S Folinsky

212(h) provides for a waiver for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana and extreme hardship to the US relative. FWIW, "extreme hardship" is actually a lower grade of "hardship" in the statutory scheme of things.

BTW, Phil & Shayna had conflated the 212(g) and 212(h) waivers -- both of which are made on the same form -- 212(g) does not require "extreme hardship." However, the instructions from the consulate are not as clear as they can be.

materialcontroller

The only distinction made is between non-immigrant visas and immigrant visas, and there is a different approach to ineligibility and waivers between the two. There is no distinction made between the varying classes of visa within those headings (ie B1/B2, H-1B, IR-1, J1, K1, L1 etc).

What does the annotation on your current waiver say? It should read something along the lines of "212(d)(3)(A) waiver of XXXXXXXXXX granted". The XXXXXXXXXX is the section of the INA that you contravened and forms the basis of your ineligibility.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume you were found inadmissible under INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv) - "Drug abuser or addict, one who has engaged in 'non-medical use of a controlled substance'". If you look at this section of the pdf in that link it shows that a 212(d)(3)(A) waiver is available for non-immigrant visas. However for immigrant visas it notes the following:

Looking at 9.FAM 40.11 N13.2 here - http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86936.pdf, a "CLASS A" inadmissbility finding seems to relate to infectious diseases and so won't help you.

Even more bad news is found in the same document under N12.7 which states:

In my opinion, you really need a very good immigration attorney.

materialcontroller

As always, you raise interesting and excellently made points Mr Folinsky. Without knowing the exact annotation on OPs current NIV waiver (and therefore the circumstances of his ineligibility), any advice we offer at this stage can only be speculative at best.

chippy

Hmmm...That doesn't sound good at all. I do note that it says, ' Do not issue an immigrant visa (IV) to an alien you determine to be a drug abuser...' This to me suggest, that they would first determine whether I'm a druggy before application of this rule...?

chippy

OK. On the visa itself it just says, "Annotation: ARO Response Ineligibility Overcome'. That's all it says.

But on a page in my passport the original customs officer, at the time of banning me has hand written, 'CFR 217,4 (A) (1)'. I have no idea what this means or refers to.

fatbrit

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title08/8-....21.0.1.4.html

Noorah101

Here's a similar thread, it seems: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=686071

Rene

chippy

Thankyou Fatbrit. That is most appreciated. So, if I'm reading this correctly this does not actually make a specific reference to drugs. But 217 is still connected to 212 it seems. So is this good, bad or neither?

There are more numbers written underneath..A#88xxxxxx BLA/PDE #223D...I'm guessing that they may be ID numbers of the officer or something like that...?

chippy

Interesting...I wonder if Colin got his visa in the end?

Noorah101

BLA might mean "Blaine, WA" if that's what airport you were in?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88037.pdf

The A#xxxxxxxx is your Alien Registration number...since you now have a record, you also have an A number. By the way, that is personal information on you, so I've removed some of the numbers, it's not good to post that on the internet.

Not sure what PDE #223D is, but could be a badge number for the POE officer.

Rene

S Folinsky

I do note the qualifying language, but I want to emphasize for others that one should never make "assumptions" -- it often gets one in trouble.

On the subject of assumptions, it is an interesting exercise to Google "green leafy substance." This is one of the links that shows up. I wonder what kind of training OP has had to accurately determine that the joint actually contained marijuana?

S Folinsky

I know that some people consider it rude to suggest "looking it up." That said, many posters in these forums like follow-up posts on what happened. The final result often helps others. FWIW, one can click on the poster's name and then click "find more posts" by the poster.

Of course, it has been noted that the proverb of "Teach a man to fish ..." has been replaced with "give a man a fish, make it illegal to fish." I will admit that I am old fashioned on that score.

materialcontroller

They don't need to determine whether or not you are a druggy. You already did that part for them when you admitted to smoking weed in the past. Strictly speaking, somebody who has smoked weed is a "drug abuser".

ian-mstm

I agree that someone who has smoked weed is a drug user, but you'd need to have smoked it at least twice to be considered an abuser! Just my $0.02 worth!

Ian

materialcontroller

I agree with you Ian. But you and me aren't making the rules unfortunately...