immigrants and marijuana

Practice Advisory | May 2021

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Table of Contents

I. Overview: Immigrants and Legalized Marijuana .................................................................. 3

II. Federal and State Marijuana Laws ....................................................................................... 4

III. Removal Grounds and Good Moral Character Bars Triggered by Marijuana ..................... 5

A. Conviction ....................................................................................................................... 5

B. Admitting Commission of a State or Federal Drug Offense ........................................... 7

C. Immigration Authorities Gain “Reason to Believe”

the Person Participated in Trafficking ............................................................................. 8

D. Lawful Employment in the Cannabis Industry ................................................................ 8

E. Finding of Addiction or Abuse ......................................................................................... 9

F. Only the Above Cause Inadmissibility ............................................................................. 10

IV. Defend Immigrants from Becoming Inadmissible for

Admitting to Marijuana Conduct............................................................................................ 10

A. Inform the Client about the Law ...................................................................................... 10

B. Instruct the Client Not to Answer the Question; Asserting the Fifth Amendment .......... 11

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA

By Kathy Brady, Zachary Nightingale, and Matt Adams

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Table of Contents (Cont’d)

C. Argue that a Prior Statement by the Client Was Not a Qualifying “Admission” ............. 12

1. Voluntary Admission of Facts that Constitute the Elements of an Offense,

After the Official Has Explained the Elements.

2. Exception: Conduct Charged in Criminal Court If Result was Less Than a

Conviction

3. Exception: Admission of Conduct Committed While a Minor

D. Use, as Opposed to Possession, is not a Federal Crime ............................................... 13

V. Risks and Defense Strategies in Different Contexts ............................................................ 14

A. Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing ............................................................. 14

B. Naturalization ................................................................................................................... 15

C. At the Border .................................................................................................................... 16

D. Removal Proceedings: LPR Cancellation of Removal

and Other Defensive Relief ............................................................................................. 17

VI. Is Your State Definition of Marijuana Broader than the Federal Definition,

and Therefore Not a Federal Controlled Substance Offense? ............................................ 20

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

I. Overview: Immigrants and Legalized Marijuana

As of May 2021, 36 states

and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Of

these, 18 states

and the District of Columbia also have legalized recreational marijuana for

adults. Noncitizens residing in these states may reasonably think that using “legal” marijuana

in accordance with state law will not hurt their immigration status, or their prospects for getting

lawful status. Unfortunately, that is wrong. For immigration purposes, it is federal law that

controls, and it remains a federal offense to possess marijuana.

In particular, a noncitizen who admits to an immigration official that they possessed marijuana

can be found inadmissible, denied entry into the United States, or have their application for

lawful status or naturalization denied. Depending on the circumstances, it can make a lawful

permanent resident deportable. This is true even if the conduct was permitted under state law,

the person never was convicted of a crime, and the conduct took place in their own home.

State laws legalizing marijuana provide many benefits, but unfortunately, they also are a trap

for unwary immigrants. Believing that they have done nothing wrong, immigrants may readily

admit to officials that they possessed marijuana. In some states, such as Washington, ICE,

CIS, and/or CBP agents have aggressively asked noncitizens if they ever have possessed

marijuana, in an attempt to find people inadmissible. In other states, such as California, CIS

does not appear to be doing this, although CBP officials at border and internal checkpoints are.

This Advisory will review the laws and key defense strategies. The very best strategy is to

educate noncitizens ahead of time – individually with clients, and also with the community.

Advocates can distribute community flyers, talk to local groups, share information through

ethnic media including newspapers, radio and television, reach out to past clients, and employ

other strategies. The message is simple: Immigration law treats any marijuana-related activity

as a crime, with harsh immigration penalties, even if it is permitted under state law.

The advice is:

• Stay away from marijuana until you are a U.S. citizen.

• If you truly need medical marijuana, get a legal consult.

• Do not carry marijuana, a medical marijuana card, or marijuana stickers, t-shirts, etc.

Remove any text or photos relating to marijuana from your social media and phone.

• If you have used marijuana, or worked in the industry, get a legal consult before leaving the

United States or applying for naturalization or immigration status.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

• Never discuss conduct involving marijuana with immigration, border, consular, or law

enforcement authorities -- unless your immigration attorney has advised that this is safe.

This advisory uses the terms “cannabis,” “marijuana” and “marihuana” interchangeably, since

different statutes use different terms although they all refer to the same plant. Note, however,

that state and federal definitions can differ regarding which parts of the plant they include. The

federal definition of “marihuana” excludes hemp and mature stalks, whereas some state

definitions include one or both of these. The difference may support an immigration defense.

See Part VI, below.

Possible Changes in Federal Law. As of May 2021, there is some possibility that this year

Congress will remove marijuana from federal drug schedules. That would prevent new conduct

and convictions relating to marijuana from being an immigration problem, because marijuana

would no longer be a federally-defined controlled substance. Congress also could include

retroactive provisions to protect immigrants with past conduct or convictions relating to

marijuana. In 2020, the House passed the MORE Act, including these provisions, and a similar

bill is being introduced in the Senate. In light of this, if there is no better option for a case,

consider the “wait, litigate, vacate” options. Wait to file a problematic affirmative case until we

have more information; keep litigating valid claims in an already existing case, which also will

keep it alive in case there is change in the law; and use this time to investigate obtaining a

vacatur based on legal error, to eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes.

II. Federal and State Marijuana Laws

State laws that legalize marijuana fall into two categories. State medical marijuana laws

typically require the person to have a doctor’s order. They permit buying, owning, using, and

often growing a small amount of marijuana, but do not permit giving away, selling (without a

license), or other conduct. State recreational marijuana laws don’t require a doctor’s order, but

do require the person to be an adult. With some restrictions, they may permit buying, owning,

using, growing, and giving away a small amount of marijuana, but not selling (without a

license) or other conduct. States may also license businesses and other entities, and their

employees, to engage in regulated commerce involving marijuana.

In contrast, federal law has no marijuana exceptions for medical or other use. It is a federal

offense to possess, give away, sell, cultivate, import or export marijuana. This includes any

activity, commercial or otherwise, involving almost any part (see Part VI, below) or derivative of

the plant. However, using or being under the influence of a controlled substance, and

possessing paraphernalia, are not federal offenses (see Part IV.D, below).

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

One does not need to be on federal property or travel between states to be guilty of a federal

drug crime. The Supreme Court held that even growing and using a marijuana plant at home

for medical purposes, in accordance with state law, is an activity that is regulated by federal

law because it may affect interstate commerce.

This is why even conduct like lawfully (under

state law) possessing a small amount of marijuana within one’s own home is a federal drug

offense.

Despite the fact that possession of marijuana for personal use is a federal crime, there have

been few recent federal criminal prosecutions for such conduct. Since 2014, Congress has

passed appropriations riders that bar the Department of Justice from using any federal funds to

bring criminal prosecutions based on conduct that is permitted by state medical marijuana

laws. This funding prohibition effectively bars federal prosecution. See discussion in U.S. v.

McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2016). This rider must be continually renewed in

various budget bills. It likely will be renewed in 2021, and possibly expanded to include state

recreational laws, not just medical.

Significantly, the appropriations rider does not prohibit Department of Homeland Security from

imposing severe penalties under civil immigration law on those who have used medical or

recreational marijuana in accordance with state law. Noncitizens who formally admit to using

medical or recreational marijuana in accordance with state law, and even those who merely

have worked in the industry, can be found “inadmissible” under immigration laws. See next

section.

III. Removal Grounds and Good Moral Character Bars Triggered by

Marijuana

A. Conviction Can Make a Noncitizen Deportable, Inadmissible,

Temporarily Barred from Establishing Good Moral Character,

and/or an Aggravated Felon

A conviction relating to marijuana (as it is federally defined) can have serious immigration

consequences.

• A conviction relating to marijuana can cause deportability under the controlled substance

ground. There is one exception: one or more convictions that arise from a single incident

involving possession of 30 grams or less for personal use, or certain closely related

offenses, does not cause deportability.

• The conviction can cause inadmissibility under the controlled substance ground. There is

no 30-grams exception.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

A lawful permanent resident who is convicted of possessing 30 grams or less of

marijuana is not deportable, but is inadmissible. They are safe if they remain in the

United States, but if they travel abroad, upon their return they can be found to be

seeking a new admission at the border under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) and found

inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2). They can be excluded unless they qualify for

and are granted some waiver or relief. If instead they are mistakenly allowed to re-

enter the United States without this procedure, they can be charged with being

deportable for having been inadmissible at last entry under INA § 237(a)(1). Always

check for travel if a permanent resident has been convicted of a marijuana offense.

• Under INA § 101(f)(3), a person cannot establish good moral character (GMC) if, during the

time for which GMC must be shown, they fit the description in the controlled substance

inadmissibility ground. In that case they may begin a new GMC period as of the date that

they committed the offense that later they were convicted of (or admitted). This is a

temporary or “conditional” rather than a permanent bar to establishing GMC; a new period

of GMC can begin to accrue after the date the offense was committed. Unlike the controlled

substance inadmissibility ground, the GMC bar does provide an exception for a single

offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

• A “drug trafficking” aggravated felony includes a conviction relating to trafficking as that is

generally defined (e.g., sale, possession for sale of marijuana), as well as conviction of

certain federal drug felonies and analogous state offenses. INA § 101(a)(43)(B). The latter

includes, e.g., conviction of cultivation or manufacture, including growing a small amount of

marijuana for one’s own use.

Conviction for distribution without remuneration of (giving

away) a controlled substance is an aggravated felony as a federal analogue, except this

does not apply to giving away a “small amount” of marijuana. That offense is punished as a

misdemeanor under federal law, and so it is not an aggravated felony as a federal

analogue.

• Generally, the BIA has held that sale and even giving away a controlled substance is a

crime involving moral turpitude.

However, given that 36 states have legalized sale of

recreational and/or medical marijuana, advocates should push back against charges that

sale or giving away marijuana is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Convictions and Post-Conviction Relief. Federal immigration law has its own standard for

evaluating when a criminal court disposition is a “conviction.” For example, the term conviction

does not include juvenile delinquency adjudications or, according to the BIA, a conviction that

is on direct appeal of right, but it does include most diversion programs that require a guilty

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

plea, even if no conviction is found to exist under state law.

See INA § 101(a)(48)(A) and

ILRC resources.

Once a conviction exists, it can be eliminated for immigration purposes only by a criminal court

order vacating it based on legal or procedural error.

The two exceptions to this rule are that

convictions for purposes of DACA, and, in the Ninth Circuit only, certain minor drug convictions

from on or before July 14, 2011, may be eliminated by rehabilitative relief (which immigration

authorities may call “expungements”) that are based not on error but on, e.g., completing

probation or other conditions.

The fact that a state later legalizes conduct involving marijuana does not mean that the person

no longer has a prior state conviction for that conduct. Some states now provide ways to

eliminate prior marijuana convictions, and even arrange for mass expungements or sealings of

records. However, immigration authorities are likely to not give effect to these dispositions,

unless they are based on a finding of legal or procedural error. The ILRC is available to advise

immigration groups and state policymakers on how to try to make such changes benefit all

state residents, including noncitizens.

B. Inadmissible for Admitting Commission of a State or Federal Drug

Offense; Conditional Bar to Establishing Good Moral Character

Unlike the deportation ground, the controlled substance inadmissibility ground is triggered by a

conviction, or an admission of conduct without a conviction. INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The

admission also is a conditional bar to establishing good moral character (GMC) under INA §

101(f)(3). The GMC period stops as of the date of the latest conduct to which the person

admitted. (See further description of good moral character in Part A, above).

A danger posed by state-legalized marijuana is that immigrants have every reason to believe

that possessing marijuana is entirely legal. They may be surrounded by billboards and bus

signs advertising home delivery. They may try “legal” marijuana when they would not have

used an “illegal” drug. They may wrongly believe that it is safe to disclose this “lawful” conduct

to federal officials; in some cases, they are trapped by aggressive USCIS or border official

questioning. Part IV of this Advisory will discuss how to defend against this. Significantly, the

person’s verbal statement will not cause inadmissibility as an “admission” unless it meets

certain requirements – for example, the person must have voluntarily admitted all of the

elements of the offense, after they were explained. A discretionary waiver under INA § 212(h)

may be available to the person, but only if they admitted to a single instance involving 30

grams or less of marijuana.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

A formal admission might not be required to be a basis for denying naturalization. According to

the USCIS Policy Manual, admission of conduct (and employment in the industry, see below)

is a bar to establishing good moral character required for naturalization, even if it is legal under

state law. While the Policy Manual acknowledges that a qualifying conviction or admission is

required for a conditional bar, it also provides that “even if an applicant does not have a

conviction or make a valid admission to a marijuana-related offense, he or she may be unable

to meet the burden of proof to show that he or she has not committed such an offense.” This

appears to assert that to establish good moral character, one must establish lack of conduct

involving marijuana. See Policy Manual, Volume 12, Chapter 5, Part C.2, “Conditional GMC

Bar Applies Regardless of State Law Decriminalizing Marijuana.” (2019).

