Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-vtd-2_25-cv-00773-0

U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont · 2026-03-31

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:49:25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF VERMONT 
JHON ALEXANDER CASTRELLON 
ARIAS, 
Plaintiff, 
U.S. UI:.:., l j\jlJ j CUURT 
DISTRICT OF VEKMONT 
FILED 
2026 MAR 31 PH 2: 33 
V. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 2:25-cv- "t13 
JOSEPH B. EDLOW, in his official 
capacity as Director of United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Defendant. 
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO 
TRANSFER 
(Doc. 3) 
Plaintiff Jhon Alexander Castrellon Arias instituted this lawsuit under the Administrative 
Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., on September 22, 2025, alleging unreasonable 
delay by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") in making a bona.fide 
determination ("BFD") on his application for U nonimmigrant status ("U visa"). (Doc. 1.) Two 
ofUSCIS's five service centers process U visas: the Vermont Service Center and the Nebraska 
Service Center. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., Service Center Forms Processing, 
https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/service-center-forms-processing, [https://perma.cc/ 
UHY3-GHC7]. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue 
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), noting that Plaintiffs U visa is being proceed by the Nebraska 
Service Center and, therefore, that his case has no connection to the District of Vermont. 
(Doc 3.) In the alternative, they seek transfer of the case to either Nebraska, where the U visa is 
being processed, or Maryland, where USCIS is headquartered. (Id) Plaintiff has filed a 
2:25-cv-00773-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 1 of 4
response opposing the motion and requests that, if the court grants the motion, it transfer the case 
rather than dismissing the action. (Doc. 4.) 
In civil actions against a U.S. agency or the officer of such an agency, venue is generally 
proper in three places: the 'judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a 
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 
of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real 
property is involved in the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(l). The District of Vermont satisfies 
none of these prongs. First, "a federal agency does not reside in a district merely by virtue of 
having an office in that district." Caremark Therapeutic Servs. v. Leavitt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 454, 
463 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Schwarz v. IRS, 998 F. Supp. 201, 202 (N.D.N.Y. 1998). Rather, 
"venue with respect to a federal officer or employee is proper in the place of his or her official 
residence, where his or her official duties are performed." Id. at 464 (citing Reuben H 
Donnelley Corp. v. F.T.C., 580 F.2d 264,266 n.3 (7th Cir. 1978)). Defendant Edlow does not 
perform his official duties in Vermont. 
No part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Vermont. As he 
acknowledges, Petitioner's U visa application is being processed at the USCIS Service Center in 
Lincoln, Nebraska. (Doc. 4-1.) And, according to his complaint, Petitioner resides in 
Lewisville, Texas. (Doc. 1 ,i 1.) Venue is not proper in Vermont. 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying 
venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer 
such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 
"Courts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding whether to transfer a case in the interest of 
justice." Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408,435 (2d Cir. 2005). "When 
2 
-
2:25-cv-00773-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 2 of 4
,. 
-
determining whether transfer pursuant to Section 1406(a) is appropriate, a court may take into 
account the ultimate goal of the 'expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies 
on their merits."' United States ex rel. Donohue v. Carranza, 585 F. Supp. 3d 383,388 
(S.D.N.Y. 2022) (quoting Meserole St. Recycling, Inc. v. CSXTransp., Inc., No. 06-CV-4652, 
2007 WL 2891424, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007) (quoting Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 
463, 466-67 (1962))). Courts may consider a variety of other issues as well, including "(l) 
whether the claim would be meritless 'in the court that has jurisdiction' ... and (2) the Plaintiffs' 
diligence in choosing a proper forum." Raymond Loubier Irrevocable Trust v. Loubier, 765 F. 
App'x 560, 561 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Daniel, 428 F.3d at 436; then citing Spar, Inc. v. Info. 
Res., Inc., 956 F.2d 392, 394 (2d Cir. 1992)). 
In arguing for dismissal rather than transfer, Defendant quotes Huddleston v. Bondi, 
No. 25-cv-3002, 2025 WL 2097358, at* 10 (D. Neb. July 25, 2025) for the proposition that 
"[b]oth Rule 12(b)(3) and§ 1406(a) suggest that a case laying venue in the wrong district should 
be dismissed-at least absent other considerations." (Doc. 3 at 5 (quoting Huddleston, 2025 WL 
2097358, at * 10)). Here, other considerations warrant transfer. Plaintiff is a citizen and national 
of Venezuela who is proceeding pro se in this matter. He ultimately seeks a decision by USCIS 
that could allow him to work legally in this country and that would protect him from removal 
from the United States. Given the difficulty Plaintiff would likely experience in attempting to re­
file in Nebraska, the human interests at stake in this case, and the general preference for 
resolving cases on their merits, transfer is in the interest of justice. 
3 
2:25-cv-00773-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 3 of 4
Conclusion 
The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or 
Transfer. (Doc. 3.) The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United 
States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. 
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this:? l ¾_y of March, 2026 ... ---
4 
Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge 
United States District Court 
2:25-cv-00773-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight