A federal court has dismissed a case filed by Olha Noha against Joseph B. Edlow, the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), due to improper venue. The ruling, issued by Judge Reggie B. Walton on September 1, 2026, affects Noha's efforts to compel the USCIS to adjudicate her immigration applications, which have been pending since 2022. This decision highlights the importance of filing immigration cases in the correct jurisdiction.
Olha Noha, who filed her complaint on June 6, 2025, sought a writ of mandamus to compel USCIS to process her Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, her Application to Adjust Status to Lawful Permanent Resident, and her Petition for Alien Relative. Noha, representing herself in court, claimed that her applications had been pending for an extended period, and she wanted the court to intervene.
The case reached the District Court for the District of Columbia after Noha filed her complaint against Edlow in his official capacity. However, the defendant filed a Motion to Transfer or Dismiss on January 12, 2026, arguing that the case did not belong in the District of Columbia. The court issued an order directing Noha to respond to the motion by February 17, 2026. She failed to respond or update her address, leading to her absence from the proceedings for nearly 11 months.
In the ruling, Judge Walton emphasized that Noha did not establish that the venue was proper in the District of Columbia. According to the law, a civil action against a federal officer can only be brought where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved. In this case, Edlow resides and performs his duties in Camp Springs, Maryland, where USCIS has been headquartered since 2020.
Judge Walton noted, “The plaintiff has failed to establish that venue is proper in the District of Columbia.” He pointed out that Noha's applications were not pending in the District of Columbia, and if the court compelled USCIS to act, it would likely occur at the agency's headquarters in Maryland. The ruling cited several precedents that supported transferring cases to the appropriate jurisdiction, particularly when the agency involved has moved its operations.
The court concluded that while transferring the case is generally the preferred remedy for improper venue, dismissal is warranted when the outcome is clear. Since Noha did not oppose the motion or show any intention to pursue the case, the court dismissed it without prejudice, allowing her the option to refile in the proper jurisdiction.
This ruling has implications for individuals navigating the immigration process. It underscores the necessity for applicants to understand the jurisdictional requirements when filing cases against federal agencies. Immigration cases must be filed in the correct venue to avoid dismissal, which can delay the resolution of their applications.
Moving forward, this decision may influence how similar cases are handled in the future. It reinforces the importance of proper venue in immigration litigation and may deter individuals from filing in incorrect jurisdictions. Those affected by similar situations should be aware of the need to file in the appropriate district, particularly when dealing with federal agencies like USCIS.
As for Noha's case, it is unclear whether she will appeal the dismissal or pursue her claims in the appropriate court. There are no indications of any related cases pending at this time.