C. Inadmissible if Immigration Authorities Gain “Reason to Believe” the

Person Participated in Trafficking; Conditional Bar to Establishing Good

Moral Character

A noncitizen is inadmissible if they have participated in, aided, abetted, etc. the trafficking of a

federally-defined controlled substance such as marijuana. Here, trafficking means for some

commercial purpose, not sharing for free. A noncitizen also is inadmissible if within the last five

years they have benefitted from such trafficking by an inadmissible spouse or parent. INA §

212(a)(2)(C). This also is a “conditional” bar to establishing good moral character. INA §

101(f)(3).

This ground is not triggered by possession, use, growing for personal use, or sharing for free.

It is triggered by the appropriate DHS or DOJ officials obtaining sufficient, reliable, probative

evidence to support a conclusion that the person has engaged in trafficking.

D. Inadmissible, Barred from Establishing Good Moral Character, Due to

Lawful Employment in the Cannabis Industry

Cannabis is a boom industry. As Forbes noted, “For cannabis, 2020 was a breakout year.

Legal sales across the U.S. …. hit a record of $17.5 billion, a 46% increase from 2019.” The

industry predicts that by 2026 the legal U.S. cannabis market will reach $41 billion per year.

The industry has achieved this while technically operating in violation of federal law. At the

same time, federal authorities have focused on punishing the industry’s lawful noncitizen

workers, people with permanent residence or employment authorization who work legally

(under state law) and pay state and federal income taxes on their wages. This was a USCIS

focus even before the Trump administration, although they made it worse and more official.

Employment in the legitimate cannabis industry can result in the following penalties:

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Inadmissible because the government has reason to believe the person participates in

drug trafficking, INA § 212(a)(2)(C); see above. The assertion is that, because the

company’s goal is to sell a controlled substance, employment provides reason to

believe that any employee – even one with no contact with marijuana – aids and abets

trafficking.

Inadmissible for admitting a controlled substance offense, such as handling or preparing

marijuana. INA § 212(a)(2)(I)(ii)

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), inadmissible under the national

security/terrorism ground provisions, INA § 212(a)(3)(A)(ii), if the person is “traveling to

the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in ‘any other unlawful

activity.’” Intent to engage with the cannabis industry is listed as a qualifying unlawful

activity. See 9 FAM 302.5-4(a) and 302.5-4(b)(4) (added in 2020).

According to the USCIS Policy Manual, employment in the industry (like admission of

conduct) is a bar to establishing good moral character required for naturalization, even if

it is legal under state law. See Policy Manual, Volume 12, Chapter 5, Part C.2,

“Conditional GMC Bar Applies Regardless of State Law Decriminalizing Marijuana.”

(2019). Well before the Policy Manual section was published in 2019, there were

instances in multiple states of N-400 denials based on employment in the industry.

Practice strategy: In creating the list of employers required in I-485 and N-400 forms, some

applicants identify a cannabis-related business by its initials, while providing its full address

and phone number.

E. Inadmissible and Deportable for a Finding of Addiction or Abuse

Even without a conviction, a finding of addiction to or abuse of any federally-defined controlled

substance, including marijuana, is a basis for inadmissibility if the condition is current, which is

often applied to mean any use in the past year. Addiction or abuse is also a ground of

deportability if it occurred at any time since admission, although this is so rarely used that there

are no guidelines or legal interpretations of what it means. In particular, persons going through

consular processing should be warned that the doctor and officer may question them, and the

doctor may give them a urine test to detect marijuana.

A finding of inadmissibility for being an abuser can be cured by waiting a year without use, so

in that way it is much better than making a formal admission to having possession marijuana,

which like other removal grounds is permanent unless it is waived.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

F. The Fact that One Possessed Marijuana, or Evidence Showing This, Does

Not Cause Inadmissibility. That Requires a Conviction, Admission, Reason

to Believe Trafficking, Finding of Abuse or Addiction, or Employment in

the Industry

It is good to remember this distinction when considering some of the defense strategies

discussed below. The fact that one has possessed marijuana is not a basis for inadmissibility,

absent a conviction or admission. There may be some instances where we refuse to let the

client make a formal admission, which could make them inadmissible, but make it clear that we

do not oppose the adjudicator concluding that they in fact used the substance: that fact does

not make them inadmissible, although it might or might not be a negative discretionary factor.

Note other substantive defenses discussed below. For example, being under the influence of

marijuana is not a federal offense, although possession is. Arguably, an admission to “sharing”

a cigarette being passed around does not trigger inadmissibility, because it is not a crime

under federal or (where legalized) state law. Also, it is possible that your state’s definition of

marijuana Is overbroad and indivisible compared to the federal definition. See Parts IV, VI,

below.

IV. Defend Immigrants from Becoming Inadmissible for Admitting to

Marijuana Conduct

Legal admissions of conduct can occur in many circumstances: at the border, before USCIS at

an interview or in a written application, when confronted by ICE or the police, at a consular or

visa medical interview, or on the stand in removal proceedings. In all of these contexts,

immigrants must be knowledgeable and prepared for questions about marijuana use. This

section will review some key risks and defenses.

A. Inform the Client about the Law

Education is the very best defense. Noncitizens should be warned that possessing marijuana

is treated as a federal crime, as described above, even if it is permitted under the law of their

state. People who have a medical need for marijuana should be referred for legal and medical

assistance, to see what options are available to provide for their health and their immigration

status. For example, permanent residents are not harmed by admitting use of medical

marijuana, unless they need to travel outside the United States or to apply for naturalization.

(This is assuming that federal authorities continue to not criminally prosecute persons who use

medical marijuana in compliance with state law. See Part II, above.)

Noncitizens must be warned about what will happen if they have used marijuana (or worked in

the industry) and they discuss this with any DHS or DOS employee, or with a doctor at a

medical visa interview.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

In private office consultations, group-processing contexts, and other “know-your-rights”

contexts, advocates should carefully explain the immigration penalties that could apply

if people admit to having possessed/used/worked with marijuana, before they permit the

clients to respond to questions or complete drafts of forms.

For example, the advocate might say, “Before we begin, I want to let you know that a

noncitizen who admits possessing any controlled substance can be found inadmissible. When

I say any controlled substance, this includes marijuana. Even though marijuana is legal under

our state law, it still is listed as a controlled substance under federal law, and federal law is

what applies to immigration applications. For immigration purposes, admitting to using

marijuana will be treated exactly like admitting to using heroin. The application for _____ will

be denied. Do you have any questions about this? If it makes it easier, we can have a

discussion about a friend and any questions you think they might have.” In group processing

settings, if people have questions, speak with each person privately, one on one.

B. Instruct the Client Not to Answer the Question; Asserting the Fifth

Amendment

Each case requires an individual analysis, but there are very few instances when it is advisable

to admit to having possessed marijuana. If a noncitizen is applying for admission at the

border, adjustment of status, or other relief for which they must affirmatively show their

eligibility, and they refuse to answer a question or submit requested relevant evidence, the

authorities may well deny the application for failure to cooperate/prosecute. However, that may

not be the worst possible outcome. This generally is better than admitting to possession or

other conduct, having that information stay in their immigration record, and thereby being

found permanently inadmissible under the controlled substance grounds.

Warn noncitizens that if any DHS employee or officer asks about marijuana possession or

other conduct, it is best to simply decline to answer and say that you wish to speak with an

attorney before answering any such questions (even if it means a denial of the benefit sought).

If the client is in a removal hearing or interview, consider whether it is best to advise them to

decline to answer and to take the Fifth Amendment. The ICE attorney or USCIS officer may be

trying to elicit a formal admission to what they assert is a federal drug crime, so declining to

answer under the Fifth Amendment is an appropriate recourse. In immigration proceedings, a

penalty for asserting the Fifth Amendment can be that the adjudicator can take the negative

inference, i.e., decide that your client did use marijuana. Matter of Guevara, 20 I&N Dec. 238

(BIA 1991). You may want to invite the adjudicator to do that. You can stress that the

applicant is not trying to hide any facts and is cooperating with the inquiry. You are simply

advising the person not to make a legally disqualifying admission. Again, the fact that a

noncitizen possessed marijuana does not trigger the controlled substance inadmissibility

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

ground. Under the terms of INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i), that requires a conviction or admission. The

fact might be treated as a negative discretionary factor. (However, if the conduct was permitted

under state law you can argue that because the person quite reasonably believed they were

obeying all laws, the conduct should not be treated as a negative factor, or at least not a

serious one.) If an immigration judge presses, advocates might consider whether to present

evidence that the person did use marijuana (and, if applicable, that the person thought they

were obeying the law). A friend or family member could provide a declaration or testimony,

without the person “admitting” use.

The Fifth Amendment defense has additional strength if the government’s question is a fishing

expedition, with no other evidence to anchor it – for example, if there are no arrests or other

evidence in your client’s history to suggest that they use marijuana. Regarding the burden of

proving eligibility for relief, 8 CFR 1240.8(d) provides: “The respondent shall have the burden

of establishing that he or she is eligible for any requested benefit or privilege and that it should

be granted in the exercise of discretion. If the evidence indicates that one or more of the

grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the [noncitizen] shall have

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply.”

(emphasis added) Without any evidence that a ground may apply, the applicant should not

have the burden to disprove all baseless allegations that the government chooses to make.

But, depending on the case, there still may be a benefit to inviting the adjudicator to make the

negative inference, as discussed above. This shows that, while the person is not willing to

needlessly disqualify themselves from relief, they are willing to provide the adjudicator with all

relevant requested information.

C. Argue That a Prior Statement by the Client Was Not a Qualifying

“Admission”

If the person already admitted possessing marijuana to the authorities, get a transcript of the

encounter (through a FOIA request if necessary) and carefully review possible defenses. The

statement must meet the following requirements in order to be considered a qualifying

admission:

1. Voluntary Admission of Facts That Constitute the Elements of an

Offense, After the Official Has Explained the Elements.

The person’s admission must be free and voluntary.

The person must admit to commission

of facts that constitute the elements of the offense.

The official must provide the noncitizen

with an understandable definition of the elements of the offense.

But in a questionable older

case, the Ninth Circuit upheld the use of an admission to a doctor at a consular medical

appointment for a visa, despite the fact that the doctor did not provide this information.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

The conduct admitted must be a crime under the laws of the place where it was committed.

The government will argue that possession of marijuana is a federal offense if committed

anywhere within the United States.

2. Exception: Conduct Charged in Criminal Court If Result was Less Than

a Conviction

If a criminal court judge has heard charges relating to an incident, and the final disposition is

something less than a conviction, the person is not inadmissible for admitting the conduct. The

BIA has declined to find inadmissibility if the conviction later was eliminated by effective post-

conviction relief, or if no conviction occurred in the first place because the person completed

pre-guilty plea diversion or if charges were dismissed without a guilty plea for any reason.

This is true even if the defendant later admits the crime before an immigration officer or judge

(although it may be best to decline to do this).

3. Exception: Admission of Conduct Committed While a Minor

An admission made by a minor, or by an adult about conduct they engaged in when they were

a minor, should not trigger inadmissibility under this ground, because the admission was of

committing civil juvenile delinquency, not a crime.

If the person admits participating in any

way in drug trafficking as a minor, however, DHS might assert that even this conduct while a

juvenile triggers inadmissibility under a separate ground, by providing DHS with “reason to

believe” the person participated in trafficking. The ground also applies to a person who within

the last five years benefitted from a noncitizen parent’s or spouse’s trafficking.

D. Argue That an Admission that the Person Used, Rather than Possessed,

Marijuana Is Not an Admission of a Federal Controlled Substance Offense

What if the person only admitted to using, rather than possessing, marijuana? For example,

say that the client was acting in accord with state recreational marijuana law, and the only legal

issue is whether they have admitted to committing a federal offense. The person might admit

to experimentation, or being at a party where marijuana that they did not “own” was passed to

them, or offered in vape or brownie such that the individual did not know that the substance in

their possession even contained marijuana until after it was consumed.

Admitting use of marijuana could cause the person to be charged with being inadmissible, and

a noncitizen should not consider it safe to admit to this, or at least without careful consultation

with an expert. However, if the person has admitted this already, counsel can argue that it

does not trigger the inadmissibility ground, because it was not an admission of the essential

elements of a federal offense. Courts have found that using a drug or being under the

influence does not contain the essential elements of the federal offense of possession.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Neither should admission of use shift the burden to the person to prove that they did not

possess the marijuana.

Possessing drug paraphernalia also is not a federal offense, so if it

is also lawful under state law, argue that admitting that conduct is not admission of a “crime”

under the controlling jurisdiction and does not trigger inadmissibility.

V. Risks and Defense Strategies in Different Contexts

A. Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing

An applicant for permanent resident status must prove that they are admissible. If the

government asks questions such as, “Have you ever used or possessed marijuana?” or “Have

you ever committed a drug offense?” then a person who has possessed or committed other

conduct relating to marijuana has no good choices.

Option 1A: If they admit to having possessed marijuana in the United States, then they will be

inadmissible based on having made an admission to a federal crime.

Option 1B: If they admit to having experimented/tried/used marijuana in a U.S. state where the

state law does not criminalize such use, then they can argue that such activities should be

adjudicated through the application of only the health grounds of inadmissibility (and not the

criminal grounds), which generally provide that admissibility can be established by a finding of

remission of any addiction/abuse after one year with no use.

Option 2: If they decline to answer the question, then they will not be held inadmissible based

on the answer, but the application likely will be denied for failure to prosecute (and in some

circumstances, a negative inference could be made). You can argue against this.

Option 3: If they respond falsely to the question by saying “no”, there are potential serious

consequences. For example, a knowing false answer to a material question such as this would

cause the government to find that they are also subject to the fraud ground of inadmissibility,

either at that moment, or later (should the facts become known). An unknowing false statement

(such as one made by an applicant who honestly believed he had not committed a crime due

to state law provisions) might not trigger the fraud inadmissibility but still might cause the

government to later charge the individual with having obtained their residency improperly.

In some cases, a waiver for the admission may be available. If the person admits only to a

one-time incident involving possession of 30 grams or less marijuana, then they may apply for

an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility in a family visa petition. Other adjustment

applications, for example as an asylee or refugee, have other waivers that would cover this

ground.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

In at least one questionable decision, a statement to the doctor at a visa medical exam was

held to be an “admission” of committing a controlled substance offense.

(Of course, also

warn the client that statements to a visa medical doctor could result in the doctor finding that

the person is inadmissible as a drug abuser, or as someone who ever participated in drug

trafficking.

Warn the client that in some cases, applicants are required to take a urine test for

drugs.)

B. Naturalization

An applicant for naturalization must establish that they have had good moral character for a

certain period of time. A person who committed conduct described in INA § 212(a)(2) during

the period for which good moral character must be proved, is statutorily barred from

establishing good moral character. INA § 101(f)(3).

In Washington state, where recreational marijuana has been legal since 2012, USCIS has

aggressively questioned naturalization applicants about marijuana use. Some applicants

readily admit to engaging in what they believe is perfectly lawful conduct. The CIS officers

have held the applicants to be statutorily barred from establishing good moral character as of

the date of the last admitted conduct. There, USCIS has had noncitizens sign “marijuana

affidavits” to make sure that it captures a qualifying admission from naturalization and

adjustment applicants.

Example: At her naturalization hearing in 2021, Marta admitted that she last

possessed marijuana on February 2, 2018. The officer denied her application

and found that she is statutorily barred from establishing her required 5 years of

good moral character until at least February 3, 2023.

A qualifying admission of possessing

marijuana will make an LPR inadmissible and barred

from establishing good moral character, but by itself it will not make an LPR deportable. The

LPR can simply stop possessing marijuana and re-apply for naturalization after amassing a

new period of good moral character. (In cases where stopping use of medical marijuana, or

where delay in adjudicating the application, would cause great hardship, and it is clear that

naturalization officers are asking all applicants about marijuana, counsel can consider trying to

intervene with the official and to persuade them not to inquire.)

Warning: A naturalization applicant who has admitted possessing marijuana to USCIS must

not travel outside the United States. The person may be found inadmissible. They could be

found to be seeking a new admission upon return from a trip. See next section. Or if they

were permitted to re-enter, they could be charged with being deportable for having been

inadmissible at last entry.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Warning: Employment in a state-sanctioned marijuana enterprise may cause the N-400

application to be denied. Further, the person might be labeled as inadmissible as a “drug

trafficker,” and they should not travel outside the United States until they have naturalized. The

same may apply to their noncitizen spouse and/or children. See Part III.D, above, regarding

employment in the industry. Applicants who have listed such employment on the N-400 have

been denied naturalization for lack of good moral character. Applicants who have been denied

based on this employment should consult counsel. To naturalize, they may have two choices:

either leave that job and amass a new period of good moral character, or wait and hope that

the law on marijuana and immigration changes. They must not travel outside the U.S. after

submitting the N-400. They could lose their green card, as a returning permanent resident who

is inadmissible as a drug trafficker. See next section. Further, it is conceivable that their

noncitizen spouse and children also would be found inadmissible under the trafficking ground.

If a noncitizen is inadmissible for drug trafficking, then their spouse or children also are

inadmissible if they have “benefitted” from the trafficking within the last five years and knew it

came from this illicit activity. INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(ii).

C. At the Border

Persons who are not permanent residents. Generally, a noncitizen applying for admission

to the United States must prove that they are admissible. This includes individuals with valid

visas (or on the visa waiver program) who can be subjected to questioning at the consular

interview and/or again at the border. If the person declines to respond to a question about

marijuana, border officials can (and likely will) simply deny them admission.

The best practice for noncitizens who have possessed marijuana, or engaged in other

marijuana-related conduct, is to not travel outside the United States until they become citizens.

If people do intend to travel, advise them not to bring a medical marijuana card (backpacks are

searched), or have anything on their person, phone, or social media relating to marijuana

(border officials may demand access to smartphones and passwords to Facebook), because

these factors can lead to aggressive questioning. If questioned about marijuana, the best

course is to decline to answer, even if it means the person will be refused admission. Then

they should contact an attorney -- and hope for the best. This is why the safest advice is to not

travel.

Returning permanent residents. Even for permanent residents, the safest practice is to not

travel if you’ve possessed or used marijuana. However, a permanent resident returning from a

trip abroad has some important legal advantages. They are deemed not to be seeking a new

legal admission to the United States, unless they come within one of the six exceptions listed

at INA § 101(A)(13)(C). Being inadmissible under the crimes grounds is one of these

exceptions. Therefore, if the returning LPR makes a qualifying admission to a border official

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

that they possessed marijuana, they will be found to come within INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v), and

they can be denied admission. However, the government has the burden of proving that a

returning LPR comes within INA § 101(a)(13)(C).

It would appear that if the LPR declines to

either answer questions or admit conduct, then the government cannot prove that INA §

101(a)(13)(C) applies, and eventually they must let them re-enter. (Compare this to other

immigrants at the border, discussed above, who may be denied admission if they decline to

answer a question.)

If the person already has been found inadmissible – for example, if USCIS denied their

naturalization application based on an admission of conduct, or employment relating to

marijuana – travel is truly dangerous. The person already may come within INA §

101(a)(13)(C) exception, for having admitted a drug offense or for there being reason to

believe they are a drug trafficker (employment). Even if the person does not make further

admissions at the border and is permitted to re-enter, later they could be charged with being

deportable for having been inadmissible at last entry under INA § 237(a)(1).

D. Removal Proceedings: LPR Cancellation of Removal and Other Defensive

Relief

Related to the issue of having to answer questions in affirmative applications for benefits, is

the issue of having to answer questions in defensive applications for relief from removal. This

can be a complex topic that is only briefly addressed here. In removal proceedings, while the

applicant is on the stand, ICE may try to elicit damaging admissions that can destroy eligibility

for the relief. An admission that one has possessed marijuana, or a conviction arising from a

single incident involving 30 grams or less of marijuana, does not cause deportability, but does

cause inadmissibility and that in turn can affect eligibility for relied.

The same strategies apply. Instruct the person not to respond to the dangerous question. If

necessary, have the person take the Fifth Amendment and decline to admit a federal offense.

See discussion at Part IV.B, above.

1. LPR Cancellation of Removal and Barton v. Barr

An applicant for LPR cancellation must show that they have accrued seven years of

continuous residence since admission in any status, before either (1) a Notice to Appear is

served on the applicant, or (2) the applicant commits certain offenses. See INA § 240A(a)(2),

(d). When either of those events occurs, the applicant will stop accruing time toward the

required seven years; practitioners may say that the seven-year “clock” has stopped. If this

happens before the person has accrued the seven years, they are not eligible for LPR

cancellation.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

The Supreme Court held that if a cancellation applicant is described in certain criminal

inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(2), then the clock stops as of the date that the person

committed the relevant offense. (This is the Court’s ruling even if the person was admitted to

the U.S. and so was not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility.) Barton v. Barr, 140 S.Ct.

1442 (2020). For example, a person is described in the controlled substance inadmissibility

ground if they are convicted of, or formally admit to committing, a qualifying controlled

substance offense, including possession of marijuana. (Remember that for the inadmissibility

ground, there is no exception for a single incident involving 30 grams or less of marijuana.)

Once the conviction or admission occurs, their seven-year clock is deemed to have stopped as

of the date that the conduct took place (not the date that the conviction or admission took

place).

ICE may try to elicit an “admission” from your client during or before removal proceedings, in

an attempt to disqualify them from relief.

Example: Marco was admitted to the United States on a border crossing card in

2010 and became a permanent resident in 2012. He became deportable for a

conviction of a domestic violence offense in 2018. He was served with a Notice

to Appear in 2019. Marco has the seven years of continuous residence between

the date he was admitted into the United States in 2010 and the date of the

service of the NTA in 2019.

In 2021, he has his hearing for LPR cancellation. The ICE attorney asks him,

“Have you ever used marijuana?” If Marco were to say, “I tried it a few times in

2015 after it became legal, but I never really liked it,” ICE could assert that he is

no longer eligible for LPR cancellation: he is described in the inadmissibility

ground (because he admitted the elements of a controlled substance offense)

and the admitted conduct occurred in 2015, before he had accrued the seven

years.

This is a novel situation, and advocates can investigate various strategies, depending also on

the facts of the case. See further discussion of these strategies at Part IV, above. For example:

• As part of the case preparation, inform Marco about the penalties of discussing marijuana

or any drug with immigration authorities, before asking him any questions about drug use.

Practice responses to this kind of question;

• Object to the fact that the ICE attorney is on a fishing expedition with no related evidence,

and state that the burden is not on the respondent to address it;

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

• Tell Marco beforehand not to answer the question if asked at the hearing. He himself can

decline to answer, or ask him just to pause so that you can intercede and state that he will

decline to answer. If necessary, invoke the Fifth Amendment on his behalf (you may have

to do this for each individual question) or have him do it;

• Explain to the judge what ICE is attempting to do. Assure the judge that Marco is not trying

to hide information. If needed, invite the judge to take the negative inference from his

silence and assume that Marco tried “legal” marijuana. Explain why that does not “stop the

clock” (or act as a negative discretionary factor, given that a reasonable person would think

it is legal.).

• If Marco did answer the ICE question, assert that this was not a qualifying admission that

stops the clock, based on any of the reasons discussed in Part IV.C, above (for example, in

this exchange, ICE did not inform Marco of all of the elements of the offense). You can

make the objection at the time Marco answers. Or it may be preferable to wait to see if the

judge makes an adverse ruling based on the admission and, if so, make the objection at

the end of the removal hearing.

2. Other Forms of Cancellation of Removal, and Any Relief Requiring Good

Moral Character

To qualify for non-LPR cancellation, among other things the person must have accrued 10

years of continuous physical presence immediately preceding the date of application, and 10

years of good moral character counting backward from the immigration judge or BIA’s

decision. INA 240A(b)(1), (d).

The “clock” for the ten years of continuous physical presence is the same as for the seven

years required for LPR cancellation. Under INA § 240A(d), it will stop as of the date the person

committed an offense that ultimately made them inadmissible under the crimes grounds. This

includes admitting having possessed marijuana at some point during the ten years. The ten

years of good moral character also end in this way, although for good moral character an

admission of a single incident involving simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana is

not an automatic bar.

VAWA cancellation has somewhat similar requirements requiring three years of physical

presence and good moral character, although with possible waivers. INA 240A(b)(2), (d).

These cancellation applicants face the same threat as the applicant for LPR cancellation. If

ICE is able to elicit a formal admission that they used marijuana during the period for which

physical presence or good moral character must be shown, they will no longer be eligible. The

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

same defense strategies may protect them. See discussion in Part 1 dealing with LPR

cancellation, above and see Part IV, above.

VI. Is Your State Definition of Marijuana Broader Than the Federal Definition,

and Therefore Not a Federal Controlled Substance Offense?

This defense can be used to assert that a client’s conviction involving marijuana does not

come within the controlled substance grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Advocates

can consider arguments that this might also be applicable to an admission.

For this defense, the first thing to do is to identify how the state statute or other law at issue

defined marijuana at the time of conviction. If your definition includes “mature stalks” of the

cannabis plant, and/or “hemp” (part of the cannabis plant that contains no more than 0.3%

THC), then this defense is worth investigating.

The defense is based on the categorical approach. For more information on that analysis, see

cases and online resources.

In brief, every criminal law term that appears in removal grounds

(e.g., controlled substance, crime involving moral turpitude, burglary) has a technical, federal

definition, referred to as the “generic” offense definition. The categorical approach determines

whether the offense that the noncitizen was convicted of sufficiently matches that generic

definition, such that it makes the person removable.

In Step One of the categorical approach, we compare the elements of the generic definition of

the term in the removal ground, to the elements of the criminal statute of which our client was

convicted. We do not look at what our client actually did or pled guilty to. Instead, we consider

all possible conduct that has a realistic probability of being prosecuted under that criminal

statute, and compare that to the generic definition. We hope to find that the criminal statute is

“overbroad,” meaning that the statute reaches some conduct that is not covered by the generic

definition.

The federal, generic definition of marijuana includes the entire cannabis plant, except:

• It has long excluded “mature stalks” of the plant (see 21 USC § 802(16)(B)), and

• As of December 20, 2018, under the Hemp Farming Act, the definition at § 802(16)(B) also

excludes “hemp,” which is defined at 7 USC § 1639o as any part of the plant that contains

no more than 0.3% of THC.

