Smoke and Mirrors: Marijuana’s Catastrophic Effect on Immigration Status

Quickly-evolving marijuana laws are making many Americans optimistic that legalization is on the horizon. Just across the border, the legal use of recreational marijuana in Canada may be authorized later this year. Even so, a foreign national’s chances of staying in the states could go up in flames after a marijuana-related offense. Similarly, a foreign national may be denied entry into the U.S. for marijuana use or marijuana-related offenses.

The gradual legalization of marijuana in the U.S. is creating a false sense of security for noncitizens, who might be under the impression that using marijuana in accordance with state law is harmless. Don’t be fooled: although more states are jumping on the bandwagon of decriminalizing marijuana – marijuana is still illegal under federal law and for immigration purposes federal law is all that matters. Violating federal marijuana laws has serious implications for foreign nationals, affecting admissibility to the U.S. and the ability to apply for naturalization just to name a few. Notably, a noncitizen who admits to an immigration official that they possessed marijuana can be found inadmissible, denied entry to the U.S., or have their application for lawful status or even citizenship denied. Depending on the circumstances, admitting to marijuana possession, can make an LPR deportable – even if permitted under state law and/or the individual was never convicted of a crime.

As of January 2018, the use of medical marijuana is legal in 29 states as well as the District of Columbia. Recreational use has been legalized in the District Columbia and nine states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. While these state laws legalizing marijuana provide valuable benefits, they have proven to be a trap for unsuspecting immigrants. For example, foreign nationals living in one of these states may readily admit to immigration officials that they have used or possessed marijuana under the assumption that it is safe to do so.

According to a report by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) (as well as our experience), in some states including Washington State “ICE, CIS and CBP agents are aggressively asking noncitizens if they ever have possessed marijuana, in an attempt to hold people in admissible.” Accordingly, before crossing the border and potentially being interviewed by CBP, it is imperative that noncitizens are aware that immigration law treats any marijuana-related activity as a crime, with harsh penalties, even if it is permitted under state law.

Understanding Federal Marijuana Laws

Possessing, giving away, selling, cultivating, importing or exporting marijuana are all considered federal offenses. Working in the marijuana industry – even if it’s a state-licensed operation – counts as drug trafficking. Offenses are applicable to both recreational and medical marijuana because there are no exceptions under federal law for medical or other use. (A medical marijuana card is not a “get out of jail free” card.)

Using or being under the influence of marijuana, as well as possessing paraphernalia, are not federal offenses. Even so, committing one of the aforementioned transgressions will cause problems for noncitizens trying to cross the border. Notably, noncitizens who admit to using recreational or medical marijuana in accordance to state law can be found inadmissible to the U.S. under immigration law.

Consequences of Marijuana for Noncitizens

Potential consequences of marijuana for noncitizens include inadmissibility, removability and ineligibility for naturalization. Specifically:

• A criminal conviction for a state or federal marijuana offense can make a noncitizen both deportable and inadmissible. (For reference deportability refers to a noncitizen being removable from the U.S. whereas inadmissibility refers to a noncitizen being ineligible to enter the U.S.)
• Admitting to the commission of a state or federal marijuana offense can render a noncitizen inadmissible to the U.S. even without a conviction. The state laws legalizing marijuana have led to noncitizens mistakenly believing that it is okay to admit to marijuana use or possession when questioned by immigration officials causing irreparable harm to their ability to freely enter the U.S.
• Noncitizens may be found inadmissible to the U.S. if immigration officials have “reason to believe” the individual participated in drug trafficking – this can include working legally in the marijuana industry. A noncitizen may also be found inadmissible if within the last five years, he or she has benefited from such trafficking by an inadmissible spouse or parent.
• Admitting to the use of marijuana – even without a conviction – may render a noncitizen inadmissible or deportable for being an addict or abuser pursuant to U.S. immigration law.
• Committing a marijuana-related offense or admitting to marijuana use may result in a U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) being temporarily or permanently ineligible for naturalization. Specifically, an applicant must establish “good moral character” in order to become a citizen and committing a marijuana-related offense does not constitute “good moral character.” Inadmissibility resulting from an offense will count against an LPR. In some cases, it may bar an LPR from applying naturalization for a specified period of time or indefinitely.

As long as federal marijuana laws reign supreme, foreign nationals must remain vigilant and exercise extreme caution with marijuana including disclosing marijuana use – even if permissible under state law – at ports of entry, before USCIS in applications or interviews, to consular officials, at consular visa medical appointments or in removal proceedings.

Some practical advice for noncitizens and marijuana:

• Simply put: stay away from marijuana if you are not a U.S. citizen.
• Any photos or text related to marijuana need to be removed from your phone and social media accounts.
• Do not carry or display any materials that refer to marijuana (for example, a bumper sticker or a T-shirt) when traveling to the U.S.
• If you have ever used marijuana or worked in the industry do not depart the U.S. or apply for U.S. immigration status or naturalization without first speaking with an experienced immigration attorney.
• Before obtaining a medical marijuana card speak with an experienced immigration attorney.
• If you have a medical marijuana card, do not have it on you while traveling to the U.S.
• This should be a given, but should be emphasized: don’t bring marijuana with you when traveling to the U.S.
• Don’t discuss any conduct involving marijuana with immigration, border or law enforcement authorities. (The only exception is if your immigration attorney has advised that this is safe.)

Generally speaking, those who have possessed, used, or worked in the marijuana industry should not travel outside of the United States. This applies to anyone who is in the U.S. and is not a citizen – permanent residents included. Departing the U.S. and subsequently returning can put the noncitizen in a compromising position if a CBP officer questions them about marijuana. If questioned, the best option is to decline to answer, then contact an attorney.

