i-94w visa,convictions and going to usa,help

bwatt00

Erikin wrote: »

On the green waiver form there is more to answering yes or no to the moral turpitude question. You may be able to say you have not committed a moral turpitude offence but still not be able to truthfully tick the no box. The question is multi-faceted; covering in addition to moral turpitude, drugs, two or more offences and immoral activities.


There is no statue definition of moral turpitude – its definition is built on case law. A crime such as simple assault has not been considered to involve moral turpitude.


Possible example. One arrest/conviction for a simple assault (ABH – max penalty five years) you could answer no – but a second arrest/conviction for anything would render you to answer yes under the two offence part of the question.


Regarding the OP - appears to be two offences drink and assault – if the aggregate sentences are 5 years or more ( which could well be) the person does not qualify for the visa waiver program.

yes maybe the two convictions but not been to prison for them,just small fines well 300 and 150.
It does not say simple assult on her record,but it was,maybe uk law dont have such a word in law as simple assult as it sure would look better than assult as that could mean anything,and really hers was nothing compared to what others are.

Erikin_2

When you get on the plane for the US this is the question you are asked on the green visa waiver form.

“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?”

The required answer is “No” so if you get it wrong or found to be wrong you have trouble.

Aggregate sentence, (please anyone correct me if I’m wrong) refers to the maximum possible sentence for the offence, not the sentence the court dispenses.

Don’t see why, for example, ABH (actual bodily harm) cannot be considered as a “simple assault”, especially where the circumstances are at the lesser end of the offence.

To me these circumstances all revolve around the two offences and the maximum aggregate sentence of five years. Depends on what the actual offences were – as there are a number of variations for these offences with different maximum sentences.

The question asked is far from being straightforward but if you want to go to the US it has to be dealt with one way or another. Good luck.

c_l_a_i_r_e

bwatt00 wrote: »

yes maybe the two convictions but not been to prison for them,just small fines well 300 and 150.
It does not say simple assult on her record,but it was,maybe uk law dont have such a word in law as simple assult as it sure would look better than assult as that could mean anything,and really hers was nothing compared to what others are.

It wouldn't say simple assault because there is no such charge here. There is common assault, Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, GBH, and GBH with intent.

bwatt00

So what would she do then,if applying for a visa then for sure will miss out on the trip,but if she has one then no worries in future visits to usa,if she did go over and these where an issue after saying no on the vwp,then it would be costly,something else to go against her and banned from the usa.

I have had so many saying its ok and not ok to go on a vwp,people with convictions and some still going and not having any problems,she just does not want to be in trouble with the law again as these things sure has got her worried and paranoid and not trusting in people these days.

I keep saying as does others her convictions are nothing really and its more criminals who are like murders and people like that not her's but end of day when she ticks the no box and has convictions if hers it that question they ask moral turpitude,which i have read over and over is not for assult with no harm and drink driving.

I would be over the moon if she went,but would be kicking myself and she would not be pleased if we thought what she was doing was right and was not,she was going to take all her police clearences and court letters and stuff as if stopped then could show them,but i dont think they would care,they would be annoyed for her telling lies,but would she as the word moral turpitude is the big question.

hammy_the_hammer

i'm not going to get into any moral argument over this. i'm not going to offer advice but just point out some things that people should consider.
1. to the best of my knowledge (i've seen no evidence to contradict this ) there's no sharing of criminal data between the UK and US.
2. i've never read anything in the papers / on the net of someone being turned away from the US with minor convictions having answered NO on the visa waiver
3. if you took court documents with you and having answered NO to the appropriate question on the VW immigration did a search of your belongings because they thought you might overstay or similar ....you'd have some awkward questions to answer
4. read the appropriate entry on wikipedia about moral turpitude and then decide whether the offences committed come under this banner .....i could justify to myself that they didn't and thus remove all thoughts from my mind about them ....they've gone away ...no need to think twice about ticking the NO box on the VW..no need to babble to an immigration officer .
5. applying for a visa will be time consuming and expensive ....i'm only guessing but i doubt they'd be too impressed if you presented a case where you imply it wasn't serious and it wasn't really your fault as you'd been provoked etc

ultimately it's the individuals decision on what course to take

pdmc105

I've been researching "Moral turpitude" as i have a conviction for a public order offence from almost 20 years ago and was worried when the travel agent said i would need a visa - but after reading this from the US Department of State's website - i'm 100% sure my conviction doesn't involve moral turpitude so see no reason to spend £££s travelling to London and paying for a visa.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

bwatt00

pdmc105 wrote: »

I've been researching "Moral turpitude" as i have a conviction for a public order offence from almost 20 years ago and was worried when the travel agent said i would need a visa - but after reading this from the US Department of State's website - i'm 100% sure my conviction doesn't involve moral turpitude so see no reason to spend £££s travelling to London and paying for a visa.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

So would you reckon simple assult and drink driving be ok then on the vwp,i am on nightshift and its too much to take in right now,but am going to email my girlfriend and see if she can work it out,but if this was printed say and took with her and she was stopped,would this help in being confused in what moral turpitude was or means,the last thing she would want is to be banned from usa for life and be turned back home,this maybe is what she needed to read,but as i said i am not taking it in,maybe need to print it out and read at my own time.

debs66_2

hi, i think what you have to do is make a decision yourself. you can take advice from people's posts, but i don't think anyone is going to put themselves out and tell you what you should do.

i also don't think you should keep saying 'a simple assault'. if i had been assaulted in public with a glass, i wouldn't think of it as a simple issue.

that said, i don't think your GF is a threat to the US of A! how you handle it is now up to you. hope it all pans out and you have a fab holiday.

dzug1

debs66 wrote: »

i also don't think you should keep saying 'a simple assault'. if i had been assaulted in public with a glass, i wouldn't think of it as a simple issue.

The assault was with the CONTENTS of the glass, which was I assume not broken. No weapon, no intent to cause serious injury = not moral turpitude.

debs66_2

the OP says in his post "she took the contents of the drink and threw the drink over his face and the glass", which i took as, she threw the contents and then the glass. this is how it reads.

i also said that i don't think his GF is a threat to the US because of this incident.