Aishat v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261

Background

Ayman Aishat, a lawful permanent resident since 1989, filed an N-400 naturalization application in 2000; USCIS (Dallas Field Office) denied the N-400 in 2011 for alleged nondisclosure regarding Holy Land Foundation ties.
Aishat filed an N-336 administrative appeal on May 31, 2011; USCIS scheduled interviews and requests for information but had not issued an administrative decision on the N-336 for many years.
After repeated delays and additional interviews (most recently January 25, 2018), Aishat sued DHS/USCIS and several officials in D.C., alleging (1) mandamus relief to compel adjudication, (2) APA unreasonable-delay, (3) violation of the INA for failure to provide statutory review, and (4) a declaratory judgment.
Defendants moved to dismiss Count III (INA-based claim) for failure to state a claim and to transfer the remaining counts to the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The district court concluded that Count III must be dismissed because Congress provided a different statutory review scheme and did not create an implied private right to judicially review delays in N-336 appeals. The court found venue and convenience factors favored transfer of the remaining claims to the Eastern District of Texas.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an implied private right of action exists under the INA to review USCIS delay on an N-336 appeal	Aishat: INA's structure and interest in prompt adjudication imply a right to judicial review because delay makes judicial review impossible	Defs: INA and related provisions (esp. § 1447(b)) show Congress provided limited remedies and did not create a private right for N-336 delays	Held: No implied private right; Count III dismissed for failure to state a claim
Whether § 1447(b) (120-day rule) applies to N-336 administrative appeals	Aishat: § 1447(b) shows congressional concern for prompt adjudication and supports judicial intervention for delays	Defs: § 1447(b) applies only to N-400 adjudications under § 1446, not to N-336 appeals governed by § 1447(a) and regulations	Held: § 1447(b) inapplicable to N-336; court may not infer a remedy beyond statutory text
Whether transfer to the Eastern District of Texas is appropriate under § 1404(a)	Aishat: prefers D.C.; argues docket congestion in Texas weighs against transfer	Defs: Texas is plaintiff’s home district, most relevant events and witnesses are in Dallas, and local interest favors Texas	Held: Transfer granted; private and public interest factors favor Eastern District of Texas despite congestion concerns
Whether venue in D.C. is proper or manufactured by naming high-level federal officials	Aishat: alleged policy factors in D.C. (in briefing) might affect his case	Defs: Relevant acts/omissions occurred in Dallas; naming D.C. officials insufficient to justify venue	Held: D.C. venue lacks meaningful ties to the controversy; court declines to retain case based on speculative D.C.-level policy allegations

Key Cases Cited

Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (pleading standards: accept factual allegations and draw favorable inferences)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (guard against manufactured venue by naming high government officials)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (interpretive presumption from inclusion/omission within same statute)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (statutory intent is determinative for implying private rights of action)
Samuels v. District of Columbia, 770 F.2d 184 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (plaintiff bears heavy burden to show congressional intent to create private enforcement)
Stewart Organization v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (§ 1404(a) transfer requires case-by-case convenience and fairness analysis)