Melnattur v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

KRISHNA VENKATA MELNATTUR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-3013 (JDB)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 23, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Krishna Venkata Melnattur filed this action against the United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services (“USCIS”) and high-level agency officials alleging that USCIS denied his immigration visa petition in violation of its own regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 33-50. Before the Court is defendants' motion to transfer this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to either the Eastern District of Missouri or the District of Nebraska and to extend their time for responding to plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant both motions, transferring this case to the District of Nebraska and extending defendants' time to respond until 21 days after this case is docketed in that court.

Background

Krishna Melnattur is a doctor currently employed as a laboratory researcher in neurobiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. See Defs.' Combined Mot. to Transfer Venue & for Extension of Time (“Gov't Mot.”) Ex. A [ECF No. 4-2] at 1, 5-6.^[1] Dr. Melnattur is a citizen of India and currently holds an H1-B temporary worker visa authorizing his employment in the United States. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1-2. On May 29, 2020, Dr. Melnattur filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Form I-140) with USCIS seeking an EB-1 visa as an “alien of extraordinary ability.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). Dr. Melnattur's petition was assigned to the Nebraska Service Center (“NSC”), located in Lincoln, Nebraska, for processing and adjudication. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot to Transfer (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) [ECF No. 5] at 6; Gov't Mot. Ex. A.

A noncitizen seeking an EB-1 visa on the grounds of “extraordinary ability” must submit evidence demonstrating either a “one-time achievement (that is a major, international recognized award)” or three of ten listed criteria suggesting the petitioner's “extraordinary ability.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, pt. F, ch. 2 § B(2). Alongside his initial petition, Dr. Melnattur submitted evidence that he contended satisfied five of these ten criteria. Compl. ¶ 7. But USCIS was not convinced. On June 23, 2020, the NSC issued a Request for Evidence, informing Dr. Melnattur that it considered only two of the criteria met and asking for additional evidence to support the other three criteria he had argued were satisfied. Id. ¶¶ 7-8; Gov't Mot. Ex. B at 3-5. Dr. Melnattur timely complied with this request. Compl. ¶ 9. Nonetheless, USCIS issued a Decision denying his visa petition on the grounds that he had not satisfied a required third criteria of eligibility. Id. ¶ 10; Gov't Mot. Ex. A.

On October 20, 2020, Dr. Melnattur brought the present lawsuit against USCIS, then-Acting Director Kenneth Cuccinelli, ^[2] and Loren Miller, the director of the NSC. Compl. at 1. He alleges a host of errors in USCIS's consideration of his petition, see Compl. ¶¶ 13-16, such that, he contends, USCIS's denial of his petition was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, see id. ¶ 37. Dr. Melnattur also alleges that USCIS failed to issue a notice of intent to deny his petition as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), see Compl. ¶¶ 47-49, and that, by “fail[ing] to give [him] a meaningful opportunity to challenge this denial, ” the agency violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, id. ¶ 44. On December 22, 2020, defendants filed the instant motion to transfer Dr. Melnattur's suit to either the District of Nebraska or the Eastern District of Missouri and also to extend the deadline for responding to plaintiffs complaint. See Gov't Mot. [ECF No. 4]. Briefing on this motion is now complete, and the question is ripe for adjudication.

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). A district court has broad “discretion . . . to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'” Ngonga v. Sessions, 318 F.Supp.3d 270, 274 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). The moving party bears 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).

The inquiry under § 1404(a) is “two-fold.” Wei Lai Dev. LLC v. USCIS, Civ. A. No. 21887 (RDM), 2021 WL 2073403, at *3 (D.D.C. May 24, 2021). First, the court must determine whether plaintiff could have brought suit in the transferee court. See id. This question “turns on the general venue statue, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.” Gyau v. Sessions, Civ. Case No. 18-407, 2018 WL 4964502, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2018). Then, the court determines whether the proposed transfer is “in the interest of justice, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), by “‘balanc[ing] a number of case-specific factors[]' related to both the public and private interests at stake.” Douglas v. Chariots for Hire, 918 F.Supp.2d 24, 31 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29).

Analysis

The government asks this Court to transfer the instant action to either the Eastern District of Missouri (where plaintiff resides) or the District of Nebraska (where the NSC is located). The District of Columbia, the government contends “has little, if any, connection to this case because none of the challenged events occurred here and Plaintiff does not reside here.” Defs.' Combined Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue & Mot. for Extension of Time (“Gov't Mem.”) [ECF No. 4-1] at 1. Dr. Melnattur resists this proposed transfer, arguing that his suit has substantial connections to this District because of defendants' operations here, their alleged “direction” of the denial of his petition, and their supervision of the guidelines and procedures governing the adjudication of such petitions. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 3, 8.

The Court agrees with the government. As dozens of other courts in this District have held in materially identical cases, ^[3] this case “could have and should have been filed” in a different forum. Ike v. USCIS, Case No. 20-cv-1744 (CRC), 2020 WL 7360214 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2020). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the government's motion to transfer this case to the District of Nebraska and to extend the deadline for responding to plaintiff's complaint.

I. Venue in Transferee Courts

The first step in assessing a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is to determine whether the case “might have been brought” in the transferee court by determining if venue would be proper there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.^[4] See Wei Lai, 2021 WL 2073403, at *3. In this case, the answer is yes with respect to both proposed transferee courts.

Suits against “an agency of the United States” or against “employee[s] of the United States . . . acting in [their] official capacity” may be brought in any “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 (C) the plaintiff resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Plaintiff currently resides in St. Louis, Missouri, located in the Eastern District of Missouri. See Gov't Mem. at 3; see also Pl.'s Opp'n at 5 (acknowledging that “Plaintiff lives in the State of Missouri”). Venue thus would be proper in that district under § 1391(e)(1)(C).

Venue would also be proper in the District of Nebraska. Defendant Loren Miller is the Director of the NSC located in Lincoln, Nebraska. E.g. Compl. ¶ 22. Miller thus “resides” in Nebraska for venue purposes, as that is where “[his] official duties are performed.” See Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In addition, Dr. Melnattur's petition was processed and adjudicated by the NSC in Nebraska, meaning “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to this claim occurred in that state. See PSV Enters., LLC v. USCIS, No. 20-cv-2287 (KBJ), 2021 WL 2115251 (D.D.C. May 25, 2021); Pengbo Li v. Miller, Civ. A. No. 20-1122 (EGS), 2021 WL 1124541 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2021). Venue is thus doubly proper in the District of Nebraska.

Having established the propriety of venue in both the Eastern District of Missouri and the District of Nebraska, the Court now turns to whether it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to either proposed of those courts.

II. The Balance of Public and Private Interests

In assessing the justice of a proposed transfer under § 1404(a), the Court balances private and public interest factors implicated by the transfer. See Bourdon, 235 F.Supp.3d at 305. Courts in this District weigh six private interest factors when considering a motion to transfer “(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the defendant's choice of forum, (3) where the claim arose, (4) the convenience of the parties, (5) the convenience of the witnesses, and (6) the ease of access to sources of proof.” Wolfram Alpha LLC v. Cuccinelli, 490 F.Supp.3d 324, 331 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F.Supp.2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2009)). There are then three public interest factors to consider as well: “(1) the transferee court's familiarity with the governing laws and the pendency of any related actions; (2) the relative congestion of...