N-400 aaplicants received approval after mandamus actions filed

Our recent mandamus actions(filed in 1/2008 and 5/2008) clients have received recommended(received ceremony notice on July 1, 2008) approval after their interview. The January case is our first mandamus case for client whose N-400 has been pending for close to two years without interview due to FBI name check. As we reported earlier, CIS filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Illston of Northern District of California denied the motion and our motion for summary judgment is set for July 25, 2008. Client was interviewed on June 20, and is expected to take the oath in the next three weeks. Our second case, with similar facts, was filed in May and client was interviewed yesterday. She also received recommended approval.

We have since filed three more similar cases.

New mandamus cases filed for green card issuance delay

Less than three weeks into 2008, we have filed seven(7) mandamus action and 1447B action cases before various federal district courts in California and Nevada. In addition, we have entered into appearance for another case where plaintiff filed the case in pro per and retained us after government filed motion for summery judgment. The following is one of them, where our client has not received her actual green card after I-485 approval for more than 8 months. Immediately after this case, you can see we have filed our first mandamus action in a N-400 application where client has not been interviewed after about 18 months of N-400 filing.

*****************************************************************************
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing or Other Case Activity




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Please read this entire notice before calling the Help Desk. If you have questions, please email the Help Desk by replying to this message; include your question or comment along with the original text.
Please note that these Notices are sent for all cases in the system when any case activity occurs, regardless of whether the case is designated for e-filing or not, or whether the activity is the filing of an electronic document or not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are two hyperlinks below, the first will lead to the docket and the second will lead to an e-filed document.
If there is no second hyperlink, there is no electronic document available .
See the FAQ posting 'I have a Notice of Electronic Filing that was e-mailed to me but there's no hyperlink...' on the ECF home page at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following transaction was received from entered on 1/22/2008 1:05 PM PST and filed on 1/18/2008
Case Name: Chen v. Chertoff
Case Number: 3:08-cv-365
Filer: Huizhen Chen
Document Number: 1(No document attached)

Docket Text:
Complaint for Writ in the Nature of Mandamus "Immigration Case" (Filing fee $350.00 receipt number 34611014783). Filed byHuizhen Chen. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/18/2008)



******************************************************************************


U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing or Other Case Activity




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Please read this entire notice before calling the Help Desk. If you have questions, please email the Help Desk by replying to this message; include your question or comment along with the original text.
Please note that these Notices are sent for all cases in the system when any case activity occurs, regardless of whether the case is designated for e-filing or not, or whether the activity is the filing of an electronic document or not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are two hyperlinks below, the first will lead to the docket and the second will lead to an e-filed document.
If there is no second hyperlink, there is no electronic document available .
See the FAQ posting 'I have a Notice of Electronic Filing that was e-mailed to me but there's no hyperlink...' on the ECF home page at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following transaction was received from entered on 1/18/2008 11:41 AM PST and filed on 1/17/2008
Case Name: Jiang v. Chertoff et al
Case Number: 3:08-cv-332
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:
Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, Robert S. Mueller. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2008)


3:08-cv-332 Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Justin X. Wang justin@lawbw.com, joanna@lawbw.com, ling@lawbw.com, peggy@lawbw.com

3:08-cv-332 Notice has been delivered by other means to:

Two more cases settled after mandamus and 1447B actions

Today we settled with the CIS and FBI two cases. In case number one, we filed mandamus action in September 26, 2007 for a family based green card application due to FBI name check delay. Name check is now cleared and CIS agrees to adjudicate the application within 30 days of our dismissal.

In case number two, we filed an 1447B action on October 5, 2007 to compel the CIS to adjudicate our client's N-400, application for naturalization. The case was delayed for more than 120 days after the interview. CIS agrees to adjudicate our client's N-400 within 30 days of our dismissal.

We continue to score victories for our clients in all CIS/FBI delayed cases.

More mandamus victories at Baughman & Wang

We have several long pending I-485 applications approved recently after several months court battle. In one family based I-485, right after the approval, the US spouse wanted to file divorce. If the case was not approved on time, the I-485 application would have been in jerporty.

In another case, federal district court judge issued Order to Show Cause(OSC). This is the way court tells the defendants to give a good reason why plaintiff should not prevail. In the past defendants would always act fast after they got OSC.


115 Case No. C 06-7636 JF (HRL)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JFLC2
**E-Filed 11/16/07**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
BIN YU,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; ROBERT S.
MUELLER,
Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants.
Case Number C 07-5256 JF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff Bin Yu (“Yu”) filed the instant “Complaint For Writ in the Nature of Mandamus.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to process his I-485 application in a timely manner. Yu is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Complaint ¶ 2. Yu is married to Di Zhang (“Zhang”), a United States citizen. Id. On May 1, 2005, Yu filed a Form I-485 with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) seeking to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States as a beneficiary of the Form I-130 petition filed by Zhang. Id. Yu’s application is still pending with the USCIS. Id. ¶ 9. Yu alleges that, as a result, Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C § 701 et. seq. Yu requests that this Court enter an order compelling defendants to act upon his application.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the complaint and a copy of this
Order upon counsel for Defendants, the Office of the United States Attorney. The
Clerk of the Court also shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff.
(2) Defendants shall, within sixty (60) days after receiving service of the complaint, show cause in writing why the relief prayed for should not be granted.
(3) Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants’ filing within twenty (20) days after receipt of such filing.
(4) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the matter will be deemed submitted upon
the filing of the response or upon the expiration of time to file a response.
(5) The order dated October 15, 2007, setting an Initial Case Management Conference
and ADR deadlines, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 11/13/07
__________________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge
Case 5:07-cv-05256-JF Document 4 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. C 07-5256 JF
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JFEX2
Copies of Order served on the following persons:
Plaintiff:
Justin X. Wang justin@lawbw.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Office of the United States Attorney
150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900
San Jose, CA 95113
Case 5:07-cv-05256-JF Document 4 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 3 of 3

I-485 approved after notice of appeal was filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Mr. Chen represented himself in District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento for his mandamus action. The district court judge granted government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction after more than 8 months court battles. We took over the case and filed notice of appeal on October 11, 2007. We then contacted government attorney in charge of this case. We stated very clearly that we would proceed with out appeal by filing brief, which was due this month. It was clear that government did not want a precedent against them from the 9th Circuit and it expedited the name check. As a result, CIS approved Mr. Chen's I-485 and he received green card on November 5, 2007, less than one month of our notice of appeal was filed..

I-730 approved in less than one month after mandamus is filed

Client filed I-730 for her daughter in China in January, 2006. CIS first errounesly denied the application, claiming the case was subject to final asylum approval of our client. This is not correct and we filed motion to reopen in July, 2007. After about three months without any news, we filed mandamus action in October 5, 2007. Today we received the approval notice.

Another I-485 approval after mandamus action

We filed this employment based I-485 mandamus action in July, 2007. We filed motion for summery judgment in September and then CIS requested the FBI to expedite the name check. The principal applicant's name check was cleared in mid October and his I-485 was approved around October 21, 2007. His wife's case was approved in late October and both of them received their green cards(yes, the actual cards) on November 3, 2007.

The following is our dismissal of the mandamus action after we confirmed that our clients have received the green cards.


This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing or Other Case Activity




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Please read this entire notice before calling the Help Desk. If you have questions, please email the Help Desk by replying to this message; include your question or comment along with the original text.
Please note that these Notices are sent for all cases in the system when any case activity occurs, regardless of whether the case is designated for e-filing or not, or whether the activity is the filing of an electronic document or not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are two hyperlinks below, the first will lead to the docket and the second will lead to an e-filed document.
If there is no second hyperlink, there is no electronic document available .
See the FAQ posting 'I have a Notice of Electronic Filing that was e-mailed to me but there's no hyperlink...' on the ECF home page at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following transaction was received from by Wang, Justin entered on 11/5/2007 11:56 AM PST and filed on 11/5/2007
Case Name: Yuan et al v. Chertoff et al
Case Number: 3:07-cv-3750
Filer: Hongjun Yuan
Meimei Fu
Document Number: 18

Docket Text:
STIPULATION of Dismissal; and [Proposed] Order by Hongjun Yuan, Meimei Fu. (Wang, Justin) (Filed on 11/5/2007)

I-485s approved after mandamus action filed

We have three more I-485 applications approved after we filed mandamus actions.

