Confusing Drug Question

[14stripes 0]

My cousin had her ME recently. During the session, the physician was talking fast, in phrases, and was barely understandable because of her face mask. She then went on to ask "eh (how about) shabu, marijuana" then my cousin couldn't understand her so she made the physician repeat it. She remembered an incident of when she came in contact with weed so there was a pause, but never smoked it. She said "weed" and then the physician only asked "when" and she said April of 2009. She also asked the physician if that will be of any useful information and she said "i don't know the procedure. the doctors upstairs will ask you questions". So they proceeded with the ME.

Her mom is the beneficiary (my cousin is the derivative) and has to undergo the sputum exam, so that's another 10 weeks. My cousin hasn't gone for her vaccinations yet because of the situation with her mom (her mom being the beneficiary has to finish her results too). Now we have read all the other stuff and immigration lawyers are saying there have been cases regarding St Luke's and their way of asking questions and stuff. Anyway, she noticed a folded paper stapled to her other results and took a peek. It said "substance abuse". She tore the paper off carefully and did not submit it. Now she wants to talk to the physician when she goes back for her vaccines to clarify everything and to make sure nothing on her record says she used drugs.

Does she have grounds to do that? Won't the physician take it against her and put something on her record just to get back at her? I know it may sound absurd but it's not an uncommon occurrence here in the Philippines. She's really concerned it may be a cause for denial.

Also, if unfortunately she cannot reverse her discussion with her physician, is there no way out of it?

[sjr09 155]

You She admitted to substance abuse, and tampered with documents

"substance abuse". is grounds for a life ban

EDIT

Edited November 17, 2010 by sjr09

[sjr09 155]

Understandably, consular officers do not want to issue an entry pass to people who are habitual drug users. Part of the process to determine whether a visa applicant has past drug use is the medical clearance, which is obtained after successfully undergoing a medical examination by an approved panel physician and receiving vaccinations, if required.

As previously reported here, the practice of the panel physicians at St. Luke’s Hospital in Manila is to question visa applicants during the medical evaluation process and then to use the answers to cause the applicant to be barred from the US. Specifically, answers relating to past drug use have been gained by the physicians in confidence, then relayed to embassy officers, causing a bar to admissibility to unsuspecting visa applicants. Thus, instead of preventing only habitual drug offenders from entry to the US, people who have a single instance of drug experimentation are also being barred.

The current practice is that someone who has been petitioned for an immigrant visa and is undergoing the final embassy processing steps can be banned for life for admitting that he or she had used drugs in the past. The ban applies even if the drug use was one isolated incident or occurred many years ago.

The lifetime ban is also applicable even if the applicant was never charged or convicted of any drug crime and if a drug test turned out negative.

Thus, some visa applicants that have been waiting years for their priority date to become current and have been eagerly fulfilling all necessary visa processing steps may be in for an unwelcome surprise when undergoing what should be a routine medical evaluation.

However, two recent decisions of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) have found that such practice on the part of the physicians is unlawful. The decisions build on a strong body of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) cases that illustrate the requirements for when someone who has not been convicted of drug use can be banned from the US for merely admitting drug use. The cases of Matter of K, Matter of J and Matter of P indicate that in order for a visa applicant’s admission of past drug use to be used against him, the admission must have been validly obtained. Validly obtained means that the applicant must have been provided with the definition and essential elements of the crime prior to his admission; the applicant must admit the conduct constituting the essential elements of the crime and that he committed the offense; and the applicant’s admission must be voluntary.

In the recent AAO cases, both of the applicants had been petitioned by immediate family members, and underwent normal visa processing. Neither applicant had been convicted of any drug crime and both honestly admitted to past drug use during medical examinations at St. Luke’s Hospital.

When Manila’s US Immigrant Visa Section attempted to ban the applicants from entering the US due to the admissions, appeals were filed with the AAO. In turn, the AAO agreed with BIA precedent by finding that the admissions obtained in these cases were invalid as the applicants had not been provided with an adequate definition of the crimes, including all essential elements, in plain English. The AAO noted that following these procedures in obtaining drug admissions serves the interests of fairness and would ensure that no trickery or entrapment was in effect. As such, in a striking victory for the visa applicants, it was ruled the admissions obtained by the St. Luke’s physicians could not be used against them in their visa processing.

The requirements of notice and explanation of essential elements have been incorporated into Volume 9 of the FAM. Due process in this area is evolving and ever-changing, but the recent momentum is cause for optimism. Reeves & Associates will continue to challenge the Manila Embassy’s use of the medical exam to extract “admissions” from unwitting visa applicants.

The purpose of the medical exam as defined by the Centers for Disease Control is to identify medical conditions, including current use or addiction to drugs, not to identify youthful experimentation for the purpose of developing evidence to bar visa applicants for life.

[14stripes 0]

As previously reported here, the practice of the panel physicians at St. Luke’s Hospital in Manila is to question visa applicants during the medical evaluation process and then to use the answers to cause the applicant to be barred from the US. Specifically, answers relating to past drug use have been gained by the physicians in confidence, then relayed to embassy officers, causing a bar to admissibility to unsuspecting visa applicants. Thus, instead of preventing only habitual drug offenders from entry to the US, people who have a single instance of drug experimentation are also being barred.

yes I read something about this online. but she hasn't used it at all. now she's bugging me about it to look for solutions online. she wants to go back to the physician to clarify things. plus, she didn't ask in plain English and specific questions. can she just go up to the physician and say something like "excuse me miss, i want to clarify that i dint use it, i just came in contact w it" and if she can check her records to see if the physician included it there?

this isn't me. i would say it's me if it's me because there's anonymity involved anyway.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

yes I read something about this online. but she hasn't used it at all. now she's bugging me about it to look for solutions online. she wants to go back to the physician to clarify things. plus, she didn't ask in plain English and specific questions. can she just go up to the physician and say something like "excuse me miss, i want to clarify that i dint use it, i just came in contact w it" and if she can check her records to see if the physician included it there?

this isn't me. i would say it's me if it's me because there's anonymity involved anyway.

What do you mean "in contact with it"?

She tampered with official documents which is grounds for denial. If I were her I would NOT mention anything because they will either:

1. notice that there is nothing in her file about it and document it now,

2. remember it SHOULD have been there and now it's gone and think either it's just missing and put it in again or accuse her of taking it

3. notice it's not there in her file and realise she must have removed it and denying her on those grounds

Either way, I don't see this ending well if she mentions it. You mentioned that the lady said the doc would mention it to her later? Did the doc mention it to her?

In the event it IS in her file (them having realised the paper "dropped off" and putting a new one there) she has the opportunity to challenge it by stating that there was a miscommunication and *hope* that that is sufficient.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[14stripes 0]

Either way, I don't see this ending well if she mentions it. You mentioned that the lady said the doc would mention it to her later? Did the doc mention it to her?

In the event it IS in her file (them having realised the paper "dropped off" and putting a new one there) she has the opportunity to challenge it by stating that there was a miscommunication and *hope* that that is sufficient.

her friend showed it to her and she held it and looked at it, therefore coming in contact with it. but it wasn't burned or anything.

thanks for another insight. she was actually dead set on asking the physician. i actually even encouraged her. but you make strong points.

now we're thinking:

1. IF SHE DOESNT ASK, what if her answer isn't on file like on the computer, so w the paper gone, she's in the clear?

2. IF THEY PUT ANOTHER PAPER, will they ask her about that during the interview or will they outright deny her a visa? Her mom will get mad for sure if they ask that.

3. IF SHE ASKS, at least she could clear things up? Like we were thinking she can come in and just clarify and if she asks about a paper she can just say there wasn't any attached and like that could even clear things up and the physician could take it that she was telling the truth about not smoking it?

i don't even know what to tell her anymore. her next ME is in January so she has like 2 months to stress over it, meaning to stress me about it, too.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

her friend showed it to her and she held it and looked at it, therefore coming in contact with it. but it wasn't burned or anything.

thanks for another insight. she was actually dead set on asking the physician. i actually even encouraged her. but you make strong points.

now we're thinking:

1. IF SHE DOESNT ASK, what if her answer isn't on file like on the computer, so w the paper gone, she's in the clear?

2. IF THEY PUT ANOTHER PAPER, will they ask her about that during the interview or will they outright deny her a visa? Her mom will get mad for sure if they ask that.

3. IF SHE ASKS, at least she could clear things up? Like we were thinking she can come in and just clarify and if she asks about a paper she can just say there wasn't any attached and like that could even clear things up and the physician could take it that she was telling the truth about not smoking it?

i don't even know what to tell her anymore. her next ME is in January so she has like 2 months to stress over it, meaning to stress me about it, too.

1. Exactly.

2. I believe she will find out that before the interview.

3. She might clear things up, or it will look like she's admitting it now (and trying to hide it) and they might wonder where the paper went.. etc etc.

If she's DEAD SET on asking about it (which I think is VERY risky), she should ask it in a round about way. Without giving her name she should pretend she's asking in advance of the appointment when she'll find out if there's problems with the medical. Something like "if we have TB, or something else wrong, do we find out at interview? Or will you tell us at the medical?" If that doesn't get the answer she wants then she should call back the next day, this time give her name (of course not admitting she called yesterday) and say something like, "I'm a member of a visa site and I was telling people about my experience and realised that I don't remember them asking me any questions about drug use or (insert name of something else she doesn't remember.. like pap smears). Should they have? Is there any way for you to check my file and make sure that nothings missing? Or will I find out at interview if I'm okay?"

That way you're not admitting anything, and if they say "yes here on the file she admits to drug use" she can correct it and say she's never done drugs and ask about fixing it. About tests that can run (if possible) and whatever else. She should be REALLY careful when calling, she could end up in a bigger mess than she already is.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[14stripes 0]

That way you're not admitting anything, and if they say "yes here on the file she admits to drug use" she can correct it and say she's never done drugs and ask about fixing it. About tests that can run (if possible) and whatever else. She should be REALLY careful when calling, she could end up in a bigger mess than she already is.

yea actually when i read your first response, i figured it might sound fishy as to why she's suddenly clearing everything up. especially since the doctor wasn't even that entirely sure about anything, even when my cousin asked what'll happen. cause after the physical exam, she was sent to the immunization floor, then had a talk with another doctor about her vaccines. nobody gave her instructions. if it was on the file, then the doctor upstairs would've seen it right and would've asked about it?

either way, even if there is a chance things will get cleared up, you reckon it's better not to ask anymore, yea? i think i'm leaning towards telling her that now. but we'll also call to just ask if we can see the full exam results even if it's through the computer monitor only. she still has to go back for vaccines anyway. so, final answer: just not ask, yea?

thanks so much, you've been of the most help, actually. thank you.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

yea actually when i read your first response, i figured it might sound fishy as to why she's suddenly clearing everything up. especially since the doctor wasn't even that entirely sure about anything, even when my cousin asked what'll happen. cause after the physical exam, she was sent to the immunization floor, then had a talk with another doctor about her vaccines. nobody gave her instructions. if it was on the file, then the doctor upstairs would've seen it right and would've asked about it? Yep. That's what I think. That's probably why the note was there, so the doc would speak to her about it and make a note in her files. It's likely that no-one did anything with her file until she had seen the doc so I don't think the girl who made the note would remember it was supposed to be there, and is probably not the one making the file all "pretty" for USCIS

either way, even if there is a chance things will get cleared up, you reckon it's better not to ask anymore, yea? i think i'm leaning towards telling her that now. but we'll also call to just ask if we can see the full exam results even if it's through the computer monitor only. she still has to go back for vaccines anyway. so, final answer: just not ask, yea? I don't think she should bother asking. I think it makes her look guilty. Makes it look like she was told "you shouldn't have admitted that" when she got home and is now trying to change her story

thanks so much, you've been of the most help, actually. thank you.

I honestly think that if the drug use was an issue she would have been told that when she saw the doctor (who would have told her something). Usually drug use is an immediate denial (I think you might get the chance to appeal it..) but I would think that the doc would have talked to her about "what now".

I would just let it go. I honestly think that so many people go into the docs office the person who wrote the note wouldn't remember it was supposed to be there, and so there's nothing on the file about it. It's still remotely possible, but I honestly doubt it.

I wrote notes up above for you as well. I hope it's all okay for your friend. I think it will be.

[14stripes 0]

I wrote notes up above for you as well. I hope it's all okay for your friend. I think it will be.

yes, thank you so much. me and my cousin are grateful. kind of eases everything up for her, too. i hope you're right. i hope everything will be fine. thank you again.

[Stanley Hermosill 1]

It doesnt sound like your cousin did any irreparable damage. How did has it ended up working out??

[14stripes 0]

It doesnt sound like your cousin did any irreparable damage. How did has it ended up working out??

it's on file on the computer. she was asked to take a psychiatric exam and then she asked why. she found out that it was for drug use so she said she did not take any. she had no choice but to talk to the physician. after a debate about everything, she was made to write at the back of the paper with the rest of the signature and immunization that she never smoked weed. and she caught a glimpse of her papers, there didn't seem to be anything additional to it. hopefully the record has been completely been removed already.

now they're just waiting for the negative results on the culture of her parents regarding the sputum exam. hopefully it's negative and they get approved!

[Armenia 18]

it's on file on the computer. she was asked to take a psychiatric exam and then she asked why. she found out that it was for drug use so she said she did not take any. she had no choice but to talk to the physician. after a debate about everything, she was made to write at the back of the paper with the rest of the signature and immunization that she never smoked weed. and she caught a glimpse of her papers, there didn't seem to be anything additional to it. hopefully the record has been completely been removed already.

now they're just waiting for the negative results on the culture of her parents regarding the sputum exam. hopefully it's negative and they get approved!

Quite awful people (the SLMCEC staff, not your cousin). They seem to prefer people answering that they've used drugs over saying that they haven't used drugs.

I remember during my ME that when the female physician asked me if I've ever used drugs, I clearly answered "No." She repeated her question (I thought, Is she deaf?) and so I more loudly rephrased "No, I've never used drugs."

[sjr09 155]

Quite awful people (the SLMCEC staff, not your cousin). They seem to prefer people answering that they've used drugs over saying that they haven't used drugs.

I remember during my ME that when the female physician asked me if I've ever used drugs, I clearly answered "No." She repeated her question (I thought, Is she deaf?) and so I more loudly rephrased "No, I've never used drugs."

I don’t see SLMCEC as awful people, it’s there job to weed out the bad seeds!

[Tahoma 2,292]

I don’t see SLMCEC as awful people, it’s there job to weed out the bad seeds!

I agree that St. Lukes is only doing their job. However, I don't consider a person who experimented with pot in their youth to be a "bad seed."