UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUSTICE ONYEALISI IKE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-cv-1744 (CRC) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Justice Ike applied for an immigrant visa to work in the United States on the ground that he was a highly skilled professional whose work would serve the national interest. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied the application, and Mr. Ike challenged that denial by filing this action against USCIS and several federal officials (together, “the Government”). The Government now moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas, where Ike’s petition was processed, or alternatively to the District of Maryland, where Ike resides. The Court agrees with the Government that Ike could have and should have filed his Complaint in the Northern District of Texas. The Court will, accordingly, grant the motion to transfer the case there. I. Background The following facts are alleged in the Complaint or evident from exhibits in the record whose authenticity is not disputed. Ike is a citizen of Australia who currently resides in Maryland. Compl. 1; id. ¶ 1. According to Ike’s representations to USCIS, he provides consulting services in data science and related fields. Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) 2, ECF No. 5-2. Ike previously worked in the United States under a visa that has now expired. He continues to work here pursuant to a temporary Employment Authorization Document. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5. In March 2019, Ike filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Form I-140) with USCIS. Id. ¶ 3. The petition sought a visa under Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which makes immigrant visas available to “qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States.” Id. ¶ 6; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). Because Ike sought a visa independently and not in connection with a job offer from a U.S. employer, he was additionally required to show that granting him a visa would be “in the national interest.” Compl. ¶ 7; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). USCIS processed Ike’s petition at its service center in Irving, Texas. See Decision, ECF No. 5-2 (correspondence addressed from Texas Service Center); Compl. ¶ 22 (naming Director of the Texas Service Center as a defendant). In April 2020, USCIS issued a request for evidence, to which Ike responded the following month. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. USCIS denied Ike’s petition in June 2020. Id. ¶ 12. Ike then filed the instant lawsuit, alleging that the denial of his petition violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process. Id. 6-7. The Complaint seeks an order requiring USCIS to approve the petition, among other relief. Id. 9. 2 In August 2020, while this litigation was pending, USCIS informed Ike that it had ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals