Srujan Veeramaneni v. Joseph B. Edlow - Venue Transfer Ruling

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Srujan Veeramaneni v. Joseph B. Edlow, in his official capacity as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, D. Vermont

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00827

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities

• Cited By

• Summaries

• Similar Cases

• PDF

Trial Court Document

DISTRICT OF VERMONT
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 2026 HAR 31 PH 2:50
DISTRICT OF VERMONT ne
CLERK
SRUJAN VEERAMANENI, ) avid
Plaintiff, )
)
)
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-GHC7]. Defendant has
filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3),
noting that Plaintiff's 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. (/d.) 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).

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)(1). 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.” Jd. 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
Montgomery, Alabama. (Doc. 1 J 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 y. 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

on their merits.’” United States ex rel. Donohue vy. Carranza, 585 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388
(S.D.N.Y. 2022) (quoting Meserole St. Recycling, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 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
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.

Conclusion
The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer. (Doc. 3.) The court GRANTS Plaintiff's 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) "day of March, 2026.

Geoffrey W. a Judge
United States District Court