Froneman v. Jaddou et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM and ORDER GRANTING 7 stipulated motion to transfer and TRANSFERRING this case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/5/2024. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:

NEAL JOHN FRONEMAN

:

v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 23-2979

:
UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Director,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration:
Services, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff

and

Defendants

filed

a

stipulated

motion

to

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on January 17, 2024.

(ECF No. 7).

The court

issued a Memorandum and Order on January 22, 2024, directing the
parties to supplement their motion with a specific reason.

(ECF

No. 8). As directed, the parties filed a supplement on February 5,
2024, stating that their stipulated motion should be granted
because

the

(“USCIS”)

United

office

Washington, D.C.

States

Citizen

adjudicating
(ECF No. 9).

and

Immigration

Plaintiff’s

petition

Services
is

in

For the following reasons, the

parties’ stipulated motion will be granted.
Since the USCIS relocated its headquarters from the District
of Columbia to Maryland in December 2020, many types of immigration
cases

have

been

filed

headquarters are here.

in

this

district

solely

because

the

In a comprehensive opinion, Judge Peter J.

Messitte explained why a case brought by nearly 200 plaintiffs
seeking

expedited

applications

adjudication

would

be

of

severed

their

into

employment-based

individual

actions

visa
and

transferred to the federal district covering the service center or
field office where each application was pending.

See Chakrabarti

v. USCIS, No: 21-CV-1945-PJM, 2021 WL 4458899 (D. Md. September
29, 2021).

Several more cases involving visa applications were

transferred for reasons stated in Manne v. Jaddou, No. 21-CV-1947PJM, 2022 WL 102853 (D.Md. January 11, 2022).

See also, Dhimar v.

Blinken, No. 22-CV-2175-PJM, 2022 WL 17540972 (D.Md. December 8,
2022)(noting that more than 40 lawsuits were filed in this district
challenging

allegedly

unreasonable

delay

by

U.S.

consulates

processing visas, all of which were transferred to the United
States District Court

for the District of Columbia).

Plaintiff

filed here purportedly relying solely on the location of USCIS
headquarters.
The parties’ motion to transfer will be granted.

As noted in

Chakrabarti v. USCIS, 2021 WL 4458899, *3 (D.Md. September 29,
2021), a plaintiff can bring this type of case in the judicial
district where the USCIS office adjudicating the petition is
located or where the Plaintiff resides.

Here, the USCIS office

adjudicating Plaintiff’s petition is in the District of Columbia.
2

Although the District of Maryland is a possible venue, it is not
the proper or most convenient venue.
Accordingly, it is this 5th day of February, 2024, by the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

The parties’ stipulated motion to transfer (ECF No. 7)

BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.

This action BE, and the same hereby IS, TRANSFERRED to

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for
all further proceedings as may be deemed appropriate by that court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and
3.

The Clerk will transmit a copy this Order to counsel of

record and close this case.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3