Lawsuit in the USFRENCH
Home Proposals Lawsuit US Lawsuit FR Lawsuit EC Resume Conclusion Contact

What happened in the US. I arrived in the US on 16 April 2002 and applied for political asylum soon after. The Los Angeles Asylum office referred my case to the immigration court on July 16 2002, and on August 28, the Immigration Judge set a hearing date for January 23 2003 [although he (and the INS lawyer) knew I was homeless and probably knew that I had already been granted the refugee status!] (see Lawsuit EC for more details on the asylum proceeding). On September 5 2002, I applied for the GR social benefits ($221/month) at the LA County local DPSS (LA County Department of Public Social Services), and as part of the application I was asked to obtain a verification of immigration status at the INS LA office. On the same day, the status verifier issued me a verification of status listing me as a refugee (1.), and soon after on 9-25-02 I was granted the refugee cash benefits ($330/month), but not the housing assistance [which is critical for a homeless of course because the cash benefits is not enough to pay for a room in LA], and the cash benefits were terminated 2 months later instead of 8 months after the date my refugee status was granted!

Administrative complaint vs LA County DPSS
1. Verification of status listing me as a refugee (PDF)
2. INS responses to inquiries on refugee status (director of asylum office and deportation officer) (PDF)
3. DPSS supervior statement on status 12-2-02 (PDF)
4. Administrative decision ‘certifying’ my refugee status 2-5-03 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6)
5. Rehearing unit confirmation of decision 4-17-03 (PDF)
6. Altered verification of status (PDF)
7. Denial of refugee benefits granted and of GR (PDF), (p2), (p3)
8. DSS judges letters on compliance (JPG), (p2), (p3)
9. DSS Counsel letter on Compliance (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5)
10. Refugee (A03) employment authorization card (PDF)
Employee misconduct complaint at INS, EA applications, Senator Feinstein letters
11. Complaint of employee misconduct at the INS audit office 1-14-03 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6)
12. Responses from INS (Audit office and Mr. Aguirre INS Commissioner)(PDF)
13. Refugee EA application form filed on 08-04 (PDF)
14. INS Request for refugee status evidences 10-25-04 (PDF)
15. Response to INS request 11-4-04 + 8 CFR 207.9 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5)
16. Refugee (A03) EA Card granted with explanation of A3 category (PDF)
17. Senator Feinstein letters (PDF)
Second lawsuit vs State of California (State Court – Superior Court)
18. Appellant's Opening Brief - case no B191 039 (HTM)
19. Respondent's Opposition Brief (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11), (p12), (p13), (p14), (p15), (p16), (p17), (p18), (p19), (p20), (p21), (p22), (p23)
20. Appellant's Reply Brief (HTM)
21. Appeal Court's Decision to come (JPG)
22. Complaint filed on 09-29-05 – case no BC 340 712 (HTM)
23. Superior Court decision Dated March 3 2006 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11)
Third lawsuit vs LA County (State Court – Superior Court)
24. Third Complaint for negligence vs LA County filed on 1-12-07 – case no BC 364 736 (HTM), Petition for Writ of Mandate to Compel Entry of Default (HTM)
After I received the verification of status listing me as a refugee, I also went to the immigration court to explain that I had been granted the refugee status, and the clerk supervisor told me that it was not unusual that an asylum seeker receives his refugee status after his case has been referred to the immigration court; she asked me to inquire about the steps I should take to have my case closed at the INS Counsel's office. I asked 2 INS officers (the director of the Asylum office, and a deportation officer) if they could give me another document stating that I am a refugee and the date at which I was granted refugee status, but they said that the status verifier had made a mistake in reading the record (2.)! I also presented the document to the INS lawyer in charge of the case, and asked her to close my case, but she pretended that she could not see on her computer that I had been granted the refugee status, and that the status verifier had made a mistake in issuing me the document!

I went again to the status verifier office on November 13 2002, and told the status verifiers that some of their colleagues had pretended that they had made a mistake in issuing the refugee verification of status. Several other status verifiers checked again the computer record, and confirmed me that they had made no mistake, that I was a refugee, and that they even had the date at which I was granted refugee status, but that they could not give it to me because the procedure only allowed them to give the information to the DPSS through a special form G845 [the DPSS had not sent the G845 form to steal me 6 months of refugee benefits, and to make sure I would not have another document certifying that I am a refugee, it seems . The DPSS supervisor also started saying on 12-2-02 that the refugee status had been imputed by mistake (3.)]! Obviously somebody was lying and cheating!

The Administrative Complaint. The contradictions on my immigration status and the termination of my refugee benefits after 2 months only were serious problems of course [the refugee status is a matter of life and death, the refugee benefits are basic benefits necessary to survive, and the immigration status is critical for aliens since it determines the rights and privileges of the alien, like the rights for disability benefits (see problems to get the SSI below)], so I filed an administrative complaint on 11-14-02, one day after the status verifier confirmed my refugee status. I explained to the administrative law judge the various problems I had (contradictions, end of benefits,), described him the efforts I made to have my case closed at the immigration court, and denounced the opening of my (and of almost all the homeless) letters by the DPSS [the DPSS had set up a special procedure to have almost all the homeless letters opened by the worker before they were handed to the homeless!]. The judge rendered a decision on 2-5-03, [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6)] mostly in my favor ’certifying’ that I was a refugee, and asking the DPSS to pay me the 8 months of refugee benefits and to review again my eligibility for the housing assistance. He also mentioned that he did not have jurisdiction for the opening of the letters, but that this problem raised serious ‘constitutional issues’!

Despite the decision, the DPSS continued to refuse to pay the refugee benefits and the housing assistance. It presented an altered verification of status (where the word refugee had been erased and an employment authorization date had been added) to justify the denial of benefits and to argue again that I was not a refugee anymore, but it did not do it through the formal appeal procedure (rehearing request or petition at the Superior court), it simply made these comments in its compliance report or notices of action (7.) [(p2), (p3)]! Not only they were wrong [the INS confirmed the refugee status when it issued a A3 refugee EA card on 12-15-04 (12.)] and they used an altered immigration document (which is a crime, violation of 18 USC 1546), but they also did not follow the appropriate procedure to criticize the decision –rehearing request or petition at the Superior Court (some DPSS managers told me that they never filed a rehearing request or petition at the Superior Court, which is a violation of the due process of course guaranteed by the US Constitution).

Second lawsuit vs US, LA County and various civil servants (Federal Court)
25. Complaint filed on 10-29-05 – case no 05-7517 (HTM)
26. Magistrate Judge Recommendations on 3 motions to dismiss 9-5-06 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11), (p12), (p13), (p14), (p15), (p16), (p17), (p18), (p19), (p20), (p21), (p22), (p23), (p24),
27. My Objections to the recommendations dated 9-5-06 (HTM)
28. District Judge's 12-28-06 Decision (PDF)
29. Magistrate Judge Recommendations on US motion to dismiss 1-23-07 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10)
30. My Objections to the recommendations dated 1-23-07 (HTM)
31. District Judge's 2-21-07 Decision (PDF)
32. Magistrate Judge Order dismissing unserved defendants and most of the complaint 3-5-07 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), Motion to Reconsider, MJ order dated 3-15-07, Motion to reconsider
33. District Court denial decision of preliminary injunction (JPG) , (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6),
34. Motion for reconsideration denial of preliminary injunction (HTM)
35. Second District Court decision on the injunction (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8)
First lawsuit vs US, LA County and State of California (State Court removed to Federal Court) with amended filing vs US
36. First Complaint filed on 2-4-04 – case no BC 310 113 (HTM)
37. District Court Decision dated May 18 2004 – case no 04-1857 (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8)
38. Appellant's Opening Brief VS LA County and SC only – case no 04-56244 (HTM)
39. Respondent's Opposition Brief (JPG), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11), (p12), (p13), (p14), (p15), (p16), (p17), (p18), (p19), (p20), (p21)
40. Appelant reply's brief (HTM)
41. Appeal Court decision dated May 16 2005 - case no 04-56 244 (JPG), (p2), (p3)
42. Petition to the Supreme Court VS LA County only – case no 05-7408 (HTM)
43. Respondent opposition to petition for certiorari (JPG), (p2), (p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11), (p12)
44. Appelant reply to opposition to certiorari (HTM)
45. Supreme Court Decision 1-9-06 case no 05-7408 (PDF)
46. Amended complaint vs US only 9-14-05 – case no 04-7787 (HTM)
47. District Court decision vs US only 1-31-05 – case no 04-7787 (PDF)
48. Appeal Court decision vs US only 5-17-05 –case no 05- 55 231 (PDF)
Statutes and Regulations
49. GC815, GC815.2, GC822.2, GC818.8, 28 USC 2680 (HTM)
50. 18 USC 1546, 18 USC 1512, 18 USC 1513 (HTM)
50. 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985 (HTM)
51. GC815.6, CC 1709, CC 1710 (HTM)
52. DSS Manual of Policy and Procedure (LINK)
To make sure that the Judge had not made a mistake when he ‘certified’ my refugee status, I did file a request for rehearing on 3-2-03 [although it was not in my interest as I am sure you understand]. In this request I also criticized the fact that the judge had not addressed the issue of the opening of the homeless letters. The rehearing unit confirmed on April 17 2003 (5.) that the judge’s decision was conformed to the law, including the certification of my refugee status [A legal note from the INS legal office also confirms that he had the authority to certify my status based on document review as he did, and it makes sense when looking at the troubles I had]. Soon after I also asked the California Department of Social Services (DSS) (hearing office) to force the LA County DPSS to comply with the decision as I was entitled to, but the Presiding Judge, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (8.), [(p2), (p3)] and the DSS Deputy Counsel refused to force them to comply (9.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5)]!

