- District of Connecticut( No. 07-0504, September 20, 2007):
- Western District of Oklahoma (No. 07-382, August 8, 2007)
- District of Nebraska (No. 8:07CV50, July 19, 2007)
- Northern District of Ohio (No.1L07-cv-0256, August 13, 2007)
- Eastern District of California (Civ.S-06-2808, August 22, 2007)
- Eastern District of Kentucky (No. 07-203-JBC, Aug 29, 2007)
- Middle District of Florida (No.6:07-cv-735-Orl-31KRS, September 17, 2007)
- District of Minnesota( No.07-1721, October 9, 2007)
- Western District of Missouri (No. 07-4104, Dec 11, 2007)
- Northern District of California, San Jose Division (No. 07-4041, Dec 17, 2007) new
District of Connecticut, No. 07-0504, September 20, 2007)
“The Court is sympathetic to the notion that immigration officials have been burdened since September 11, 2001 by the hightened need for security checks without receiving an adequate corresponding increase in resources and support from Congress. However, the Court still cannot consider it reasonable that it has taken Defendants more than three years in Plaintiff’s case to complete their FBI name checks. While it is not necessary to locate the exact time at which a delay in adjudication of permanent residency application becomes unreasonable, See Tang, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 157, it is clear that the three years during which Plaintiffs’ application have been pending qualifies as unreasonable delay, especially where Defendants have made no showing that Plaintiffs’ applications have suggested a security risk or posed any other problem that would excuse such a delay. As the court wrote in Tang v. Chertoff, simply because adjustment of status is a form of discretionary relief does not means that there is no limit to the length of time the USCIS may take processing application; “[t]he duty to act is no duty at all if the deadline is eternity.” Tang, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 149. Given the high volume of applications and the scarcity of resources, Defendants and other agency officials may find themselves sort on the resources necessary to fulfill their statutory duty within a reasonable time. While this may be a legitimate policy crisis, the Court will not excuse Defendants from their statutory duty and let the cost fall on immigrant plaintiffs. See id. At 158. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. ......For the reasons stated above and on the record in open court on September 13, 2007, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied. This matter is continued for 30 days, at which time the Court will enter a ruling granting Plaintiffs’ I-485 application if the matter has not yet been resolved”
Case background: I485 applicants are couple of Citizen of Syria(husband) and United Kindom(wife), they filed I-485 on August 2004, and case has been pending due to name check since then.
法官明确指出，尽管USCIS／FBI抱怨他们人手不够处理这么多的案件,法官也理解,但是３年的拖延总么也是不合理的. 他们应该寻求行政上的帮助，而不是把困难转转嫁给移民，我们也一直知道Connecticut的法官对告USCIS／FBI的移民很同情，可这个法官更是前进一不，明确威胁USCIS，如果３０天之内不处理，法庭回直接批准绿卡.
住在这区的朋友，这个判决可是尚方包剑，NC超过两年的，肯定一告一个准（可别等太久了，万一有不同的判决出来可就复杂了）
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57964 (Western District of Oklahoma No. CIV-07-382-F, August 8, 2007) ):
“In this case, plaintiff’s application for adjustment of status has been pending over two years. The court finds that plaintiff has mad a prima facie showing that defendants’ delay in processing his application is unreasonable …. Although defendants has submitted a personal declaration of Naboone Puripongs, a supervisor with Texas Service Center, defendants has not submitted any evidence that they exercise any discretion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) to hold adjudication of plaintiff’s application in abeyance for any period. The court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s mandamus complaint.”
Case background:A Chinese Citizenship, filed I-485 on March 2005, filed this lawsuit on April 2007(just over 2 years pending), Pro Se, Judge ruled favorable to plaintiff on August 8, 2007.
这又是咱们中国同胞自己告的，而且是两年牢一过立马就告，毫不耽误。四个月就全部搞定，精神可嘉。在评论中，法官还特意支出，在这案子以前已经有两个同样的案子被本庭其他法官判原告胜利，虽然没明说，他的意思很明显，他肯定会随大流。
所以有了接连３个案子判原告胜利，绝对是尚方包宝剑，这区的朋友都不用请律师，完全应该能够踩在前辈的肩膀上过去
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53309 (District of Nebraska, No. 8:07CV50)
“This Court concludes that the better reasoned view is that courts have jurisdiction at a minimal under the APA because defendants have a non-discretionary duty to process the I-485 application within a reasonable time, as distinct from its discretionary authority of whether grant or deny the application….. IT IS ORDERED the defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. The USCIS is ordered to complete its adjudication of Li’s I-485 application within thirty (30) days.”
