UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANA GYAU et al., § Plaintiffs, § v. § Civil Case N0. 18-407 JEFF SESSIONS et al., § Defendants. § ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Nana Gyau and Elizabeth Toku, a married couple residing in Virginia, ask this Court to undo the United States Custom & Immigration Service’s (USCIS) denial of their petition sponsoring Gyau for lawful permanent residency. After considering their Forrn I-l30 and interviewing plaintiffs, USCIS’s Washington Field Office denied the petition, crediting evidence that suggested Gyau married Toku to obtain an immigration benefit. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and now seek this Court’s review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. Pending before the Court is the government’s motion either to dismiss for improper venue under Rule lZ(b)(3) or to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § l404(a) to the Eastern District of Virginia. Because the suit could have been_and ought to be-heard in the Eastern District, the Court will grant the government’s motion and transfer the case. I. Analysis A. Legal Standard Deciding a § 1404 motion to transfer is like dancing a Texas two-step: First, could the suit have been brought in the transferee court? And second, should the suit be brought in the transferee court? See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616-43 (1964). Answering the former turns on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Under § 1391(e), a suit against a United States officer or employee can be brought in any district Where a defendant resides, where the underlying claim arose, or_if no real property is involved_where the plaintiff resides. Federal defendants reside “where the[ir] official duties are performed and not the[ir] personal residence.” Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C. Ci`r. 1978). Answering the latte`r “calls on district courts to weigh in the balance a number of case- specific factors.” Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). These prudential factors consider public and private interests. The public interests include the transferee court’s familiarity with the governing laws, each court’s relative congestion, and the local interest in resolving the controversy. Elemary v. Philipp Holzmann A.G., 533 F. Supp. 2d 144, 149-50 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep ’t ongric., 944 F. Supp. 13, 16 (D.D.C. 1996)). The private interests include the plaintiffs preferred forum, the defendant’s preferred forum, where the claim arose, and the convenience to the parties, to the witnesses, and to the evidence. Ia'. B. Transfer is Warranted since the suit could and should have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. Because venue properly lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, and because the private and public interests at stake support transfer, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion and transfer the case. Here, the government easily establishes the suit could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia Defendants Kimberly Zanotti and Sarah Taylor (the Field Office Director and the District Director of USCIS’s Washington ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals