UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SANDVIK MINING AND CONSTRUCTION USA, LLC, ) ) RODOLFO GIANCOTTI REZENDE, ) Civil Case No. 21-00992 (RJL) Plaintiffs, ) y ) ° ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER (October Ly 2021) [Dkt. #10] BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Rodolfo Rezende and Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC (“Sandvik”) bring this suit to enable Rezende and his family to continue to lawfully reside in the United States in connection with Rezende’s employment with Sandvik. Compl. [Dkt. #1] 4] 1-15. Specifically, plaintiffs challenge decisions by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denying Rezende an extension on his nonimmigrant worker status and denying his dependent family members an extension of their associated nonimmigrant status. Jd. J 1-3. On September 13, 2021, defendants—federal officials responsible for administering and enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws—moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer this case on the basis that venue was not proper in the District of Columbia. Mot. to Transfer and Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”) [Dkt. #10]. Defendants originally proposed transferring the action to the Middle District of Florida on the basis that Rezende resides in that district and Sandvik represented itself as a “Florida based company” in the Complaint. Jd. at 1; see also Compl. 5. Plaintiffs opposed this maneuver, asserting that the Court should retain the case but arguing in the alternative that, were the Court to transfer the case, the Northern District of Georgia is the most appropriate venue. Opp’n of Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer Venue and Alternative Venue (“Pls.” Opp’n”) [Dkt. #11]. To support their preference for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs assert that Rezende no longer resides in the Middle District of Florida, Sandvik is headquartered in the Northern District of Georgia, and the company’s activities relevant to this lawsuit, including Rezende’s proposed worksite, are located there. Pls.” Opp’n §] 4-8. Defendants, on reply, continue to resist proceeding in this district but do not oppose transferring to the Northern District of Georgia. Reply in Support of Mot. to Transfer and Dismiss (“Defs.’ Reply’) [Dkt. #12] at 4-5. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, I agree with defendants that the District of Columbia is an inconvenient venue. Accordingly, for the following reasons, I GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART defendants’ motion.! ' As defendants concede, when confronted with combined motions to transfer and motions to dismiss in application-specific immigration cases, courts routinely address solely the motion to transfer while denying without prejudice the motion to dismiss so that the defendants may refile it, if appropriate, once the transfer has occurred. See Defs.’ Mot. at 10 (citing Mohammadi v. Scharfen, 609 F. Supp. 2d 14, 16 (D.D.C. 2009)). I adopt this approach here. ANALYSIS Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court “may transfer any civil action to any other district ... where it might have been brought” when transfer is warranted by the “interest of justice” and the “convenience of the parties and witnesses.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Deciding whether to transfer involves …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals