 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsAustralia and NZCanadaUSAUSA Marriage Base ImmigrationKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Immigration Forum / USA Marriage Base / March 2006waiver & exclution question
I have a question regarding grounds for exclusion. I am Canadian, and have a record for minor possession of marijuana (I have to use the I-192 waiver to enter the US). If I marry a US citizen will this make it impossible to obtain permanent residency? Thanks in advance. > I have a question regarding grounds for exclusion. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks in advance. No. Ian > No. > > Ian Yes, David > I was wrong -- I need to learn to read the question! Don't Know, Matt. > I have a question regarding grounds for exclusion. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks in advance. Hi: The marriage will not make it impossible, but, assuming you charactarize your conviction correctly, that will.  SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > The marriage will not make it impossible, but, assuming you charactarize > your conviction correctly, that will. My conviction will make it impossible? What about waivers, appeals? > > The marriage will not make it impossible, but, assuming you > > charactarize > > your conviction correctly, that will. > > My conviction will make it impossible? What about waivers, appeals? You should read more carefully. Mr. F.'s comment is a cautionary tale... how you phrase the "conviction" on the application will determine whether or not you can become a PR. Ian > You should read more carefully. Mr. F.'s comment is a cautionary > tale... how you phrase the "conviction" on the application will > determine whether or not you can become a PR. > > Ian Out of practice on my Grauniad crossword stuck in this wilderness, I'm afraid. > > You should read more carefully. Mr. F.'s comment is a cautionary > > tale... how you phrase the "conviction" on the application will > > determine whether or not you can become a PR. > > > > Ian I was under the impression that the waiver was for a criminal offence which was tried in the courts. Not just an admission of being in the presence of marijuana at one time. Doesn't the waiver cover "conviction" of posession for under 30 grams of marijuana? > > > You should read more carefully. Mr. F.'s comment is a cautionary > > > tale... how you phrase the "conviction" on the application will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Doesn't the waiver cover "conviction" of posession for under 30 grams > of marijuana? Well I thought it did, but Mr. F is the one who *should* know. Unfortunately, he delights in speaking in tongues, so you often need to read between the lines. > Well I thought it did, but Mr. F is the one who *should* know. > Unfortunately, he delights in speaking in tongues, so you often need > to read between the lines. Hi: I was speaking in "immigration" and I understand that may seem like tongues at times. Section 212(a) of the Immigration & Nationality Act covers grounds of inadmissability while 237(a) are the grounds of "deportability." For whatever reason, they are NOT congruent. When it comes to drugs -- there is a waiver for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana -- but that applies on the "deportation" end -- e.g. convictions AFTER admission. [BTW, one of the grounds of deportation is that alien was inadmissible at time of admission]. On the inadmissiblity grounds, a "conviction" or "admission" of a drug related crime is a ground of exclusion. When it comes to trafficking, "reason to believe" will do the trick, even absent a convction [e.g. a "Narco-trafficer" who has cops and judges on his payroll so to avoid convictions will be barred]. When it comes to these type of cases, the bar becomes "loophole" searchers. SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > When it comes to these type of cases, the bar becomes "loophole" > searchers. Okay to be blunt: should the OP retain an attorney, or not waste his time? > Okay to be blunt: > > should the OP retain an attorney, or not waste his time? Hi: He may want to retain an attorney to review the records. This is one of those cases where he will either be just fine and totally SOL [or there may be fight to demonstrate he is on the "fine" side of the line and not the SOL side]. If he is firmly ensconsed on the SOL side, then he may just want to forget about it. BTW, an old case of a person in a similar situation and what a lawyer can sometimes do: http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/spring1998/john.lennon/ SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > When it comes to these type of cases, the bar becomes "loophole" > searchers. Thx for the clarification -- it's making a little more sense to me now. On the loopholes, I guess what the OP might like to know is whether it would be a worthwhile bet to engage an attorney to try to sort this out for him, or whether he would be better off spending his dosh on making a life for himself and his beloved outside the land o' the free and home of the brave? > You should read more carefully. Mr. F.'s comment is a cautionary > tale... how you phrase the "conviction" on the application will > determine whether or not you can become a PR. > > Ian I am reading this as "don't do anything without getting advice from a competent immigration attorney first"... > Hi: > > The marriage will not make it impossible, but, assuming you > charactarize your conviction correctly, that will. There's no waiver available for possession (no intent to distribute)? Wow. Harsh beans. > There's no waiver available for possession (no intent to distribute)? > Wow. Harsh beans. Always thought there was a waiver possible for one charge of possession < 30g. > There's no waiver available for possession (no intent to distribute)? > Wow. Harsh beans. Hi: No waiver on the inadmissability end of things. However, there is a waiver on the "deportable" end of things for minor possession charges. On the inadmissiblity end of things -- there IS a difference between simple possession and distribution/sales -- the former needs a 'conviction' while distribtuion/sales needs only 'reason to believe.' You seem to be imposing your own value system which differs from Congress -- robbing a grocery store can be forgiven, but marijuana possession cannot. SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization >> I have a question regarding grounds for exclusion. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >The marriage will not make it impossible, LOL :-) MH |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.