Pierre v. Immigration Service USCIS
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jerole Pierre v. Immigration Service USCIS, Judge Rearden transferred the case because venue was improper in this District.
Jerole Pierre’s action against USCIS was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The Southern District also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Jerole Pierre v. Immigration Service USCIS concerns Pierre’s request for an explanation and next steps regarding delays in his immigration applications. Pierre represented himself and asked the court to order USCIS to explain the delay.
The court treated the complaint as seeking an order requiring government action and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. It concluded that Pierre had not shown that important events occurred in the Southern District of New York or that USCIS could be sued there for this case. Because Pierre lives in Brooklyn, the court found that the Eastern District of New York was the proper venue.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York and closed the action in the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pierre permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Pierre v. Immigration Service USCIS · No. 1:23-cv-01165
- Rearden
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
Jerole Pierre brought this self-represented action against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS. He asked the court to direct USCIS to explain the delay in his I-90 application and to provide “the way forward.” He also referred to a petition to remove conditions on residence, known as an I-751 petition.
The court understood the complaint as seeking mandamus relief, meaning an order requiring a government official or agency to perform a legal duty, under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. It also understood the complaint as seeking additional or alternative relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Venue Analysis
The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. For this type of case, venue may be proper where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.
Pierre listed a Brooklyn residence in Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. He alleged that the events underlying his claims occurred at a “US immigration office,” but he did not identify that office’s location. The court also found that he alleged no facts showing that a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York or that USCIS was subject to personal jurisdiction there for this action.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or, when the interests of justice favor it, transfer the case to a district where it could have been brought. The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue and that the Eastern District of New York was the only proper venue. In the interest of justice, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Pierre permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.