They argued that the altered verification of status used by the DPSS (6.) was a valid document to prove that I was not a refugee although the administrative law judge had already addressed this issue of my refugee status and the res juridicata principle applies to administrative law judge decision, and although the INS LA Office District Director had never terminated my refugee status pursuant to 8 CFR 207.9 as he could have easily done if my refuge status had been granted by mistake! They did not even ask the DPSS to follow the appropriate procedure (file a petition at the Superior Court) to criticize the decision and to present their new evidence that I was not a refugee (the altered verification of status, of course a judge would never have accepted an altered document as proof of immigration status)! They simply asked me to file a new hearing request on this same issue of my refugee status, which is forbidden according to the regulation (MPP). The Deputy Counsel did ask the DPSS to pay me one more month of RCA benefits on 10-2-03, which was not what the judge had ordered (since he had asked them to pay me 8 full months of RCA benefits) [see detail of wrongdoings in (22.)].

Of course, as the result of these frauds I continued to have a lot of problems [the DPSS even denied me the GR benefits for 3 months on June 30, 2003 supposedly because I was not an eligible alien (7. p3)]; I was sent in the street more than 16 times between 8-02 to 11-03, I could not find a job, I became sick regularly, even started having serious cardiovascular problems and frequent severe headaches and nausea (the doctor put me on disability from 3-6-05 to 5-17-07), and I was forced to complain again and again (later on 6-15-06 I was also unfairly denied the long term SSI disability benefits because supposedly I was not an eligible alien!). I did make several efforts to resolve the problems outside the court system (wrote to the Governor, filed a complaint of judicial misconduct, sent a complaint of employee misconduct at the INS, wrote to the INS commissioner,), but nothing worked [even the INS Audit Office did not respond properly to my complaint of employee misconduct (12.)], so I filed a civil lawsuit on 2-4-04.

The First Civil Complaint for Misrepresentation. At the time of this writing, March 2007, and after more than 3 years of proceeding, the case is still pending at the State and Federal Courts, so I will only describe briefly the various actions and some of the decisions already issued. In February 2004, I filed a civil complaint for misrepresentation (deceit) only against the 3 administrations that created me the difficulties (the INS or US, LA County DPSS, State of California DSS) at the state court (36.) [even if there were several obvious wrongdoings - even criminal wrongdoings as you can read in (24.), it was very difficult for a non lawyer (me) to identify (formal) causes of action (and the related actionable statutes) and to know what to put in a complaint (the various elements of cause of action); and it is impossible for a poor to find a lawyer in such a context (I did tried over and over to find a lawyer, but could not find one; a lawyer asked me for $10 000 just to start on such a case, which I could not afford of course), so I decided to limit myself to this one same cause of action for the 3 administrations - misrepresentation (deceit)].

There are statutes giving the immunity for misrepresentation to public entities (GC818.8 and 28 USC 2680), but according to the law books I read [and to an earlier legal case involving the LA County Michael J. By … v. LA County (1988)…], the immunity should not apply in the ‘social services area’, which is more than logical [see explanation in (18.)]. After the removal of the case to the District Court by the US, the Federal Judge dismissed the case with prejudice against the LA County because of the immunity for misrepresentation (he ignored the social services area context), and against the State of California because of the immunity under the 11 amendment (states cannot be judged at the Federal court if they don’t want to, but the judge should have given me the possibility to re-file my complaint at the State court)! Finally he also dismissed without prejudice the case against the US because the complaint did not follow the Federal rules of CP 8 (36.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8)]!

