UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ROSSVILLE CONVENIENCE ) & GAS, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 18-2630 (ABJ) ) WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINOIN Plaintiffs Rossville Convenient & Gas, Inc. (“Rossville”) and Mansoor N. Charaniya brought this action against William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Barbara Q. Velarde, Chief of Administrative Appeals at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and several other officials within the Department of Homeland Security. They challenge a determination made by the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) of USCIS to dismiss their appeal of a USCIS decision to deny a Form I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker. See generally Complaint [Dkt. # 1] (“Compl.”). They seek declaratory, injunctive, and other forms of miscellaneous relief. Compl. at 8–9. Defendants have moved to transfer the case to the Northern or Southern Districts of Texas or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] (“Defs.’ Mot”); Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8-1] (Defs.’ Mem.). For the following reasons, the Court will deny defendants’ motion to transfer, and it will dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, but without prejudice. BACKGROUND This lawsuit stems from plaintiffs’ attempt to have Charaniya, a native and citizen of India, approved as an alien worker by the USCIS. Compl. ¶ 14. Charaniya was the beneficiary of a Department of Labor-approved Labor Certification filed by Rossville in 2002. Compl. ¶ 13. That Certification is required for an employer to file a Form I-140 petition – the petition for an alien worker visa. Defs.’ Mem. at 4–5. On November 5, 2003, Rossville submitted an I-140 petition on Charaniya’s behalf. Compl. ¶ 14. On October 20, 2004, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny plaintiffs’ petition. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs responded to USCIS with “requested evidence.” Compl. ¶ 15. On March 15, 2017, USCIS denied plaintiffs’ I-140 petition, Compl. ¶ 16, and plaintiffs filed a time appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office on May 10, 2017. Compl. ¶ 17. On August 16, 2018, the AAO dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal. Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs filed the three count complaint in this matter on November 15, 2018. See Compl. ¶¶ 19–25. As relief, they seek a declaratory judgment that they properly established Charaniya’s qualifications for an Form I-140 petition approval; Charaniya properly “ported” to his new employer; and they are entitled to the process that flows from a properly filed petition; and an order that defendants must a) reopen the Form I-140 petition, b) declare that their determination that Charaniya was not eligible to port was erroneous, and c) adjudicate and approve the Form I- 140 petition. Compl. at 8–9. They also seek injunction prohibiting USCIS from relying on the information contained in its allegedly erroneous prior decision to deny ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals