Has Anyone Applied For A Us Visa Because They Have Been Arrested In The Past?

Baz_Bee_2

With respect scotch the person you spoke to is hardly going to admit that the information on the US Embassy web site is in fact a load of tosh that is just there to obtain information and/or cash from visitors. Like any good employee he is standing behind his employer and safeguarding him(her?)self.

Perhaps you should ask why the I-94W form contradicts the website? The I-94W is clear and the wording has been reproduced above more than once. Anyone travelling and relying upon the words on the I-94W would not be lying or trying to obtain entry in contravention of the questions asked thereon. Indeed, I for one cannot understand the verbose and specific wording of Clause B if anyone who has ever been arrested and/or convicted cannot use this form. Furthermore, if a challenge was made via the US legal system the definition of “Moral Turpitude” would exclude many offences from being declared.

In my view the Embassy person is just trying to protect the fact that they are using this as a scare tactic. Also I am not aware, and I do recall anyone who has posted on this site being aware, of anyone being turned back from the US who did not declare their previous misdemeanours. As I've said before, you pays your money and takes your choice but the only way you are likely to be caught out, IMO, is if you drop yourself in it. And in case you are wondering I do not have any convictions or have ever been arrested but know some people who have and who have travelled regularly to the US using the VWP. They have never been troubled at US immigration

Cardew

scotch wrote:

Folks
Please don't get bogged down with definitions,the US Embassy web site is pretty clear.

1.Any person who has been arrested is not eligible for the visa waiver program and needs to apply for a non immigrant visa.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/vwp.htm


2. Any person who has been arrested and convicted of an offence needs to apply for special restricted visa.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/add_req.htm

3.Any person with minor traffic offenses can travel on the visa waiver program as long as you were not arrested and/or convicted(this appears to relate to parking tickets/fixed penalty tickets where the offence you are alledged to have committed did not result in your arrest and /or conviction in a court of law)

4.The Rehabilitation of offenders act does not apply to US visa law.There is no time limit.

I work near the US embassy i will try and speak to someone who works in the Visa department to clear up any ambiguities.

At the end of the day we are all adults and free to make choices ,however be prepared to live with the consequences.

Scotch,
Your efforts in clarification and apply common sense to this matter are appreciated. However, with respect, the above post and your subsequent post(after your chat at the US Embassy) do not provide a definitive explanation in one important area.

Firstly your points 1, 2, & 4 are quite clear when reading the Embassy regulations. Not so clear though when reading the I94-W which refers to being arrested for a crime of moral turpitude. The regulations do not address the thorny subject of moral turpitude.

It is your point 3 that I take issue with:

3.Any person with minor traffic offenses can travel on the visa waiver program as long as you were not arrested and/or convicted(this appears to relate to parking tickets/fixed penalty tickets where the offence you are alledged to have committed did not result in your arrest and /or conviction in a court of law)
It should not be necessary for you(or anyone) to guess what this “appears” to relate to. Does it apply to all motoring offences(in which there was no arrest) or not? ‘Driving without due care and attention’ etc

Also what does “arrest and/or conviction” mean? Arrest and conviction is clear; but arrest or conviction – what does that mean? The I94W also states “arrest or conviction”. It is perfectly reasonable to interpret this as any conviction.

From another website I visit(and this one for that matter) I know that the term “conviction” causes great confusion. As has been said earlier, you can be convicted in a court of the most trivial offence and prior to the fixed penalty scheme all offences were dealt with in court and you were convicted. Even someone who disputes a speeding/parking ticket has to go to court and is convicted(if found guilty)

I know of people who have gone to huge trouble and expense to obtain an(unnecessary) Visa for a trivial offence committed many years ago. Try to get a memorandum of conviction for the offence of riding a bike without lights some 40 years ago!!

scotch

Hi
Baz bee
I'm not interested if you or anyone else has been arrested or convicted,i would hate to think that a families holiday was spoiled by a family member being turned back for the sake of shelling out £70
I spoke to this person for quite a while and should you wish you can only take my word for this, he has no axe to grind with anyone, he was not a "company man",he wasn't a yank ,he doesn't get bonuses and if i had a problem with a visa etc ,i honestly believe he would try and help if he could.

We didn't talk about moral turpitude so i can't help you there,however if i speak to him again i will ask what the official line is.

Cardew
I'm not quite sure what issue you are raising about the traffic offences.

Any person with minor traffic offenses can travel on the visa waiver program as long as you were not arrested and/or convicted.


As you have correctly stated you can be arrested for traffic offences,
you can also be dealt with as way of a summons which could result in a conviction at court without being arrested and also by way of a fixed penalty ticket which again you correctly state,you end up going to court through a variety of means(several i can think of are, pleading not guilty,not paying the ticket and totting up of points over 12 )
Which hopefully explains the and/or.

Good luck with getting the memo of conviction for that heinous offence of cycling without lights-there by the grace of god ,i for one go.

But as Baz bee says you pays your money and takes your choice .

Cardew

scotch wrote:

Hi
Baz bee
I'm not interested if you or anyone else has been arrested or convicted,i would hate to think that a families holiday was spoiled by a family member being turned back for the sake of shelling out £70
I spoke to this person for quite a while and should you wish you can only take my word for this, he has no axe to grind with anyone, he was not a "company man",he wasn't a yank ,he doesn't get bonuses and if i had a problem with a visa etc ,i honestly believe he would try and help if he could.

We didn't talk about moral turpitude so i can't help you there,however if i speak to him again i will ask what the official line is.

Cardew
I'm not quite sure what issue you are raising about the traffic offences.

Any person with minor traffic offenses can travel on the visa waiver program as long as you were not arrested and/or convicted.


As you have correctly stated you can be arrested for traffic offences,
you can also be dealt with as way of a summons which could result in a conviction at court without being arrested and also by way of a fixed penalty ticket which again you correctly state,you end up going to court through a variety of means(several i can think of are, pleading not guilty,not paying the ticket and totting up of points over 12 )
Which hopefully explains the and/or.

Good luck with getting the memo of conviction for that heinous offence of cycling without lights-there by the grace of god ,i for one go.

But as Baz bee says you pays your money and takes your choice .

Scotch,
I divide my time between UK and Florida and have taken quite an interest in this subject.

Let us leave aside traffic offences and moral turpitude for the moment.

Many people are confused by the term “arrest and/or conviction”: and it is the 'and/or' element of that statement that is not understood.

You can be “arrested and convicted” and clearly cannot use a waiver.

However “arrested or convicted” – what does that mean? What if you were not arrested but were convicted of an offence. Many interpret that as any conviction debars you from a waiver and they therefore require a Visa.

The I94-W also asks if you have been arrested or convicted. Same confusion – No to being arrested, but Yes to being convicted.

As for your statement "Which hopefully explains the and/or". Well I am afraid it doesn't explain it to me.

Now we agree you can be convicted in a court of the most minor offence, say, dropping litter. You can also have multiple convictions for far more serious offences that still did not entail an arrest. So what is the position here? Waiver or not? Who decides? – because it is not clear from the regulations.

Personally I think it is reasonable to interpret it such that they only are interested in convictions for offences that merited an arrest. However that is just my interpretation. Others interpret it that any conviction however minor, and however long ago, debars you from a Waiver.

Taking this one step further. The I94-W asks if you have been arrested or convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Now say I had been arrested in a case of mistaken identity without even knowing what I had been arrested for. I was not charged and released with an apology. I could with a clear conscience put ‘No’ on the I94-W if that is all I had seen. However the US embassy regulations make it absolutely clear that I cannot use a Visa Waiver under any circumstances if I have ever been arrested – not charged – not guilty etc.

