MCAFEE LLC v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 1:19-cv-02981

McAfee, LLC sued USCIS and Kathy Baran after USCIS’s California Service Center denied McAfee’s H-1B petition and sought review in the District of Columbia.
The government moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Central District of California (alternative: Northern District of California).
The individual defendant, Kathy Baran, performs official duties at the USCIS California Service Center in Laguna Niguel, placing her residency and the decisionmaking in the Central District of California.
The parties agreed the Central District was a proper venue because the defendant “resides” there and the administrative decisionmaking occurred there.
The court applied the § 1404(a) public/private interest balancing test and concluded most factors (local interest, convenience of witnesses/evidence, defendant’s forum) favored transfer; McAfee’s preference for D.C. received diminished weight because D.C. lacked meaningful ties to the controversy.
The court granted the government’s motion and transferred the case to the Central District of California.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McAfee could have sued in the Central District of California (venue availability)	McAfee preferred to proceed in D.C.; did not contest that Central District was available but relied on its forum choice	Government argued Central District is proper because defendant resides there and the claim arose there	Court: Yes — Central District was a proper venue because the official resides and the decisionmaking occurred there
Whether the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (public/private interest balance)	McAfee argued its D.C. forum preference should carry weight and raised timing/case-processing considerations	Government argued transfer favored by local interest, convenience of parties/witnesses/evidence, and where claim arose	Court: Transfer warranted — most public and private factors favor Central District; plaintiff’s preference given diminished weight

Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (federal employee ‘‘resides’’ where performing official duties for venue purposes)
Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (courts should guard against plaintiffs naming high officials to bring suits in D.C. that belong elsewhere)
Wilderness Soc. v. Babbitt, 104 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000) (plaintiff forum preference is often dispositive but may be diminished if forum lacks meaningful ties)
Al-Ahmed v. Chertoff, 564 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (transferee and transferor courts are equally familiar with federal law)