这是移民局大摆乌龙的又一个例子，只是我们的这位同胞没有把这口闷气往肚子里咽，而是果断地拿起法律武器捍卫自己的权利
我们的同胞李女士在２００５年７月交的I－４８５，２００６年３月收到收到批准的信件，可等了一个月也没收到卡，打电话过去询问，被告知她还差一次指纹，结果一去打完指纹后告知NC CHECK还没完，同时把她的批准原件没收（都怀疑打指纹是圈套，只是想把你的原件收走，你遇到这样情况的话，一定要复印留底）。经过几个月与移民局交涉无果，李女士与２００７年２月果断地把移民局，FBI告上法庭（２年还不到，特殊情况特殊处理）。经过一番交锋，法官判决原告胜利，要求被告３０天之内解决遗留问题
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59003 (Northern District of Ohio, No.1L07-cv-0256)
“The defendants’ motion asserts that 8 U.S.C § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and § 1252(g) strip this Court of jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claim. Sections 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) limit a court’s jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding he granting of relief” in certain immigration proceedings, or “any [discretionary] decision or action fo the Attorney General or the Secretary of homeland Security …. “. As Mr. Totonchi is not challenging a judgment or a decision, but rather asking this Court to compel a judgment o decision, §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) are not applicable in this case. …..At this stage of litigation, there is insufficient evdience to make a conclusionas to whether CIS's failure to adjudicate the plaintiff's petition was unreasonable. However, considering in light most favorable to the plaintiff the fact that he has been in limbo for fifteen months waiting for a final decision, the Court finds the plaintiff has satisfied his burden of stating a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.
Plaintiff background: a male citizne of Iran, filed I-140 and I-485 on March 2006, I-140 was approved August 2006. Filed lawsuit on January 30, 2007.
这里是我们看到告的动作最快的，等１０个月就告，法官判决是也才１５个月，而且还是美国死对头的－依朗人. 估计他老兄知道他的案子光等待可能是没尽头，就告一把，赢了就挣了，输了就在等就是－就当交点学费见识一下美国的司
法官还特意指出，虽然等１５个月不能肯定这是不是不合理，考虑到申请人在这种不利的环境下已经等了１５个月，原告基本满足条件，还是判决原告胜利－－这是典型的会哭的孩子有奶吃，不吭声的孩子饿着，指望移民局发慈悲是活见鬼
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61772 (Eastern District of California, Civ.S-06-2808 )
“In short, while there is no specific time frame imposed on Defendants to process I-485 applications, delay of more than two-and-a-half years is unreasonable under the specific circumstances because there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the delay is attributable to plaintiff’s nor is there any particularized evidence in the record sufficiently explaining the reasons for the extended delay. Moreover, this unexplained delay is exacerbated by the fact that is has occurred in the immigration arena[12] and has prejudiced Plaintiffs.[13]”
[12]Because delays in the immigration arena affect human health and welfare, they are less tolerable than those that implicate only economic interests. See Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2e at 1069
[13] Delay in processing an I-485 application cause prejudice by affecting an immigrant’s: 91) right to apply for citizenship –as an application cannot be filed for citizenship until 5 years after obtainment of permanent resident status; (2)ability to petition to immigrate close family members; and (3) ability to travel abroad freely. Id. At 1070
“Accordingly, whether pursuant to mandamus or the APA, Plaintiffs are entitle to a writ directing USCIS to adjudicate their I-485 applications expeditiously.”
Plantiffs background: A Chinese couple, lived in San Francisco, filed I485 on Dec 2004, and filed WOM on December 2006, nearly after 2 years pending.
一直就听说加州对移民很同情（可以理解，本来还开明，又移民多）看看这个法官的评论就知道一点也没错. 这又是我们中国同胞告下来的。
这里法官明确指出，虽然没有明确的法规要求移民局多久处理完I４８５，可是两年半时间都没处理，这绝对是不合理的耽搁，特别是对移民来说，不单是受到经济上的影响，还要受到身心上的折磨，以及其它非移民难以理解的困难，比如说影响以后公民申请以及其他家庭成员的移民申请
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64022 (Eastern District of Kentucky, No. 07-203-JBC)
“In this matter, the court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear and certain claim for relief because they do not request review of a particular agency decision, and because they have not requested an adjudication of their application without the necessary background checks. Rather, they have simply asked the defendants to reach a decision on their applications within a reasonable time. Moreover, as discussed above, the court finds that the defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to act on the plaintiffs’ applications within a reasonable period of time, whatever their ultimate decision on the merits of those applications may be. Furthermore, the court finds that the plaintiffs lack adequate alternative remedies beyond mandamus relief because there is no adequate alternative procedure to obtain judicial review of the agency inaction at issue.”
Plantiffs' background: a Chinese couple with theirI-485 pending since 2004, they filed WOM on July 2007, because they are required to prove their residency for their NIH funding by September 5, 2007.
