Akinyode v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

AYOBAMIDELE AKINYODE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFHOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-110 (JDB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

July 16, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Ayobamidele Akinyode filed this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), and some high-ranking DHS officials for failing to adjudicate his immigration petition for over four years. See Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 9-10, 20-23, 27-28. Defendants have moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey, where Akinyode resides and the assigned USCIS Field Office is located, or, alternatively, to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and improper venue. See Defs.' Mot. to Transfer or Dismiss & Mem. in Supp. Thereof ("Mot. to Transfer") [ECF No. 4] at 6. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant defendants' motion to transfer and deny without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss.

Background

Akinyode, a citizen of Nigeria, is married to Charann Caulker, a citizen of the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. The couple resides in East Orange, New Jersey. Id. ¶ 3. On or about May 25, 2017, the couple filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and an I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status on behalf of Akinyode at the USCIS Field Office in Newark, New Jersey. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16. The Field Office conducted the fingerprinting, photographing, and interviews required for Akinyode's application on September 18, 2019. See id. ¶¶ 5-6. But nearly two years later, USCIS has not yet adjudicated his application, despite repeated requests by Akinyode and his wife. See id. ¶¶ 7-10.

In his complaint, filed on January 13, 2021, Akinyode names as defendants DHS, USCIS, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, USCIS Director Tracy Renaud, and Paulo Correia, Director of the Newark USCIS Field Office,¹ alleging that these individuals, in their official capacities, were responsible for overseeing the agencies' failure to adjudicate his application as required by law. See id. ¶¶ 12-16. In particular, Akinyode claims that defendants' inaction has violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and his constitutional due process rights. See id. ¶¶ 9-10, 20-23, 27-28. Akinyode alleges that all defendants except for Correia reside in the District of Columbia. See Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Transfer & Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n") [ECF No. 6] at 6-8. But defendants contend that USCIS and Director Renaud have recently relocated to Camp Springs, Maryland. See Mot. to Transfer at 1-2.

On March 11, 2021, defendants filed a motion to transfer venue, asserting that the case lacks any ties to this District and that the District of New Jersey is a more appropriate and convenient forum for this dispute. At the same time, defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and improper venue. Akinyode opposes both motions. The motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for consideration.

Legal Standard

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer" a civil action to any other district where it "might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court has "broad discretion to decide" whether transfer is appropriate, Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41, 55 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing SEC v. Savoy Indus. Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1154 (D.C. Cir. 1978)), based on an "individualized, case-by-case" assessment of the interests involved, id. (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). The moving party has the burden of establishing that transfer is warranted under § 1404(a). Aracely, R. v. Nielsen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 110, 127 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Montgomery v. STG Int'l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29, 32 (D.D.C. 2008)).

To carry that burden, the movant must first demonstrate that the case "might have been brought" in the transferee district. Ctr. for Env't. Sci., Accuracy & Reliability v. Nat'l Park Serv., 75 F. Supp. 3d 353, 356 (D.D.C. 2014). Then, the movant must show that "considerations of convenience and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer to that court." Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62, 65 (D.D.C. 2003). The Court "'balance[s] a number of case-specific factors,' related to both the public and private interests at stake" when making its assessment. Douglas v. Chariots for Hire, 918 F. Supp. 2d 24, 31 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).

Analysis

Defendants seek to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey, where Akinyode resides and where the responsible USCIS Field Office is located. Mot. to Transfer at 3. Defendants do not dispute that there is a statutory basis for venue in this District because at least one defendant resides here. Id. at 2-3. But according to defendants, Akinyode's complaint has "no meaningfulconnection to the District of Columbia" and Akinyode has improperly attempted to "manufacture venue" here simply by naming high-ranking federal officials. Id. at 2 (quoting Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Akinyode counters that his claims arose in the District of Columbia, where most of the named defendants reside and carry out their duties to implement the INA. Pl.'s Opp'n at 5-8. The Court concludes that although venue lies in both this District and the District of New Jersey, the public and private interests at stake support transferring this case to New Jersey.

A. Venue in New Jersey

Akinyode does not argue that venue would be improper in New Jersey, only that he prefers to litigate his case in this District, and that he opposes defendants' rationale for transfer. "A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States" may "be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Given these parameters, Akinyode could have filed in the District of New Jersey, where he and defendant Correia reside and where the USCIS Field Office that has failed to adjudicate his petition is located. See Compl. ¶ 3; Mot. to Transfer at 3. Hence, venue in New Jersey is proper, and the Court will now evaluate whether transfer is appropriate.

B. Private Interest Factors

When assessing a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a), the Court considers the following private interest factors: "(1) the plaintiffs' choice of forum; (2) the defendants' choice of forum; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses; and (6) the ease of access to sources of proof." Aguilar v. Michael& Sons Servs., Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 5, 11 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13, 16 (D.D.C. 1996)). While not all factors favor the same outcome, on balance, they support transfer in this case.

In weighing the first factor, courts typically defer heavily to plaintiffs' choice of forum, as Akinyode emphasizes. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 5; see also Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 21, 24 (D.D.C. 2002) ("[A] plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded great deference, and is a paramount consideration in any determination of a motion to transfer." (quotation omitted)). However, deference is not appropriate "where the plaintiff's choice of forum has no meaningful ties to the controversy," and defendant seeks transfer to a venue to "which plaintiffs have substantial ties and where the subject matter of the lawsuit is connected." Trout Unlimited, 944 F. Supp. at 17. In particular, when "the forum preferred by plaintiff is not his home forum," and the forum that defendant desires is the plaintiff's home forum, "there is little reason to defer to the plaintiff's preference." Aishat v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261, 268 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 104 F. Supp. 2d 48, 52 (D.D.C 2000)); see also Oudes v. Block, 516 F. Supp. 13, 14 (D.D.C. 1981) (finding that transferring case to plaintiff's home forum would cause him "negligible or non-existent" inconvenience). Here, the Court will not defer to Akinyode's choice of forum because Akinyode resides in New Jersey, defendants' preferred forum. See Compl. ¶ 3; see also Aishat, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 268. This factor, then, does not weigh heavily in the Court's analysis.

Unlike plaintiff's choice of forum, defendants' choice of forum is typically not granted deference unless defendants can demonstrate the "added convenience and justice of litigating" in the transferee forum. Aishat, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 269 (citing In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d 67, 69 (D.D.C. 2003)). As discussed below, defendants have shown that the District ofNew Jersey is more convenient for the parties and has a meaningful factual connection to the challenged action, which this District lacks. Hence, the Court affords some deference to defendants' preference to litigate this case in New Jersey.

The crux of the parties' dispute concerns the third factor: where plaintiff's claims arose. When considering this factor in APA cases, courts look to "where the decisionmaking process occurred." Ngonga v. Sessions, 318 F. Supp. 3d 270, 275 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 675 F. Supp. 2d 173, 179 (D.D.C. 2009)). Defendants assert that the events at issue were the province of the Newark Field Office, and therefore Akinyode's claimed injury arose in New Jersey from alleged errors by USCIS staff. Mot. to Transfer at 6-7; see also Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer & Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply") [ECF No. 7] at 6. Akinyode disagrees, contending that the responsible...