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 14,532]

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

[S2N 15]

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 7,806]

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 15]

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 15]

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