这又是咱们中国同胞告下来的案子，在这里法官重申为什么I－４８５的移民案子是符合Writ of Mandamus (WOM)的要求
这里法官重申为什么I-４８５的处理案子是有管辖权的：１。原告有正当合理诉求－－要求对耽搁太就的审理程序进行法律干预，而不是对最后结果要求更改，２。被告在对移民申请在一定时间之内处理责任是nondiscretionary,，而不是discretionary; ３。原告证明了他们除了法律手段外，他们已经没有其他选择了－因为他们已经在其他能做的方面尽了最大努力而没有结果. 而且因为原告有更特殊的理由－他们刚申请到的NIH基金要求他们在两个月内提供他们是永久居民的证明，所以这里法官在被告递状子一个多月后就做出判决，而且要求移民局一个星期只内审理完
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68447 (Middle District of Florida, No.6:07-cv-735-Orl-31KRS):
“This Court recognize that there is a split in authority as to whether the pace of an adjustment application is subject to judicial review. However, the Court finds that the Yong Tang opinion presents the more well-reasoned view. If the Defendant’s argument is followed to its logical conclusion, the Attorney General would have discretion to simply ignore a status application and delay its resolution indefinitely. Surely, the Attorney General does not have such discretion. See Yong, 2007 WL 1821690 at *205. Thus the pace of the administrative process cannot be completely immune from judicial review.”
这里法官注意到不同的法庭有不同的看法，可他认为最近麻州一个法庭的法官评论是最合乎逻辑的(我们会随后评论这个案子，这又是我们中国同胞告下来的，现在他和出名了，到处被引用)，因此他也赞同这法庭的判决－－法庭对这种案子是是有司法管辖权。因此被告要求案子撤消的要求被拒绝。虽然法官没明确要CIS总么做, 一般到了这地步，原告都很快把案子了结，可这里还随后安排了上庭（估计是时间太紧，出庭是随后一周，USCIS还没来得及消化). 这次庭上法官明确要求移民局加急处理－在３０天之内
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75366 (District of Minnesota, No.07-1721, October 9, 2007)
“In Sum, plaintiffs have a clear, indisputable and nondiscretionary right to have USCIS adjudicate their application in a reasonable time. Moreover, plaintiffs do not have an adequate alternative remedy to secure enforcement of this right. Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act and the APA. ....It is thereby ordered: 1. denfendants' Motion to dismiss is denied 2. Defendants shall provide to the court and plaintiffs within 60 days evidence specific to plaintiffs' applications showing that the delay in procesing their name checks and adjudicating their applications is reasonable. 3. Defendants shall, within 15 days after providing the court and plaintiffs with the evidence described in the preceding paragraph, move for summary judgment on the reasonableness issue, and the parties shall submit briefs pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)”
Plaintiffs background: Citizen of Iraq, entered USA as refugee. Submit I485 in 2004.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91089 (Western District of Missouri (No. 07-4104, Dec 11, 2007)
这是咱们中国同胞抗争的结果，而且还没请律师，
".....Ordered that Plaintiff Weizhu Zhu's motion for summary Judgement is GRANTED and the above-captioned case remanded to USCIS. The USCIS is ORDERED to complete its adjudication of Plaintiff's I-485 application within 90 days of the date of this Order. Upon completion of the adjudication, the USCIS shall promptly file an affidavit demonstrating compliance. The Court retains jurisdiction over the matter in the interim to ensure that the USCIS complies with this Order...."
这位同胞的I４８５在移民局躺了４年，就因为FBI在４年都不能做完NAME CHECK。不知到的人还以为他们是什么危险分子，其实完全是FBI的不作为，你没见一有法院的判决书，他们在几天之内全部搞定，要真是危险分子，或背景复杂的人能这么快？说白了就是FBI效力低（或者是宁可错杀一千，不可放走一个），移民们出身不好（不是美国友好邻邦？），错误名字和错误人有上联系，或住在错误地点（FBI的计算机程序可能还查某些黑名单人物的邻居），总之，你一旦不幸进了这名单，你就要么祈求上帝，要么拿起法律武器，否则你就慢慢等吧，FBI可从来就拒绝给个具体时间，USCIS也是玩游戏，每次询问就给个预先打好的信打发你，给你６个月时间去反思。其实他们根本没把你的案子放在心里
2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 92357 (Northern District of California, San Jose Division)
"..... for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the action sought to be compelled, adjudication of I-485 petition, is a non-discretionary act that has been unreasonably delayed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: ... Defendant Chertoff is ordered to adjudicate Plaintiff's I-485 petition within sixty days from the date of this Order....."
又一个Name Check官司胜利，这又是中国同胞的，既为咱们中国同胞的胜利而欣慰，又担忧，这说明咱们中国同胞卡在NC上的比例很高，把我们所知的案子看了一遍，还真没发现西欧国家的，主要是中国，印度，巴基丝滩，和中东，看来和我们以前的结论是相符号的，就是NC对不同国家的人查的严格 程度不一，肯定有个黑国家名单，很不幸的是中国是其中一员。
这是基于结婚的绿卡，男方是已经归化了的华华裔，女方是中国公民，在等了四年无果后拿起法律武器。
这个结果一点也不意外，这是最友好的法院之一，我们看到了最少１０起移民胜利的判决。这区的朋友真是告他们没商量
总的原则是,你有钱多,就请律师,联系我们, 我们可以帮你推荐有过成功经验的律师.成功后希望你能给我们捐$25-50，这样我们才能继续运转. 你要时间多,就自己弄. 这里有成套的WOM材料. 既没钱又没时间,那就只能有耐心了-慢慢等吧
