UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EFFICIENTIP, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01455 (TNM) KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff EfficientIP, Inc. (“EfficientIP”) filed a complaint in this district seeking review of a decision denying its visa petition. The Government now moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing and the relevant law, the Court will grant the motion. I. EfficientIP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania. Compl. ⁋ 10, ECF No. 1. It filed a nonimmigrant Form I-129 petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on behalf of Charles Hong, an employee of its parent company. Id. ⁋⁋ 18– 19. USCIS issued a “Request for Information” and EfficientIP then submitted more evidence in support of its petition. Id. ⁋⁋ 24–30. The agency ultimately denied EfficientIP’s request. Id. ⁋ 31. EfficientIP then sued Kenneth Cuccinelli (the Acting Director of USCIS), Chad Wolf (the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), and Gregory Richardson (the Director of the USCIS Texas Service Center)—collectively, “the Government”—arguing that USCIS’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. Id. ⁋⁋ 12–14, 48. It asks this Court to set aside the decision and order the Government to approve the Form I-129 petition and adjust Hong’s immigration status. Id. at 15. 1 The Government moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue (“Defs.’ Mem.”), ECF No. 9. EfficientIP opposes the transfer. Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 10. The Government’s motion is ripe. 2 II. The transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), allows a district court to “transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” In considering a motion to transfer, courts undertake a two-step process. First, the court determines whether venue is proper in the transferee court—the district where the case “might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). If it is, the court then weighs “a number of case-specific factors” to decide whether a transfer is warranted. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2009) (stating that courts use their “broad discretion to balance” these factors). The burden is on the party seeking a transfer. Aftab, 597 F. Supp. 2d at 79. 1 All page citations refer to the page numbers that the CM/ECF system generates. 2 The Government’s reply was untimely. EfficientIP’s opposition was filed on September 17, 2020, making the Government’s reply due September 24. The reply was filed the next day. The Court’s resolution of the Motion to Transfer does not turn on anything in the Government’s late reply. 2 III. The Court begins by recognizing that “[c]ases challenging the actions of local USCIS offices are frequently, and appropriately, transferred to the venue encompassing those ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals