PSV Enters., LLC v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
| Decision Date | 25 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-cv-2287 (KBJ),20-cv-2287 (KBJ) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
| Parties | PSV ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff PSV Enterprises, LLC ("PSV") is a construction company headquartered in North Dakota. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 7.) On August 19, 2020, PSV filed the instant action against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and the Director of USCIS (collectively, "Defendants"), challenging the decision of USCIS's Nebraska Service Center ("NSC") to deny four Form I-140 petitions that PSV had submitted. Broadly speaking, Form I-140 allows employers, such as PSV, to seek authorization for a non-citizen to work and permanently reside in the United States. See George v. Napolitano, 693 F. Supp. 2d 125, 128 (D.D.C. 2010); Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 773 F. Supp. 2d 41, 44-45 (D.D.C. 2011). PSV had submitted Form I-140 petitions on behalf of four of its employees (see Compl. ¶ 7), and in its complaint, PSV claims that NSC's decision to deny the four petitions violated the Administrative Procedure Act ), because NSC did not comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") or its accompanying regulations, and did not undertake reasoned decision making with respect to the denial determination . As relevant here, PSV alleges, in particular, that NSC improperly rejected PSV's financial statements on the ground that they were not audited , and that NSC failed to consider the other evidence that PSV had submitted with the petitions in order to demonstrate its ability to pay the employees' wages (see id. ¶¶ 50-51).1
Before this Court at present is a motion that Defendants have filed that seeks transfer of PSV's legal action to the District of Nebraska or the District of North Dakota pursuant to section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code. (See Defs.' Mot. to Transfer, ECF No. 13, at 1; see also Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer ( ), ECF No. 13-1, at 1.)2 Defendants do not dispute that the District of Columbia is a proper venue, but they maintain that this case should be transferred "in the interest of justice[,]" because PSV's complaint concerns "final agency actions that were taken in Nebraska" and "has no meaningful connection to the District of Columbia." (Defs.' Mot. at 1.) PSV responds that Defendants "reside in this District[,]" and that "USCIS's decision to deny the petitions at issue marks an agency-level policy determination, in violation of statute and regulation, as evidenced by the fact that multiple USCIS off[ic]ers made the same erroneous determination over time."(Compl. ¶ 6; see also Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Transfer Venue ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 16, at 1.)
For the reasons explained below, this Court concludes that the locus of the instant controversy lies in Nebraska rather than the District of Columbia, and thus that Defendants have established that a transfer is warranted. Therefore, Defendants' motion to transfer will be GRANTED, and this case will be TRANSFERRED to the District of Nebraska.
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code 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 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, courts generally consider: "(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). As for public interest factors, courts typically assess: "(1) the transferee court's familiarity with the applicable law; (2) the relativecongestion of the calendars of the transferee and transferor courts; and (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home." Id. at 334. District courts have "broad discretion" in balancing these private and public interest factors, see W. Watersheds Project, 306 F. Supp. 3d at 356 (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988)), but the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer is warranted, see id.
When a plaintiff brings a civil action against an officer, employee, or agency of the United States, venue is proper "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). In this case, venue is proper under section 1391(e) in the District of Columbia, because the agency was headquartered here when PSV filed the instant complaint (see Compl. ¶ 6), and also the District of Nebraska, because NSC adjudicated PSV's visa petitions in that district (see id. ¶ 8), which means that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [PSV's] claim occurred" there, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1); see also, e.g., Pengbo Li v. Miller, No. 20-cv-1122, 2021 WL 1124541, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2021) (). Venue is also proper in the District of North Dakota, because that is the district wherein PSV resides. (See Compl. ¶ 7.) Indeed, PSV concedes that "this case could have been filed in . . . the District of NorthDakota[] or the District of Nebraska" for purposes of section 1391(e). (Pl.'s Opp'n at 3.)
Accordingly, the remaining question that Defendants' motion raises is whether transferring the instant lawsuit to the District of Nebraska or the District of North Dakota would serve the interests of convenience and justice. See W. Watersheds Project, 306 F. Supp. 3d at 356.
The private interest factors and the public interest factors both weigh in favor of transferring this matter to the District of Nebraska. Starting with the private interest factors, this Court finds that the balance of interests tilts against PSV's choice of forum. To be sure, courts typically "accord[] deference" to a plaintiff's preferred venue, Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 856 F. Supp. 2d 186, 192 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); however, that deference is "weakened" when "the chosen forum is not [the] plaintiff's home forum" and when there is no meaningful "nexus between the case and the plaintiff's chosen forum," id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). PSV is not a resident of the District of Columbia (see Compl. ¶ 7), and there is no meaningful nexus between PSV's lawsuit and this District because PSV is challenging NSC's denials of its Form I-140 petitions, and those allegedly unlawful denials took place in Nebraska . See also Pengbo Li, 2021 WL 1124541, at *4 (); Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2009) (). Nor do the convenience-related private interest factors "sway the transfer inquiry in either direction" because the parties here, as elsewhere, have "agree[d] that the instant dispute will be resolved based on the administrative record." W. Watersheds Project, 306 F. Supp. 3d at 360. (See also Pl.'s Opp'n at 8; Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer ( ), ECF No. 18, at 5.) Indeed, if anything, these factors slightly favor transfer as well, because the administrative record is located in Nebraska (Defs.' Reply at 5), and "potential witnesses, if any, could include [NSC] employees involved in processing or deciding [PSV's] application[s]," Aftab, 597 F. Supp. 2d at 83.
PSV attempts to connect the instant case to the District of Columbia by arguing that "this action involves an agency-wide change in policy" with respect to "reviewing the employer's ability to pay the proffered wage." (Pl.'s Opp'n at 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 3 (). As ostensible support for this assertion, PSV notes that "at least two separate [NSC] officers" adjudicated PSV's petitions, and each allegedly "stated plainly in the denials that reviewed financial statements are not reliable evidence of the employer's ability to pay the proffered wage." (Pl.'s Opp'n at 6; see also Ex. 4 to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 2-2, at 14, 23.) But the mere fact that two NSC officers made similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial