Thu Cuc Thi Huynh - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
               Nguyen [petitioner’s mother] submitted on the first of                 
               November of each year claiming head of household status                
               for Section 8 housing.  I understand that HUD - Fairfax                
               Co. contributed $482.00 to Ms. Nguyen’s monthly rent                   
               during 1999 in the amount of $724.00 for the 2 bedroom                 
               unit, and that Ms. Nguyen’s payment was $242.00 per                    
               month.  I would appreciate receiving copies of                         
               documentation substantiating HUD’s monthly payment and                 
               Ms. Nguyen’s monthly rental payment during 1999,                       
               whether it be copies of canceled checks, rental                        
               ledgers, or any other form of documentation.                           
                    In addition, if you will, please provide copies of                
               Ms. Nguyen’s annual application claiming head of                       
               household for Section 8 assistance.                                    
               In late April 2001, respondent received documentation from             
          the apartment complex manager establishing that Mrs. Nguyen,                
          petitioner, and petitioner’s son resided in a rent-subsidized               
          apartment and that Mrs. Nguyen received Supplemental Security               
          Income (SSI).  The documentation also included a statement,                 
          signed by Mrs. Nguyen and petitioner, that identified Mrs. Nguyen           
          as the head of the household and that showed the amount of Mrs.             
          Nguyen’s SSI as greater than the amount of petitioner’s income.             
               By letter dated May 18, 2001, respondent’s paralegal                   
          proposed to petitioner’s counsel that petitioner concede the case           
          based on the information obtained from petitioner’s apartment               
          complex.  However, the paralegal indicated that if petitioner               
          preferred, the case could be forwarded to respondent’s Appeals              
          Office.                                                                     
               On May 24, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for summary                 
          judgment on the ground that respondent “is collaterally estopped            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011