Manne v. Jaddou

1

VANAJA MANNE, Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU, Defendant.

KOSTA GARA et al., Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU et al., Defendants.

LUIS SINIBALDI et al., Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU et al., Defendants.

Civil Nos. 21-1092 PJM, 21-1947 PJM, 21-2225 PJM

United States District Court, D. Maryland

January 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PETER J. MESSITTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

These cases concern the processing and adjudication of various immigrant applications and petitions. Plaintiffs, three individuals and one corporation, bring these actions against Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), among others.^[1] Plaintiffs seek court orders compelling USCIS to act favorably on their visa applications invoking the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).

Defendants have moved to transfer all three cases from the District of Maryland to the federal judicial districts covering the USCIS field offices, district offices, or regional offices in which Plaintiffs' visa applications are currently pending being processed, or have already been processed. Plaintiffs all residents of states other than Maryland, oppose transfer. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that venue is more appropriate in the other federal judicial districts. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Transfer.

I.

Under United States immigration law, foreign nationals wishing to live, work, or study in the United States typically must first obtain visas through an application process. Requirements for Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Jan 3. 2018). Congress, through the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), grants the Executive Branch broad authority over immigration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101. The INA specifically charges the Secretary of Homeland Security with the administration and enforcement of immigration laws. Id. § 1103(a)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See 8 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 100.1. USCIS is the entity primarily responsible for processing visa applications, as well as applications for other immigration benefits, including naturalization. See Id. § 204.^[2] The steps that USCIS must take to render a decision on an application depend on the type of application and may require fee collection, data entry, background checks, biometric checks, and in person interviews.^[3] To process the millions of applications it receives annually, USCIS maintains resources in its 88 field offices, 16 district offices, and four regional offices, which are located throughout the country. U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-529, Report to Congressional Requesters on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Actions Needed to Address Pending Caseload (hereinafter, “GAO Report”), August 18, 2021, p. 8.

The road to obtaining a final decision on an application or petition can be long and winding. For some individuals, the application process can take months, if not years, to complete.^[4] A recent GAO study found that USCIS's pending caseload grew an estimated 85% from Fiscal Year 2015 through Fiscal Year 2020. Id. at p. 1. Furthermore, factors such as competing priorities, increased length of forms, expanded interview requirements, staffing, and the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted USCIS's processing times. Id. at 15.

In addition to resource constraints, certain statutory provisions limit the number of visas that may be awarded by USCIS each year. For example, Congress has established by statute numerical limits for the number of permanent resident visas (known as “green cards”) to be granted in a fiscal year in each of the family-based, employment-based, and diversity-based visa categories. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151. Congress has also established per-country limitations for visas: no more than 7% of the total number of family-based or employment-based visas may be made available to citizens of any one country in a single fiscal year. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2). Due to this per-country cap, citizens of countries with higher numbers of applicants can experience longer wait times for visas.

In December 2020, USCIS relocated its national headquarters from the District of Columbia to Camp Springs, Maryland, which is within this Court's jurisdiction. In the months following the relocation, this Court experienced an unprecedented increase in immigration case filings, particularly cases filed by plaintiffs alleging unreasonable delay in the adjudication of their visa applications, all of which sought court orders compelling USCIS to act on their applications.^[5]

Given the large number of filings in this Court, USCIS filed an Omnibus Motion to Transfer Venue in which it sought transfer of over thirty cases from Maryland's federal district court to other federal judicial districts. Specifically, USCIS has asked the Court to transfer each case to the federal district court where the plaintiff resides or the federal district court covering the office where the plaintiff's petition or application is pending or being processed. Omnibus Mot. to Transfer (“Mot.”)^[6] at 2. USCIS emphasizes that Plaintiffs in each of the present cases resides outside of Maryland and that the administrative records related to Plaintiffs' applications are located in service centers and field offices outside of Maryland. Id. Indeed, following the filing of the present Motion, eighteen cases have been voluntarily transferred, eight cases have been voluntarily dismissed, and one has been dismissed as moot.^[7] However, Plaintiffs in three cases before the Court have opposed transfer.

