COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS-DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Roland Bremboeck

753 S 22^nd St.

San Jose, CA, 95116

 

Plaintiff, in Pro Per

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

ROLAND BREMBOECK,                                   Plaintiff vs.   ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS as secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; UR MENDOZA JADDOU as the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; ROSEMARY LANGLEY MELVILLE, as the Director of USCIS, California Service Center, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,                                                     Defendants

Case No. ______________   COMPLAINT   DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

­

1. COMES NOW Plaintiff ROLAND BREMBOECK, with this complaint against the Defendants, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

2. Plaintiff filed Forms I-130, I-485, I-765 and I-131with the USCIS in December 15, 2022. There has been some progress on Plaintiff’s I-485 application. However, there appears to be no progress regarding Plaintiff’s I-785 application. The failure to expedite the application subjects Plaintiff to grave financial loss, and loss of employment.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, ROLAND BREMBOECK, is an individual and a resident of California.
4. Defendant, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS is the Secretary of Homeland Security and is the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and has ultimate responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws. He is sued in his official capacity.
5. Defendant UR MENDOZA JADDOU is the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a component of DHS. In that capacity, she has direct authority over all USCIS policies, procedures, and practices relating to the processing and adjudication of applications for nonimmigrant status. She is sued in her official capacity.
6. Defendant ROSEMARY LANGLEY MELVILLE is the director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), California Service Center.
7. Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is the department within which the USCIS adjudicates applications for nonimmigrant status. DHS operates within this District.
8. Defendant UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) is an agency of the U.S. Federal Government. The agency is responsible for adjudications of applications for immigration and citizenship benefits.

JURISDICITON AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of there being a federal question relating to 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) et seq, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
10. Venue is proper in this county under 8 USC 1391(e) as this is the judicial district in which the defendant resides, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this state, and the plaintiff resides in this state.

FACTS

11. Plaintiff filed Forms I-130, I-485, I-765 (Application of Employment Authorization, Receipt Number IOE0918655190), and I-131with the USCIS in December 15, 2022, with a receipt date of December 16, 2022.
12. Before filing the said Forms, Plaintiff was on L1A status which expired at the end of January 2023.
13. As a result, Applicant’s employment status with his employer KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) was changed to “leave of absence”. Applicant has been employed by KPMG since September 2015, and Applicant’s job title at KPMG is “Director”.
14. The staff in KPMG are allowed to go on paid sabbatical leave (20% pay) for 6 months. Accordingly, Plaintiff went on leave on February 2023, which was through July 2023.
15. On February 27, 2023 Plaintiff contacted the USCIS and submitted a request for expeditious processing of his applications.
16. Notably, after the leave of absence, the status of Plaintiff’s employment is indeterminate, and is dependent on the outcome of the application(s) and time the USCIS takes to process the application(s).
17. Plaintiff is losing income while the company is waiting for him to resume work. He stands the risk of losing his job if his application(s) are not expedited. In the event he loses his job, Plaintiff would face grave financial loss of over $200,000. Further, Plaintiff’s wife is nine months pregnant. Plaintiff is therefore anticipating additional financial need including medical bills, childcare costs, and other necessities, which could lead to uncertain and unstable future for Plaintiff’s family.
18. There has been some progress on Plaintiff’s I-485 application. Besides, on September 7, 2023, Plaintiff received feedback from Congressman Kevin Kiley, which contained information from USCIS. According to the feedback, Plaintiff’s application had been sent for expedited processing and was under review by an adjudications officer. However, the USCIS noted that it anticipates delay due to factors not related to Plaintiff’s case. For that reason, the USCIS could not determine the time frame when Plaintiff’s case would be concluded.
19. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff therefore needs the process to be expedited so he returns to work.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

Violation of 8 U.S.C. §1571(b)

20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
21. According to 8 U.S.C. §1571(b), the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.
22. Plaintiff submitted his application(s) on or about December 14, 2022.
23. It is now almost one year and Plaintiff has not received a decision from the USCIS.
24. First, the delay has not been occasioned by Plaintiff. As already stated, Plaintiff filed his application(s) on December 14, 2022, which was only four (4) days after he got married to his spouse on December 10, 2022. This shows that he made his application(s) promptly. Besides, Plaintiff filed his request to expedite before the biometrics appointment.
25. Plaintiff has demonstrated how he stands to lose his employment if the applications are not expedited. Plaintiff’s financial loss from loss of salary is equal to his annual salary, prorated for the duration of the period of unemployment resulting from processing time. Further, it would take time before Plaintiff finds a new job and starts earning a salary.
26. Plaintiff also stands to lose on the end-year bonus issued by his employer, KPMG. Notably, Plaintiff has been eligible for discretionary year-end bonus compensation. His variable compensation of 2022 was $11,000. It is noteworthy that he is only eligible for the end-year bonus if he is actively employed at KPMG on the last business day of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2023.
27. Additionally, Plaintiff stands to lose on KPMG’s Pension Plan Payment (401(k) CAP) amounting to $11,100 (6% of 185,000). The plan payment is 6% of Plaintiff’s yearly salary. To be eligible for these contributions, Plaintiff needs to be actively employed at KPMG on the last business day of the year, which ends on December 2023.
28. Plaintiff is therefore prone to suffer financial loss of over $200,000 and a long-term adverse impact on his career.
29. It follows; the Defendants have violated 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) by failing to adjudicate Plaintiff’s case within the required statutory timeline.

COUNT 2

MANDAMUS

28 U.S.C. § 1361

30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herein.
31. The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, grants authority to courts to compel defendants to perform a duty owed to plaintiff.
32. The defendants have a statutory obligation to process Plaintiff’s Form I-765 application not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.
33. Almost one year has passed since Plaintiff filed the application.
34. Defendants’ duty to perform their statutory obligation violates 8 U.S.C. §1571(b).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff hereby prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants and the following relief be issued:

1. Compel the Defendants to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) and adjudicate Plaintiff’s application(s) within _________days after filing of this Judgment;
2. Plaintiff’s costs of suit herein; and

• Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted:

 

Dated: __________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on the ____________day of _______________, 2023, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint were served by placing a copy in the United States Postal Service, with postage prepaid, addressed upon the following:

 

SERVICE ON:

[ENTER ADDRESS]