N400: Admitted to Weed during Green Card (was it a crime I was not arrested for?)

[C1322 7]

2 hours ago, garebear397 said:

Admitting to it once, even if granted a green card or extension or whatever afterwards, doesn't some how make it not relevant or mean that you can omit it in the future. My wife overstated a tourist visa by two weeks when she was a teen, she has admitted it about a half dozen times now in different interviews and border crossing and it has never been much of an issue -- but that doesn't mean she can now omit it in future green card renewals or citizenship. 

Folks, OP already submitted his N400, and said responded no to the question. I would recommend OP to seek professional aid, so he/she can make an informed decision. As per mentioned, OP will have the chance to rectify everything he/she wants during the interview. At the end, It's a matter of picking our battles. 

[Ontarkie 14,549]

~~Multiple Posts have been removed for TOS Violation, along with a few posts that quoted the removed posts.~~

[S2N 17]

On 2/4/2025 at 7:30 PM, OldUser said:

May need to consult with a lawyer. But you may not be eligible for citizenship. Marijuana isn't legal on federal level.

Marijuana has special rules in place vs other drugs on the good moral character question. It’s extremely unlikely that trying it 20-something years ago would make someone ineligible for citizenship.

 

If I was OP, I’d mention it in the interview to be safe and explain their confusion, but it’d also probably fall under the "immaterial false statements" from Maslenjak v. United States. For anyone unaware of the context of that case: the wife of a Serbian war criminal lied on her naturalization application/interview about her husband’s status as a war criminal and SCOTUS unanimously ruled that alone wasn’t sufficient to strip her of her naturalized citizenship without the government proving it had an impact on the decision.

 

Yes, tell the truth, mention it in the interview if you feel that the most honest answer is “yes”, but if a conservative Supreme Court sided with a war criminal’s wife on this, I’m going to guess that someone being confused on how to answer a question about smoking pot in their 20s is on solid legal ground.

Edited February 7 by S2N

[OldUser 7,891]

1 minute ago, S2N said:

Marijuana has special rules in place vs other drugs on the good moral character question. It’s extremely unlikely that trying it 20-something years ago would make someone ineligible for citizenship.

 

It's not the act of smoking 20 years ago that could result in N-400 denial, it's omission / minimization / hiding / not disclosing the fact on form.

[S2N 17]

22 minutes ago, OldUser said:

It's not the act of smoking 20 years ago that could result in N-400 denial, it's omission / minimization / hiding / not disclosing the fact on form.

I guess Maslenjak concerned removing naturalization after it’d already been approved, but the case history here contained discussion of this question on the N-400. The only correct answer to it as literally worded is “yes” for anyone filling out the form, which the Chief Justice pointed out in oral arguments — the lawyer from the government agreed with his interpretation that as written it would require disclosing every time you speed and don’t get a ticket.

 

With the new administration who knows how USCIS will look at stuff, but the principle of the law is that immaterial false statements, even if knowingly false, are not bars to citizenship. I think OP would be fine clarifying in the interview their confusion and probably doesn’t need a lawyer, but it never hurts to get one if there’s cause for concern.

 

Also for anyone curious, the oral argument exchange on this was somewhat funny: https://m.soundcloud.com/cnn/maslenjak-v-us-oral-argument-april-26-2017

 

Starts around 25:50

Edited February 7 by S2N

[Left Over 0]

3 hours ago, OldUser said:

It's not the act of smoking 20 years ago that could result in N-400 denial, it's omission / minimization / hiding / not disclosing the fact on form.

 

You're right. I'm more worried about misrepresentation and false testimony.

 

Is it too late to do a FOIA? I heard requesting it now might push my case back to the back of the line. is this true?

 

I know I should have done it before submitting my application but I just learned it was a thing.

Edited February 7 by Left Over

[S2N 17]

1 hour ago, Left Over said:

 

You're right. I'm more worried about misrepresentation and false testimony.

 

Is it too late to do a FOIA? I heard requesting it now might push my case back to the back of the line. is this true?

 

I know I should have done it before submitting my application but I just learned it was a thing.

If it’s something that worries you, disclose it in the interview and say you misunderstood the question. Generally speaking US government officials are good at determining the difference between intentional lying and an honest mistake.

 

And like I said above, that question was mocked by a Supreme Court justice for how ridiculous it is since it would include jaywalking and speeding, which are "offenses" but not crimes. The wording is so broad as to make the only answer yes. You are not the first person to misunderstand that and check no when you’d previously admitted drug use and you won’t be the last. Immigration officers get it’s a weirdly worded question and disclosing it orally will likely be enough, especially since it was decades ago.

 

If you’re going to keep worrying though, it might be worth talking to a lawyer to ease your anxiety. I don’t think this is that complicated, but there’s value in it if it puts you at ease with a course of action.

Edited February 7 by S2N

[Maxheadspace 48]

If you answer “yes” to any of the items you will be given the opportunity to explain the crime. Having used marijuana once more than 20 years ago is not going to raise an eyebrow considering it’s legal in half the states. However, falsifying your application may have dire consequences for you and your citizenship application. I think you know the answer. 

[Maxheadspace 48]

On 2/8/2025 at 2:05 AM, S2N said:

Marijuana has special rules in place vs other drugs on the good moral character question. It’s extremely unlikely that trying it 20-something years ago would make someone ineligible for citizenship.

 

If I was OP, I’d mention it in the interview to be safe and explain their confusion, but it’d also probably fall under the "immaterial false statements" from Maslenjak v. United States. For anyone unaware of the context of that case: the wife of a Serbian war criminal lied on her naturalization application/interview about her husband’s status as a war criminal and SCOTUS unanimously ruled that alone wasn’t sufficient to strip her of her naturalized citizenship without the government proving it had an impact on the decision.

 

Yes, tell the truth, mention it in the interview if you feel that the most honest answer is “yes”, but if a conservative Supreme Court sided with a war criminal’s wife on this, I’m going to guess that someone being confused on how to answer a question about smoking pot in their 20s is on solid legal ground.

Slightly different situation here since the OP does not yet have citizenship, but is applying for citizenship. It’s splitting hairs, though, and I agree that having used marijuana more than 20 years ago likely will not impact his/her application. 

[S2N 17]

2 hours ago, Maxheadspace said:

Slightly different situation here since the OP does not yet have citizenship, but is applying for citizenship. It’s splitting hairs, though, and I agree that having used marijuana more than 20 years ago likely will not impact his/her application. 

Yeah, agreed the situation is different (revoking for a non-material lie is different than not granting for a non-material misleading statement.)

 

I did think it worth noting though that the question has drawn ridicule from the Chief Justice of the United States for essentially being a gotcha question that has no right answer. It’s not going to be updated anytime soon, but if everyone interpreted it as literally as USCIS wants, everyone would have to check yes and that’s also clearly not within the intent of the INA/how courts read the situation.

 

All that to say — I think OP is going to be fine and just need to verbally mention it at the interview.

Edited Monday at 05:07 PM by S2N

[OldUser 7,891]

12 minutes ago, S2N said:

Yeah, agreed the situation is different (revoking for a non-material lie is different than not granting for a non-material misleading statement.)

 

I did think it worth noting though that the question has drawn ridicule from the Chief Justice of the United States for essentially being a gotcha question that has no right answer. It’s not going to be updated anytime soon, but if everyone interpreted it as literally as USCIS wants, everyone would have to check yes and that’s also clearly not within the intent of the INA/how courts read the situation.

 

All that to say — I think OP is going to be fine and just need to verbally mention it at the interview.

Only an unverified rumour, but I heard this question exists for a reason. If anytime in the future US needs to denaturalize somebody, this question and answers to it could be used as a convenient pretext.

 

Remember, Al Capone served his time for tax evation and not the insane crimes that were committed including murders.

 

Edited Monday at 05:18 PM by OldUser

[Left Over 0]

Thanks guys for all your insights.

 

What's the proper way to handle the situation during the interview? Should I get ahead of the officer and blurt it out or wait to be asked about it?

Edited Monday at 11:41 PM by Left Over

[S2N 17]

13 hours ago, OldUser said:

Only an unverified rumour, but I heard this question exists for a reason. If anytime in the future US needs to denaturalize somebody, this question and answers to it could be used as a convenient pretext.

 

Remember, Al Capone served his time for tax evation and not the insane crimes that were committed including murders.

 

Oh, it’s absolutely the reason why it’s there. SCOTUS just called their bluff on it and ruled that approach unconstitutional so it’s essentially a meaningless question once you actually are naturalized since there’s a recent Supreme Court precedent ruling against USCIS/DOJ.

 

But that’s the kicker — you have to get naturalized first and no one really wants to be the test case for it being an unconstitutionally vague question before the point of naturalization…

 

6 hours ago, Left Over said:

Thanks guys for all your insights.

 

What's the proper way to handle the situation during the interview? Should I get ahead of the officer and blurt it out or wait to be asked about it?

If they go over it while reviewing the form mention it then.