UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NIMA SEYED KHAMOUSH, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 21-1239 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 8 : ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, : Department of Homeland Security, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER AND EXTEND I. INTRODUCTION Nima Seyed Khamoush (Khamoush) and Samira Jahangirzadeharekhlou (Jahangirzadeharekhlou) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have brought a complaint against three government officials (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging failure to adjudicate Plaintiff Khamoush’s Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative (“Petition”), within a reasonable period of time under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) and delaying a decision beyond Congress’s 180-day guideline for immigration benefits under 8 U.S.C. § 1571. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 34, ECF No. 1. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure[] Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,” by “unlawfully withholding action on Khamoush’s Petition.” Compl. ¶ 37. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the Western District of Louisiana (“Transferee District”) and to extend time to otherwise respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the action is docketed in the Transferee District, or October 19, 2021—the current deadline for Defendants’ response to the Complaint. Defs.’ Consent Mot. Transfer & Mem. Supp. Thereof (“Consent Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 8. For the reasons below, the Court grants the motion. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Khamoush resides in Shreveport, Louisiana—located in the Transferee District—and “seeks to compel the United States to take action on an immigration application” for Jahangirzadeharekhlou, Khamoush’s spouse who lives in Iran. Consent Mot. at 1. This application is currently pending at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Vermont Services Center (the “USCIS Service Center”) located in Essex Junction, Vermont. Id. III. ANALYSIS A. Motion to Transfer Venue 1. Legal Standard “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) “is intended to place discretion in the district courts to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 23 (1988). The moving party “bears the burden of persuasion” in demonstrating that a transfer under § 1404(a) is appropriate by making two showings: that the action could have been brought in the transferee district, and that the public and private interests favor transfer. Ctr. for Env’t Sci., Accuracy & Reliability v. Nat’l Park Serv., 75 F. Supp. 3d 353, 356 (D.D.C. 2014). 2. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Western District of Louisiana First, movant must demonstrate that “the proposed transferee district is one where the action ‘might have been brought.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). In actions that raise a 2 federal question by naming a federal agency or a United States official in his or her official capacity …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals