UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHANG WOOK ROH, et al., Plaintiffs, Vv. Civil Case No. 21-1291 (RJL) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, e¢ al., Nee Nome Nene ree Nee ree “ee “mee ee” ee” Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER (November / A 5001) [Dkt. # 3] Plaintiffs Chang Wook Roh, Hoji Chang, and Hyounjun Chang brought the present suit seeking to compel the Government to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ pending immigration- related applications. See Compl. ff 1, 7-19 [Dkt. #1]. Pending before the Court is the Government defendants’ (“the Government”) Motion to Transfer or Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”) [Dkt. # 3], according to which the defendants ask that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California or, in the alternative, that it be dismissed for improper venue. Plaintiffs oppose such a transfer. For the reasons described below, I agree with the defendants that the District of Columbia is an inconvenient venue and that transfer of this action to the Southern District of California is warranted. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE:! ANALYSIS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court “may transfer any civil action to any other district .. . where it might have been brought” when such a transfer is in furtherance of both the “interest of justice” and the “convenience of the parties and witnesses.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Deciding whether transfer is warranted involves a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must determine whether the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district in the first instance. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). Ifso, the Court weighs the public and private interests at stake in deciding whether the case should in fact be transferred. Garcia v. Acosta, 393 F. Supp. 3d 93, 108 (D.D.C. 2019). The movant bears the burden of persuasion to show that transfer of the action is proper. Ctr. for Env’t Sci., Accuracy & Reliability v. Nat’l Park Serv., 75 F. Supp. 3d 353, 356 (D.D.C. 2014). Beginning with the first step, the Court must assess whether plaintiffs could have brought this case in the Southern District of California. Venue for suits against federal agencies or federal officials in their official capacity, such as this one, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1). That provision provides that a civil action involving no real property may be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant resides, (2) a substantial ' As defendants acknowledge, when courts adjudicate combined motions to transfer and motions to dismiss in application-specific immigration cases like this one, they routinely address only the motion to transfer and deny without prejudice the motion to dismiss so that the defendants may refile it, if appropriate, after the approved transfer has occurred. See Defs.’ Mot. at 9-10 (citing Mohammadi v. Scharfen, 609 F. Supp. 2d 14, 16 (D.D.C. 2009)). I adopt such an approach here. 2 part of the events …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals