UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RITA NORMANTIENE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-cv-1370 (TSC) FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Rita Normantiene filed an Application to Adjust Status on May 13, 2015. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) subsequently denied that application on the grounds that Normantiene had falsely claimed United States citizenship on an Illinois Voter Registration Application. Normantiene sued, alleging that the denial of her application was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). ECF No. 1, Compl. Defendant has moved to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 15 (“Def.’s Mot. to Transfer). Plaintiff opposes the motion. Opposition, ECF No. 16 (“Pl.’s Opp.”). For the reasons below, the court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Transfer. I. LEGAL STANDARD “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Even if a plaintiff has brought a case in a proper venue, a district court may transfer it to another district.” Def. Servs., Inc. v. Mayorkas, No. CV 21-1314, 2022 Page 1 of 8 WL 910335, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2022). Courts use a two-step test to determine if a case should be transferred: whether (1) the action “might have been brought” in the movant’s choice of forum, and (2) the private and public “interest factors” that weigh in favor of or against transfer. Ctr. for Env’t Sci., Accuracy & Reliability v. Nat’l Park Serv., 75 F. Supp. 3d 353 (D.D.C. 2014). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that transfer is proper. Def. Servs., Inc, 2022 WL 910335, at *2. II. ANALYSIS A. Where the Action Might Have Been Brought Under the first step, an action “might have been brought” against a federal government defendant where (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1); Nat’l Park Serv., 75 F. Supp. at 356. Normantiene does not dispute that she lives in South Carolina. Compl. ¶ 1. Nor does she assert that real property is involved in the action. See Compl. Therefore, the action might have been brought in the District of South Carolina. 1 1 Normantiene appears to argue that she could not successfully bring her claim in the District of South Carolina because Fourth Circuit precedent regarding certain denials of applications for adjustment of status would require the dismissal of her claim. See Pl.’s Opp. at 2 (citing Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 592 F.3d 612, 621 (4th Cir. 2010)). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals