MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant Jing Tao Mei petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is respectfully denied. BACKGROUND On September 28, 2020, Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a one-count information charging him with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841. (9/28/20 Minute Entry.) In the plea agreement, Defendant “affirmed that [he] want[ed] to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequences that [his] plea may entail.” (ECF No. 96-1 (“Plea Agreement”) 12.) The court thoroughly reviewed the consequences of Defendant’s guilty plea before accepting Defendant’s plea. In particular, after confirming that Defendant’s counsel had discussed the immigration consequences of the plea with his client, the court personally advised Defendant that “it is likely that you are going to face removal proceedings if you do decide to proceed with your guilty plea.” (ECF No. 90-2 (“Plea Tr.”) at 6.) Defendant confirmed that he understood. (Id.) The court continued: “So, in other words, you will be removed from the United States.” (Id. at 7.) Again, Defendant confirmed that he understood. (Id.) Later in the proceeding, the court reviewed the plea agreement with Defendant and again advised him that “the Government is almost certainly going to remove you from eligibility [to] hav[e] a green card and will seek your removal from the United States.” (Id. at 17.) For a third time, Defendant confirmed that he understood. (Id.) On July 28, 2021, the court sentenced Defendant to five months of incarceration and three years of supervised release with special conditions. (ECF No. 83.) Before sentencing Defendant, the court again confirmed that counsel had discussed the immigration consequences of his plea with his client. (ECF No. 90-3 (“Sentencing Tr.”) at 6.) The court also personally advised Defendant “that he would likely have to be removed from the United States as a result of his conviction.” (Id.) On February 25, 2022, Defendant completed his term of imprisonment and was transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (See ECF No. 90-1 (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 4; ECF No. 96 (“Gov’t's Opp’n”) at 5.) On May 5, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking coram nobis relief based on his counsel’s alleged failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. (ECF No. 90.) Defendant’s final removal hearing in Immigration Court is scheduled for July 7, 2022. (See ECF No. 91.) DISCUSSION “A petitioner seeking coram nobis relief ‘must demonstrate that 1) there are circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice, 2) sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief, and 3) the petitioner continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ.’” Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44, 49 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996)). Although “ineffective assistance of counsel is one ground for granting a writ of coram nobis,” id. the court concludes that Defendant has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant’s motion is untimely. “As a predicate matter, a petitioner alleging ineffective assistance based on immigration misadvice must clearly demonstrate that he placed particular emphasis on [immigration consequences] in deciding whether or not to plead guilty.” Doe v. United States, 915 F.3d 905, 911-12 (2d Cir. 2019) (alteration original; quotations and citation omitted). “Courts cannot rely solely on post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies,” but rather must “look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant’s expressed preferences.” Id. at 912 (quotations and citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Herrera-Cleto, 836 F. App’x 62, 64 (2d Cir. 2020) (finding petitioner’s post hoc affidavit insufficient to demonstrate prejudice). Here, Defendant offers only a post hoc assertion that he would have insisted on trying to negotiate a plea without immigration consequences or would have insisted on going to trial. (ECF No. 92 (“Mei Affidavit”) 11.) Neither Defendant’s brief, nor the court’s independent review of the record, provides any contemporaneous evidence that Defendant placed particular emphasis on immigration consequences when deciding to plead guilty. See Doe, 915 F.3d at 911-12. Rather, the contemporaneous record reflects that — notwithstanding Defendant’s repeated acknowledgements of the immigration consequences — Defendant elected to plead guilty to a single count, with a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and with credit for acceptance of responsibility, based on his possession with intent to distribute approximately 700 pounds of marijuana. (Sentencing Tr. at 31; ECF No. 56 (“PSR”)
