Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-02884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Judge Ramos transferred Zhao’s action to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper here.
Gongrong Zhao’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the opinion did not decide whether USCIS had unlawfully delayed his application.
What happened
In Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Gongrong Zhao, representing himself, sued the immigration agency over its alleged failure to decide his application to become a permanent resident or adjust his immigration status. He sought an order requiring the agency to act.
The court found that Zhao had not shown that the Southern District of New York was a proper place for the case. Zhao lived in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York, and the court found that no real property was involved.
Judge Edgardo Ramos transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal venue statute and closed the action in the Southern District of New York. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Zhao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:21-cv-02884
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
Gongrong Zhao brought this action without a lawyer against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). He alleged that USCIS had failed to decide his application to register permanent residence or adjust his status, known as an I-485 application. The court construed the complaint as seeking mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 or relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 703.
Zhao provided a Mesquite, Texas, post-office box for USCIS’s Texas Service Center. He did not identify where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claims occurred. The available record showed that he resided in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, which is in the Eastern District of New York. The court also found that no real property was involved.
Venue Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), an action against a federal agency may be brought in a district where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides. The court found that Zhao alleged no facts showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York was the only court that clearly appeared to be a proper venue because Zhao resided there.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the federal statute allowing transfer when venue is improper. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Zhao a copy of the order, note service on the docket, and transfer the action. It stated that the order closed the action in the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.