We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Entry into the USA
Comments
-
Tojo_Ralph wrote: »their crime has possibly gone something like this.................
Do we actually know what happens in such a situation if US immigration subsequently deem the offence does involve Moral Turpitude? I cannot believe for one minute they turn folk around.
They do turn you round, put a massive big stamp in your passport and send you back where you came from.
Sounds logical, but it would be dishonest to do so. He had no right to access that data, wasn't allowed to, but was in a position of trust where he could, and did so.
If I was the poster I'd be seeking advice from a lawyer specialising in US immigration law on that one, and having a good look at his memorandum of conviction and seeing what it says on there.Tojo_Ralph wrote: »I would have thought that simply unauthorised use to access data would not fit with the requirement for baseness, vileness, or depravity with regard to a person's duty to another or society.
Its the dishonesty or fraud aspect that could do him in.0 -
Tojo_Ralph wrote: »From what no1male has stated, their crime has possibly gone something like this.
They were authorised to access data on the computer in the execution of their duties, however they chose to check a relatives address without good cause.
Pretty much covers it. There was no info used for fraudulent activities as that would have either been classed as hacking or data protection. Mine was purely computer misuse. I was authorised to use the systems but shouldnt have done what i did.0 -
Pretty much covers it. There was no info used for fraudulent activities as that would have either been classed as hacking or data protection. Mine was purely computer misuse. I was authorised to use the systems but shouldnt have done what i did.
Which could be deemed to be this
US Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
and could be seen as being a dishonest act, which could be deemed to be moral turpitude.
At that point you'd either be on a plane home, or countering that arguement with ?0 -
(Basically used to work for the police and checked up if my mum still lived at the same house as we had lost contact)
Mate....phonebook/electoral roll
0 -
Have you told anyone his name?
If you havent, apply for an ESTA as normal and answer No, If you cant find any trace of a conviction then nor will any one else.
If you have then I am not so sure about what to do next although if you havent filed any paperwork with the US officials anywhere I would still be inclined to fill in the ESTA and answer No
We haven't given any names to the embassy but the thing that worries me is if they can find out that we have tried to access records even although they came back no trace.0 -
scottishperson2 wrote: »What you need to do is find out if this is a crime involving moral turpitude. If its not a crime involving moral turpitude then you can answer "no" to that part of the question.
Not always a crime involving moral turpitude.
If its one involving moral turpitude then you have to no matter how long ago.
Are you sure, it should have stated "no live trace"
Have some documentation of this sent by the court.
Again document this so the embassy can see you have done everything possible to get the documentation.
If, by the way, you decide its not a crime involving moral turpitude, and you have previously contacted the embassy with details such as name and date of birth, theres a possibility this information is now available to CBP. I do not know if this initial contact with the embassys call centre would mean these details were passed on, but you assume they are.
We didn't pass on any details but I'm still so confused about the moral turpitude. His crime was breaking and entry0 -
We didn't pass on any details but I'm still so confused about the moral turpitude. His crime was breaking and entry
Basically breaking and entry is not always a crime involving moral turpitude.
If you look at this document
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf
Page 4 it states
"Breaking and entering (requiring no specific or implicit intent to commit a crime involving moral turpitude)"
So if he intending to steal stuff, then its moral turpitude, if he just went in for a nose around (abandoned church, as an extreme) then its not.We haven't given any names to the embassy but the thing that worries me is if they can find out that we have tried to access records even although they came back no trace.
That information isn't passed. People tend to get tripped up when they initially start the visa process, or change the ESTA form to say its not moral turpitude after completing one that says it is. Fact you made a request to acpo is nobodys business as these are made routinely for all sorts of reasons.0 -
scottishperson2 wrote: »What you need to do is find out if this is a crime involving moral turpitude. If its not a crime involving moral turpitude then you can answer "no" to that part of the question.
Not always a crime involving moral turpitude.
If its one involving moral turpitude then you have to no matter how long ago.
Are you sure, it should have stated "no live trace"
Have some documentation of this sent by the court.
Again document this so the embassy can see you have done everything possible to get the documentation.
If, by the way, you decide its not a crime involving moral turpitude, and you have previously contacted the embassy with details such as name and date of birth, theres a possibility this information is now available to CBP. I do not know if this initial contact with the embassys call centre would mean these details were passed on, but you assume they are.
I've just checked the police certificate it's an Association of Chief Police Officers(ACPO). The address is stated as ACRO(very confusing)The certificate does state No trace.
There is a cover letter with this explaining that No trace means that you do not have any convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings held on the PNC.
No live trace means that there is criminal record information held about you on the PNC. However ths information does not appear on the police certificate as it has been stepped down in accordance with the retention guidlines for nominal records on the PNC. Although the convictions have been stepped down they still form part of your criminal history and it is your reponsibility to declare them in accordance with the conditions of your visa application.
The other thing that worries me although I didn't give our name to the embassy do they have access to get the phone number that I called them from as if thy get queries of this nature they may check to see if the person at that number has applied for a visa or an esta. I know I'm probably being really paranoid but it would be terrible if we got to America and get turned back because of this. I've heard that they don't even have to give a reason for refusing entry if you just hold an esta.0 -
Long story.....
Speak, if you can, to an immigration lawyer who specialisies in this or try britexpats forum, theres a few learned people on there who'll help.
Only thing I can see is in here
http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/legalresources/cd_pa_Living%20With%20Silva-Trevino%20-%202009.pdf
which suggests that without underlying moral turpitude conduct then it wouldn't be a CiMT.
What has been found to be a CiMT is this part1030 (A)(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
Tian v. Holder, 576 F.3d 890, 895 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (federal conviction of unauthorized access to a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards