UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

McAFEE, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES and KATHY BARAN, Director, 

USCIS California Service Center, 

Defendants.

 No. 19-cv-2981 (DLF) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

McAfee asks this Court to overturn a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) decision rejecting McAfee’s H-1B visa request. McAfee alleges that the decision 

violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due 

Process Clause. Before the Court is the government’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 

either to the Central District of California or to the Northern District of California. See Gov’t’s 

Mot., Dkt. 7. Because McAfee could and should have brought the case in the Central District of 

California, the Court will grant the motion and transfer the case. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A § 1404 motion to transfer poses two questions: Could the plaintiff have sued in the 

transferee court? And if so, should it have? See Gyau v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-0407, 2018 WL 

4964502, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2018). If the Court answers “yes” to both, transfer is proper. 

The could question “turns on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.” Id. This 

statute provides that cases like this one—“a suit against a United States officer or employee”—
2 

“can be brought in any district where a defendant resides, where the underlying claim arose, or—

if no real property is involved—where the plaintiff resides.” Id.

The should question turns on a prudential balance of “public and private interests.” Id. 

“The public interests include the transferee court’s familiarity with the governing laws, each 

court’s relative congestion, and the local interest in resolving the controversy.” Id. “The private 

interests include the plaintiff’s preferred forum, the defendant’s preferred forum, where the claim 

arose, and the convenience to the parties, to the witnesses, and to the evidence.” Id.

II. ANALYSIS 

The parties agree that McAfee could have brought the suit in the Central District of 

California because that is both “where a defendant resides” and “where the underlying claim 

arose.” Kathy Baran “resides” in the Central District because she performs her official duties at 

the USCIS California Service Center in Laguna Niguel, California, which falls within the Central 

District. See id. (explaining that for venue purposes federal employees reside wherever they 

perform their official duties) (citing Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). 

And in APA cases like this one, the underlying claim typically arises “where the decisionmaking 

process occurred.” Id. at *2. Once again, that is the Central District of California, where the 

USCIS California Service Center processed and denied McAfee’s request. 

The question is whether this case should be brought here. To answer this question, the 

Court must weigh the public and private interests. 

Looking first at the public interests, two are neutral and one favors transfer. The first 

public interest—the transferee court’s familiarity with the governing laws—is neutral. Federal 

law governs this case, and as federal courts, both this district and the Central District of 

California are “equally familiar” with applying it. Id. (quoting Al-Ahmed v. Chertoff, 564 F. 
3 

Supp. 2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2008)). The second public interest—each court’s relative congestion 

and caseload—is also neutral. Although this district has “much longer wait times” than the 

Central District of California for cases that reach later litigation stages, Pl.’s Br. 14, Dkt. 9, this 

district’s processing time for cases resolved short of trial or without court action is only “slightly 

longer” than the Central District of California’s, and this district’s overall case load is 

significantly lower than the Central District of California’s. See Federal Court Management 

Statistics, U.S. District Courts, June 30, 2019, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/statisticsreports/federal-court-management-statistics-june-2019. The third public interest—the local 

interest in resolving the controversy—favors transfer because “courts have ‘a local interest in 

having localized controversies decided at home,” including even “controversies requiring 

judicial review of an administrative decision.” Gyau, 2018 WL 4964502, at *2 (internal 

quotations omitted). And this controversy centers almost entirely on events that happened in the 

Central District of California. 

Turning next to the private interests, all but one favor transfer. The defendant prefers the 

Central District of California to this district. As discussed, the claims arose primarily in the 

Central District. For that reason, the Central District likely will be more convenient for potential 

witnesses and evidence. And the Central District is more convenient for the parties because the 

government employees who processed the visa application reside there and McAfee has 

headquarters in California. While McAfee prefers the District of Columbia, and a plaintiff’s 

preference is often dispositive, see, e.g., Wilderness Soc. v. Babbitt, 104 F. Supp. 2d 10, 12 

(D.D.C. 2000), courts give “diminished consideration” to a plaintiff’s preference when the 

“forum has no meaningful ties to the controversy and no particular interest in the parties or 

subject matter,” id. This district has neither meaningful ties to nor a particular interest in a 
4 

California company’s challenge to a California Service Center’s decision to deny a particular 

H-1B visa for a California employee. The plaintiff’s preference thus receives no special 

deference and is instead the lone private interest that cuts against transfer. 

With just one interest tilting toward the District of Columbia, two being neutral, and all 

the rest tilting toward the Central District of California, the prudential balance favors transfer. 

McAfee could and should have brought this case there. This decision also heeds “the Court of 

Appeals’s command to ‘guard against the danger that a plaintiff might name high government 

officials as defendants to bring a suit here that properly should be pursued elsewhere.’” Gyau, 

2018 WL 4964502, at *1 (quoting Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 243, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court grants the government’s motion and transfers this case to the 

Central District of California. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

 ________________________ 

 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH 

November 15, 2019 United States District Judge