Jerry EricksonPublished: February 26, 2009

On Feb. 16, almost 200 people marched from Manassas Park to the Judicial Center in Manassas to bring attention to a case of alleged police brutality against a local immigrant and to Hispanic immigrant issues in general. 

The complaint that sparked the rally was made by a 38-year-old Salvadoran immigrant, Agueda Dominguez. She claimed that a Manassas Park police officer beat her during a routine traffic stop on Feb. 2 because she refused to sign a ticket for having a broken headlight. Ms. Dominguez maintained that she is able to speak English, but she could not understand the officer’s request.

In addition to protesting the treatment of Ms. Dominquez, the marchers were protesting local government policies enacted in the past year that they claim are anti-immigrant. One of these regulations is the 287(g) program of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows local law enforcement to team up with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce federal immigration laws.  The 287 (g) program is aimed at deporting illegal immigrants who have broken other laws. Members of the mostly Hispanic marching group chanted for “Justice!” in a call-and-response format, first in Spanish and then in English. One protest marcher’s sign read: “Nadie es ilegal (No one is illegal).”

Although it may be unrelated directly, on the following day, Feb. 17, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, via a “Staff Directive,” eliminated a new requirement that unincorporated business owners verify their immigration status in- person at county offices to apply for a Business, Professional and Occupational License. 

Now, instead of having to apply in person, these business owners will be able to check a box on their application certifying their lawful presence in the United States. 

Many critics had decried the county’s recent imposition of this regulation as an unnecessary government requirement intended to make members of the immigrant business community feel unwelcome in Prince William County.

The county’s sudden reversal of its requirement of in-person certification of legal presence for a business license may have been the result of community resistance to a perceived anti-immigrant measure.

Just as likely, the county may have changed their mind because they feared that the in-person application requirement was scaring away some applicants and their tax revenue.

At the heart of the Prince William County and Manassas debate on immigration is the economy. Factions on both sides of the issues claim that immigration in recent years has had a serious effect on the local economy.

Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart had predicted that the current weakened state of the economy would prevent the county from addressing the increasingly controversial proof of legal presence requirement. When quoted in the Washington Post recently, Chairman Stewart said, “I don’t think anyone is going to have the stomach to reopen this right in the middle of a tough budget cycle.” Contrary to his assessment, the county acted to eliminate the in-person requirement at issue the following week. 

Like Chairman Stewart, those in favor of tougher anti-illegal immigration measures often argue that by not better controlling our nation’s borders, the U.S. is allowing immigrants to take away the jobs of native-born Americans. They also often view increased immigration as a stress on our national and local benefit systems. 

Those advocates fighting for the rights of immigrants counter that immigration actually feeds economic growth and contributes to tax revenues. On Feb.11, New York Times Op-Ed columnist Thomas Friedman represented the viewpoint of those who contend that increased immigration will equal a healthier economy. He pointed to smart, diverse and energetic immigrants as the source of much American economic success and job creation in the past. He noted that in the last decade immigrants founded half of the Silicon Valley start-up companies. Friedman maintained that protectionist impulses only serve to stifle economic growth by shutting the borders to some of the world’s brightest entrepreneurial minds. He argued that our faltering economy must be stimulated “with green cards not just greenbacks, and with start-ups not just bailouts.” 

There’s no doubt that proponents on both sides of the question will continue to vigorously advocate their views, whether through legislation, editorials or protest marching. And, as the troubles of the economy continue to take center stage for all, it is certain that the issues surrounding immigration will continue to share the spotlight.

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

It’s been documented that because millions of people are deciding to migrate, millions of frail elderly people are left behind to fend for themselves. While the young leave their home countries for a better life, their parents are often left in the lurch. It’s estimated that more than 1 000 people a week migrate to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. As a result, Hong Kong has seen a growing number of “elderly orphans”.

Perhaps the best and most sensible start would be to have a chat with your parents. Consider their feelings and their concerns. Perhaps, they’re not interested in such a massive change? Try to discuss your feelings and then compromise. Attempt to alleviate your parents concerns. Offer alternatives to ideas you do not agree with.

Once you’ve had a heart-to-heart with your parents, set up a meeting with a clued up consultant, for in depth information. Then consider your various options.

Usually, parents aren’t included as accompanying dependants of the main applicant. Parents can be sponsored once the applicant becomes a permanent resident. In exceptional cases an elderly parent can be included as an accompanying dependant pursuant to the Last Surviving Member policy.

Family Sponsorship Currently, when applying for the entry of parents or grandparents it is done under the family sponsorship route. You require a proof of relationship and meeting the LICO (low Income Cut Off) Standards of Income. Canadian applications to sponsor your parents, will require you to prove to the Canada Immigration that you have sufficient income to support a family group of a certain number. Everything is dependent on the Canadian city you plan to live in.

Note:

Each country abides by a set of rules such as Australia.

Family Stream of Australian Migration Program: With this visa you’re able to the reunion in Australia of immediate family members, including parents. Consider; the parent category and the contributory parent category.

Contributory parent category: This category is considered ahigher priority. This Visa has a substantially higher visa application charge and larger Assurance of Support (AoS) bond, with a longer AoS period).

Parent Category comprises:(for applicants from outside Australia). This category comprises of Subclass 103 Parent (Migrant) Visa and (for applicants applying from within Australia) Subclass 804 Aged Parent (Residence) Visa).

You could contact organisations such as http://www.elderlyparents.org.uk. These organisations will help you and your parents make the neccessary decisions.

Your Parents still have their lives to live. They should have the right to make choices that will make them happy. Your parents should be a priority.

Want more information from one of our trained professionals? Fill out our Free Online Assessment  form or call us on 0845 2 606030 on a no obligation basis.

Disclaimer: While all due care has been taken to ensure that the information within this article at the time of publication is correct, I.U cannot accept responsibility for the content for any inaccuracies that occurs as a result of changes in immigration regulations, policy or other variables affecting the eligibility of individual applicants. Immigration laws, skill shortage determinations etc are subject to change by appropriate authorities and thus are outside of our control. Please contact us for further advice before taking steps towards immigrating. This article is published in good faith.

Perhaps Australia or New Zealand is a perfect option for you -complete a free online assessment and find out! Consider the countries, democracy and an absolute feeling of freedom!

Minnesota Immigration Lawyers

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) bars certain immigrants from returning to the United States if they accrued unlawful presence, i.e., were in the U.S. illegally.  This means that if you have been in the U.S. illegally and then leave the country, you could be prevented from returning for several years.  This applies whether the USCIS knows that you were in the country illegally or not.  If you admit to being in the U.S. illegally or the Immigration Service learns of it, the bar applies.

What are the immigration bars?

If you were in the country illegally for more than 180 days but less than one year and then leave, you are barred from returning for three years.  If you were in the U.S. illegally for one year or more and you leave, you will be barred for ten years.  In addition to the 3 and 10 year bars, there is also a permanent bar you need to know about.

Permanent Bar – INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i) permanently bars you from returning to the U.S. if you were previously in the U.S. illegally for a year or more, or were deported, left the country, and attempt to return without a proper visa.  Anyone in this situation cannot even seek a visa to return for at least ten years.  After the ten years has passed, you would still need a waiver to return; the visa issuance is not automatic merely because you stayed out of the country for ten years.

What should I do?

Call an immigration attorney before you leave the United States to discuss any possible bars on returning in the future.  As you will see from the information above, it is the departure from the United States that triggers these immigration bars.  This means that if we can fix your immigration status from within the U.S., the bars would not apply.  Not all violations of the immigration law make one subject to these bars and therefore, an analysis of your situation is needed.  In some instances there are waivers available that would permit you to come back before the three or ten year bar is reached, but waivers are beyond the scope of this article.

Minneapolis Immigration Lawyers can be reached at www.cundyandmartin.com .

Seasonal industries often find it difficult to find seasonal workers due to the short duration of the jobs and the tasks involved.  This is where the H-2B visa category can help.  Common industries that utilize the H2B program to supplement their workforce include, but are not limited to: nurseries, golf courses, carnivals and fairs, lawn and landscaping, resorts and hotels, tourist attractions, theme parks, and snow removal.  But the H-2B visa program is not limited to any particular industry.  However, the H-2B visa cannot be used for agricultural work.

H2b visas are also not limited to any particular country.  Workers may come from Mexico, South Africa, China, Russia or any other country where they are located.  In order to simplify the process and keep costs down, it is best to get all of the workers from the same location.  If all of the workers are coming from the same place to do the same job, they may all be included on one petition.

Work Visa Application

Temporary Labor

The first criteria is that the need for the workers and the job must be seasonal; the employer cannot use the H-2B visa to fill an ongoing need.  Almost all seasonal jobs, by definition, meet this criteria because the services or labor are traditionally tied to a season of the year by an event or pattern and is of a recurring nature.

Department of Labor

Before filing a petition with the immigration service – U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), the employer must first get labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This generally requires that the employer prove the seasonal nature of the job and that it cannot find any qualified and willing U.S. workers.

The procedure for getting certification changes almost yearly and therefore, it is recommended that you seek the assistance of an experienced H-2B immigration lawyer to advise on the current practices.

While it may seem obvious, it is nevertheless worth noting that the employer must be a U.S. company.  There are instances in which foreign companies operate in the United States and it must be the U.S. entity that files the petition.

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services – USCIS

After DOL grants certification, the employer can petition USCIS for the H-2B visas.  The proof required at this stage is somewhat duplicative with the process undertaken with DOL, but USCIS nevertheless must grant the petition before the visas can be issued.

U.S. Consulate / Embassy

If USCIS approves the H-2B petition, it will forward the case to the U.S. consulate where the temporary workers are located.  The workers then go to the consulate to apply individually for their visas.  It is helpful at this stage to use an agency in the foreign country familiar with the H-2B procedures at the consulate to assist in gathering the workers and applying for the visas.

How long can the workers stay in the United States?

Writ of Mandamus in Minnesota

by Kent B. Gravelle, Esq.

 According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004), a writ of mandamus is a “writ issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform a mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.”  In immigration law, writs of mandamus are most often utilized when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allows an I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), N-400 (Naturalization Application), or I-589 (Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal) to languish for years while a criminal and national security background check is conducted.

The immigration bar in Minnesota has been quite active (and successful) in writ of mandamus litigation against the federal government.  Most recently, a published opinion was released in Burni v. Frazier, 545 F.Supp.2d 894, 897 (D.Minn.2008) in which the spouse of a U.S. citizen “…filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency on or about December 10, 2004.”  The applicant’s security checks were not completed, thus placing his final approval in limbo.  Id.  The applicant exhausted his administrative remedies by “…making written inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security, making Infopass appointments at the local district office to inquire about the status of his case, and writing to various government officials.”  Id.

Finally, after more than three years of delay, the applicant brought a suit requesting the issuance of a writ of mandamus which the government attempted to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction because the failure to make a decision on the I-485 application was not a discretionary action within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(2)(B)(ii) and that 28 U.S.C. §1361 (the Mandamus Act) and 5 U.S.C. §§551 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act or APA) afforded the applicant relief.   Id. at 902, 903.  The Court explained that 8 C.F.R. §245 requires that an I-485 applicant “shall be notified of the decision” regarding the application and thus “USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate an application…and that the APA requires the applications to be adjudicated in a reasonable time.”  Id. at 904.

A year earlier, the Court issued three decisions in three separate mandamus cases in October of 2007:  Sun v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2907993 (D.Minn.);  Sawad v. Frazier, 2007 WL 2973833 (D.Minn.);  and Asrani v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 3521366 (D.Minn.).  All three were favorable to the immigrant-plaintiff.

In Sun, a Chinese immigrant filed an I-485 with the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on August 19, 2004.  Id. at *2.  On September 2, 2004, the FBI received Sun’s name from USCIS for a name check.  Id.  In 2006, Sun sought the help of her congressman and senator to no avail and Sun received information pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which showed that the FBI had no records pertaining to her.  Id.