So, federal law does not reach any cannabis with 0.3% or less of THC, or any mature stalks at

all, regardless of percent of THC. This makes the generic definition of marijuana a bit narrow,

which we want, since the goal is to find that our state definition of marijuana is broader.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Next, we compare the generic definition to the state’s definition of marijuana. Consider the

definition under Florida Statute §§ 893.02(2), (3). Like the federal statute, for years Florida

excluded mature stalks from its definition, until in 1978 it decided to add them back in. In

Matter of Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019), the respondent was convicted in Florida

of possession of 20 grams of marijuana, and was found to be inadmissible. On appeal, he

argued that he was not inadmissible, because marijuana as defined by Florida law is

overbroad as a federally-defined controlled substance: the Florida definition (which includes

mature stalks) is broader than the federal definition (which does not). The BIA acknowledged

that under the plain language of the Florida statute, the Florida definition of marijuana is

overbroad. The reasoning is:

Federal, generic definition of “marihuana.” Under 21 USC 802, marihuana includes all parts

of the cannabis plant except for mature stalks and hemp.

Florida definition of marijuana, Fl Stat 893.02(2), (3) . This includes all parts of the cannabis

plant, including mature stalks, but not including hemp.

Result: On its face, the Florida offense of possessing marijuana is “overbroad” because it

includes possessing a substance (mature stalks of marijuana, minus those that qualify as

hemp) that is not punished under federal law.

However, the BIA denied Mr. Guadarrama’s case. Under the categorical approach, along with

showing that a state statute reaches conduct not covered by the generic definition, one also

must show a “realistic probability” that this conduct actually will be prosecuted, and that the

conduct was not just proposed as an exercise in “legal imagination.”

This can be done by

producing an actual case where that conduct was prosecuted. In addition, in most jurisdictions,

this showing is made if the clear language of the statute describes conduct not in the generic

definition. In Guadarrama, the BIA reaffirmed its stance that the language of a state statute

alone is not enough to establish a “realistic probability” of persecution. The person must

present actual prosecutions, in this case cases involving mature stalks. Mr. Guadarrama did

not present this, and the BIA denied his case.

Most circuit courts of appeals disagree with the BIA, however. They permit clear statutory

language to demonstrate a realistic probability of prosecution, and would have found that Mr.

Guadarrama was not deportable. For example, the Eighth Circuit recently considered this

same fact situation involving Florida’s definition of marijuana. The court acknowledged that

case examples are required if a statute is ambiguous or vague. “But when the statute's reach

is clear on its face, it takes no ‘legal imagination’ or ‘improbable hypotheticals’ to understand

how it may be applied and to determine whether it covers conduct an analogous federal statute

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

does not.” Gonzalez v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2021). The Eighth Circuit found

that the person was not deportable based on the Florida marijuana conviction.

The Eighth Circuit noted that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and

Sixth Circuit in unpublished opinions, also have held that clear statutory language alone,

without case examples, is sufficient to prove realistic probability of prosecution.

The Eleventh

Circuit had held that as well; in Matter of Guadarrama the BIA asserted that it had abandoned

the position, but that is debatable.

The Supreme Court has relied on clear statutory language

to establish realistic probability, including in controlled substance cases, although without

discussion.

The Fifth Circuit, like the BIA, requires case examples.

Consider the California definition of marijuana, at H&S C § 11018. That definition used to

exclude mature stalks, until Proposition 64 ended that exclusion and re-included mature stalks

as of November 9, 2016.

This is the same progression as Florida’s statute, and in Matter of

Guadarrama the BIA acknowledged that the Florida statutory definition was overbroad on its

face. But while the BIA denied Mr. Guadarrama because he failed to produce case examples

to show a realistic probability of prosecution, the Ninth Circuit (and most other jurisdictions)

find that clear statutory language alone is sufficient to meet that requirement. Therefore, the

California definition of cannabis should be held to be overbroad. The California statute, §

11018, is not divisible; among other things, it is not phrased in the alternative, one of which

involves mature stalks. Therefore, the California definition is overbroad and indivisible, and no

California cannabis conviction from on or after Proposition 64’s effective date of November 9,

2016 should be held a controlled substance conviction for immigration purposes. There is no

precedent at this time, however.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

End Notes

Matt Adams is the Legal Director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, in Seattle. Kathy Brady is

Senior Staff Attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, in San Francisco. Zachary Nightingale is a

partner at the law firm of Van Der Hout LLP, in San Francisco.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center is a national, nonprofit resource center that provides legal trainings,

educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights. The mission of the ILRC is to work with

and educate immigrants, community organizations, and the legal sector to continue to build a democratic

society that values diversity and the rights of all people. For the latest version of this practice advisory,

please visit www.ilrc.org. For comments regarding the content of this advisory, please contact Kathy Brady

at kbrady@ilrc.org.

Medical marijuana alone is legal in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland,

Minnesota, Mississippi (voted for), Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia.

Recreational and medical marijuana is legal in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico (6/29/21), New York, Oregon, South

Dakota (7/1/21), Vermont, Virginia (7/1/21), and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

See controlled substance deportability ground and exception at INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) [8 USC § 1227].

See controlled substance inadmissibility ground at INA § 212(a)(2)(I)(ii) [8 USC § 1182]

See, e.g., United States v. Reveles-Espinoza, 522 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008).

See 21 USC § 841(b)(4), discussed in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 193-99 (2013).

See, e.g., Matter of Khourn, 21 I&N Dec. 1041 (BIA 1997).

See Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000) (en banc) (juvenile), Matter of J.M. Acosta, 27 I&N

Dec. 420 (BIA 2018)(appeal of right) and Matter of Mohamed, 27 I&N Dec. 92 (BIA 2017) (diversion).

See ILRC, What Qualifies as a Conviction for Immigration Purposes? (2019) at www.ilrc.org/chart.

See, e.g., Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).

See DACA materials at www.ilrc.org/daca and see discussion of Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684

(9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) at ILRC, Practice Advisory: Lujan and Nunez, July 14, 2011 (2011) at

https://www.ilrc.org/practice-advisory-lujan-nunez-july-14-2011

Contact Rose Cahn at [email protected].

See, e.g., discussion in Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2003).

See Yakowicz, “U.S. Cannabis Sales Hit §17.5 Billion as More Americans Consume Marijuana Than Ever

Before,” Forbes (March 3, 2021) at https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/03/03/us-cannabis-

sales-hit-record-175-billion-as-americans-consume-more-marijuana-than-ever-before/?sh=3446b74b2bcf.