Plaintiffs in these three cases urge the Court to keep their cases in the District of Maryland for various reasons, primarily because venue is proper in this district and because this is the venue they have chosen. See Manne Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Transfer, No. 21-cv-1092-PJM (formerly No. 21-cv-1092-CBD), ECF No. 29 (“Manne Opp'n”); Gara Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Transfer, No. 21-cv-1947-PJM (formerly No. 21-cv-1947-TDC), ECF No. 10 (“Gara Opp'n”); Sinibaldi Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Transfer, No. 21-cv-2225-PJM (formerly No. 21-cv-2225-TJS), ECF No. 8 (“Sinibaldi Opp'n”). They adduce a number of arguments why transfer to other districts would be inconvenient, suggesting that transfer would inure only to the benefit of the Government. See Gara Opp'n at 10. Further, they oppose the omnibus nature of the Motion. Id. at 11. Defendants argue that their Omnibus Motion is proper because each of the cases at issue shares certain commonalities favoring transfer. Omnibus Reply to Resps. to Mot. to Transfer (“Reply”)^[8] at 4.

Most importantly, the agency actions challenged here are complex and involve a number of moving parts. For this reason, the Court is persuaded that venue more properly lies in the federal judicial districts where USCIS employees structurally organized to adjudicate Plaintiffs' applications are located, primarily because the administrative records pertinent to those applications are already in those districts. The Court considers the individual circumstances of the Plaintiffs in each of these three cases.

A. Manne v. Jaddou

Plaintiff Vanaja Manne is an Indian national who resides in Robbinsville, New Jersey. No. 21-cv-1092-PJM (formerly No. 21-cv-1092-CBD), Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 1 (“Manne Compl.”). Manne brought suit against Tracy Renaud, then Acting Director of USCIS, alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her various applications and petitions. Id. ¶¶ 2, 54-116. She asks the Court to declare all delays described in her Complaint as unreasonable and would have the Court order USCIS to act on her applications within 14 days. Id. ¶¶ 121-128.

In January 2007, Manne's now-husband, Sharath Chandra Tripuraneni, began working for a U.S. employer under two different types of work authorization, first under an F-1 student visa, ^[9] then under an H1-B visa.^[10] Id. ¶ 40. In 2012, Tripuraneni's employer began the permanent labor certification process for him, a process which allows employers to hire foreign workers on a permanent basis. Id. ¶ 43. In 2015, Tripuraneni and Manne married, and Manne joined Tripuraneni in the United States through H-4 dependent status.^[11] Id. ¶ 41.

Manne and Tripuraneni hope to obtain lawful permanent resident status (“green cards”) through petitions for adjustment of status (Form I-485s). The fact that Tripuraneni's employer sponsored him in 2012 made both Tripuraneni and Manne eligible to apply for such status. However, due to the statutory per-country limitations on visas, Tripuraneni and Manne faced a years-long wait before filing their petitions in October 2020.^[12] Id. ¶¶ 43-44, 47.

Manne asserts that her H-4 status was slated to expire on April 30, 2021, which is why in December 2020 she filed petitions with USCIS seeking employment authorization under H-4 status. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. She asserts that she has provided USCIS with all necessary information to adjudicate her status but that USCIS has yet to act on any of her applications. Id. ¶¶ 52-53. At present, Manne remains lawfully present in the United States even though she has applications pending. Id. ¶ 49.

B. Gara, et al. v. Jaddou, et al.

Plaintiff Kosta Gara is a foreign national who resides in Miami Florida. No. 21-cv-1947-PJM (formerly No. 21-cv-1947-TDC), Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 6, (“Gara Compl.”). Gara brings suit against Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of USCIS; and USCIS. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. After Gara applied for lawful permanent resident status on two distinct bases, USCIS denied his second petition...