P *

Wargo, Holli Beasley, Esq.

Collins & Martin, P.C.
55 Town Line Road, Third Floor
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Name: GUL, HUBERT LUKASZ
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5 /07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Clmrch, Vrginia 2 2041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - HAR
P.O. Box 230217
Hartford, CT 06123-0217
A 055-902-141
Date of this notice: 5/29/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-refrenced case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Hofman, Sharon
.- .D- . .T
Sincerely,
Do c t.
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
scllwarzA
Userteam: Docket
7 ' *.,,
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Hubert Lukasz Gul, A055 902 141 (BIA May 29, 2013)
GUL, HUBERT LUKASZ
A055-902-141
GREENFIELD HOUSE OF CORR
160 ELM STREET
GREENFIELD, MA 01301
Name: GUL, HUBERT LUKASZ
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
510 7 leesb11rg Pike. Sui le 2000
Falls Cl11rcl. Vrgi11ia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - HAR
P.O. Box 230217
Harford, CT 06123-0217
A 055-902-141
Date of this notice: 5/29/2013
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorey or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed fom the United States or afrms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition fr review of the attached decision must be fled with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Hofman, Sharon
Sincerely,
Do c t
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
schwarzA
Useream: Docket
== .. c =.. .
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Hubert Lukasz Gul, A055 902 141 (BIA May 29, 2013)
,.
. U.S. Department of Justice
Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
. Executive Ofce fr Immigration Review
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
File: A055 902 141 - Hatfrd, CT
In re: HUBERT LUKASZ GUL a.k.a. Herbert Gui
I RMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL AND MOTION
Date:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Holli B. Wago, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Amit Patel
Assistant Chief Counsel
APPLICATION: Remad
MAY . 9
2013
The respondent, a native and citizen of Poland, appeals the decision of the Imigration Judge,
dated February 20, 2013, ordering his removal fom the United States. The respondent has also
fled a motion to remand. We will gant the motion.
On appeal, the respondent does not meaningflly dispute that, a a result of his Connecticut
state conviction fr a drug-related crime, he is subject to removal fom the United States under
the provisions of section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (I.J. at 1; Exh. 1). See Matter of Moncada, 24 l&N Dec. 62 {BIA 2007).
While te respondent is apparently seeking to vacate his conviction, the conviction remans
efective fr imigation purposes unless and until it is vacated or modifed by a court of
competent jurisdiction. See Matter of Cuellar, 25 l&N Dec. 850, 855 (BIA 2012).
We agree with the respondent that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in
Moncriefe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013), it is appropriate to remand the record to the
Immigration Judge fr frther consideration of the issue of whether the Depament of Homelad
Securit has established that the respondent is subject to removal fom the United States under
te provisions of section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act. See section 240(c)(3)(A) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(3)(A). Additionally, regardless of the disposition of the charge of
removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, we conclude that, upon remand, the
Immigration Judge should provide the respondent with an opportunity to present his claim to
cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), wherein the
respondent, aong other things, would bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
conviction fr an aggravated flony and that he warrants such relief a a mater of discretion.
See section 240(c)(4)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d); Matter of Almana, 24 l&N Dec. 771
(BIA 2009) (recogizing that the burden is on the alien to establish eligibilit fr relief; Matter
of S-H-, 23 l&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002) (recogizing the need fr clear and complete decisions
which address all relevant issues raised during the course of removal proceedings)
While we conclude that remanded proceedings are war anted, we express no opm1on
regarding the ultimate outcome of these proceedings at the present time. See Matter of L-0-G-,
21 l&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996).

. T
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Hubert Lukasz Gul, A055 902 141 (BIA May 29, 2013)
9 W
1055 902 141
For the reasons set fr above, the fllowing order is entered.
ORER: The respondent's motion to remand is granted, and the record is remanded to the
Immigration Court fr frther proceedings consistent with the fregoing opinion and fr the
ent of a new decision.
2
_* : : .. : .. m -- _- _-_ _ _ rT _wW - . cw V.V = =
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Hubert Lukasz Gul, A055 902 141 (BIA May 29, 2013)
,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
File: A055-902-141 Februar 20, 2013
In the Mater of
HUBERT LUKSZ GUL
RESPONDENT
)
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
CHARGES: Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration Act INA - convicted of an
aggravated felony drug trafcking ofense.
Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -
convicted of an ofense related to a controlled substance.
APPLICATIONS: Motion for continuance for outcome for writ of coram nobis.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: HOLLI WARGO
ON BEHALF OF OHS: LCOLN JLL
ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
Respondent was sered with a Notice to Appear by an Immigration ofcer
I on January 18, 2013.r He was given- time to obtain counsel and for counsel to plead
to the charges. Respondent, through counsel, admits allegations 1 and 3 and denies
allegation 4 and the charge of removabilit. The frst issue is whether the respondent is
removable as charged. The Cour finds that the respondent was clearly convicted.
based on the plea colloquy ..of an ofense involving marijuana. Therefore, the charge of
an ofense relating to a controlled substance has been sustained. The next issue is
whether he is subject to removal based on the aggravated felony conviction. The
I record reflects that he pied guilt to the sale of a controlled substance, in violation of
(J F* M
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
1
Section 21 a-277(b) of the Connecticut general statutes. The prosecutor indicated that
te rpnen, ta there was a marijuana scale and indicia of possessing marijuana
with intent to sell. The respondent pied guilty. The Cour that finds that OHS has met
its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that this is an aggravated felony
drug trafcking ofense. Page three of the plea colloquy indicates that this was
marijuana and that this was marijuana with intent to sell.
The respondent seeks a continuance fr a writ of coram nobis that was
filed earlier in Februar. The writ states that the cour may have advised him of the
immigration consequences, but did not believe the warning applied to him because his
attorney had never suggested he should be concerned about Immigration
consequences. The Cour would note that on the bottom of page six of the plea
colloquy, he clearly indicated he was aware of the Immigration consequences. In any
event, the Cour finds that it will not grant a furher continuance in the exercise of
discretion. The Cour would note that this conviction is final for Immigration purposes
and whether this writ will ultimately be granted is total speculation. See Matter of
Adetiba, 20 l&N Dec. 506 (BIA 1992); Matter of Ponce De Leon, 21 l&N Dec. 154 (BIA
1996). The Cour finds no reason to continue this matter any furher. The respondent
has not applied for nor does he appear to be eligible for any other relief under the
Immigration laws. Accordingly, the Court must order his removal to Poland.
ORDER
HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's motion fr continuance fr
adjudication of a writ of coram nobis is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be removed to Poland.
Please see the next page for electronic
signature
A055-902-141 2 February 20, 2013
WW. ~ x . , .. v . v ..v x v ..v v v.v.r.w.v.v1vi1v1.V. Wn,
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
..
(
A055-902-141
MICHAEL W. STRUS
Immigration Judge
3 February 20, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
J
'
(
1
/Isl/
Immigration Judge MICHAEL W. STRAUS
strausm on April 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM GMT
A055-902-141 4
{
\
Febrar 20, 2013
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t