West Coast Regional Center, Inc. v. Jaddou

Background

The case concerned the federal EB-5 immigrant investor visa program and government-designated regional centers. West Coast Regional Center had been designated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2015. After Congress enacted the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, USCIS required previously authorized regional centers to submit a new application and show compliance with the law’s requirements.

West Coast submitted the required application, paid the filing fee, and received approval in November 2023. It nevertheless sued Ur Jaddou, in her official capacity as USCIS’s director. West Coast alleged that USCIS’s reapplication requirement—the “Double Designation Rule”—was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeded the agency’s authority and was an arbitrary and capricious legislative rule adopted without the required notice and comment. West Coast sought a declaration that the rule was unlawful, an injunction, and an order setting aside its application approval.

Motions and Venue

West Coast moved for summary judgment. Jaddou moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Jaddou also moved in the alternative for summary judgment.

The court held that West Coast had not shown that venue was proper in the Northern District of California under any of the three applicable federal-venue provisions. First, for purposes of the suit against Jaddou in her official capacity, the relevant official residence was where she performed her official duties. Because USCIS’s headquarters were in Maryland, the court treated Maryland as Jaddou’s residence. Second, the government actions directly giving rise to West Coast’s claims occurred primarily in Maryland, where USCIS was located, or in the District of Columbia, where the agency’s Immigrant Investor Program Office was located. The court found that economic effects in California from an investment-related business relationship were too indirect to establish venue. Third, West Coast was a Florida corporation and therefore did not reside in the Northern District of California.

The court also rejected West Coast’s argument that Jaddou had waived the venue objection through earlier litigation conduct. The court concluded that Jaddou timely raised venue in her initial motion responding to the complaint.

Disposition

Because venue was improper, the court had discretion either to dismiss the case or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The parties disputed the proper district for any transfer. The court concluded that dismissal would not cause unfair prejudice, such as a limitations bar, and exercised its discretion to dismiss rather than resolve the transfer dispute.

The court granted Jaddou’s Rule 12(b)(3) motion. It dismissed West Coast’s lawsuit without prejudice. It denied Jaddou’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Jaddou’s summary-judgment motion, and West Coast’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice. Because the case was dismissed for improper venue, the court did not decide whether West Coast’s challenge to USCIS’s reapplication requirement was legally valid.