Sun filed her suit for a writ of mandamus against various DHS, USCIS, and FBI officials on March 13, 2007, about two and one-half years after her submission of the I-485.  Id.  The government brought a motion to dismiss which the Court denied, holding that “…the APA requires that the applications be processed in a reasonable time.”  Id. at *8, citing 5 U.S.C. §555(b).  The Court also ordered that the government “provide to the court and plaintiff within 60 days evidence specific to plaintiff’s application showing that the delay in processing her name check and adjudicating her application is reasonable.”  Id. at *12.

In Sawad v. Frazier, 2007 WL 2973833 (D.Minn.), a husband and wife filed their I-485 applications on March 1st and December 27th of 2004.  Id. at *2.  The FBI acknowledged receipt of USCIS’s name check requests shortly after each I-485 was filed, but as of September 14, 2007, the date of the court hearing, plaintiffs’ name checks had not been completed.  Id.  Thus, one of the applications languished for more than three years and the other for almost three years.

On March 30, 2007, plaintiffs brought suit against the USCIS and FBI officials, requesting a writ of mandamus.  Id. at *3.  The government brought a motion to dismiss which the Court denied, holding that “plaintiffs have a clear, indisputable and nondiscretionary right to have USCIS adjudicate their applications in a reasonable time.”  Id. at *10.

In Asrani v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 3521366 (D.Minn.), at *1, an immigrant filed an I-485 application on March, 18, 2005 and on April 7, 2005, USCIS initiated a mandatory FBI name check.  The Court noted that:

                        In the thirty months since Petitioner filed his application

                        for an adjustment of status, Petitioner’s mandatory FBI

                        name check has not been completed and USCIS has not

                        adjudicated his application.  As of May 29, 2007 the St.

                        Paul office of USCIS had 406 name check requests that

                        had been pending longer than Plaintiff’s request.

 Id. at *2.

The Asrani Court analyzed in detail whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. §1361 stating:

                        The Mandamus Act provides for subject matter

                        jurisdiction only in extraordinary circumstances and

                        when (1) the plaintiff has a clear and indisputable right

                        to the relief he seeks, (2) the defendant has a non-

                        discretionary duty to honor that right, and (3) the

                        plaintiff has a lack of an alternative, adequate remedy.

Id. at 3 (citing Castilla v Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006). 

With regard to the first prong of the test, the Court held that the applicant “has a right to have the USCIS adjudicate his application within a reasonable time.”  Id. at *5.  The Court quoted language from 8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i) which states, “‘the applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial.’”  Id. at *4.  The Court explained that “This language makes it clear that USCIS has a duty to actually make a decision and the Plaintiff has a right to be notified of the decision.”  Id.

Regarding the second prong of the test regarding whether the government had a non-discretionary duty to make a decision regarding the I-485 application, the Court explained that the applicant only requested a decision, not a favorable decision, and thus the duty is not discretionary.  Id. at *5.  With regard to the third prong on whether the applicant has an alternative, adequate remedy, the Court found that waiting is not an alternative remedy.  Id. at *6.  Thus, the Court found that subject matter jurisdiction existed under the Mandamus Act and that the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would be denied.  Id.

In December of 2006, a decision was issued by Judge Donovan Frank which appears to have laid the ground work for the subsequent immigration mandamus decisions discussed above.  The style of the case is Haidari v. Frazier, 2006 WL 3544922 (D.Minn.) and in it, three Palestinians filed I-485 applications with the Nebraska Service Center, all of which languished for four to six years while the FBI conducted name checks (Senator Mark Dayton’s office confirmed that one of the FBI name checks was completed on October 13, 2006 and forwarded to USCIS but as of December 1, 2006, USCIS had still not adjudicated that I-485 application).  Id. at *5.

The Haidari Court analyzed the three-pronged test as in the Asrani decision, above, and found that jurisdiction existed under the Mandamus Act.  Interestingly, with regard to the third, unreasonable delay, prong, the Court noted that USCIS waited between one and three years just to request a name check from the FBI.  Id. at *12.  The Court held that the delay was unreasonable and that the APA explicitly forecloses USCIS from exercising “unfettered discretion to relegate aliens to a state of ‘limbo’, leaving them to languish there indefinitely.”  Id.  The Court ordered USCIS to completed its adjudication of the I-485 applications within 30 days and promptly notify the Court and the Plaintiffs of its decisions.  Id. at *13.  The Court also retained “jurisdiction over the matter in the interim to ensure that the USCIS complies with this order.”  Id.

Finally, the only case from this jurisdiction that the Government may cite in its favor is Chaudry v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2670051 (D.Minn).  In Chaudry, the applicant filed his I-485 on July 23, 2004.  Id. at *1.  USCIS interviewed the applicant on April 21, 2005 and told the applicant that the background check would be completed in four to six months.  Id. at *2.  Almost a year after the interview, the applicant filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus.  Id.  Employing the three-prong Mandamus Act test, the Chaudry Court found that the applicant had not established a clear and indisputable right to the relief he sought because “the background checks must be completed” and the applicant had not shown that there was no other adequate remedy because “his remedy is to wait for the USCIS to process the petition.”  Id. at *4.  With regard to the APA, the Court held that the applicant’s documentation and interview process was completed seventeen months ago and that “This length of time is not unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the Complaint alleges no particular inauspicious motives or unscrupulous actions by Defendants.”  Id. at *5.  The Court dismissed the applicant’s lawsuit without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re-file should “the FBI and USCIS persist in delaying adjudication of Plaintiff’s I-485 petition.”  Id. at *6.

Fortunately, the applicant in Chaudry brought suit after “only” 17 months of delay, much less time than in the other cases above.  However, even if a future litigant brings a suit requesting mandamus relief after “only” 17 months of delay, it is certainly possible that the court will not find Chaudry to be controlling.  This is due to the fact that the only published decision on this subject from this jurisdiction, Burni v. Frazier, 545 F.Supp.2d 894 (D.Minn.2008), severely discounted the value of Chaudry in its opinion at footnote 8 when it stated:

                        This Court recognizes that in a fifth case out of this

                        District, Chaudry v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2670051

                        (D.Minn. Sept. 18, 2006) (J. Magnuson) (the same

                        judge assigned to this matter), that the Court found

                        that the mandamus statute did not provide subject

                        matter jurisdiction, and that under the APA (which

                        was not pled), the delay (approximately 22 months

                        from application and 17 months from documentation

                        and interview) was not unreasonable as a matter of

                        law.  Id. at *2-3.  This Court notes that this was the

                        first case to be decided out of this District, plaintiff

                        was pro se, and Judge Magnuson did not have the

                        benefit of the extensive case law that has developed

                        on the subject since his decision.  In addition, the

                        Court notes that Judge Magnuson did not foreclose

                        plaintiff from returning to court in the future.  He

                        dismissed the case without prejudice “because

                        Plaintiff’s claims, if properly pled, may have merit

                        if the FBI and USCIS persist in delaying adjudication

                        of Plaintiff’s I-485 petition.”  Id. at *3.  Finally, the

                        Court notes that on February 4, 2008, the USCIS

                        issued “Revised National Security Adjudication and

                        Reporting Requirements,” which now require that if a

                        name check in conjunction with an I-485 application

                        has been pending more than 180 days and the application

                        is otherwise approvable, the application shall be approved

                        and the card issued.

Conclusion

            A federal law suit requesting a writ of mandamus may be an immigrant’s only hope when the years drag on without any resolution from the government.  Fortunately, Minnesota’s case law is favorable to such a remedy and thus it should be seriously considered by immigration attorneys and their clients once it appears that the government’s delay is unreasonable.

 Kent Gravelle is an attorney with Cundy & Martin, LLC – Immigration Lawyers in Minnesota.  www.cundyandmartin.com

Circumstances, however, are not normal. In fact, they are rather brain-dead. Immigration Policies in the EU do not permit long-term Visas, and I have an Indian passport, so I need a visa for Europe, and my Schengen Visa has expired. There is no Belgian Consulate in San Francisco where I can walk in and get a visa today. The nearest consulate is in LA.

