Case 3:07-cv JSW Document 1 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 6

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 2:18-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12. Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

For their complaint against Defendants, Plaintiffs Roshanak Roshandel, Vafa Ghazi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. v. No. XX-XX-XXX PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 1:12-cv Document 1 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil No.

Case 1:12-cv Document 1 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:10-cv CW Document 1 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv Document 13 Filed in TXSD on 10/21/07 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION ) STUDIES, ) 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, ) Washington, DC 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C.

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 10

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 10

Case 7:19-cv NSR Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 2:08-cv CW-DBP Document 7 Filed 11/11/08 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

NUTS & BOLTS OF FILING MANDAMUS ACTIONS BEFORE THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION v. PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 216(b)

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IIIIImill II 1111

Case4:11-cv YGR Document22 Filed02/16/12 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.

Case 5:13-cv EFM-DJW Document 1 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case3:13-cv NC Document1 Filed12/09/13 Page1 of 18

Case4:13-cv JSW Document112 Filed05/05/14 Page1 of 3

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No.

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

United States Court of Appeals

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:18-cv JHE Document 1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 20

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 7 SAN FRANCISCO

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:17-mc G Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Virginia Freedom of Information Act ( VFOIA ) Complaint Template

Case 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:16-cv SK Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Introduction

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION. ) Cause No. 1:15-cv-1916-WTL-MPB

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT. Plaintiff, National Wildlife Federation ( NWF ), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff

Case3:13-cv WHA Document25 Filed02/26/14 Page1 of 21

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:04-cv JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No Civ (Altonaga/Simonton)

Case Problem Submission Worksheet (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001) Instructions

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:18-cv SJF-GRB Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 3:19-cv SK Document 1 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Defendant : COMPLAINT. Parties and Jurisdiction

Case: 3:18-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1

Case 1:08-cv VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (MANDAMUS)

Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-CI-389 DIVISION II STATE REPRESENTATIVE MARY LOU MARZIAN

Adams, in her Official capacity as Chairman of the Moore BOE, Carolyn M. McDermott, in her Official capacity as Secretary of the Moore BOE; William R.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. enforcement of the Arbitration Award entered November 24, 2015 styled In the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Document (1) User Name: Andrea Jamison Date and Time: Tuesday, September 26, :41:00 AM CST Job Number:

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation South Carolina Board of Long Term Health Care Administrators

Case 2:18-cv SGC Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/18/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv LMM -KNF Document 57 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:14-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 227

Case 5:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. [NAME OF PETITIONER] Petitioner. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Respondent

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LOCAL OPERATING PROCEDURES IMMIGRATION COURT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Case 5:13-cv EFM-DJW Document 126 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-438 THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Makovsky, and as Agent for Keith Makovsky, Kurt Makovsky, and William Makovsky, as

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Transcription:

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Tricia Wang (CA Bar No: LAW OFFICES OF TRICIA WANG Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 0 Fremont, CA Telephone: (0-0 Fax: (0-0 Attorney for Petitioners: Maruthi Rao DRONAM RAJU And his wife Prasanthi CHALICHEEMALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Maruthi Rao DRONAM RAJU And his wife Prasanthi CHALICHEEMALA Plaintiffs, Case No. vs. Peter Keisler, Acting Attorney General of the COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS United States; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the (ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS Department of Homeland Security; Emilio Gonzalez Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services; Robert Meuller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations Defendants The Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju and his wife Prasanthi chalicheemala (hereinafter Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully petition this Honorable Court for a Writ of Mandamus to compel action on the adjustment of status applications properly filed by Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju and Prasanthi chalicheemala. The adjustment of status applications were filed and remains within the jurisdiction of the Defendants, who have improperly withheld action on said application to Plaintiffs detriment. In support of this petition, Plaintiffs alleges as follows:

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 PARTIES. Plaintiffs are residents of Alameda County. Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju, Alien Registration Number A# 00 and Prasanthi Chalicheemala, Alien Registration Number A# 00 are adjustment of status applicants.. Peter Keisler is the Acting Attorney General of the United States, and this action is brought against him in his official capacity. He is generally charged with enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and is further authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate agency such as Federal Bureau of Investigation and subordinate employees of the Department of Justice.. Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and this action is brought against him in his official capacity.. Emilio Gonzales is the Director of the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services.. Robert Mueller is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. JURISDICTION. This is a civil action brought pursuant to USC and to redress the deprivation or rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiffs, by which jurisdiction is conferred, to compel Defendants and those working under them to perform duties they owe to the Plaintiffs.. Jurisdiction is also conferred by USC 0. Plaintiffs are aggrieved by adverse agency action in this case, as the Administrative Procedures Act requires in order to confer jurisdiction on the District Court. USC 0.. Costs and attorney fees will be sought pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. USC 0, and USC (d.