I immediately appealed the decision against the DPSS and the State of California (38.), and filed a new amended complaint against the US only (46.). After almost a year on May 16 05, the Appeal Court corrected the dismissal of the State of California to give me the possibility to file a new complaint at the State Court, but it ignored my arguments and the legal authority concerning the liability for misrepresentation in the social service area! To justify its decision it used another court decision (Jopson) that precisely explains that the immunity should not hold in the social services area (41.), [(p2), (p3)]! At the same time, my new complaint against the US was dismissed on 1-31-05 also because of the immunity for misrepresentation (47.), and the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution (for not paying the fee) without giving me a chance to apply for the in forma pauperis status as it had done in the first complaint (48.)! My petition at the Supreme Court against the LA County on this issue of the immunity for misrepresentation (42.) was also denied summarily (45.)!

Second Set of Civil Complaints and the Criminal Complaints. After the first complaint, it was obvious that the defendants had been very dishonest when they did not address the factual issues of the case because the wrongdoings were obvious (and some of them were even criminal wrongdoings) and the reasons they used to have the case dismissed were not valid reasons (immunity for misrepresentation that was not properly addressed, or 11th amendment immunity that was corrected by the appeal court,), so I filed 2 new civil complaints and a criminal complaint (at the FBI, US Attorney office, and District Attorney office).

First, on 9-30-05 I re-filed my complaint against the State of California for negligence and misrepresentation (22.) at the State Court as I was asked to do by the Appeal Court of course. This complaint was dismissed because the judge thought that the DSS employees should be entitled to the judicial immunity (23.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11)], and because of the immunity for misrepresentation. I appealed his decision (18.), and the State Appeal Court is now reviewing the 3 issues concerned (immunity for misrepresentation, judicial immunity and whether the MPP imposes a mandatory duty on the State of California).

Then, on 1-019-05 I filed a new civil complaint at the Federal Court against the US, LA County and various civil servants (including the Assistant US Attorney and Federal judge that worked on the first lawsuit) for violation of civil rights (42 USC 1983), conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (42 USC 1985), common law conspiracy and negligence (against the US and the LA county) (25.). This new complaint described the grave wrongdoings more precisely, used different legal theories and described additional wrongdoings that took place after 2-4-04. But there are serious problems on this case [irregularities from the court, and dishonest decisions, ].

The Federal Judges dismissed most of the defendants -see recommendation dated 9-5-06 (26.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10), (p11), (p12), (p13), (p14), (p15), (p16), (p17), (p18), (p19), (p20), (p21), (p22), (p23), (p24)] for absurd reasons – see my objection (27.), denied the supplemental jurisdiction for the negligence cause of action against the LA County [forcing me to ‘re-file’ a new complaint for negligence against the La County at the State Court [which I did immediately (24.), the LA County did not respond on time and I am now trying to obtain the entry of default at the Appeal Court because the Superior Court refused to enter default. This petition may be judged with the appeal against the State of California].

The Federal Judges also dismissed the US in the negligence with leave to amend for an absurd motive – see recommendation dated 1-23-07 (29.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9), (p10)] - to force me to file an Amended Complaint which will open a possibility to a new set of pleadings after more than a year –see my objections (30.) [they accepted the US substitution for Robinson to grant her the immunity in the common law conspiracy cause of action (which describes a criminal conspiracy), based on a general certification that Robinson was acting within the scope of her employment, which is not an appropriate certification because it is not made on a claim-by-claim basis]. Finally, on March 5 2007 he dismissed most of the un-served defendants and forces me to re-file an hand written amended complaint on a form and for the actions of 3 defendants only, which makes the complaint loose all its meaning, see (32.), [(p2), (p3), (p4), (p5), (p6), (p7), (p8), (p9)]! [They are trying to force me to use a form to file my amended complaint and to erase most of my allegations (in particular the allegations in the common law conspiracy)].

The US Attorney office and the District Attorney refused to investigate my criminal complaint although there are obvious proofs of criminal wrongdoings, and the USCIS Los Angeles office continued to create me problems when it maintained incorrect information on my status on its computer record for more than 4 years, refused to respond to my inquiries, and refused to issue a permanent resident card. For example, the Social Security Administration unfairly denied my disability benefits (SSI) on 6-15-06 (although I was put more than 2 years on disability by county doctors) supposedly because I was/am not an eligible alien. The SSA Administrative Law Judge also denied the SSI benefits with an absurd decision that ignores the explanations I gave and the refugee verification of status and other refugee documents I filed !

I will comment all the decisions, issues and defendants’ behaviors and legal strategies into more details.

This page was last updated on 4-3-07
Home Proposals Lawsuit FR Lawsuit EC Resume Conclusion Contact
Copyright © 2007 by Pierre Genevier. All rights reserved.