Source: http://igbanugolaw.com/general-immigration-law/federal-court-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:04:16+00:00

Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for clients who are unlawfully detained by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus for clients whose petitions or applications are long-delayed without sufficient reason.
Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F.Supp.2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999). The U.S. District Court of Minnesota found that it had jurisdiction to review the Service’s denial of the petitioner’s H-1B nonimmigrant visa. The court stated that the Service’s decision was not “committed to agency discretion by law,” and the Immigration and Nationality Act provided “judicially manageable standards” to evaluate whether the Service abused its discretion by denying the H-1B petition.
Mohamed v. Cangemi , No. 06-377 (D. Minn. 2006). The U.S. District Court of Minnesota denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and granted Mohamed’s motion for summary judgment. The Court remanded the case to the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services with an order to resolve Mohamed’s naturalization application within 30 days. Mohamed is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Haidari v. Cangemi , No. 06-03215 (D. Minn. 2006). The U.S. District Court of Minnesota denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and remanded the case to the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to adjudicate the three Haidiari brothers’ green card applications within 30 days. The Haidari brothers are now lawful permanent residents.
Sabhari v. Cangemi, No. 06-196 ADM/RLE (D.Minn. 2007). Mr. Sabhari and his U.S. citizen spouse filed a Complaint for Declaratory Review of the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services’ denial of their Form I-130 marriage petition. They argued that the CIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the petition. The Court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Sabharis’ motion for summary judgment. The Court rejected the CIS’s sham marriage determination and remanded the case to the CIS to grant the Sabharis’ Form I-130 petition.
Bah v. Cangemi, No. 06-3260 (D. Minn. 2007). After the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) had detained Mr. Bah for 891 days (approximately 2.5 years), the U.S. District Court of Minnesota granted Mr. Bah’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered his release from ICE custody. Mr. Bah argued that his continued detention was unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which held that the statutory provision governing detention of aliens subject to removal orders does not authorize indefinite detention. The District Court agreed and found that Mr. Bah established that he had been detained for more than six unencumbered months after his removal order became final and that his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Mr. Bah was released from custody on May 4, 2007 pursuant to the District Court’s order and is actively pursuing his application for adjustment of status before the Immigration Court.
Sugule v. Frazier, No. 10-2129 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, April 4, 2011, filed). The Department of Labor (DOL) granted an alien employment certification to plaintiff corporation, thereby clearing a path for plaintiff employee to apply for an immigrant visa. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked the certification, under 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d), on the ground of fraud. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs, the corporation and the employee, appealed. The judgment of the district court was reversed. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the DHS’s revocation of labor certification and further remand the case to the DHS.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 656