Product: Student loan

I previously filed a complaint aganist Navient and a private student loan I have with them. They responded that they were working on a new process to apply for debt forgiveness and would reach out if I possibly qualified. Shortly after, they sent me the application and I applied. Although the school I attended, XXXX XXXX XXXX has lost several lawsuits brought by Attorneys General of almost every state, the state I resided in when I attended XXXX and the state I currently live in now have not been part of those lawsuits. 

In addition to being a full class member of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and having my federal loans for XXXX XXXX, Navient denied my application and did not provide a reason. I have paid almost {$20000.00} on {$6000.00} borrowed with a little over {$3000.00} remaining due. This is in addition to other loans held by XXXXNavient that I have already paid off.

The phone number provided by Navient to discuss the discharge goes to a line that keeps telling you that you are the next caller in the queue for several minutes then forces you to leave a voicemail and a return call does not happen. When I called Navient 's main number, they told me that only that department can discuss the issue and they will have to forward my call to the exact same number where the situation just repeats. 

As XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX ), now XXXX XXXX XXXX has lost multiple lawsuits, mentioned below, I firmly believe that their deceptive practices would fall under the Holder Rule, which would qualify all of my loans for XXXX, both federal and private, to be fully discharged and completely refunded. As mention above, my federal loans already have been as a full class member of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. 

Additional lawsuits against XXXX and it's parent companies where XXXX or its parent company was found guilty of deceptive practices : Settlement of 49 attorneys general investigations of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Opinions by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Story, XXXX : XXXX XXXX that it was complying with Title IV and was accredited, but Relators allege that these certifications were false . They claim that, in reality, XXXX was violating the XXXX incentive compensation ban, failed to verify students proof of graduation ( POG ), and lied to its accreditorthe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ) to falsely retain its XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX