare the bananas out of you, Judge dictates proceedings based on the submitted record, the AUSA realize that this is a self-help situation, so throwing poop at your cake seems to be a strategy here.

Filing a joint motion is a simple task, basically both of you will be agreeing on a particular course of action and entering it into a court record. For example, motion to withdraw the case w/o prejudice and giving USCIS maybe 30 days to administratively adjudicate, failing within the agreed 30 days, motion to refile or reopen is entered. The positives about USCIS failing to adjudicate your case within agreed time frame with AUSA is this, it creates a court record and portray the AUSA in bad light and judges abhor lawyers who don't keep their end of the bargain. AUSA won't be in a position to dictate terms. I think you can respond to their request for evidence without dropping your lawsuits, enter the copies of your submission into the court record, to show that you were responsive to their crap, but they still failed to make a decision.
 
Interesting. I will definitely give the lawyer detailed information. Also, Bobsmyth, even though I agree to try to settle the case administratively, if they still don't work with me, I can decide to take it to the judge, can't I, saying that despite complying with requests for further evidence when this evidence should have been sought before, CIS was still not able to do their job after I consented to extending the deadline by 30 days.

I will discuss this with the lawyer too.
 
cafeconleche said:
Also, Bobsmyth, even though I agree to try to settle the case administratively, if they still don't work with me, I can decide to take it to the judge, can't I, saying that despite complying with requests for further evidence when this evidence should have been sought before, CIS was still not able to do their job after I consented to extending the deadline by 30 days.
Click to expand...
AUSA tactic is for you to drop the lawsuit so that USCIS can proceed administratively. If you agree to let them proceed that way, then your lawsuit is a moot point and you can't go to a judge unless you file a new lawsuit.
 
Yeah, I get it. What I'm still not clear about is why CIS wants to draw this out. What will they gain by messing with me? Surely they would just like to naturalise me (especially if I submit what they are asking for, and prove that there are no grounds to deny me). This is all really weird. Anyway, lawyer tomorrow!
 
cafeconleche said:
Yeah, I get it. What I'm still not clear about is why CIS wants to draw this out. What will they gain by messing with me? Surely they would just like to naturalise me (especially if I submit what they are asking for, and prove that there are no grounds to deny me).
Click to expand...

They don't want to naturalize you. Maybe you are on the terror watch list (there are over 1 million names on the list, most put there for arbitrary reasons), and they are afraid of naturalizing somebody who turns out to be a terrorist, so their strategy is to drag it out and hope you give up, and they won't approve your naturalization unless they're backed into a corner.
 
Well, apparently my FBI background/name check has gone through. Anyway, the meeting with the attorney was interesting. I'm not sure she knew what the 1447(b) deal was. She advised me to go to the "interview" though, because in her experience, CIS is not trying to dupe me. Anyway, it's tomorrow, and I feel like going. I have the necessary documents, and I want to be able to tell the judge later (if necessary) that I complied with their request and nothing came about after that even though the AUSA said my case was approvable except for a couple of issues. I'll let y'all know how it goes.
 
cafeconleche said:
... I want to be able to tell the judge later (if necessary) that I complied with their request and nothing came about after that even though the AUSA said my case was approvable except for a couple of issues.
Click to expand...

Didn't the AUSA ask you to dismiss the 1447(b) in exchange to proceed with administrative adjudication?
 
No no, the AUSA suggested I keep the lawsuit pending and just asked for the extension. He said once CIS could clear up their doubts, we could jointly move to dismiss so they could naturalise me.

So, the interview today went smoothly. This ISO was much more professional and put together, unlike the last one who seemed she had been in an opium den the night before. The issues:

1. My birth certificate has my name spelled differently (with one extra letter in my first name, and without my other unofficial name which eventually became my middle name when I moved to the US), so a name change was necessary to make it all official. That is taken care of at the oath ceremony apparently.

2. Because I had a lot of internships listed and not much work in my employment history, she wanted the rest of my mom's tax returns, and my W2s to see how I was supporting myself.

3. She wasn't clear about where I lived because they had copies of my CA DL (which I had included earlier to show ties to the US) and she hadn't seen the copy of my NY DL. Also, since I had filed my lawsuit while I was in CA, and the court clerk put my CA address on the summons (which I should have sent back asking for the NY address to be put on it) that confused her more. But I cleared her doubts with bank statements, leases and paystubs.

4. She also updated things, like my address history, jobs, travel, etc. I gave her 2 new photos too.

There you have it. I did not sign anything except for the name change form. I was given the N652 saying a decision could not be made since the lawsuit is still pending. She said clearly that your application is all good, and that the oath can take place any time from mid-March onwards. She said she couldn't write it on the form for legal reasons, etc., but it was very clear by the way she zipped through the updates and clarifications I gave here that everything was now in order. I wish she had been my ISO from the beginning.

So, now I'll call the AUSA in a few hours and update him. Any suggestions from you all? Fingers crossed, this should be over next month, one year after it began.
 
Everything sounds in order for you to be approved shortly. Now why it took the threat of a 1447(b) to get the ball rolling with USCIS is anyone's guess considering they could have easily asked you for the information within the 120 day time limit. Sounds like your case just ended up on someones desk waiting to be looked into.
 
That's exactly what the AUSA said, and what the ISO implied. I was very clear with my frustration, and she noticed but didn't say anything. Even my extensive travels, she said, though they were close to the mark, still didn't put me over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top