UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RIMPY MEHMI BAHENA et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-291 (RDM) TRACY RENAUD, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Abel Bahena, a U.S. citizen, and his wife, Rimpy Mehmi Bahena, a citizen and national of India, bring this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their marriage-based immigration case. Dkt. 1 at 1–2 (Pet. ¶¶ 1–2, 4). Pending before the Court is the USCIS’s motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, to transfer the case “to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, where Plaintiffs reside and where the immigration application at issue in this case remains pending” or, in the alternative, to dismiss this case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(3) for failure to state a claim against officials that reside in this district and improper venue. Dkt. 4 at 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the USCIS’s motion to transfer the case. I. BACKGROUND When evaluating a motion to transfer venue, “a court should only consider undisputed facts supported by affidavits, depositions, stipulations, or other relevant documents.” One on One Basketball, Inc. v. Glob. Payments Direct, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 44, 48 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court therefore draws the relevant facts from uncontested allegations in Plaintiffs’ petition and the declaration of Catherine C. Bowie, who recently “led the headquarters consolidation efforts” and “physical relocation” of the USCIS, Dkt. 9-1 at 1 (Bowie Decl. ¶ 1). In October 2019, Abel Bahena filed a Form I-130 petition for his wife, Rimpy Mehmi Bahena, and she “filed an application for adjustment of status with [the] USCIS.” Dkt. 1 at 3 (Pet. ¶¶ 7–8). Both Plaintiffs reside in Salem, Oregon. Id. at 1 (Pet. ¶ 2); Dkt. 4 at 6. “In September 2020, Plaintiffs attended an interview at” the USCIS’s offices “where an immigration officer examined them and reviewed their immigration applications.” Dkt. 1 at 3 (Pet. ¶ 10). Their application remains pending before the USCIS’s Portland Field Office in Portland, Oregon. Id. (Pet. ¶¶ 7–8); Dkt. 4 at 6 & n.1. On January 31, 2021, Plaintiffs brought this action against Tracy Renaud, in her official capacity as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director of the USCIS, because they had not yet received a decision on their immigration application. Dkt. 1, 3 (Pet. ¶¶ 3, 11). Although its headquarters were previously located in five buildings in the District of Columbia (and one in Arlington, Virginia), the “USCIS began physically relocating agency offices on August 27, 2020.” Dkt. 9-1 at 2 (Bowie Decl. ¶ 4). “The relocation entailed moving the USCIS headquarters . . . located in the six buildings . . . into the new Camp Springs, Maryland location,” a move that the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals