UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) IHAB SALHA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 20-cv-1102 (KBJ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ihab Salha has filed a complaint against a number of federal agencies and officials—specifically, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USC IS”); the Department of State; the Embassy of the United States in Beirut, Lebanon; the Secretary of DHS; the Director of USCIS; the Secretary of State; and the Ambassador of the Consulate of the United States in Beirut, Lebanon (together, “Defendants”) — seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate the I-130 visa application that Salha filed on behalf of his spouse. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3–10; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 9, at 4.) 1 According to Salha’s complaint, Defendants are carrying out an unlawful policy—the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”)—that “intentionally delays the applications of applicants” from “predominantly Muslim countr[ies]” such as Lebanon, 1 Page number citations to the documents that the parties have filed refer to the numbers automatically assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system. where Salha’s spouse currently resides. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 16, 27–28.) Salha asserts that venue is proper in this jurisdiction, because “Defendants all maintain offices within this district” (id. ¶ 12), three of the named defendants—DHS, USCIS, and the Department of State—are headquartered in the District of Columbia (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 5), and the actions underlying the complaint’s claims took place here ( see id.). Defendants do not dispute that the District of Columbia is a proper venue, but in the motion that is before this Court at present, Defendants seek a transfer of the case to the District of New Hampshire or the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to s ection 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code. (See Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 7, at 1, 3.) For the reasons explained below, this Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish that a transfer is warranted, and, therefore, Defendants’ motion to transfer is DENIED. I. Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or 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). In evaluating a defendant’s motion to transfer under section 1404(a), a district court must first determine whether the lawsuit “might have been brought” in the districts where the defendant seeks to transfer the case. See id. If so, the district court must then consider various private and public interest factors to assess whether transferring the case would be in the “interest of convenience and justice[.]” See W. Watersheds Project v. Tidwell, 306 F. Supp. 3d 350, 356 (D.D.C. 2017). With respect to private interest factors, c ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals