Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-02883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zhao v. USCIS, Judge Liman transferred Zhao’s immigration-delay case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper.
Gonghua Zhao and USCIS; the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Gonghua Zhao, representing herself, sued USCIS over the alleged failure to decide her application to become a permanent resident or adjust her immigration status. She sought a court order requiring USCIS to act.
The court concluded that Zhao had not shown that the Southern District of New York was the proper place for the case. Because Zhao said she lived in Brooklyn, the court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York, where venue clearly appeared proper. The transfer was based on where the case could be heard, not on whether USCIS had improperly delayed the application.
Judge Lewis Liman ordered the Clerk to transfer the action and stated that the order closed the Southern District case. He also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:21-cv-02883
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
Gonghua Zhao brought this pro se action against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). She alleged that USCIS had failed to decide her application to register permanent residence or adjust status, known as an I-485 application. The court understood her complaint as seeking mandamus relief—a court order requiring a government agency to act—or relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Zhao identified a Mesquite, Texas, post-office-box address for USCIS’s Texas Service Center. She did not specify where the events or omissions underlying her claims occurred. She stated that she lived in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The opinion also states that no real property was involved in the action.
Venue and transfer
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which permits certain actions against the United States, a federal agency, or federal officials to be brought where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides. For venue purposes, an individual resides where that person is domiciled.
The court found that Zhao had not alleged facts showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. It concluded that venue lay in the Eastern District of New York because Zhao resided in Brooklyn, which is in that district, and because no real property was involved. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court therefore transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to mail Zhao a copy of the order, record service on the docket, and transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York. The order states that it closes the Southern District action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court did not decide whether USCIS had unlawfully delayed deciding Zhao’s I-485 application.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.