UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MIRIAN JETZABEL VILLATORO CLAROS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-609 (JEB) ROBERT M. COWAN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mirian Jetzabel Villatoro Claros, a lawful permanent resident who lives in Maryland, has been trying to obtain derivative asylee status for her 16-year-old daughter, Plaintiff Justine Andree Villatoro Claros, for over three years. Frustrated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has not acted, they brought this suit, asking the Court to order Defendants to adjudicate their Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition. Defendants — senior officials at USCIS — now move to transfer this case to the District of Maryland. As the relevant factors favor transfer, the Court will grant the Motion. I. Legal Standard Even if a plaintiff has brought its case in a proper venue, a district court may, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice . . . transfer [it] . . . to any other district . . . where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). District courts have “discretion . . . 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, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). 1 This Court has previously explained the standard for a transfer of venue under § 1404(a): To warrant transfer under § 1404(a), the movant must first show that the plaintiff could originally have brought the case in the transferee district. Treppel v. Reason, 793 F. Supp. 2d 429, 435 (D.D.C. 2011). The movant must also show that “considerations of convenience and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer . . . .” Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62, 65 (D.D.C. 2003). This second inquiry “calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors,” related to both the public and private interests at stake. Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29. The burden is on the moving party to establish that transfer is proper. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13, 16 (D.D.C. 1996). Douglas v. Chariots for Hire, 918 F. Supp. 2d 24, 31 (D.D.C. 2013). Although Plaintiffs and Defendants disagree about whether venue is proper in this District, the Court need not wade into that controversy today. Instead, it will proceed with the § 1404(a) transfer framework outlined above, first examining whether this case could have been brought in the District of Maryland and next looking at the private- and public-interest factors relevant to transfer. III. Analysis A. Propriety of New Venue As Plaintiffs have filed suit against federal officers and employees acting in their official capacity, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Under that section, venue is proper in any district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals