K-1 Fiance Visa Denial After Interview

[Lynkali 163]

California enacted the law in 2011, so I guess no purchases were made before then.

My only point was that one should not preach morality to others unless they are blameless, but I see now a couple of individuals that are Jesus reincarnated.........EOM

Before the law was passed, I was dutifully calculating my Amazon and other online purchases and YES, PAYING TAX on them on April 15th. Surely I'm not the only one who actually obeys our laws? Thank you Leon & Mylen, at least I know we're not totally alone.

[Bugs 455]

California enacted the law in 2011, so I guess no purchases were made before then.

My only point was that one should not preach morality to others unless they are blameless, but I see now a couple of individuals that are Jesus reincarnated.........EOM

Telling why I do something a certain way is preaching?

If it feels that way, then it's on you.

[Bugs 455]

I thought it was against ToS to encourage lying anyways.

[chrisclassic 14]

Why yes that's exactly what I'm saying. The results were negative. Surely a 1 year ban from coming the the United States is a little harsh for admitting to smoking pot during his lifetime. I know very few people who can say that they have never tried any drugs in their life. I think it's an unnecessary question asked for a b.s. reason to not let someone in the great and mighty usa. If he had an issue with drugs it would be apparent during the physical examination, drug urine test, or police record. The question is unnecessary.

i have never tried drugs

and with immigration you do have to disclose everything

im sorry for your situation but admitting he smoked weed is a right for denial

there is a good lawyer in brighton uk check him out stephen heller used to work close to the embassy

[trbasat 2]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies") or to say it in another way: Innocent until proven guilty!

Answering yes to previous drug use automatically makes you inadmissible into the United States. It doesn't matter how long ago it was.

Everyone has to be aware of the consequences of admitting to previous drug use. As long as there is no proof (a positive drug test AND/OR someone admitting of [previous] drug use there is nothing you should worry about).

And no, you are not a better person just because you have never tried marijuana once in your lifetime!

Edited December 5, 2013 by trbasat

[SparklePony 238]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies") or to say it in another way: Innocent until proven guilty!

Answering yes to previous drug use automatically makes you inadmissible into the United States. It doesn't matter how long ago it was.

Everyone has to be aware of the consequences of admitting to previous drug use. As long as there is no proof (a positive drug test AND/OR someone admitting of [previous] drug use there is nothing you should worry about).

And no, you are not a better person just because you have never tried marijuana once in your lifetime!

Of course it's only my personal opinion, but I don't agree with this. People change. They make mistakes and then grow. What you did when you were a rebellious teenager shouldn't come back to haunt after you've become a mature and responsible adult.

[*Snowdrop* 604]

It's five years since I did the medical but I don't think I was asked directly "Have you taken drugs"

I think I was asked first:

"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" - which I thought was odd for a medical but I've since seen that some people have admitted to drink driving convictions and then been tested for alcohol abuse.

Then I was asked: "Have you ever abused alcohol or had a problem with drugs"

I answered no, and there were no further questions.

So I wonder if it depends on which doctor you get for how the questions are asked. If the OP's fiance was really pushed over this issue was there something that made the Doctor keep pushing? Or perhaps this particular doctor is just very thorough like that.

[trbasat 2]

Of course it's only my personal opinion, but I don't agree with this. People change. They make mistakes and then grow. What you did when you were a rebellious teenager shouldn't come back to haunt after you've become a mature and responsible adult.

Actually I completely agree with you! I meant it doesn't make a difference in the eyes of the US Government!

I completely agree that people change and that you should not suffer your entire life from mistakes you made in the past! It's how you develop as a person that counts!

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Actually I completely agree with you! I meant it doesn't make a difference in the eyes of the US Government!

I completely agree that people change and that you should not suffer your entire life from mistakes you made in the past! It's how you develop as a person that counts!

Not entire life, 1 year and it used to be 3 years.

Does anyone know why the US is so strict on this issue anyways? Is it part of the war on drugs thing? Just curious.

[lost_at_sea 995]

Not entire life, 1 year and it used to be 3 years.

Does anyone know why the US is so strict on this issue anyways? Is it part of the war on drugs thing? Just curious.

I don't know, but obviously they've become more lenient (as you say, 3 to 1 years).

I do wonder if they'll be forced to get even more lenient in the future (particularly for marijuana users) as there are states in the US now legalising usage - See Colorado for example (and many more with legal medical use already). Who knows.

[David & Diana R 1,005]

Not entire life, 1 year and it used to be 3 years.

Does anyone know why the US is so strict on this issue anyways? Is it part of the war on drugs thing? Just curious.

I don't know, but obviously they've become more lenient (as you say, 3 to 1 years).

I do wonder if they'll be forced to get even more lenient in the future (particularly for marijuana users) as there are states in the US now legalising usage - See Colorado for example (and many more with legal medical use already). Who knows.

I believe the answer lies with the Federal Government. The Feds have not legalised marijuana use, "so-called medical" or not. States can decriminalize marijuana possession and/or use (like Colorado and California) but we know that Federal Law supercedes all State, County, local laws and ordinances.

The Federal Government is in charge of immigration and their laws apply as far as illegal drug use goes. It's really just that simple. I don't forsee any change unless the Federal Government decriminalises marijuana and I don't see that happening any time soon. Remember the immigrant is coming into the USA where the government (read Feds) has deemed marijuana use and/or possession illegal. The laws of the immigrants country do not apply here either. We must remember that we are dealing with Devil Weed, after all.

[lost_at_sea 995]

I believe the answer lies with the Federal Government. The Feds have not legalised marijuana use, "so-called medical" or not. States can decriminalize marijuana possession and/or use (like Colorado and California) but we know that Federal Law supercedes all State, County, local laws and ordinances.

The Federal Government is in charge of immigration and their laws apply as far as illegal drug use goes. It's really just that simple. I don't forsee any change unless the Federal Government decriminalises marijuana and I don't see that happening any time soon. Remember the immigrant is coming into the USA where the government (read Feds) has deemed marijuana use and/or possession illegal. The laws of the immigrants country do not apply here either. We must remember that we are dealing with Devil Weed, after all.

That makes a lot of sense. Sort of similar to the same-sex marriage stuff. Wasn't until it was OKed (or, rather, overturned) at fed level that it all changed. Edited December 5, 2013 by lost_at_sea

[Al422 221]

I say let them prove that you smoked pot. No reason to admit it. If there is no THC in your bloodstream or urine and no drug ocnvictions, it is done.

But the US does have a zero tolerance policy about drug use. As some of us may remember, John Lennon got a one year ban from entering the United States because of a misdemeanor hashish bust in England.

[David & Diana R 1,005]

I say let them prove that you smoked pot. No reason to admit it. If there is no THC in your bloodstream or urine and no drug ocnvictions, it is done.

But the US does have a zero tolerance policy about drug use. As some of us may remember, John Lennon got a one year ban from entering the United States because of a misdemeanor hashish bust in England.

I trust you are not suggesting anyone lie if asked the question? If you are asked the question...and for some reason they ever find out you would be facing a possible lifetime ban. What would anyone prefer? I'd be honest and take the 1 year if it applied to me, but that's just me.

My motto: Never lie, always tell the truth.

[dwheels76 5,468]

Not entire life, 1 year and it used to be 3 years.

Does anyone know why the US is so strict on this issue anyways? Is it part of the war on drugs thing? Just curious.

Interesting read here for those asking the why the law and rule. Has nothing to do with whats in your body when you tested (well yes if you tested dirty), but its about you admitting to committing a crime pure and simple that's what admitting to taking drugs is. You’ve admitted the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, which is the use of illegal drugs.

In case you’re wondering, "moral turpitude" is a term referenced in U.S. immigration law that means you’ve violated community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.

And I love his advice no lie or anything. Just don't use. And yes we have come along way from lifetime bans but the world better wake up. You want in you got to play by the host rules.

ADMITTING DRUG USE COULD RESULT IN A LIFETIME BAN

by Michael J. Gurfinkel, Esq.

Many Filipinos consulted with me regarding the same problem: their visa was denied by the U.S. Embassy because they admitted to the doctors at St. Luke's that they had, years ago, smoked marijuana or used some other drug. At their visa interview, they are shocked to find that their visa is being refused, with the annotation "you have admitted to committing acts which constitute a controlled substance violation - no waiver."

In one case, a 29-year-old nurse had been recruited for a job in a U.S. hospital. During visa processing, she was asked a very routine question: "Have you smoked marijuana or taken any controlled substance?" The nurse said that she had "tasted" marijuana once during a party when she was 18 years old. It was just a harmless "try", done out of curiosity. Her visa was denied, and she was banned for life.

Another person was a middle-aged man, said he tried marijuana two or three times when he was a teenager. His visa application was likewise denied. This man, who was petitioned by his U.S. citizen parents, had waited for more than 10 years for his priority date to be current. But now he was being told he would never go to the U.S.

None of these people had ever been charged with, or convicted of, any drug-related crime. They merely admitted that they tried or tasted marijuana or other drug during their younger days.

Under U.S. immigration laws, a person is inadmissible (not eligible for a visa) if they have ever been convicted of, or admitted having violated any law of any country relating to a controlled substance. As the law states, "[A]ny alien convicted of, or who admits having committed , or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of . . . a violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance . . . is inadmissible." Marijuana is considered a "controlled substance." Therefore, if you smoked (or "used") Marijuana, you may have violated a law relating to a controlled substance.

It may seem that U.S. immigration laws were harsh in the case of the nurse and middle-aged man, who had merely tried marijuana out of curiosity many years ago. But, the use of Marijuana in the Philippines is against the law, and admitting marijuana use was enough for the Embassy to refuse the visas under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). This was the case even though they never used marijuana again, and blood tests would never reveal the use of drugs or Marijuana. But they admitted to having smoked Marijuana, which could be a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance. And now they had to suffer the consequences. (The Embassy was only following and enforcing the law, in refusing the visas.)

Therefore, it is my strong advice to anyone who is under petition that you do not take any drugs, or you could jeopardize your coming to America. The U.S. Government is taking a very tough stance against people who use drugs or violate drug laws

Edited December 6, 2013 by dwheels76