Okoli v. Tucker

Background

Cyril Nnadozie Okoli, who was representing himself and was residing in Nigeria after being removed from the United States, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a court order requiring an official or agency to perform a specified duty. Okoli relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Massachusetts law. He named United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and Shanita R. Tucker, identified as the Field Office Director of CIS’s Lawrence, Massachusetts office, as respondents.

Okoli sought an order requiring the respondents to reverse what he called the unlawful denial of his application to adjust his status and to grant him lawful permanent resident status. He also sought declarations that other CIS actions were unlawful.

Venue analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which governs venue in civil actions against federal agencies and federal officers acting in their official capacities. That provision allows such an action in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

The court stated that Okoli resided in Nigeria. It further stated that the events underlying his claims—his applications to CIS and CIS interviews—appeared to have occurred in or around Essex County, Massachusetts, where the Lawrence CIS office is located. The court therefore concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York and appeared proper in the District of Massachusetts, where the claims arose.

The court also noted that Okoli had recently brought apparently similar actions against CIS in the District of Massachusetts and that an earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had indicated that the District of Massachusetts was a proper venue for seeking relief concerning the denial of his petition.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the interest of justice. The order directed the Clerk of Court to make the transfer, stated that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York, and closed the case in that court.

The order did not decide whether Okoli was entitled to adjustment of status or any other requested relief. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether he could proceed without prepaying fees. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.