Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zsolt Bara, A205 668 646 (BIA July 24, 2015)
Zsolt Bara, A205 668 646 (BIA July 24, 2015)
Department of Justice
A 205-668-646
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DonnL
(1/VL)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Holmes, David B.
Miller, Neil P.
Holiona, Hope Malia
Userteam: Docket
'
...
Date:
JUL 24 2015
Colleen E. Taylor
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
237(a)(l)(B), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law
The respondent appeals from the Immigration Judge's January 15, 2014, decision denying his
motion to continue the proceedings. 1 The respondent sought the continuance to await the
adjudication of a pending visa petition filed on his behalf in order then to apply for adjustment of
status. The Department of Homeland Security opposes the appeal. While the appeal remained
pending, the respondent offered evidence that the visa petition has now been approved. With the
following comments, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge to enable the
respondent to apply for adjustment of status as the spouse of a United States citizen.
In his January 15, 2014, decision, the Immigration Judge granted the respondent's motion to
amend his pleadings and to vacate his removability under 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (alien convicted of a controlled substance violation)
based on a conviction for possession of cocaine. The respondent offered evidence that the
criminal court had amended the underlying drug-related offense and found him guilty of
accepting money in order to conceal an offense involving a felony, which is a misdemeanor
offense punishable by not more than 1 year. See Immigration Judge's Decision at 1-2; Exhibit 7.
The Board reviews the Immigration Judge's findings of fact under a "clearly erroneous"
standard. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i). If the Board determines that an Immigration Judge's
findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, it may review de novo whether the facts are sufficient
to meet an applicable legal standard. See Matter ofA-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493, 497 (BIA 2008);
8 C.F.R. 1003. l(d)(3)(ii).
Cite as: Zsolt Bara, A205 668 646 (BIA July 24, 2015)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
,,
A205 663 646
,,
We note that the criminal court's decision specifically states that the respondent's conviction
was amended "in the interests of justice and a cure for any possible violations of the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution that may have occurred in (the respondent's) prior
adjudication." On review, we find that the language of the amended order supports the
respondent's assertion that the conviction was amended due to a defect in the underlying
criminal proceedings. See Matter of Pickering, 23 l&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003). See also Matter
of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629, 637 (BIA 2003) ("It has been held that a finding is 'clearly
erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed");
8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i).
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.2
ORDER: The record is remanded to Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
2
Cite as: Zsolt Bara, A205 668 646 (BIA July 24, 2015)
While the Immigration Judge determined that the amended conviction no longer supported
the charge of removability under section 237(A)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, he nevertheless concluded
that the respondent is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because he did not show that
he is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Although the drug-related conviction was amended, the Immigration
Judge found that the criminal court order was ambiguous and "inconclusive regarding the
rationale for the vacatur." See Immigration Judge's Decision at 4.
-
\
In the Matter of
.- .... ..
IMMIGRATION COURT
5701 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR. #400
CHARLorTE NC 28212
Case No.: A205-668-646
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
l IS-
or;:
fUflt_.
lx,l
Date:
er1dv.
-Appeal Due By
Appeal: Waiv
:-z.. /
Immigrati on Judge
'1 ( '(
BARA, ZSOLT
Respondent
.. ,;;
..
: _
I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ZSOLT BARA,
MINUTE ORDER
Respondent.
That at a master calendar hearing held on June 17, 2013, Respondent appeared
pro se and admitted the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear (NTA), including the fact he
was convicted on October 10, 2012 for the offense of possession of cocaine in Horry County,
South Carolina.2 Exhibit 1. Respondent advised he is married to a United States citizen who
may be pregnant with his child. The OHS .argued Respondent is barred from relief through
adjustment of status due to his drug conviction. Respondent advised he had assisted a local
narcotics detective with an investigation based upon their mutual agreement the detective would
use his "ICE connections" to help Respondent, but the detective did not keep his end ofthe
bargain. 3 The Court granted Respondent a continuance in order to consult with counsel.
2.
That on September 9, 2012, the Horry County Court of General Sessions entered
IN THE MATIER OF
misdeeanor offense punishable for imprisonment of not more than one year. 4 Exhibit 2, tab M.
In its order, the South Carolina court stated the amended judgment was "done in the interests of
justice and [sic] a cure for any possible violations of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution that may have occurred in [Respondent's] prior adjudication." Id
That at a master calendar hearing held on September 25, 2013, Respondent
appeared with counsel, and moved to reopen the pleadings to the NTA in light of the amended
judgment of his criminal conviction in South Carolina. Respondent filed evidence of a pending
Form 1-130 family-based visa petition by his wife, and moved for a continuance to await
adjudication of the petition by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)
under Matter ofHashmi, 24 l&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) (hereinafter "Hashmi motion"). The
OHS opposed Respondent's motion to reopen pleadings, and his Hashmi motion. The Court set
a deadline of October 25, 2013 for Respondent to file, inter alia, evidence of any motion for
appropriate relief (MAR) filed by him in the South Carolina court, which led to the amended
judgment ofhls conviction, and evidence of the bonafides of his marriage. The Court advised
Respondent of the consequences of failure to file the MAR documents by that deadline. 8 C.F .R.
1003.3l(c).
4.
That on October 25, 2013, Respondent filed evidence of the bonafides of his
marriage, and a "case history" report from the South Carolina court which reflects a guilty plea
to the offense of"Bribes/Acceptance of money to conceal an offense involving a Felony" with a
disposition date of October 10, 2012. Exhibit 2, tab I at 1. The report also reflects payments by
Respondent to the court of $50 on November 8, 2012, and $25 on January 22, 2013; and filing of
the amended judgment on September 9, 2013. Id at 2. Respondent did not file any documents
related to the MAR in the South Carolina court, and his counsel "contends that there are no other
documents associated with [the South Carolina court's amended judgment] order."
Respondent's Motion to Reopen and/or Amend Pleadings at 5.
Motion to Reopen Pleadings
3.
NTA. Exhibit 1 at 1. The Court vacates its earlier finding that the second charge of removability
tinder INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i) is sustained, and need not determine his removability in light of his
coqnsel 's concession he is removable to the first charge as an overstay under INA
237(a)(l)(B).
The Court may grant a motion for continuance only "for good cause shown," within its
sound discretion. Matter ofSanchez-Sosa, 25 l&N Dec. 87, 812 (BIA 2012) (citing 8 C.F.R.
1003.29); Matter ofSilva-Rodriguez, 20 l&N Dec. 448, 449-50 (BIA 1992); Matter ofSibrun, 18
l&N Dec. 354, 355-58 (BIA 1983).
In detennining whether to continue proceedings to afford the respondent an opportunity
to apply for adjustment of status premised on a pending visa petition, a variety of factors may be
considered, including, but not limited to: (l) the DHS response to the motion; (2) whether the
underlying visa petition is prima facie approvable; (3) the respondent's statutory eligibility for
adjustment of status; (4) whether the respondent's application for adjustment merits a favorable
exercise of discretion; and (5) the reason for the continuance and other procedural factors.
Matter ofHashmi, 24 l&N Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009). To establish eligibility for adjustment of
status under INA 245, an alien must establish, inter alia, that he is not inadmissible due to
criminal convictions of certain drug offenses. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); 245(a)(2). When
there is evidence that an alien may be statutorily barred from relief, the alien has the burden to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such bar does not apply. INA 240(c)(4)(A)(i); 8
C.F.R. 1240.S(d); see also Salem v. Holder, 641 F.3d 111, 115 (4th Cir. 2011).
Where a conviction is vacated for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying
criminal proceedings, the conviction remains for immigration purposes. Phan v. Holder, 667
F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Matter ofPickering, 23 l&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003))
("A conviction vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons remains valid for immigration
purposes, while one vacated because of procedural or substantive infirmities does not.") rev 'd
sub nom., Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006)). In making its determination in
Matter ofPickering, the Board of Immigration Appeals espoused 'the consideration of three
factors: (l) the law under which the court issued its order vacating the conviction; (2) the terms
of the court's order; and (3) the respondent's reasons in requesting that the conviction be
vacated. Matter ofPickering, 23 I&N Dec. at 625.
Based on the totality of the record, the Court finds that the respondent has failed to
demonstrate that his conviction for possession of cocaine was not vacated for immigration
poses, and was instead vacated for reasons related to the merits of the underlying criminal
proceeding. First, the South Carolina court's order did not reference the law under which it was
failure to reference any statutory provision for its action does not adequately support the
respondent's claim that the vacatur was not related to the adverse immigration consequences he
suffers as a result of a conviction for cocaine possession.
Second, the amended judgment order's terms vacating the guilty plea are ambiguous in
that the state court failed to adequately explain the rationale for vacating the respondent's prior
guilty plea to cocaine possession. In its order, the South Carolina court stated the amended
judgment was "done in the interests of justice and [sic] a cure for any possible violations of the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that may have occurred in [Respondent's]
prior adjudication." Exhibit 2, tab M (emphasis added). While this speculative language reflects
the state court judge's concern for the respondent's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, it is vague and ambiguous as to whether the respondent's
conviction was infirm resulting from an actual procedural or substantive defect in the underlying
criminal proceeding, rather than for immigration reasons.
In the absence of the actual MAR which led to the. state court to amend the respondent's
initial conviction for cocaine possession, this Court is unable to discern the factual basis or legal
conclusions which formed the basis for the state court to adjudicate a wholly different conviction
for bribery. Moreover, this Court is unable to determine what effect, if any, the adverse
immigration consequences of the respondent's earlier drug conviction had on the state court's
decision to amend it. The respondent suffers the consequences of an inconclusive record of
conviction to establish his eligibility for relief from removal. Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d at 116.
The Court finds that the South Carolina court order is inconclusive regarding the
rationale for the vacatur of the respondent's guilty plea to possession of cocaine, such that it does
not satisfy his burden to show his initial conviction was not vacated solely to avoid immigration
hardships. Matter ofPickering, 23 l&N Dec. at 624. The Court finds that the respondent has not
met his burden of proving he is not inadmissible due to a conviction for possession of cocaine,
and is therefore statutorily eligible for adjustment of status. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
vacating the guilty plea, and amending his conviction to the offense of bribery. The state court's
24S(a)(2). Therefore, the Court finds that the respondent has not demonstrated good cause exists
to continue his case, over the DHS' objection, to await adjudication of the Form 1-130 petition
file1 on his behalfwith the USCIS. 8 C.F.R. 1003.29; Matter ofHashmi, 24 l&N Dec. at 790.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to amend his pleas to the Notice to
Appear is GRANTED, and the Court's finding of his removability under INA 237(A)(2)(B)(i)
is thereby VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion to continue is DENIED.
V. STUART COUCH
United States Immigration Judge
Charlotte, North Carolina
Date
'
ORDERS