See, e.g., discussion in Garcia-Andrade v. Holder, 395 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (under

8 CFR 1240.8(d), a prior expunged conviction for possessing marijuana is not sufficient evidence to put the

burden on the defendant to prove that they did not use marijuana; also, the defendant’s assertion of the Fifth

Amendment is not enough to prove that they are statutorily barred from establishing good moral character

required for non-LPR cancellation, as that requires an admission or conviction).

See further discussion in Kesselbrenner and Rosenberg, Immigration Law and Crimes, §§ 3.2-3.6

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

Matter of G-, 6 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1953); Matter of G-, 1 I&N Dec. 225 (BIA 1942); Matter of M-C-, 3 I&N

Dec. 76 (BIA 1947).

Matter of B-M-, 6 I&N Dec. 806 (BIA 1955); Matter of A-, 3 I&N Dec. 168 (BIA 1948); Matter of Espinosa,

10 I&N Dec. 98 (BIA, 1962). Matter of G-M-, 7 I&N Dec. 40 (Att’y Gen. 1956); Matter of E-N-, 7 I&N Dec.

153 (BIA 1956).

Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (BIA 1957). Matter of K-, 9 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1962); Matter of G-M-, 7 I&N

Dec. 40 (AG 1956).

Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002).

Matter of D-S-, 1 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 1943) (attempt to smuggle not a crime); 22 CFR § 40.21(a).

See, e.g., Matter of E.V., 5 I&N Dec. 194 (BIA 1953); Matter of Winter, 12 I&N Dec. 638 (BIA 1967, 1968),

Matter of Seda, 17 I&N Dec. 550 (BIA 1980). The BIA has held that, depending on the constitutional

protections provided, some state “infractions” or “offenses” do not amount to a conviction for immigration

purposes. See Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2012) and ILRC, Arguing that a California Infraction

is Not a Conviction (2012) at www.ilrc.org/crimes. Counsel can investigate arguments that the person

cannot be found inadmissible based on a guilty plea or subsequent admission in this context, because

charges resulted in a disposition less than a conviction.

Matter of MU, 2 I&N Dec. 92 (BIA 1944) (juvenile admission does not cause inadmissibility as a crime

involving moral turpitude). This is in keeping with the BIA’s consistent holdings “that acts of juvenile

delinquency are not crimes … for immigration purposes. Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 BIA 2000)

(en banc). See also ILRC, What are the Immigration Consequences of Delinquency? (March 2020) at

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/imm_consequences_of_delinq_3.30.20.pdf

See INA § 212(a)(2)(C), 8 USC § 1182(a)(2)(C) and see Junck, The Impact of Drug Trafficking on

Unaccompanied Minor Immigration Cases (2015, Vera Institute) at

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/impact_drug_trffk_unacomp_minor_cases-20180719.pdf

See, e.g., Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2010) (use, under the influence are not federal

offenses), overturned on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 695 (9th Cir. 2011) (which

noted that being under the influence is not a possession offense or a lesser included offense to possession).

See the on-point discussion in Hernandez-Munoz v. Sessions, No. 14-72542 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)

(unpublished), where the court held that an applicant for adjustment who admitted to having used marijuana

on several occasions was not inadmissible for having admitted the elements of the federal offense of

possession, citing cases holding that use of a drug is at most circumstantial evidence of possession.

See Hernandez-Munoz, supra, where, based on the language of the inadmissibility ground, the court

dismissed the government’s argument that the admission imposed a burden on the applicant to prove that

he had not possessed marijuana.

Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209 (9

Cir. 2002).

See INA §§ 212(a)(1), 237(a)(2)(B)(2) (current drug addict or abuser); INA § 212(a)(2)(C) (DHS has

“reason to believe” the person ever participated in drug trafficking, or benefitted from a noncitizen spouse’s

or parent’s trafficking within the last five years).

Or similar admissions involving marijuana-related offenses that could arise in the context of a

naturalization application, such as employment at a dispensary or membership in a collective.

See INA § 237(a)(1), 8 USC § 1227(a)(1).

Matter of Rivens, 25 I&N Dec. 623, 626 (BIA 2011).

See, e.g., Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) and see ILRC, How to Use the Categorical

Approach Now (Dec. 2019, update forthcoming) available at https://www.ilrc.org/chart

IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER

IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA | MAY 2021

See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007), cited in Matter of Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec.

at 562.

See citations in Gonzalez v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d at 660 and n. 3.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld that statutory language rule in Ramos v. Att’y Gen., 709 F.3d 1066, 1071-72

(11th Cir. 2013). In Matter of Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec at 562-66, the BIA cited Eleventh Circuit cases that it

interpreted as abandoning (without discussion) Ramos. However, Ramos has not been overruled, and the

case debate appears to focus on how specific the statutory language must be. See, e.g., Aspilaire v. U.S.

Att'y Gen., 992 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir. 2021), Bourtzakis v. United States Att'y Gen., 940 F.3d 616, 620

(11th Cir. 2019), citing the rule in Ramos but finding the statutes at issue are not sufficiently specific.

See, e.g., discussion in Gonzalez v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2021), of Mellouli v. Lynch,

575 U.S. 798 (2015) and Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).

United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Before Proposition 64 took effect on November 9, 2016, the California definition of marijuana included

mature stalks. California H&S C § 11018 provided in part, “’Marijuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis

sativa L. … It does not include the mature stalks of the plant …” (November 8, 2016). Proposition 64, § 4.1,

amended § 11018 by ending the exclusion of mature plant stalks, and instead excluding the narrower

category of “industrial hemp,” under § 11018.5 (which is defined the same way as federal “hemp”: any part

of the plant that contains no more than 0.3% of THC). Now California cannabis is broader than federal

marijuana, because federal law does not regulate any mature stalks, even if they have more than 0.3%

THC, while California does regulate mature stalks as long as they have more than 0.3% THC. (Some mature

cannabis stalks do have a THC level higher than 0.3 percent, which is why California decided to regulate

them.)

San Francisco

1458 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

t: 415.255.9499

f: 415.255.9792

[email protected] www.ilrc.org

Washington D.C.

1015 15th Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20005

t: 202.777.8999

f: 202.293.2849

Austin

6633 East Hwy 290

Suite 102

Austin, TX 78723

t: 512.879.1616

San Antonio

500 6

Street

Suite 204

San Antonio, TX 78215

t: 210.760.7368

About the Immigrant Legal Resource Center

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) works with immigrants, community organizations, legal professionals, law enforcement,

and policy makers to build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people. Through community education

programs, legal training and technical assistance, and policy development and advocacy, the ILRC’s mission is to protect and defend

the fundamental rights of immigrant families and communities.