So the point Baz_Bee and I were making is that the regulations are far from “pretty clear” as you contend. It should not be necessary for people to worry themselves sick and spend a great deal of time and money in obtaining an(unnecessary) Visa simply because the US Embassy and US Immigration refuse to clarify matters.

P.S I did ride a bike without lights once - but the policeman only told me off. I am learning to live with the shame!

scotch

Cardew


I totally agree with you,the visa regulations are very confusing and until i spoke face to face with the person at the visa section i could not get my head round them.

All I can say i was informed by the the person at the visa section who deals with this on a daily basis that if you have ever been arrested for anything, that you have ever been convicted , you are ineligble to travel under the Visa Waiver Program and should apply for a visa.

Unfortunatley the onus is on you.

I'm not sure what more i can say.My intention was to help people and clear the fog of this particular system,,hopefully i haven't added to it.

cheers
scotch

ps i'm sure i read somewhere riding a bike without lights counted as moral turpitude----JOKING I HOPE!!!!!!!

Cardew

scotch wrote:

Cardew

All I can say i was informed by the the person at the visa section who deals with this on a daily basis that if you have ever been arrested for anything, that you have ever been convicted , you are ineligble to travel under the Visa Waiver Program and should apply for a visa.

QUOTE]

Scotch,
I appreciate your motives, but having been involved in this subject for a while, most attempts to clarify simply make matters more opaque.

As you are seeing the man from the Embassy again ask him a direct question.

Does a conviction in court for dropping litter make you ineligble for a Visa waiver?

If it does not, what category offence does?

gmrsupplies

I have 2 previous convictions, receiving stolen goods and D&D, handling stolen goods was a pathetic silly thing and was 6 years ago. I have been to Chicago twice in the past 2 years and had no problems. To the proper point......I went to Toronto last October with my missus, mate, his dad and his 2 grandsons. Had great difficulty getting though immigration at Toronto due to the grandfather not having a letter from his daughter stating he was allowed to take his grandsons on holiday with him. Due to this same problem we were not allowed through immigration when we tried to get into New York State at Niagara (not far from Toronto) and were turned back and I have now on my immigration record that I was refused entry into the US due to this.
Essential info for any grandparents taking their grandkids to Disneyland etc is make sure they get a letter of permission from their own kids before even attempting to get itno the states.

Cardew

Scotch,
There is just one more point on this matter.

I think everyone agrees that the regulations regarding the Visa Waiver scheme on the US Embassy and US Immigration websites as well as the I-94W are incapable of being understood by us mere mortals.

Now your contact at the Embassy, who I accept is trying to help you make sense of them, would appear to be the Guru. So that raises the question of where he(and for that matter the US immigration officer) gets his guidance and information.

Are there a set of crystal clear instructions? Or is he merely doing his best to interpret the same set of instructions available to the general public? If the former why are they not published for public consumption?

Iffy_Wallet

BJ - you were saying:
"I am so scared of getting to passport control in the US and some computer screen saying I have to go home - or being locked up - hell, my mind is working overtime."

I was talking to an old-boy war hero in the UK who said that (a long time before 9-11) had visited the US for his son's wedding. He had visited before and relatives actually lived out there. Being a pensioner, he didn't take kindly to being given the run-around at the airport. A few words must have been exchanged and he ended up locked in a metal cage for 12 hours before being booted out. These days they would probably send you to Guantanamo !

Don't take any chances. Talk to the American Embassy, and get a visa. Don't take risks with your hard earned ticket money.

scotch

Cardew
According to the source any conviction for whatever is a conviction.

As i have previously stated, if you are able to convince the visa officer at the interview stage that a "genuine" mistake was made previously(entering on the Visa waiver when a visa was neccesary),the source said you would get the benefit of the doubt,so there appears to be some discretion by the visa officer.
I wasn't able to ask him about where he gets his guidance from or what instructions he uses regarding how he interprets the visa and immigration rules and regs ,unfortunately i won't be able to speak to him for a few weeks

At the end of the day the Department for Homeland Security has the final say,after a recommendation by the visa section.