In case number one, Mr. Z filed his employment based i485 in 2005. The application was delayed due to FBI name check. We filed mandamus action in July 20, 2007. We then filed motion for summery judgment in September and set the hearing for October 19, 2007. CIS first filed an ex parte motion to dismiss out motion. Judge vacated the 10/19 hearing date and granted our joint motion to submit the case without oral argument. CIS requested the FBI to expedite the name check and I-485 was approved on October 24, 2007.

The other two I-485 applications are family based and they have been pending for more than two years. Both cases were filed in June and after several motion filings, CIS requested the FBI to expedite the name checks. It took the FBI about 25 days and 8 days, respectively, to complete the name check and CIS immediately approved the application.

Mandamus action is the best approach if your case is delayed for whatever reasons.

Mandamus action: After judge's order, I-485 approved

Mr. Dong and his wife filed their i-485 with the California Service Center in September of 2005. The principal applicant's application was delayed due to FBI name check. We filed the mandamus action in January of 2007. The case was delayed because judge Armstrong asked for additional brief and then took the case under submission. In September 6, 2007, judge Armstrong in a 15 page decision denied government's motion to dismiss and granted our motion for summary judgment, ordering the CIS to complete the adjudication by October 15, 2007. CIS then on September 20 requested the FBI to expedite the name check. Today, October 11, CIS approved both applications.

The case cite is Dong v. Chertoff, C 07 0266 SBA, Northern District of California.

Mandamus action: federal judge denies government's ex parte motion

In a recent ruling, federal district court judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland, California, denied government's ex parte motion to continue a motion for summary judgment hearing set for October 16, 2007. Judge Armstrong previously in one of our mandamus cases granted our motion for summary judgment and ordered the CIS to adjudicate the I-485 before October 15, 2007(Dong v. Chertoff C-07-00266, SBA, Federal District. Court, Northern District of California).

The following is the order of the judge:


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
STEPHEN CHANG AND HONGYAN CHEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,
Defendants.
No. C 07-3562 SBA
ORDER
[Docket No. 14]
Before the Court is the defendants’ ex parte application to reschedule the hearing on the parties’
motions set for October 16, 2007 [Docket No. 13]. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.
The defendants state that the "current schedule does not allow Defendants time to reply to
Plaintiffs’ opposition to their cross motion for summary judgment." Docket No. 13. The defendants
offer no explanation for this claim. On September 10, 2007, both the plaintiffs and defendants filed
motions, noticing them for hearing on October 16, 2007, in compliance with the local rules that motions
be noticed thirty-five days or more before the hearing. Since that time, both parties have filed their
oppositions. The plaintiffs have filed a reply. The defendants offer no reason why they are unable to
similarly file a timely reply. Having shown no reason why the hearing should be rescheduled, the
defendants’ ex parte application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 5, 2007 _________________________________
Saundra Brown Armstrong
United States District Judge
Case 4:07-cv-03562-SBA Document 16 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 1

Mandamus and 1447(b)actions in federal district courts

In the past three years, Baughman & Wang has been very active in suing the CIS and the FBI for case delays. Although the main reason for the delay is usually name checks, there are other reasons as well, such as lost file, lengthy investigation or simply no good explanations.

In 2006, we filed more than 80 such cases and we got the cases approved in about 46 days by average.

As of today in 2007, we have filed more than 40 mandamus/1447b cases. So far, it has taken about 3-4 months to resolve a case. Initially, CIS and the FBI, through U.S Attorneys Office, would file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. After all these motions were defeated in our district, defendants have changed their strategy and they only file motion for summary judgment in order to gain more time. We have successfully received two favorable rulings for our clients, one in our district and the other in Sacramento, California, Eastern District of California.

We take cases nationwide. In fact we have successfully litigated several mandamus/1447b actions in Texas and Nevada. We welcome comments and inquiry from our readers. In general, we take cases if more than 18 months have passed since the filing of I-485, or 120 days have passed since the N-400 interview. For other types of cases, it will be on a case by cases basis.