Stuck in Name Check

[LeeFisher3]

We filed for our AOS on 7-12-2004. Namecheck is still pending.

New law allows the FBI and USCIS to ignore the "Writ of Mandamus"

The only way to make the USCIS to do an inquiry to the FBI is under special circumstances which my wife doesnt qualify for.

Dennis, This goes out you man. My heart did a complete flop when I saw how long you have had to wait. 6 years is way beyond reasonable. My heart goes out to you and your family.

 

Patrick & Li

Patrick, this is NOT a LAW, it's their new and improved policy. It is their attempt to claim it's not their fault and you can't make me do my job memo.

 

While they say they won't expedite based on time alone, the direction to proceed is to demand that they show how they have followed the proper processing instructions for obtaining the FBI Name Check. Also, at 15 months beyond the initial request did they resubmit? FBI Name Checks Policy and Process Clarification for Domestic Operations

 

Basically, the USCIS is making the claim that they have not done anything wrong and you just need to wait. They provide no method to demonstrate that they have indeed performed their tasks in a proper manner or within the guidelines established by USCIS Policy. By requesting they provide they did their job in a correct manner, which is doubtful, the USCIS when faced with demonstrating this to a court would prefer to get off their ass and do their job.

 

There are many favorable Mandamus cases even after the policy memo. Recent Mandamus Litigation and most of the unfavorable cases were not prepared well. The AILF has a good bit of reading available at this site. AILF Legal Action Center

 

The purpose of Mandamus is to have a court instruct the government to do it's job according to its administrative procedures. Many cases are withdrawn as the filing alone makes someone go look at the case and discover they screwed up and instead of showing up before the court with the "dog ate my homework" defense they do their job and clear up a case that has fallen between the cracks.

 

I would suggest that millions of name checks have been ordered and returned in the time you have waited, it isn't because they are actively looking into your situation that a response hasn't come back.

[Patrick & Li]

Thanks Lee. I am glad you straightened me out on that. I doubt I'll be filing the Writ anytime soon based on not having enought time or money to pay someone to do it.

 

Patrick

[Stats]

Thanks Lee. I am glad you straightened me out on that. I doubt I'll be filing the Writ anytime soon based on not having enought time or money to pay someone to do it.

 

Patrick

 

Patrick,

 

I flied Pro Se (without attorney). It took a lot of work and research, but I figured it was worth a shot.

 

I'll post as the case progresses. LeeFisher3 hit the nail on the head as far as what we hope to accomplish. The judges in this District are not very friendly towards these cases. However, I am hopeful that it will force someone to take a look and see what the delay is.

[izus]

im wondering if we should pursue this path if it goes beyond 2 years.

during our info-pass meeting the VO said her namecheck had been completed.

i dont see what else could be holding her up?

Edited October 21, 2007 by izus (see edit history)

[I love Sunshine]

I am wondering if you can get some information from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry. You can do this yourself and there is no need to involve a lawyer:

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/

 

Contact information for the USCIS FOIA is listed here:

 

Contact information for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) FOIA is listed here:

 

However, it is in the exemptions to solicitation of information under these acts that problems and discrepancies arise. The nine exemptions to the FOIA address issues of sensitivity and personal rights. They are (as listed in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552):

 

1. (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and

(B ) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

 

2. related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

 

3. specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute

(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or

(B ) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

 

4. trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

 

5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

 

6. personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

 

7. records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,

(B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

(C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source,

(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or

(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

 

8. contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

 

9. geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Edited October 26, 2007 by I love Sunshine (see edit history)

[NewDay2006]

This might make some feel better. I'm at the point where I feel I need to file the WoM. While there are not many cases for I-130 that I have found, there are indeed there. To hold us hostage is simply not something that is fair .. to state it huh, nicely.

 

Immigration Voice Efforts on solving the Namechecks Issue:

 

Update: Nov 28, 2007

IV has met officials from agencies and has raised this issue in the recent past. We have been informed that there is an effort being undertaken to significantly reduce name check backlogs in the next 6 months. IV has been bringing this issue to the attention of lawmakers and administration officials and we are happy to report this news to our members.

 

IV has also been closely monitoring the progress on the bill sponsored Congressman Clarke to fix the namecheck issue. There are indications that this may also move with the year end bills. Namecheck victims must continue to meet their congressmen and Senators and talk to them about this issue. Send us your feedback from these meetings to lobbyday@immigrationvoice.org so that we can continue to follow up with the lawmakers.

[izus]

maybe this is a dumb question but..

why is there 2 name checks.

 

if they go through name check with heir visa

then go through another one with aos...

 

what are they double checking?