Patel v. Mayorkas

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 15, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2216
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAHESHKUMAR DASHARATHKUMAR PATEL, Case No. 24-cv-2216 (JMC) Plaintiff,

v.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Maheshkumar Dasharathkumar Patel filed this immigration mandamus lawsuit

against Defendants Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ur Jaddou, and Director of the USCIS Vermont

Service Center Daniel Renaud, alleging that his application for a U visa has been unreasonably

delayed. ECF 1.1 On October 8, 2024, Defendants moved to either dismiss this case or transfer it

to the Middle District of Florida, where Patel resides, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF 4.

Patel, who is represented by counsel, failed to respond. The Court finds that transfer is appropriate

and will therefore GRANT Defendants’ motion to transfer this case to the Middle District of

Florida.

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) allows a case to be transferred to “any other district or division where

it might have been brought” for “the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

justice.” The Court agrees with Defendants that this case could have been brought in the Middle

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to documents filed on the docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

1 District of Florida because Patel resides there. See ECF 1 at 1 (listing Patel’s address in

Jacksonville, Florida); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) (providing that, in actions naming federal agencies

or officials as defendants, venue is proper, inter alia, in the district where the plaintiff resides).

Next, “the Court must weigh the public and private interests.” McAfee, LLC v. USCIS,

No. 19-CV-2981, 2019 WL 6051559, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2019). After considering these

factors, the Court again agrees with Defendants that transfer is proper.

First, the private interest factors. The Court considers “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.” Pearson v.

Rodriguez, 174 F. Supp. 3d 210, 213 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Montgomery v. STG Int’l, Inc., 532

F. Supp. 2d 29, 32–33 (D.D.C. 2008)). Four of these factors weigh in favor of transfer. Patel is

himself located in the Middle District of Florida and is likely to be the key witness. Therefore, the

convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the ease of access to evidence, will be better

served by litigating this matter in Patel’s own district. Further, Defendants prefer the Middle

District of Florida. ECF 4 at 11–12. The remaining two factors are neutral. Although Patel chose

the District of Columbia as his forum, “that choice is conferred considerably less deference” than

usual, because D.C. “is not the plaintiff’s home forum, has few factual ties to the case at hand, and

defendants seek to transfer to plaintiff’s home forum.” Bourdon v. DHS, 235 F. Supp. 3d 298, 305

(D.D.C. 2017). Defendants do not explicitly state where they believe the claim arose, but

emphasize that USCIS is headquartered in Camp Springs, Maryland, that Patel’s application

remains pending at the USCIS Service Center in Essex Junction, Vermont, and that Patel lives in

Florida. ECF 4 at 6–7. In sum, the Court finds that the private interest factors weigh in favor of

transfer.

2 Next, the public interest factors. The Court considers “the transferee district’s familiarity

with the governing law,” “the relative congestion of the courts,” and “the local interest in deciding

local controversies at home.” Aracely v. Nielsen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 110, 130 (D.D.C. 2018).

“Perhaps [the] most important” of these factors—the local interest in deciding local controversies

at home—weighs in favor of transfer. Wolfram Alpha LLC v. Cuccinelli, 490 F. Supp. 3d 324, 338

(D.D.C. 2020) As Defendants explain, “Plaintiff’s injuries . . . are felt by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s

District,” not in the District of Columbia. ECF 4 at 13. The remaining public interest factors are

neutral: “[j]udges in both districts are presumed to be equally familiar with the federal laws

governing this dispute,” and both districts face congested dockets. W. Watersheds Project v. Pool,

942 F. Supp. 2d 93, 101-02 (D.D.C. 2013); see ECF 4 at 14. On the whole, the public interest

factors weigh in favor of transfer.

Because this case could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida, and both the

private and public interest factors favor transfer to that District, it is in the interest of justice to

transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, the Court

need not address Defendant’s motion, in the alternative, to dismiss the case.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to transfer, ECF 4, is GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to refiling in the transferee district.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: November 15, 2024