Pearson v. Rodriguez
174 F. Supp. 3d 210
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Michael Townsend Pearson (U.S. citizen) married Eli Ivanova Pearson (Bulgarian national) in Virginia in 2011; couple domiciled in Berryville, Virginia.
- On Feb. 17, 2012 Mr. Pearson filed Form I-130 for his spouse; USCIS denied the petition on March 27, 2013, finding Mr. Pearson’s 1991 Virginia rape conviction comprised a "specified offense against a minor" under the Adam Walsh Act and that he did not demonstrate he posed no risk to the beneficiary.
- The USCIS Washington Field Office (Fairfax) issued the adverse decision; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on appeal in Virginia.
- Plaintiffs sued federal officials in D.C., seeking review of the USCIS denial in the District of Columbia.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) or, alternatively, to dismiss; the court granted transfer to EDVA and did not reach the dismissal argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in EDVA under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) | Venue in D.C. is proper because plaintiffs named high-level federal officials with offices in D.C. | EDVA is proper because USCIS officers reside and the adjudication and appeal occurred in Virginia | EDVA is a viable forum; action "might have been brought" there (transfer threshold met) |
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) is warranted | Plaintiffs’ chosen forum (D.C.) should be respected | Transfer to EDVA is appropriate for convenience and local interest reasons | Court balanced private/public factors and ordered transfer to EDVA |
| Weight to give plaintiffs’ choice of forum when plaintiffs are non‑D.C. residents and relevant events occurred elsewhere | Plaintiffs contend choice merits deference | Defendants argue deference is weakened because events and defendants’ official actions occurred in Virginia | Court gave little deference to plaintiffs’ forum choice and found it weakened here |
| Whether to consider defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss | Plaintiffs seek substantive review in D.C. on the merits | Defendants sought dismissal if transfer denied | Court did not rule on dismissal because it transferred venue to EDVA |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (discretionary §1404(a) transfer requires case-by-case balancing)
- Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 944 F. Supp. 13 (moving party bears burden to justify transfer)
- Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F.2d 504 (official-capacity federal officer resides where he performs official duties)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (court should guard against manufactured venue in D.C. by naming high government officials)
- Montgomery v. STG Int’l, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 29 (private and public interest factors for transfer summarized)
- Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 76 (limited deference to plaintiff’s forum choice when forum is not plaintiff’s residence and events occurred elsewhere)
- Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp. 2d 62 (local interest supports deciding localized administrative controversies at home)
- Al-Ahmed v. Chertoff, 564 F. Supp. 2d 16 (courts equally familiar with federal law do not favor transfer on that basis alone)