Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Faysal Sarker filed suit on June 22, 2026, against USCIS and federal officials seeking expedited processing of his Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. He filed the complaint in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.
However, in his own complaint, Sarker alleged that he resides in Garland, Texas, listed the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas as a defendant, and provided a Dallas address for service. His exhibits confirmed his current address is on Shiloh Road in Garland, Texas, though he may have previously resided in the Eastern District of Texas.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that venue was improper. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(C), actions against the government may be brought in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides when no real property is involved. Garland, Texas is wholly located in Dallas County, which lies within the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas.
Because Sarker’s allegations and exhibits established his current residence in the Northern District of Texas—not the Eastern District—the court determined that the case was filed in the wrong forum. Rather than dismiss, the court invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and found that the interests of justice warranted transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, where venue is proper.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts apply the plaintiff’s actual place of residence under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(C), not the plaintiff’s chosen filing location, to determine proper venue in suits against the government.
- When a case is filed in the wrong district, courts may transfer rather than dismiss if the interests of justice favor transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
- Allegations and exhibits in a complaint can establish venue requirements, and courts may take judicial notice of publicly available municipal boundary maps and geographic information.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that pro se litigants cannot circumvent venue rules by filing in a district of choice when federal law specifies the proper forum. Immigration petitioners seeking judicial relief must file in the correct district based on their actual residence.
The case illustrates the court’s preference for transfer over dismissal to preserve pro se claims—a procedural mercy that ensures the merits are not lost due to technical filing errors—while nonetheless enforcing statutory venue requirements that exist to promote judicial efficiency and fairness.