I-130, I-485 approved after mandamus action filed

Our client, Wendy, married a US citizen in 2003. She came to the US in 2005 under a K-3 visa. She then filed her I-485 to adjust her status to permanent resident. She and her husband were first interviewed on February, 2006. Her application had been pending since then. On January, 2008, we were retained to file mandamus action in federal district court in Northern California. On February 20, 2008, CIS conducted second interview. We knew this would a marriage fraud interview. Wendy’s husband married three times and he applied for green card for all his wives. The second wife only spent a few months in the US before she disappeared. We knew CIS was suspicious of the marriage just because of the history of her husband’s prior marriages.
My clients were separated and were questioned for about two hours. They basically responded to the questions consistently. However, there were several significant discrepancies. At the end, the interviewing office declared that she did not believe this marriage was bona fide and she wanted to deny the application. We argued the merits of the case and explained the inconsistencies.
To our surprise, CIS approved this case yesterday. I suspect that when the officer presented this case to her supervisor for review, the supervisor felt that there are sufficient evidence to prove bona fides of the marriage.
Today is the day CIS supposes to file its answer to our mandamus action.

Judge ruled against CIS and FBI in a mandamus action

Federal District court judge Maria-Elena James has just ruled in plaintiff's favor in a mandamus action for FBI name check delayed I-485 application. Plaintiff filed her complaint in pro per(by herself) in May of 2007 but retained us after defendants filed motion for summery judgment. We filed motion for summery judgment and today judge made her decision. In her decision, judge James ruled that the court has jurisdiction in mandamus action and has power to compel the CIS and FBI to expeditiously adjudicate plaintiff's I-485 application. Judge James further ruled that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiff's I-485 within a reasonable amount of time. In this case, judge found that a two and a half year wait is unreasonable as a matter of law.

The court ordered defendants to complete processing of Plaintiff's I-485 application forthwith.

This is one of our many victories in mandamus actions. We welcome inquires from our readers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1/23/2008 10:54 AM PST and filed on 1/23/2008
Case Name: Chen v. Chertoff et al
Case Number: 3:07-cv-2816
Filer:
Document Number: 21

Docket Text:
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, AGAINST DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/23/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2008)


3:07-cv-2816 Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ila Casy Deiss ila.deiss@usdoj.gov,

Justin X. Wang justin@lawbw.com