Wife admitted to marijuana use in medical check up - consequences?

[midwinterrose 275]

Considering the possibility for misrep, I would err on the side of bringing it up and addressing it because it could happen that the CO doesn’t notice the discrepancy and approves the visa, then someone later down the line does notice it and decides it is a misrep and deems that your visa/Greencard was issued in error.  The Greencard, or even citizenship, could be revoked years later.
 

Basically, one’s legal immigration status at each stage depends upon the legality of every status before it, so if one crumbles, they all come crashing down.

 

I'm not saying that’s a very likely situation, but if you don’t bring it up, and the CO doesn’t bring it up either, that’s no guarantee that it isn’t a problem.

[MexicoExpat 18]

14 hours ago, radharose said:

Considering the possibility for misrep, I would err on the side of bringing it up and addressing it because it could happen that the CO doesn’t notice the discrepancy and approves the visa, then someone later down the line does notice it and decides it is a misrep and deems that your visa/Greencard was issued in error.  The Greencard, or even citizenship, could be revoked years later.
 

Basically, one’s legal immigration status at each stage depends upon the legality of every status before it, so if one crumbles, they all come crashing down.

 

I'm not saying that’s a very likely situation, but if you don’t bring it up, and the CO doesn’t bring it up either, that’s no guarantee that it isn’t a problem.

This is a really good point and something that we hadn't considered or even thought possible. I can't imagine anything worse than getting all the way to the end, even receiving citizenship and then getting it revoked for something like this, no matter how slim the chance. 

 

My wife has also come around to the idea of disclosing this info in the interview. It was @Villanelle's way of phrasing it that made her understand it was a good idea. 

 

We are planning to have her go into the interview, and if she has the chance to bring it up at the beginning, she will. If she is asked a question first, she will answer that question, and then add on "...I also think I need to update my DS-260..."

 

Something along the lines of "I need to update my answer in the DS-260. I believe I misunderstood one of the questions asking if I had ever violated a controlled substance law. I thought it meant if I had ever been in any kind of trouble for it which I haven't. But I have ever smoked marijuana in my life, which I now realize could be a violation. I discussed this in my medical exam and the doctor told me he doesn't think I'm an abuser, but I don't want there to be a conflict in my DS-260". 

 

The last part there is what we still aren't quite sure about how to approach - whether to say outright that we want to change it to YES, or if she should ask the CO what they think she should put. Or maybe what he thinks is irrelevant and she needs to make that decision on her own. 

[jan22 3,056]

2 hours ago, MexicoExpat said:

This is a really good point and something that we hadn't considered or even thought possible. I can't imagine anything worse than getting all the way to the end, even receiving citizenship and then getting it revoked for something like this, no matter how slim the chance. 

 

My wife has also come around to the idea of disclosing this info in the interview. It was @Villanelle's way of phrasing it that made her understand it was a good idea. 

 

We are planning to have her go into the interview, and if she has the chance to bring it up at the beginning, she will. If she is asked a question first, she will answer that question, and then add on "...I also think I need to update my DS-260..."

 

Something along the lines of "I need to update my answer in the DS-260. I believe I misunderstood one of the questions asking if I had ever violated a controlled substance law. I thought it meant if I had ever been in any kind of trouble for it which I haven't. But I have ever smoked marijuana in my life, which I now realize could be a violation. I discussed this in my medical exam and the doctor told me he doesn't think I'm an abuser, but I don't want there to be a conflict in my DS-260". 

 

The last part there is what we still aren't quite sure about how to approach - whether to say outright that we want to change it to YES, or if she should ask the CO what they think she should put. Or maybe what he thinks is irrelevant and she needs to make that decision on her own. 

I'm glad your wife is coming around to this thinking, as it seems to be the right approach -- except for the last part.   The interviewing officer is not going to tell her what she should answer on the form -- she needs to decide the correct answer on her own.   She should answer the question truthfully which, based on the question phrasing of "ever"  violating a controlled substance law, the clear answer is "yes".   An officer is more likely to reach the same conclusion as the doctor on her not being an abuser if she is forthcoming, open, and honest about the situation.  I think the only issue would be about how recent the use was -- that might cause concern.  It totally depends now on what the medical report says as to whether she faces a one-year ban or not, as you know.  

 

Contrary to other posters comments, the purpose of the question and the way it is phrased is precisely to get information like the situation in her case out in the open, so it can be properly evaluated and dealt with so it doesn't come back to haunt you in the future .  Although some have said that answering "no" would not be a material misrepresentation -- as there would be no ineligibility since she had no crimInal charges from the marijuana use that would make her ineligible -- that is not completely correct.  Part of a finding of misrepresentation is whether the incorrect answer could be considered to have "cut off a line of inquiry" that could possibly lead to a finding of an inadmissability, which an incorrect answer to this question could certainly do. 

 

While it is unlikely that a misrepresentation would be applied in this case -- since part of the mitigation against such a finding is if the officer gains access to the correct info from another official source, such as the medical report -- it is always better to remove any doubt by correcting the wrong answer.  As pointed out, there is a provision where you can change a misrepresentation through a "timely retraction" of a false statement.  To be "timely", the retraction must occur at the first available oportunity.  In this case, that would appear to be at the beginning of the upcoming visa interview.  Doing so removes any doubt as to whether she was trying to conceal information.

 

This is a very complicated part of immigration law -- hope this explanation makes at least a little sense!  Good luck in your interview.

Edited March 5, 2020 by jan22

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, jan22 said:

Contrary to other posters comments, the purpose of the question and the way it is phrased is precisely to get information like the situation in her case out in the open, so it can be properly evaluated and dealt with so it doesn't come back to haunt you in the future .  Although some have said that answering "no" would not be a material misrepresentation -- as there would be no ineligibility since she had no crimInal charges from the marijuana use that would make her ineligible -- that is not completely correct.  Part of a finding of misrepresentation is whether the incorrect answer could be considered to have "cut off a line of inquiry" that could possibly lead to a finding of an inadmissability, which an incorrect answer to this question could certainly do. 

I actually do agree with you. I can't speak for  others, but I never said it would not be a material misrepresentation...just that given the intent of the question, I don't think it would be treated as a misrep inadmissibility. I think we are on the same page there. It could be if the CO wanted to pursue that path. As such, the best option is to shut down that possible path by correcting the statement on the form.

[MexicoExpat 18]

Thanks everyone for the advice. We have pretty much decided our best path would be to bring it up at the beginning of the interview. 

 

Our only remaining hesitation would be that in the event that the doctor decided she was not an abuser and also decided not to include anything about marijuana use in the report, that we may be inviting more trouble. But I believe it's a very slim chance that it would not be mentioned in the report. 

 

We're also now wondering if it could actually help our case - in a normal situation there's a lot to be said about a person who pro-actively discloses their mistakes and shortcomings - makes them appears a more trustworthy individual all around. 

 

That may be wishful thinking as it sounds like the decision for the 1 year ban mostly comes down to the doctor. But I think a good case has been made for going into the interview and correcting this discrepancy.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Well please do let us know what happens! 

 

Also in my head at least the part about 'do I change it?' was more like 'do I change it or do you (cause I looked online and couldnt find how to edit the ds)' It sort of shifts the purpose of your discussion about this from I need to confess I lied on a form type scenario to a can you help me change this type one. 

[TBoneTX 45,603]

MexicoExpat, I can't come out and say exactly why, but the wisest thing that any VJ member could do is to heed jan22's advice on absolutely any aspect of the consular process.

 

I too am glad that your wife is feeling more comfortable about being forthcoming.  By all means, be sure to return here to let us all know what happened and how things went.  We're all pulling for you.

[MexicoExpat 18]

Thanks everyone. We are hoping for the best, but have accepted the worst - which sounds like is just a 1 year ban as long as she is open about unintentionally providing an incorrect answer on the DS-260. We both legitimately thought it was asking about charges for controlled substances and will be open that the use has occurred in the interview. 

 

Nothing to do now but wait until the interview and see how it goes. 

[SalishSea 17,970]

13 minutes ago, MexicoExpat said:

Thanks everyone. We are hoping for the best, but have accepted the worst - which sounds like is just a 1 year ban as long as she is open about unintentionally providing an incorrect answer on the DS-260. We both legitimately thought it was asking about charges for controlled substances and will be open that the use has occurred in the interview. 

 

Nothing to do now but wait until the interview and see how it goes. 

When is the interview, MexioExpat?

[MexicoExpat 18]

March 30th. 

 

Most people do the medical in Ciudad Juarez a couple days before their interview. Residents of Mexico City and state must do the medical and biometric in Mexico City - conveniently enough, walking distance from our apartment. Given that access is so easy for us, decided to do it well in advance, just in case we were missing any needed documents or anything. 

 

If we could do it all over again, we would have booked it just 2 weeks ahead of the visa interview instead of 5. Enough time to get all this info I've collected in the past two weeks, but not so much that we're just waiting weeks to find out what happens. 

[MexicoExpat 18]

Well on top of all of this, the embassies and consulates in Mexico have just shut down, and I don't think there's any chance they'll be running again for our appointment on the 30th. Still haven't received a cancellation notice though. 

 

It's frustrating that we now will need to wait even longer to know what happens to our fate - but if I understand correctly the 1 year ban starts from the medical exam and not the interview, so if she receives a 1 year ban, it may not even result in an actual delay for us. 

 

Grateful as well that my wife and I are able to be together and are currently healthy in these uncertain times, although I'm unsure if Mexico City is the wisest place to ride this all out. 

 

One big issue on my mind is that since the original interview was before April 15, we wouldn't need 2019 tax returns. 

 

My joint sponsor needs additional time (likely several months) to get their 2019 return together. Even myself, I'm unable to file at this time since the IRS has not yet released form 5471, which I need to file. 

 

I'm wondering if there will be any leniency in these tax returns if our interview is (almost certainly) rescheduled for after April 15th, or if it will just be a hard ad fast "you need 2019 returns past April 15". 

[Boiler 45,735]

Delays can happen for a variety of reasons and I have not seen such leniency in the past.

[MexicoExpat 18]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

Delays can happen for a variety of reasons and I have not seen such leniency in the past.

Hopefully since taxes have been officially delayed, that they would give us leniency up until July 15th. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/17/treasury-and-irs-to-delay-tax-deadline-by-90-days.html

[Boiler 45,735]

3 minutes ago, MexicoExpat said:

Hopefully since taxes have been officially delayed, that they would give us leniency up until July 15th. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/17/treasury-and-irs-to-delay-tax-deadline-by-90-days.html

Did not know that, and yes I would be gob smacked if that did not help.

 

Actually I have been gob smacked before, so whatever the next one is up, would make zero sense for them to want 2019 when they are not due.

[geowrian 22,337]

If you file a valid extension, I believe they can still use the prior year return. YMMV

 

Just as a note, the filing deadline did not change yet. They just adjusted the time period and rules for when they start penalties for failure to file and failure to pay. Technically the returns, as of today, are still due on the same date. As such, that is what I would expect IOs and COs to go by still.