Regarding background check regarding use

[arkansasresident]

Hello, how detailed is the background check?

I once visited California and my friend smoked **** and I just smoked once with him.
Then, I bought one edi ble product from the legal dispensary. They didn't scan my ID, just looked at it.
This was one year ago... and that's it.

Can anyone advise what I should expect?
Does background check my social media and what sites I visit based on my IP and so on?

[N400questions]

The honest answer is... you will not get a definitive answer to your question because someone will claim that knowledge might empower the "bad guys".

This document describes the MINIMUM checks according to law..
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...r=PART&ty=HTML

This document describes the USCIS policy at the time that policy manual was published
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/...rt-b-chapter-2

Notice that the "neighborhood investigation" can be waived by USCIS.
I've not found any definition of that term on the internet.

Notice that these are the MINIMUM checks to be carried out. Theoretically, I suppose that many other types of checks are possible.
At some point, someone somewhere has to make a judgement call based on diminishing returns and what the USCIS are actually trying to achieve by doing them.

Clearly, if an applicant begins to look like they have connections to terrorist organizations or any kind of violent group then the checks will become very fine-grained and urgent.
On the other hand, these people are not likely to apply for Citizenship in the first place. They can easily operate under the radar by simply renewing green cards or using B1/B2 visitor visas. Depending on the country... they may even get a Visa waiver.

Your question is fascinating... the answer is unattainable. (At least for the general public).

One thing I HAVE come across is that people employed in the **** industry have recently been denied because Federal Laws and State Laws are in conflict on this issue.
In fact you can read letters from State Senators to the Director of USCIS complaining about this situation.
The standard response they get back from USCIS is simply to restate the Federal Law relating to Class 1 Drugs.
It's a bit of a Constitutional mess and can only be resolved if the Federal Laws are changed to be more inline with State Laws (perhaps by changing the Class 1 list).

You can find some of these letters from Senators here:
Just scroll down until you see a title that looks interesting.

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/electronic-reading-room

I just now discovered (by googling around) that the issue of changing the Class-1 list has been bouncing around since 1972.
Try googling for "Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act"

$0.02

[N400questions]

As I continue to google around and read the Senators' letters etc....
I stumbled into this USCIS policy update which relates specifically to your question
It confirms that USCIS are strictly following the Federal Law (Memo date: 4/19/2019)

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...Violations.pdf

[N400questions]

Continuing my research I notice a key phrase in the USCIS Policy Manual talking about Conditional Bars (ie ways of rejecting an application)
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/...rt-f-chapter-5

It says:

Controlled Substance Violation

INA 101(f)(3) 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii), (iv)

Violation of any law on controlled substances, except for simple possession of 30g or less of *********

According to google's calculator, 30g is equivalent to 1.05822 ounces

When I went off in another direction looking at some States that legalize **** sales, I notice they often set a maximum sale of 1oz and sometimes lower at 28g

So this makes me wonder if the States intentionally set their limits to stay at or below the Federal 30g limit?
It may just be a coincidence. However these numbers are suspiciously close.

I have no idea how this affects USCIS's day to day case processing.

It seems that people working in the **** industry might somehow be considered to be "Drug Dealers" at the Federal level.
This activity can be legal at the State level but not at the Federal level.
That's why the State Senators are objecting loud and clear... but that won't fix it..... they need to use Congress to change the Federal Laws.

The applicant's involvement in the industry naturally shows up in their "Employment History" on their N400. Therefore the USCIS Interviewers find themselves forced to address it - even if they really wish they didn't have to. The USCIS employee then looks up the food chain for guidance and hits that policy memo effectively saying.. "Zero Tolerance". So the application gets denied. That innocent-sounding minimum wage job on the check-out in a State-legal Dispensary suddenly becomes a N400 nightmare. Very sad. If they had known... they might have gone to work for McDonald's instead.

As far as possession or usage is concerned, perhaps the 30g or 1oz threshold is significant for N400 purposes.

Unless the laws are changed at the Federal level (to remove **** from Class-1 status) this will probably continue to confuse everyone.

Please do not take anything I say as an expert opinion. I'm just someone who likes to google and learn.

Here is one of the best reports I've seen describing US drug laws dating way back in history.
It's a fascinating read.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43749.pdf

[N400questions]

Finally... one of the most important documents giving guidance to Federal Prosecutors in recent years is often referred to as "The Cole Memorandum".
It was sent by the Deputy Attorney General (James M Cole) on 8/29/2013 with the Subject "Guidance Regarding ********* Enforcement"

You will see it mentioned in several of the letters that Senators are sending to the Director of the USCIS.
It's only a few pages long and easy to read.
In a nutshell (over-simplified) it tells prosecutors to focus on the dealers/gangsters and to de-emphasize users/consumers.
Unfortunately, it is only laying out guidelines on how to apply prosecutorial discretion. It is not a law. That's why the USCIS can simply ignore it.

Cole Memorandum 8/29/2013:
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/reso...2756857467.pdf

Like I've said a couple of times... Unless the laws are changed at the Federal level (to remove **** from Class-1 status) this will probably continue to confuse everyone and could drag on for years. It's already been dragging on for 47 years since 1972.

[N400questions]

I couldn't let this one go by so I just sent the following letter to my Senator

Dear Senator YYYY ,

I am applying for Citizenship and have been actively researching various topics related to the process.

Today, I was horrified to learn that people "involved in the **** industry" have been denied citizenship based on Federal laws relating to Class-1 drugs.

There are several things that you can do to remedy this situation.

Some require pushing bills through Congress to change Federal Laws.
However there are much simpler things that you can enact locally at the State level to protect people from becoming "collateral damage" in the USCIS Immigration procedure.

A) I'm sure you are aware of the Federal level solution. This would involve changing Federal Law to remove **** from the list of Class-1 drugs and therefore solve the problem permanently.

In the meantime, the following changes at the State level would protect non-citizens from accidentally getting a job at the check-out of a Dispensary and falling into the trap of losing their rights to citizenship due to "involvement in the **** industry".

B) Make it illegal for a Dispensary to employ someone who is not already a Citizen. The purpose of this idea is NOT to make it hard for non-citizens to obtain employment. It is to protect them from accidentally falling into the trap of being associated with the **** industry and losing rights to naturalization down the road.

C) Require all Dispensaries to have large 6foot by 6foot posters on their walls warning that anyone working in the industry or anyone purchasing **** may inadvertently lose their rights to become US citizens. The owners of the dispensary will not be happy about this solution... but the information needs to be clear and unambiguous to all non-citizens who may not realize the ramifications of their seemingly legal employment in the industry or their purchases at the dispensary.

D) Similarly, instead of restricting "B" and "C" to Dispensaries, implement the same type of laws at all stages in the **** production pipeline

I urge you to implement "B", "C" and "D" as an immediate stop-gap. These are easily within your power at the State level.

Solution "A" will take longer to push through Congress and would probably require a super-majority to guarantee any risk of veto.

I also urge you to share these suggestions with the other 99 senators to avoid any further accidental collateral damage.

Respectfully,
YYYY

[pmf123]

How could they possibly know you smoked once?