Sign in Subscribe
Emigration and immigration

Transfer of Case to Central District of California

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

A federal case, Lailah Nabeel Mohamed Ghaleb vs. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has been transferred from the District of Columbia to the Central District of California. The case revolves around the processing and denial of an I-130 petition filed by Ghaleb on behalf of her husband, Ali Abdulsalam Kasem Shaif. The defendants had moved to transfer or dismiss the case, arguing that the original venue in Washington D.C. was improper.

Key Takeaways:

  • The court transferred the case to the Central District of California, as it is the most suitable venue for the litigation, considering factors such as the location of relevant witnesses, evidence, and the defendants' processing and adjudication of the I-130 petition.
  • The plaintiffs' claims could have been brought in the Central District of California, and it is the appropriate venue for the case, as the court found that the public interests, including the transferee court's familiarity with the governing laws and the relative congestion of courts, do not favor a different venue.
  • The private interests, including the plaintiff's preferred forum, the defendant's preferred forum, and the convenience to the parties and witnesses, also favor transfer to the Central District of California.

Statistics:

  • The Central District of California has a higher total caseload than the District of Columbia, but it has a comparable number of pending cases per judge and a substantially shorter median time from filing to disposition for civil cases.
  • The defendants' motion to transfer or dismiss the case was granted in part and denied in part.
  • The plaintiff's I-130 petition was processed, adjudicated, and denied by USCIS employees located in the Central District of California.

Sources:

  • ECF No. 22
  • ECF No. 24
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
  • Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)
  • Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013)
  • Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 925-26 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  • Gyau v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-407, 2018 WL 4964502, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2018)
  • Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616-43 (1964)
  • McAfee, LLC v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., No. 19-cv-2981, 2019 WL 6051559, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2019)
  • Wolfram Alpha LLC v. Cuccinelli, 490 F. Supp. 3d 324, 337 (D.D.C. 2020)
  • Melnattur v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 20-cv-3013, 2021 WL 3722732, at *9 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2021)

Read more