USA & Australia with a criminal record.

ferf1223

mrmichaelf wrote: »

It is only a risk if they can check your criminal records, which after talking to someone I know who works for customs, they dont have access to the information, which means they can only know about it if you tell them.

Really confused - on the first post of this thread you said:

mrmichaelf wrote: »

We want to do things legally and above board as we actually know someone who got caught in America after answering no on his Visa Waiver, they did find out he had a criminal record!

So...apparently telling them is not the only way for them to find out if you have a criminal record...unless I'm completely misunderstanding something.

Stephb1986_2

It depends how bad the crime was really, if your a terrorist then they will know about you but if you was drunken and disorderly then they probably wont know.

Steph xx

minimad1970

Hi, My friend has just been issued with a USA visa and it is valid for 10 years.

mrmichaelf

Visa declined

AmberNicotine

mrmichaelf wrote: »

Visa declined

Reason was? as simple stalking can be countered by petty offenses - even though its NOT a CiMT, in which case it wasn't simple stalking, but rather threats were made along the line. There is a ground of removability, but not inadmissibility, unless its aggrevated, in which case you're screwed.

MKS

Check with NACRO (www.nacro.org.uk) 0800 0181259. Their advice is that the US do not have access to UK records. HTH


If you click on the above link ir should take you to their site.

mrmichaelf

AmberNicotine wrote: »

Reason was? as simple stalking can be countered by petty offenses - even though its NOT a CiMT, in which case it wasn't simple stalking, but rather threats were made along the line. There is a ground of removability, but not inadmissibility, unless its aggrevated, in which case you're screwed.

I should have posted more info. My partner took some legal advice and was told not to even bother trying for a Visa as it would be delclined.
How the offence came about was, her ex partner left her and took all her belongings and emptied the bank account. She kept ringing him and going round to try and get it back, the police got involved, warned her, but she didn't listen and she ended up with community service, later replace with a fine. There were no threats at all, just the fact she would wait for him at his house etc to try and get in and get her things back.

She regrets it now obviously. She booked to see a solictor who looked at her case and said the embassy would no way give her a Visa. So hence why I posted declined. Maybe that isn't the case, but is it worth the time and hassle, and money to just be declined as our solicitor as said?

Pee

And the Solicitor was experienced in this area?

mrmichaelf

Ok thankyou. That mkaes things a bit clearer. Would you still go down the route of applying?
The whole question of even if you have been arrested for something, you need to apply.

There were no violations and it was a first and only offence.

AmberNicotine

mrmichaelf wrote: »

Ok thankyou. That mkaes things a bit clearer. Would you still go down the route of applying?
The whole question of even if you have been arrested for something, you need to apply.

There were no violations and it was a first and only offence.

I wouldn't even apply as you meet the terms of the visa waiver programme IMO.

The question asked is

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

The answer to that is NO. So you can tick NO on the ESTA Application. If you are ever asked "have you ever been arrested" - say by the US Immigration folks, the answer would be yes, as its a different question altogether. If you want to cover yourself, take a copy of the police certificate - £10 from the local cop shop to prove what the arrest was for.

Most people who get sent back are sent back for lying, either on the form, or to the CBP agent. Its easy to send someone back for lying. CBP have indirrect access to UK criminal records and fingerprint data, both formally and informallly - the UK is only a phone call away. US have direct access to the most serious criminality of UK citizens. Fingerprint access is currently limited to a certain amount of hits per year, however, that limit will be lifted in a few years IMO.

If you are worried about being turned back at the border, then apply for a visa. (Estimate at least £250 plus for this service after acro certificates, MOC, interview, travel, time off work). IF you are woried you don't meet the criteria, get some advice from an immigration specialist - not a UK solicitor who specialises in UK law.

Further case law, if you are really interested in this sort of thing, and this one is a basis for LOTS of things

In re Ali Hussein AJAMI, Respondent, File A43 468 532 - Detroit, Decided as amended July 13, 1991, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals

"The offense of aggravated stalking pursuant to section 750.411i of the Michigan
Compiled Laws Annotated is a crime involving moral turpitude."

MICHIGAN PENAL CODE 750.411i

"(d) “Harassment” means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
(e) “Stalking” means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested."


"(2) An individual who engages in stalking is guilty of aggravated stalking if the violation involves any of the following circumstances:
(a) At least 1 of the actions constituting the offense is in violation of a restraining order and the individual has received actual notice of that restraining order or at least 1 of the actions is in violation of an injunction or preliminary injunction.
(b) At least 1 of the actions constituting the offense is in violation of a condition of probation, a condition of parole, a condition of pretrial release, or a condition of release on bond pending appeal.
(c) The course of conduct includes the making of 1 or more credible threats against the victim, a member of the victim's family, or another individual living in the same household as the victim.
(d) The individual has been previously convicted of a violation of this section or section 411h."


As long as the crime involves none of the aggravating issues above, its NOT a CiMT.