UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA McAFEE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 19-cv-2981 (DLF) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES and KATHY BARAN, Director, USCIS California Service Center, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION McAfee asks this Court to overturn a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision rejecting McAfee’s H-1B visa request. McAfee alleges that the decision violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause. Before the Court is the government’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 either to the Central District of California or to the Northern District of California. See Gov’t’s Mot., Dkt. 7. Because McAfee could and should have brought the case in the Central District of California, the Court will grant the motion and transfer the case. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A § 1404 motion to transfer poses two questions: Could the plaintiff have sued in the transferee court? And if so, should it have? See Gyau v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-0407, 2018 WL 4964502, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2018). If the Court answers “yes” to both, transfer is proper. The could question “turns on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.” Id. This statute provides that cases like this one—“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.” Id. The should question turns on a prudential balance of “public and private interests.” Id. “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.” Id. “The private interests include the plaintiff’s preferred forum, the defendant’s preferred forum, where the claim arose, and the convenience to the parties, to the witnesses, and to the evidence.” Id. II. ANALYSIS The parties agree that McAfee could have brought the suit in the Central District of California because that is both “where a defendant resides” and “where the underlying claim arose.” Kathy Baran “resides” in the Central District because she performs her official duties at the USCIS California Service Center in Laguna Niguel, California, which falls within the Central District. See id. (explaining that for venue purposes federal employees reside wherever they perform their official duties) (citing Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). And in APA cases like this one, the underlying claim typically arises “where the decisionmaking process occurred.” Id. at *2. Once again, that is the Central District of California, where the USCIS California Service Center processed and denied McAfee’s request. The question is whether this case should be brought here. To answer this question, the Court must weigh the public and private interests. Looking first at the public interests, two are neutral and one favors transfer. The first public interest—the transferee court’s familiarity with the governing laws—is neutral. Federal law governs this case, and as federal courts, both this district and the Central District ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals