govinfo:USCOURTS-vtd-2_25-cv-00827-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF VERMONT 
SRUJAN VEERAMANENI, 
Plaintiff, 
U.S. Uli I,\/,_; J COURT 
OJSTRlCf OF VERMONT 
FILED 
2026 MAR 31 PH 2: SO 
CLEHh 
3Y Li( 
'1EPUTY r,t_fRK 
V. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 2:25-cv-827 
JOSEPH B. EDLOW, in his official 
capacity as Director 
of United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Defendant. 
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE 
(Docs. 3, 5) 
Plaintiff Srujan Veeramaneni instituted this lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure 
Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., on October 14, 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 of USCIS'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-GH C7]. 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 the District of Nebraska, where the U visa is being processed; the District 
of Maryland, where USCIS is headquartered; or the Middle District of Alabama, where Plaintiff 
resides. (Id) Plaintiff has filed a response opposing the motion (Doc. 4) as well as a motion to 
transfer the case to the Middle District of Alabama (Doc. 5). 
2:25-cv-00827-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 1 of 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. § 139l(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. TC., 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 
Montgomery, Alabama. (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 
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 
2 
2:25-cv-00827-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 2 of 4
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 "(1) 
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 Indian 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. He asserts in his motion to transfer venue that he filed this action in Vermont 
"because USCIS publicly lists Vermont as one of the service centers handling U-visa related 
adjudications" and that he "reasonably believed that venue was therefore proper." (Doc. 5 at 2.) 
Given the difficulty Plaintiff would likely experience in attempting to re-file his case, 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. Further delay will harm Plaintiff, and transfer will not 
prejudice Defendant. 
3 
2:25-cv-00827-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 GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 5). The 
court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Alabama, where venue is proper in this case. 
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this3\Stay of March, 2026. 
~~~ Geoffreyw.°ra"Id,Judge 
United States District Court 
4 
2:25-cv-00827-gwc     Document 6     Filed 03/31/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight