Gray v. Mayorkas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REGINALD A. GRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 24-870 (LLA)
v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Reginald A. Gray and Onyinye Patience Onhanma Gray (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) brought this mandamus action against Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking
to compel a decision on an immigration application. Defendants have moved to transfer this action
to the Western District of New York and to extend the time to respond to the complaint until
twenty-one days after the action is docketed there. ECF No. 8, at 1. Plaintiffs consent to the
motion. Id. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant Defendants’ motion.
I. Background
Plaintiffs are a married couple residing in Erie County, New York. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 8-9.
Mr. Gray is a United States citizen; Mrs. Gray is a national of Nigeria. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. They seek to
compel Defendants to adjudicate Mr. Gray’s Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative (“Petition”),
which could allow Mrs. Gray to adjust her immigration status and establish permanent residency
in the United States. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 41. Plaintiffs argue that the government has failed to act
within a reasonable period of time as required by 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) or within Congress’s 180-day
guideline for processing immigration benefits under 8 U.S.C. § 1571. Id. ¶¶ 30-41. They also
allege that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., by
“unlawfully withholding action” on the Petition. Id. ¶ 37. Mr. Gray’s Petition is currently pending
at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Service Center located in Irving,
Texas. ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 8, at 1.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Transfer Venue
“For 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 or to
any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a)
“does not condition transfer on the initial forum’s being ‘wrong,’” but instead “permits transfer to
any district where venue is also proper . . . or to any other district to which the parties have agreed.”
Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013). 1
There are two steps in the Section 1404(a) analysis. First, the court must determine either
that the action could have been brought in the transferee district or that the parties consent to
1
Venue is proper in the District of Columbia because Defendants Mayorkas and Garland,
reside here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1); Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C.
Cir. 1978) (explaining that, for venue purposes, “what controls is the official residence of the
federal defendant where the official duties are performed”); ECF No. 1-3 at 1 (listing a District of
Columbia address for Defendant Garland); ECF No. 1-4, at 1 (listing a District of Columbia
address for Defendant Mayorkas). There is some disagreement within this district about whether
the court must satisfy itself that venue is proper here before conducting the analysis under Section
1404(a). Compare Melnattur v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 20-CV-3013, 2021 WL
3722732, at *3 n.4 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2021), with Bradley v. Cardona, No. 22-CV-3316, 2023 WL
8469669, at *2 & n.2 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2023) and Claros v. Cowan, No. 21-CV-609, 2021 WL
1820209, at *1 (D.D.C. May 6, 2021). Because venue is proper here, this court need not wade into
that dispute.
2
litigating there. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That step is satisfied here because both parties consent to a
transfer to the Western District of New York. ECF No. 8, at 1.
Second, the court must decide whether “considerations of convenience and the interest of
justice weigh in favor of transfer to that district.” Blackhawk Consulting, LLC v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg.
Ass’n, 975 F. Supp. 2d 57, 59 (D.D.C. 2013). This requires an “individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29
(1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). In making this determination,
the court “weigh[s] several private- and public-interest factors.” Blackhawk Consulting, LLC, 975
F. Supp. 2d at 59-60. The private-interest factors include: “(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum;
(2) the defendant’s preferred forum; (3) the location where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of
the parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses; and (6) ease of access to sources of proof.” Id.
at 60. The public-interest factors include: “(1) the transferee’s familiarity with the governing law;
(2) the relative congestion of the courts of the transferor and potential transferee; and (3) the local
interest in deciding local controversies at home.” Id. (quoting Onyeneho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 466
F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2006)).
Most of the private-interest factors weigh in favor of transferring this case to the Western
District of New York; one factor is neutral. While Plaintiffs initially brought their case in this
district, they consent to the case being transferred to the Western District of New York. See Weiner
v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 991 F. Supp. 2d 217, 221 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that the plaintiff’s
interest in changing forum favored a transfer); ECF No. 8, at 1, 3. Defendants prefer the Western
District of New York, which is Plaintiffs’ home district, and “[t]ransfer is favored when
defendants’ preferred forum is also the plaintiff’s home forum.” Wolfram Alpha LLC v. Cuccinelli,
490 F. Supp. 3d 324, 332 (D.D.C. 2020); ECF No. 8, at 1, 3. The court considers the third factor—
3
where the claim arose—to be neutral, because the parties do not specify where that may be. ECF
No. 8, at 4. At the very least, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims did not arise in this district. See id.As for the convenience of the parties, Plaintiffs “cannot reasonably claim to be inconvenienced by
litigating in [their] home forum,” Wolfram Alpha LLC, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 333 (quoting Aishat v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261, 269 (D.D.C. 2018)), and Defendants prefer to
litigate there. Finally, Plaintiffs will likely be the key witnesses and rely on personal records to
develop their claims, making their home district a better venue.
The relevant public-interest factor likewise weighs in favor of transfer. As the parties
explain, “Plaintiffs’ injuries . . . are felt by Plaintiffs in the [Western District of New York] making
the local connection to that district strong.” ECF No. 8, at 4. “Because any potential impacts are
to be felt locally, the controversy is truly local to” that district. Pres. Soc’y of Charleston v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng’rs, 893 F. Supp. 2d 49, 58 (D.D.C. 2012); see S. Utah Wilderness All. v.
Norton, 315 F. Supp. 2d 82, 88-89 (D.D.C. 2004) (noting that a forum had a clear interest in
resolving disputes where the alleged consequences of an action would be most particularly felt).
The remaining two public-interest factors are not germane: “there is no reason to suspect that any
federal district court is unfamiliar with federal immigration law,” ECF No. 8, at 5 (citing W.
Watersheds Project v. Pool, 942 F. Supp. 2d 93, 101 (D.D.C. 2013)), and “[t]here can be no dispute
that each District . . . faces congested dockets,” id. at 4.
After balancing the relevant factors as set forth above, the court finds that transfer to the
Western District of New York aides the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the
interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court will therefore transfer this action to the
Western District of New York.
4
B. Motion to Extend Time to Respond
In general, “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for
good cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Upon transfer, this matter will be handled
by an Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of New York, who will require time
to familiarize himself with the case, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension. ECF
No. 8, at 5. The court will thus extend the time for Defendants to respond to the complaint to
twenty-one days after the action is docketed in the Western District of New York.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Consent Motion to Transfer
and Extend, ECF No. 8. A contemporaneous Order will issue.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Loren L. AliKhan
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: June 10, 2024
5