17‐2807‐ag Hnatyuk v. Whitaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of November, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X Mykola Hnatyuk, Petitioner, ‐v.‐ 17‐2807 Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III, as Respondent. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Nancy E. Martin and Anthony D. Collins, Collins & Martin, P.C., Wethersfield, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED, the judgment of the BIA is VACATED, and we REMAND for further consideration consistent with this order. Mykola Hnatyuk, citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of an August 16, 2017 order of the BIA finding him inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) due to a conviction under a Connecticut law related to a controlled substance, as defined in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. The single issue on appeal is whether Hnatyuk’s conviction necessarily relates to a “controlled substance” under the CSA. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. In 2008, Hnatyuk pleaded guilty under the Connecticut statute punishing the possession of “any quantity of any narcotic substance.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a‐279(a) (2008). After returning from a trip abroad, Hnatyuk was charged as inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien convicted of violating a state law relating to a “controlled substance” as that term is defined in section 802 of title 21 of the U.S. Code. In the CSA, “[t]he term ‘controlled substance’ means ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals