Che v. Edlow

Background

Yan Chen Che brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the denial of his application for humanitarian parole. The opinion states that he was born and resided in China, was married to a United States citizen residing in California, and had a daughter who became a United States citizen. After his daughter developed an aggressive form of leukemia, Che submitted applications for humanitarian parole based on urgent humanitarian reasons. USCIS later requested additional evidence and ultimately denied the humanitarian-parole request on September 19, 2023.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6). Che did not amend his complaint after the court gave him an opportunity to do so. He also filed his opposition to the motion late, after the court issued an order requiring him to explain the delay.

Venue

The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), a case against federal officers may be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if the case does not involve real property.

Che argued that substantial events occurred in the district because his daughter had been naturalized in Brooklyn, had lived in the New York metropolitan area, and was the reason he wanted to travel to New York. The court found that these facts did not directly give rise to his Administrative Procedure Act claim, which challenged USCIS’s handling and denial of his humanitarian-parole application. The court also noted that Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District of New York. The application, USCIS’s review, its request for more evidence, Che’s response, and the denial notice all involved locations outside the Southern District of New York.

The court separately rejected Che’s conclusory allegation that the defendants resided in the district. Because the defendants were sued in their official capacities, the court explained that venue depends on where their official duties are performed, and neither the Department of Homeland Security nor USCIS was headquartered in this district. The court therefore held that Che had not shown that venue was proper under any part of § 1391(e)(1).

Transfer Versus Dismissal

A court may transfer a case filed in an improper venue if doing so serves the interests of justice. The court concluded that transfer would be futile. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions made under the immigration laws. The humanitarian-parole statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), gives the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to grant parole temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit on a case-by-case basis.

The court concluded that this jurisdictional bar applied even though Che described his claim as a challenge to USCIS procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than a direct challenge to the discretionary denial. It also rejected Che’s reliance on the exception for constitutional claims or legal questions because that provision concerns petitions for review filed in a court of appeals, not an action in a district court.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Che’s claims rather than transferring them, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case, and did not reach the merits of whether USCIS’s humanitarian-parole decision was arbitrary or unlawful.