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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?