Rugila v. Mayorkas
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-01218
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rugila v. Mayorkas, Judge Chesney dismissed four plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice because venue was improper.
The claims of plaintiffs Maroni, Porto, Varejao, and Jansson were dismissed without prejudice; the order did not dismiss Rugila’s claims.
What happened
In Rugila v. Mayorkas, five individuals asked the court to order U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to rule on their pending applications. The court had previously questioned whether the Northern District of California was the proper place for four plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs argued that venue was proper because a defendant lived there and the defendants had offices in the district. The court rejected those arguments, finding that the federal officers’ official residences were in the District of Columbia or Maryland, and that agency offices in California did not establish venue there.
Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed the claims of Maroni, Porto, Varejao, and Jansson without prejudice for improper venue. The order did not dismiss Rugila’s claims.
The detailed version
- Rugila v. Mayorkas · No. 3:24-cv-01218
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Five plaintiffs—Carla Rugila, Hanri Marcell Surian Maroni, Claudia Regina Cinti Correa Porto, Marcio Campos Chouin Varejao, and Eduardo Luis Jansson—asked the court to direct U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to issue rulings on their pending I-824 applications. The defendants were Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Connie Nolan, sued in their official capacities as federal officials.
The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to explain why venue was proper in the Northern District of California for the claims brought on behalf of Maroni, Porto, Varejao, and Jansson. In the earlier order, the court found that the complaint alleged enough to support venue for Rugila’s claims based on the allegation that Rugila resides in that district.
Venue Analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), which permits venue in certain actions against the federal government where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.
The plaintiffs argued that venue was proper because a defendant “resides here” and because the defendants had a place of business in the Northern District of California. The court found that none of the defendants resided there for purposes of this case. It explained that, when a federal officer is sued in an official capacity, the officer’s residence is generally treated as the location of the federal agency involved. The court determined that Mayorkas resided in the District of Columbia, where the Department of Homeland Security is located, and that Jaddou and Nolan resided in Maryland, where USCIS is located.
The court also rejected the argument that the Department of Homeland Security’s or USCIS’s offices in the Northern District of California established venue. It stated that the plaintiffs cited no authority supporting that position and noted decisions holding that a regional office does not establish a federal officer’s residence in that district.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims of Maroni, Porto, Varejao, and Jansson without prejudice for improper venue. The order did not dismiss Rugila’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.