It made me think, how come, in this age of electronic communication, we cannot tackle situations like this without physical exchange of documents?

It also made me write an email to Mr. Ronald De Langhe, Consul General and Ms. Véronique Marounek, Consul:

“Your laws, dear friends, are impractical and inhuman. In this day and age, with electronic communication of the utmost advanced calibre being available to us – it beats me why you cannot accept documents like bank statements, emails from family in Belgium confirming the news of the death, and payments by credit card. You have issued me a visa before. You have me on your file. Why can’t you let the immigration in Belgium know that a person with such and such passport number is to arrive on such and such date, to attend a funeral? Why can’t they check the passport number, while you check the electronic documents on this end? I need to take a plane tomorrow, and you don’t have a consulate in the San Francisco area … I do not have the time to send you the documents physically, because I will then miss the funeral.

Your laws and systems are outdated, and obsolete. You can tell me that the laws of no country allow for a visa to be issued without the passport being physically available. Well, my response to that then is that ALL immigration laws are outdated and obsolete. You should ALL look into what you are doing with a magnifying glass, study the progress of modern communication technology, and make a collective decision to join the march of human civilization.”

A lady from the Consulate called me back this afternoon to offer me condolences, and to acknowledge my letter.

Who knows, however, where the immigration reforms stand? I wonder if they even know how to spell technology!

 Action to compel and officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel and officer or employee  of the United States or agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

 The Mandamus Act authorizes the court to order a remedy. It does not provide independent, substantive grounds for a suit. In other words, what the court is going to determine the reasons why the decisions are pending not the outcome of the decision. Therefore by forcing the agency (e.g. the USCIS) to make a decision can also result in a denial. At that point appeals or motions to reopen can be timely filed. However this is not within the scope of this article. Remember, it is highly advisable to have an experienced licensed federal district court admitted attorney to handle your case.

  In a mandamus action you as plaintiff (“plaintiff”) must demonstrate that:

  You have a clear right to the relief requested;

Under the Mandamus Act, the court may compel the government to take action, but the court cannot compel the agency to exercise its discretion in a particular manner, nor can it grant the relief that the plaintiff seeks from the agency.

 The above is just a brief analysis of using the Mandamus Act however, there are other factors that need to be considered before a person moves forward on a Mandamus action. Our office handles such cases, so please feel free to contact us on (510) 742 5887 for a consultation.

 What to do if a naturalization (Citizenship) application is being stalled or delayed. 

In a situation where you have already filed for your naturalization application, and passed the interview but you are waiting for your oath date, there is a better action than the Mandamus Action.  Let us say, you took your Citizenship interview in January 2006 and you passed the test. You are told that the “FBI/Name Check” has not been completed.  Patiently you wait. Months have passed and “your oath” date does not come up. You call the USCIS and they tell you, “you are pending for FBI/Name Check; unfortunately nothing can be done until finalization of this process”. What do you do next?

Under INA § 336(b), USC § 1447(b), specifically provides for judicial review for a stalled naturalization petition in these circumstances. It states as follows:

 If there is a failure to make a determination under [INA] § 335 [8 USC § 1446] before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply  to the United States District Court for the District in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions to the Service to determine the matter. 

In other words, if your Naturalization application after the interview, which you passed, is pending for more than 120 days, you can seek judicial relief. The judicial relief can come in two forms:

Note that under this section of the law, the Federal Court retains jurisdiction on the case. This means only the Federal Judge can decide about your case and that USCIS has no right to make a decision on the case unless you allow them to do so.

Our office has successfully handled a number of such cases. Very often, the USCIS will comply and ask the attorney to dismiss the case through the US attorneys. Your attorney will dismiss the case provided they agree to confirm an oath date on your case.

The entire process above used to take few weeks to complete. However in December 2006, the USCIS issued a memo stating that there will be no FBI expedited name check. Now there are a lot of more struggles. Yet many of our cases have been completed within few months.

  Therefore don’t desperate if your case is pending for a long time.  We can still assist you achieve the dream of citizenship.

  Should you want more information on the process, please do not hesitate to contact our office on 510.742.5887

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this article, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the article without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.