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 VENUE. Venue is the Northern District of California is proper pursuant to Title USC Section (e ( in that this is an action against officers and agencies of the United States in their official capacities, brought in the District where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claim occurred. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 0. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Plaintiffs have made numerous inquiries concerning the status of the application to no avail. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju has an I-0 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker filed on his behalf and the petition was approved. See Exhibit. Plaintiff Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju filed for adjustment of status on September, 00. Plaintiff Prasanthi chalicheemala also filed for adjustment of status at the same time as derivative applicant. I- Receipt Notices for Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju and Prasanthi Chalicheemala are attached. See Exhibit.. Plaintiffs received a Transfer Notice on March, 00 from the US CIS notifying them that their I- applications were transferred to US CIS Nebraska Service Center for processing. See Exhibit, copies of the Transfer Notice.. Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju and Prasanthi Chalicheemala had their fingerprints taken first on March, 00. See Exhibit, Copies of the Fingerprint Notification.. Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju and Prasanthi chalicheemala had their Biometrics taken again on June, 00. See Exhibit, copies of ASC Appointment Notice.

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0. Plaintiffs sent three email inquiries on June, 00, September 0, 00 and October, 00 and always received the same response from the US CIS stating that the Principal applicant s case was still pending for FBI name check clearance and US CIS has no control of how long it takes FBI to clear the case. See Exhibit, printouts of the email inquiries made on June, September 0 and October, 00.. Plaintiffs attorney also made inquiry on their behalf and received the same response from the USCIS. See Exhibit, email from the attorney s office on January, 00 advising the case was pending for security check.. Plaintiff Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju also sought help from California Senator Barbara Boxer and received a letter dated September, 00 from Senator Boxer s office with FBI s email response. See Exhibit, letter from Senator Boxer s office to Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju with FBI s email response.. The Plaintiff Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju sent several inquiries and always received the same response from the US CIS stating that the case was not yet ready for decision, as the required investigation into the Principal s background remains open and US CIS will make every effort to make a decision on this case as soon as the background checks are complete. See Exhibit, letters from US CIS dated November, 00, February, 00, February, 00 and August, 00 responding Plaintiffs inquiries.. Defendants have sufficient information to determine the Plaintiffs eligibility pursuant to applicable requirements. To date, said applications have not been adjudicated.

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 0. Defendants refusal to act in this case is arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. Defendants willfully, and unreasonably, have delayed in and have refused to adjudicate the Plaintiffs application for two years and one month, thereby depriving the Plaintiffs of the benefit of becoming permanent residents of the United States, and the peace of mind they are entitled to.. Plaintiffs have been damaged in that they have to apply and renew their advance parole paper year after year and pay the filing fees in order to travel abroad. See Exhibit 0, copies of Plaintiffs Authorization for Parole of an Alien into the United States.. Plaintiffs have also been damaged in that they have to apply and renew their employment authorization year after year and pay the filing fees in order to work legally. See Exhibit, copies of Plaintiffs Employment Authorization Cards.. Plaintiffs have further been damaged by being deprived of the status of lawful permanent residents during the interminable pendency of their various applications. Plaintiffs seek to integrate fully into American life, society and culture. Naturalization as an American citizen, with the rights and privileges inherent therein, depends upon prior permanent resident status for at least years. INA Section (a; U.S.C. Section (a(. Plaintiffs are therefore being deprived of the right to accumulate the requisite time as permanent residents before they are eligible to apply for naturalization, as a direct result of Defendant s failure to timely adjudicate their application to adjust status.. Defendants, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, U.S.C. Sections (b, 0 et seq., are unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying action on

Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Plaintiffs application and have failed to carry out the adjudicative functions delegated to them by law with regard to their application.. Plaintiffs have exhausted any administrative remedies that may exist. REQUEST FOR RELIEF: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:. Accept jurisdiction and maintain continuing jurisdiction of this action;. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, pursuant to USC and USC 0( compelling Defendants and their agents to make a determination of Plaintiffs Maruthi Rao Dronam Raju s and Prasanthi Chalicheemala s applications for adjustment of status;. Grant attorneys fees and costs of this suit under the Equal Access to Justice Act, USC.. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Attorney for Plaintiffs Tricia Wang Attorney for Plaintiffs