UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KRISHNA VENKATA MELNATTUR, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3013 (JDB) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Krishna Venkata Melnattur filed this action against the United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services (“USCIS”) and high-level agency officials, alleging that USCIS denied his immigration visa petition in violation of its own regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 33–50. Before the Court is defendants’ motion to transfer this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to either the Eastern District of Missouri or the District of Nebraska and to extend their time for responding to plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant both motions, transferring this case to the District of Nebraska and extending defendants’ time to respond until 21 days after this case is docketed in that court. Background Krishna Melnattur is a doctor currently employed as a laboratory researcher in neurobiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. See Defs.’ Combined Mot. to Transfer Venue & for Extension of Time (“Gov’t Mot.”) Ex. A [ECF No. 4-2] 1 at 1, 5–6. 1 Dr. Melnattur is a citizen of India and currently holds an H1-B temporary worker visa authorizing his employment in the United States. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1–2. On May 29, 2020, Dr. Melnattur filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Form I-140) with USCIS, seeking an EB-1 visa as an “alien of extraordinary ability.” Id. ¶¶ 3–4; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). Dr. Melnattur’s petition was assigned to the Nebraska Service Center (“NSC”), located in Lincoln, Nebraska, for processing and adjudication. See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) [ECF No. 5] at 6; Gov’t Mot. Ex. A. A noncitizen seeking an EB-1 visa on the grounds of “extraordinary ability” must submit evidence demonstrating either a “one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award)” or three of ten listed criteria suggesting the petitioner’s “extraordinary ability.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, pt. F, ch. 2 § B(2). Alongside his initial petition, Dr. Melnattur submitted evidence that he contended satisfied five of these ten criteria. Compl. ¶ 7. But USCIS was not convinced. On June 23, 2020, the NSC issued a Request for Evidence, informing Dr. Melnattur that it considered only two of the criteria met and asking for additional evidence to support the other three criteria he had argued were satisfied. Id. ¶¶ 7–8; Gov’t Mot. Ex. B at 3–5. Dr. Melnattur timely complied with this request. Compl. ¶ 9. Nonetheless, USCIS issued a Decision denying his visa petition on the grounds that he had not satisfied a required third criteria of eligibility. Id. ¶ 10; Gov’t Mot. Ex. A. 1 Although both USCIS’s “Decision” denying plaintiff’s petition and its earlier “Request for Evidence” to Dr. Melnattur were referenced …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals