LadyKat1974

Hi All

I am writing on behalf of a friend as she doesnt have computer access so I guess I am the guinea pig. We both are pending but have different views on our cases. I realise every case is different but we would like some answers. We both have been pending on our I-485s for sometime now due to name check pending...go figure I feel like it is one of the most common reasons why a case is pending. However she recently consulted with an attorney who informed her that he can make a difference on her case if he makes some "noise/fuss". I personal don't think he can but I would like some input by others. Thanks all for taking the time to read an respond.

ian-mstm

I agree with you.

Ian

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Depends upon the "noise and fuss". A mandamus lawsuit might, or might not do the trick. At least it cost the CIS money in defending it [the US Attorney's are paid out of the CIS budget].

Elvira

Are there any statistics (or failing that, 'soft' data) on the % of recent AOS applicants where filing a mandamus lawsuit made any difference regarding the adjudication of their cases?

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I'm sure there are statistics, I just don't know where they can be found!

On the anecdotal end:

I've heard that 40% of the new civil filings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts are mandamus actions relating to security checks. This is a court of GENERAL Federal Jurisdiction, so the figure is pretty amazing.

Last year I litigated a K-2 age out case in Fresno CA which is in the Eastern District of California. My learned opposition in the US Attorney's office in Sacramento [ED CA is Sacramento & Fresno] told me that my case was the most interesting of her totally immigration caseload of 45 pending cases. I asked what the other 44 were and she told me -- background check delays on adjustments and naturalizations.

I am informed through sources I have been asked not to disclose that the upper reaches of CIS are aware of the problem, there is some "buck-passing" to the "outside agencies" -- and they feel conflicted -- they are not approve a case absent a clean background check AND they are also to have efficient use of resources. As to the latter, the COSTS of simply defending all these lawsuits eats up all those $80 biometric fees quite rapidly. [Crank into that that biometrics are good for only 15 months and if they can't charge for the subsequent biometrics].

fatbrit

The big noise/fuss board is immigrationportal. It has a decidedly though not exclusive Indian and H1/L1 flavour, and DIY mandamus guides are available. The members seem to have enjoyed quite a few successes. Give it a gander.

fatbrit

Somehow my usual sympathy for the downtrodden didn't work here! How the hell do they think their poor bloody customers feel?

Elvira

Thank you very much, Mr. F

I wonder: is there a relationship between the length of time an applicant has been waiting, and the likely successful outcome of a mandamus action?

I guess what I'm asking is, after what period of time since filing does filing a mandamus action make sense...

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Who said they are "downtrodden?" As a bad analogy, it is like corporate management -- who are they obligated to? The customers or shareholders? In this case the "shareholders" exercise their influence via the US Congress.

Also, I am of the firm belief that most of CIS management sincerely feels that the background check backlogs are a worthless pain-in-the-ass.

It used to be that the former INS went by the idea that most people had nothing really bad in their background and if no adverse response was received in response to a background inquiry, it was 99.9999999% sure that there was no problem. However, given the number of cases that INS processes, that 0.0000001% will result in a few individuals who slip through the cracks.

In 1995-6, INS introduced "Citizenship 2000" to expedite naturalization processing. The statistics caught up with INS and a few deportable aliens ended up obtaining naturalization. In the political climate of the times, there were shrill accusations of "allowing criminals to vote." This caused a sea change in the naturalization arena.

And then there was 9/11. On the visa end of things, Consular Officers usually looked for likelihood of violation of status by unauthorized employment. B-2 applicants in Dacca were given a more thorough look than those in Riyadh. Quite simply, you didn't see Saudi men taking jobs at 7-11's. Of course, Al-Qaeda took advantage of this and Mohammed Atta obtained a visa.

And then there was what INS considers to be the disaster of "3/11" when they got out the delayed notice of a COS from B-2 to F-1 for Mohammed Atta, the COS having been granted 7 months earlier, one month before Mr. Atta's commandeered airplane crashed in Manhattan.

So now the agencies are afraid if ONE person gets through who shouldn't and then they do something bad.

It is more of a political thing than anything else.

fatbrit

Hi,

Did a Google of <site:uscis.gov backlog>. Took the first document it returned and got as far as page 6 in that -- though I was skimming quickly:
"We identified a number of factors that result in processing delays “outside of USCIS control.” These include applications awaiting customer responses to requests for information, applications in suspense to afford customers another opportunity to pass the naturalization test, and applications awaiting an FBI name check or other outside agency action."

So they themselves claim that they are affected by other agencies and it implies that "it is not our fault". The local detention sergeant at the county jail (who's a Brit by the way) told me that it's about 20 minutes to do a full record check once they've got the fingerprints on anyone who comes into their custody. So the technology certainly exists. If USCIS can't get their act together with other agencies (as the county jail does), that's a problem with USCIS, not someone else.

The suggestion that it is the customer causing the delay is just pot...kettle...black.


The corporate analogy doesn't work, no. I signed up for government of the people, by the people, for the people and that means I'm their bloody shareholder.

Perhaps we could question the fact that people are so stupid to believe that a system can be perfect in your eloquent explanation of slipping through the cracks. It's part of the post 9/11 paranoia we need to get over before it damages our children and our children's children.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The funny thing is that the CIS people I talk to you are in full agreement and think the systems sucks big time. Yeah, they can check that computer screen in 2 minutes -- and that information is often incomplete or otherwise fragmentary. I know, I've seen some of the printouts in Naturalization cases and they ask US to get the necessary documents.

And it is the CIS people who say "what is the crap? It does not increase our security one whit"

I agree that the political will has to come to say "these delays are too costly and hardly do any good." Every so often, a Mohammad Atta will get through the system.