Visiting USA with a criminal record

rabidmonkey

FH_Brit wrote: »

You STILL carry on - I am not arguing with you - You are not worth it!

You still do not respond to the actual case law, whats wrong, scared that it shows you know NOTHING.

Jose Luis Reyes-Morales, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, * Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent., 435 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2006)

Stop giving out BAD advice on things you know nothing about and are at best misinformation.

rabidmonkey

FH_Brit wrote:

Rabid - I give up - I am not answering anymore - You are right you are always right and if anyone listens god help them!

You have consistantly been proven incorrect in nearly ALL the "advice" you have given. You still do NOT realise, no matter how it is put forward to you, that consular staff WILL NOT give out advice on CiMTs, and that they will insist you need a visa. Its even written on the website what they will tell you.

My advice is also based on previous cases (which is what CiMTs are assessed on - and those cases are linked to).

Now, the particular relevant case here is

Jose Luis Reyes-Morales, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, * Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent., 435 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2006)

Here, however, Reyes-Morales was convicted of intentionally making telephone calls with reason to know that such calls would cause, and did cause, the recipient to feel frightened. A reckless mental state, without more, typically does not give rise to a finding of moral turpitude. See In re Fualaau, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 478 (noting that although the BIA has "issued precedents holding that a conviction involving reckless conduct" can provide the basis for a finding of moral turpitude, the alien's reckless conduct is typically coupled with an aggravating factor).

Hopefully you'll be able to see that writing, as you seem to ignorantly skip past important details. (something not very good in your stated profession).

Looking at that case TELL ME WHERE YOU THINK I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. As you state you have a legal degree you should have no problems understanding the paragraph I have posted.

If you then think I am wrong, you had better inform Julia K. Doig Chief Appellate Counsel Immigration and Naturalization Service and all of the immigration lawyers in the UK and US who also refer to that case.

FH_Brit wrote:

It's nothing to do with CiMT as you put it - it is because he was not convicted!!!!

That one line proves you know NOTHING on this subject, and you really must stop posting misguided "advice"

FH_Brit wrote:

b) "c) beleives that that advice is legally binding on the US" - That That ???? Binding on US ??? - Please check your English!!

Ah, the ultimate insult from someone who is a loser, and realises they are ioncorrect, a personal insult.

FH_Brit wrote:

c) Consulate = I don't know HOWEVER the Embassy will - there is a premium rate number so it costs you but they will give advice.

As already stated the consulate won't, even the embassy won't.

FH_Brit wrote:

d) I studied Law at Kings College London Law School - so as FH Brit might suggest, I am British and my law degree is a UK qualification

Obviously not in a field related in any way to criminal law or immigration law. If it was then I would seriously think about getting your money back.

Quentin

FH_Brit wrote: »

You have been reported toMSE for personal offensive remarks.

Though it seems you don't mind handing them out yourself.

eg:

FH_Brit wrote:

Quentin - You are an annoying rude person who type's absolute rubbish. You are offensive and will do anything to argue.

rabidmonkey

Quentin wrote: »

Though it seems you don't mind handing them out yourself.

eg:

Hes a hypocrite. Hes already reported and got removed 2 posts which showed him to be totally incorrect. These posts linked to relevant legal cases. His legal arguement that telephone harassment is a crime involving moral turpitude seems to revolve areound the fact I used a sentence with "that that" in it.

no doubt he well try and get this one removed - although hes stated so many times he's not looking here.

mrmichaelf

rabidmonkey wrote: »

Hes a hypocrite. Hes already reported and got removed 2 posts which showed him to be totally incorrect. These posts linked to relevant legal cases. His legal arguement that telephone harassment is a crime involving moral turpitude seems to revolve areound the fact I used a sentence with "that that" in it.

no doubt he well try and get this one removed - although hes stated so many times he's not looking here.

Looks like I have opened up a whole can of worms here! Sorry everyone!

Hopefully everything will work out ok when I visit the USA in the next few months.

rabidmonkey

mrmichaelf wrote: »

Looks like I have opened up a whole can of worms here! Sorry everyone!.

Guy spouts nonsense as fact. Heres a few of his classic moments (and a warning as to why he should be ignored)

FH_Brit wrote: »

Tthey arrest you upon arrival along with your whole party, and refuse you all entry into the USA. Oh and by the way I have heard that if there is no other flight out that day, the'll bang you all up in jail, and charge you for the privilage, then put you out in the morning, and just another point this would be re-patriation not deportation, the difference?, you pay for re-patriation (look at your tickets for yoiur holiday flight, something like "not valid for re-patriation or deportation" - that means you got to buy new tickets to get home).

Few untruths there :-

whole party is not arrested
they do not charge you for the flight - theres a legal obligation on the airline to cover that cost.

He compounds his misunderstanding, and qualifies his ignorance on these matters by stating

FH_Brit wrote: »

NEVER said they woul;d arrest everyone in party - they will be refused entry into the USA, there's a difference.

Secondly they CAN and DO charge you for the jail stay overnight

He actually did say everyone would be arrested

FH_Brit wrote: »

Tthey arrest you upon arrival along with your whole party

Seems pretty clear to me from that statement. Now EVERYONE in the party would be refused entry if one member of that party was inelligable.

And again here, he always beleives hes right., even though the facts, and the law, disagree with him. On the same subject that EVERYONE gets refused entry if one person on the booking is refused, or staying at the same hotel

FH_Brit wrote: »

It is true however, if you are all on the same booking and/or from the same family and/or staying at the same accomodation.

Now, on to other humdingers

FH_Brit wrote: »

Any offence (howsoever minor) must be disclosed even a caution the question is "guilty of offence" not court

Utter nonsense and so incorrect to be laughable.

FH_Brit wrote: »

Dave - call the Embassy - ask them - they are the ones who will turn you away if you get it wrong. Before the ESTA they did not look well on ANY violent or Sexual crims no matter how trivial or what the sentance was - you HAD to declare and HAD to get Visa.

Do you want to do it where people on here tell you wrong and then as you go through immigration at the US airport they then turn you away an refuse you entry? Is It worth it? No. Call the Embassy and ASK!

First paragraph is just wrong in all respects. Again in the second he beleives the US embassy/consulate will provide advice regard moral turitude over the phone.

FH_Brit wrote: »

Driving points are irellevant (unless you are banned for over 12 points)

Utter utter garbage. 4 speeding offences are not relevant.

FH_Brit wrote: »

You have to obtain an ESTA (completed on line PRIOR to travel) this is dealt with by the Homeland Security Dept. and a criminal record check is carried out.

ESTA does not do a criminal records check, there are checks against non-fly lists, serious criminality, but not against the CRB

You stated that here as well

FH_Brit wrote: »

And the fact that he has been approved for his ESTA proves my point - although they ask it does not exclude you from US entry as - Guess What? - no charges mean he is innocent!

As I said - They'll check a little further but no conviction = no offence.

I find it seriously concerning you think your point has been proved, and that you think ESTA checks ALL criminal records throughout the world for an individual, tallys the code against a list of US criminal codes and decides if they're CiMTs or not.

I also find it seriously concerning you do not realise that ESTA asks about arrests as well as convictions, and relevant arrests would lead to a refusal of ESTA.

FH_Brit wrote:

Oh - after thought - It does not matter if you are arrested - it matters if you were CHARGED AND CONVICTED - Many are arrested and released without charge and that means you were officially not guilty (they may re-arrest later but until conviction it is irrelevant).

Now, lets take a look at ESTA

Have you ever been arrested or convicted

But of course, ESTA is incorrect, and you are correct - obviously. Also the fact you feel that

FH_Brit wrote:

until conviction it is irrelevant).

is a total and utter joke, and shows total ignorance on this subject. As does

FH_Brit wrote:

It's nothing to do with CiMT as you put it - it is because he was not convicted!!!!

As for the fact you beleive criminal records checks are done, heres the list of what is checked

Run the applicant’s data against Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) biographical records, Interpol lost and stolen passport records, and Department of State’s lost and stolen passport records and visa revocations to determine whether the applicant poses a law enforcement or security risk in traveling to the United States.

The ESTA system does not analyze any data, but rather does name matching and screening using existing DHS IT systems. CBP will examine the application by screening the applicant’s data through the Automated Targeting System
(ATS) (to screen for terrorists or threats to aviation and border security) and the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) (for matches to
persons identified to be of law enforcement interest).

Thats it, how do I know that, due to this document

http://foia.cbp.gov/streamingWord.asp?i=43

FH_Brit wrote: »

If you have a criminal record ...... you need to get a Visa from the American Embassy

hogwash, seriously stop giving out your "facts".

FH_Brit wrote: »

(Data Prtotection Act prevents "sharing" of information)

LOL. Data protection Act allows sharing

28 National security

(1) Personal data are exempt from any of the provisions of—

(a) the data protection principles,

(b) Parts II, III and V, and

(c) section 55,

if the exemption from that provision is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

29 Crime and taxation

(1) Personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or
(c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,

are exempt from the first data protection principle.....


And the 5 Countrys Agreement actually extends this. Data is also shared with Interpol, including DNA and fingerprints.

Thats just an example of his "help" here. (And no doubt he'll try and get this post removed, although it is extremely relevant as to why this poster should be ignored).

rabidmonkey

FH_Brit wrote: »

Dave - call the Embassy - ask them - they are the ones who will turn you away if you get it wrong.......................Is It worth it? No. Call the Embassy and ASK!

This is the usual response he posts, now, useful? well no. Embassy staff can only give one answer. Want proof,

heres a webchat between the London Embassy and prospective travellers

http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/visa/AmEmbassy_London_visa_webchat2.pdf

Q: I have an conviction which is 30 years old. Do I need to attend an interview for a Tourist Visa?

Travelers to the United States must establish their eligibility for admission under U.S. visa law. Those with arrests or convictions may be ineligible on criminal grounds. As U.S. visa law does not recognize the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a spent conviction, regardless of when it may have occurred, must be declared.
Under certain circumstances those found ineligible to enter the United States may apply for a temporary waiver of their ineligibility so that they can travel. Factors included in the decision to recommend a waiver would include: the severity of the crime that created the visa ineligibility; the period of time that has elapsed since they committed the crime or served a prison sentence, the reason and duration of the visit and any humanitarian considerations.
You are welcome to apply for a visa and will need to bring information on your convictions with you to the interview. I suggest that you visit our website at http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/visa/niv/add_crime.html
for further information.

Q: i've been convicted of drink driving, will that stop me getting a visa?

A: You will need to apply for a visa, following the procedures outlined on our website, http://london.usembassy.gov. When you call the Live Operator Service to make your visa appointment, be sure to inform them about your conviction. This will help them to ensure you are given the correct category of
appointment. Your eligibility for a U.S. visa can only be determined by a consular officer during your visa interview.

Question: (14:09)
Q: can any one assist? I am looking to go to Las vegas in 2010. I first visited Las Vegas in 2004. I have been told that you may be refused entered if you have a driving offence under new rules, even if it was before your last visit to the USA?

U.S. Embassy London: (14:10) A: You will need to apply for a visa, following the procedures outlined on our website, http://london.usembassy.gov. When you call the Live Operator Service to make your visa appointment,
be sure to inform them about your conviction. This will help them to ensure you are given the correct category of appointment. Your eligibility for a U.S. visa can only be determined by a consular officer during your visa interview.

Question: (14:11) Q: I have a drink drive conviction (UK) from October 2006. I applied for a visa in 2008 but was told I had to see a US Embassy approved doctor to provide evidence I don't have a serious drinking problem because my conviciont was within the last 3 years. I didn't have time for this before my planned US trip and was really annoyed that this policy wasn't publicised up front therefore abandoned the process. Once the 3 years is up in October since my conviction, will I be asked to see the US Embassy doctor, or should I expect to get a visa?

U.S. Embassy London: (14:11) A: You will need to apply for a visa, following the procedures outlined on our website, http://london.usembassy.gov. When you call the Live Operator Service to make your visa appointment, be sure to inform them about your conviction. This will help them to ensure you are given the correct category of appointment. Your eligibility for a U.S. visa can only be determined by a consular officer during your visa interview. The consular officer will inform you at that time if any additional documents or information
need to be obtained before your case can be completed.

Ash:(14:31) Would two minor 20 year old offences relating to the purchase of an MOT certificate prevent a person from accepting a permanent role in the US?

londonchat2:
(14:31) We do not preadjuciate visa applications, therefoe, I cannot advise you of the likely outcome of your appliation. If you have been arrested or convicted of an offense, you are required to apply for a visa regardless of how long it may have occurred.

Now, I could go on with this, but you can see a pattern here can't you. Any questions on criminality will result in a " You will need to apply for a visa". So stop posting "ask the embassy".

You now know that is pointless and a waste of money as you now have the answer.

rabidmonkey

To end this we'll go to the words of Fong & Chun, a Los Angeles immigration law firm focused on immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, hopefully FH Brit may realise they know more than him (although I doubt it)

http://www.fongandchun.com/lawyer-attorney-1422915.html

The following have been found by various courts and at various times NOT to be crimes involving moral turpitude:

........
harassing telephone calls
........

sharnad

good link from a us immigrantion laweyer on british expart com which lists moral turpitude crimes

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=559272

Aggravated stalking is harrasing calls are not

It seems to depend on what kind of harrasment you were guilty of

I would go and try and get a visa rather than do a visa waiver as you may get to the airport and be refused entry

cubegame

mrmichaelf wrote: »

So you are perfect are you? Never made a mistake? I was punished by a court for my crimes, IMO that should be the end of the matter. Ultimately, I lost my job through it, and now have to mess around to visit family in another country. It is pathetic.

My mind is made up, I will answer no. I honestly believe the crimes commited did not fall under moral turpitude, therefore I am being honest. Should someone at immigration disagree, then they disagree.

I'd say your biggest problem now was getting other people wound up. It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to seeing one of these posters forwarding this thread to the appropriate people and making the chance of diagreement somewhat higher.