Bourdon v. United States Department of Homeland Security
235 F. Supp. 3d 298
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Bourdon, a U.S. citizen living in Stuart, Florida, was convicted in 2003 of possession of child pornography. He married Thi Thuan Tran (a Vietnamese citizen) in 2008 and filed an immediate-relative petition with USCIS West Palm Beach.
- USCIS invoked the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), which bars filing such petitions by persons convicted of specified offenses against minors unless the Secretary (or designee) determines the petitioner poses "no risk." The West Palm Beach office denied Bourdon’s petition in 2009 for failing to meet the “no risk” exception (allegedly applying a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard).
- Bourdon submitted extensive records, affidavits, and expert reports and appealed; the BIA remanded for further development, but ultimately dismissed his appeal in 2015 after the West Palm Beach office again denied the petition in 2014.
- Bourdon sued in D.D.C., asserting (inter alia) that defendants applied the AWA unlawfully, retroactively, beyond Congress’s powers, and violated the APA and Fifth Amendment; he sought vacatur and an order compelling approval.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Southern District of Florida. The Court found venue technically proper in D.C. but transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court declined to decide the dismissal motions, denying them without prejudice to refiling in the transferee court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in D.C. under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) | Bourdon relied on naming national DHS/USCIS officials and policy memoranda to justify D.C. venue. | Defendants argued venue was improper in D.C. because the events occurred in Florida. | Venue is technically proper in D.C. because several named defendants officially reside there. |
| Whether case should be transferred to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Bourdon contended the claims implicated national USCIS policy and thus belong in D.C. | Defendants sought transfer to Florida where petitioner, witnesses, and the adjudicating USCIS office are located. | Transferred: private and public interest factors (locality of events, plaintiff residence, location of record/witnesses) favor Southern District of Florida. |
| Whether the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim (merits of AWA challenge) | Bourdon argued agency misapplied standards, acted beyond authority, and violated APA/Fifth Amendment. | Defendants argued jurisdictional and merits grounds supported dismissal. | Court did not decide merits; denied dismissal without prejudice so defendants may refile in transferee court. |
| Whether plaintiff’s claims are primarily challenges to national policy (affecting venue) | Bourdon asserted field-office errors reflected nationwide USCIS policy from D.C. | Defendants argued adjudicative errors occurred locally and any policy link is attenuated. | Court held the gravamen is local adjudication by the West Palm Beach office; national policy links were too attenuated to justify retaining venue in D.C. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir.) (venue for official defendants is based on official residence)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1404(a) requires individualized, case-by-case transfer analysis)
- Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bosworth, 180 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2001) (enumeration of private interest factors for transfer)
- Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2009) (transfer appropriate where agency adjudication occurred in transferee district)
- Pearson v. Rodriguez, 174 F. Supp. 3d 210 (D.D.C. 2016) (similar AWA venue transfer reasoning)
- Otay Mesa Prop. L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 584 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2008) (factors for assessing whether controversy is local)
- Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (weight to location of administrative record in transfer analysis)