If you need legal advice regarding marijuana and its effect on your immigration status, contact us at Serotte Reich: 716-854-7525 or www.srwborderlawyers.com/contact to schedule a consulation.

Controversial “Pre-Clearance Act” Expands Power of American Border Guards on Canadian Soil

A controversial Canadian bill that expands the powers of U.S. border officers working in pre-clearance zones on Canadian soil was recently given Royal Assent and is set to become law. Championed by Canada’s centrist Liberal Party, Bill C-23—commonly referred to as the Pre-Clearance Act—has been criticized as overly broad, with the potential to open the door to human rights violations.

In May 2017, a national coalition of 43 Canadian civil society organizations called the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group voiced their concerns about Bill C-23 to Parliament. They questioned the purpose of the bill, noting that no evidence has been presented to the public that security measures need to be increased. The ICLMG’s brief and recommendations can be found here.

Broadly speaking, C-23 increases the powers afforded to American border officers working in Canadian pre-clearance zones and eliminates crucial existing restrictions. Key concerns raised by Canadian immigration attorneys include:

• U.S. border guards will be authorized to conduct strip searches and internal cavity searches when Canadian officers are “unable or unwilling” to do so. The broad language used appears to authorize U.S. border officials to conduct these searches even when Canadian officers deem them unnecessary or inappropriate.
• U.S. border guards will be allowed to carry firearms. They have not been permitted to do so in pre-clearance zones under previous legislation.
• Should a Canadian traveler attempt to enter the U.S. but change their mind for any reason, including feelings of discomfort or concern about their interactions with border officials, U.S. officials will be permitted to detain and interrogate them. Previously, the traveler would have been able to withdraw and return to Canada at any time. C-23 also eliminates a provision that barred U.S. border officials from using a citizen’s withdrawal from pre-clearance procedures as “reasonable grounds for suspicion” to detain them or work with Canadian officials to take steps like arresting the traveler.

The above issues are particularly concerning because, although the bill states that U.S. officials must still act in accordance with Canadian laws, it provides no clear legal remedy to travelers whose rights have been violated. Instead, according to the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the bill “provides explicit blanket immunity” to pre-clearance officers, and only allows travelers to hold the U.S. government responsible in cases of property damage, injury, or death. Notably, there is no legal mechanism through which Canadians can hold U.S. officers responsible for discrimination, despite a recent rise in allegations of discrimination at the border. Under Bill C-23, U.S. officers in pre-clearance zones would be “virtually unaccountable,” said Vance Langford, chair of the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.

The full text of the finalized bill is available on the Canadian Parliament’s website.

If you have questions about the provisions or implications of Bill C-23, including how it may affect your ability to enter the U.S. temporarily or permanently, please reach out to us. We look forward to assisting you with your immigration matter.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Strikes Down “Crime of Violence” Definition as Vague

In the much-anticipated Sessions v. Dimaya case, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, invalidated a provision of federal law requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of a “crime of violence” holding that it is too vague to enforce. This decision will limit the mandatory deportation of individuals convicted of certain crimes.

This ruling applies to a category of crimes that carry a prison term of more than a year, but do not easily fit in an extensive list of “aggravated felonies” that could get any noncitizen deported – lawful permanent residents included. The length of time they have lived in the U.S. is inconsequential.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defined a “crime of violence” as an offense “that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in course of committing the offense.” This loosely-defined term could be used to include burglary (whether or not it actually included violence) as well as possession of certain “dangerous weapons,” even if they are kept under lock and key and do not function.

Speaking regarding the impact of the ruling, Dimaya’s attorney, E. Joshua Rosenkranz states, “This decision is of enormous consequence, striking down a flawed law that applies in a vast range of criminal and immigration cases and which has resulted in many thousands of immigrants being deported for decades in violation of their due process rights,” said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for the immigrant at the center of the case.

If you have a criminal conviction on your record and want to find out more about the way this decision will affect your case, please contact us on our website or by phone at (716) 854-7525. This ruling has the potential to work in your favor.

USCIS updates plan for L-1 pilot program

In a previous post, we reported on a pilot program for Canadian L-1 visas that would temporarily affect applications presented at the border for adjudication at the Blaine, Washington state port of entry. U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has provided new details on the program, which is a joint initiative by (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It will only be conducted at the Blaine, Washington port of entry, and is intended to identify procedural issues and increase efficiency.

USCIS has confirmed that the pilot program will last for six months (April 30 to October 31, 2018) and further explains the process, according to a press release on the agency’s website:

• First, Canadian L-1 petitioners will submit Form I-129 and supporting evidence to the USCIS California Service Center. Fees also will be submitted to USCIS.
• USCIS emphasizes that this submission – and all correspondence related to the L-1 application – must include a cover sheet that says “Canadian L.” This is supposed to “ensure quick identification.”
• The USCIS California Service System will issue the Form I-797C receipt notice and make a decision.
• If a request for evidence (RFE) is necessary, it will be sent to the applicant by USCIS.
• After approval from USCIS, applicants must bring a copy of the approval notice to present to CBP officers at the Blaine, Washington port of entry.
• It should be noted that “CBP will continue to make the final determination on whether a Canadian L-1 applicant is admissible to the United States.”

USCIS adds that participation in the pilot program is optional for Canadian L-1 applicants at the Blaine, Washington, port of entry. CBP officers at the Blaine POE will accept the petition, but it will be adjudicated at the nearest Class A Port of Entry. (The closest ones in Washington State are at Point Roberts, Sumas, and preclearance at the Vancouver International Airport.)

Petitioners participating in the pilot program are “strongly encouraged” by CBP and USCIS to file Canadian L-1 applications with USCIS “as far in advance of travel as possible.”