Entry into the USA

scottishperson2

Pauline17 wrote: »

The address is stated as ACRO(very confusing)The certificate does state No trace.

No trace usually means no record. You could also check with the police station where he was processed and see if its on there system then the magistrates where he was fined.

Pauline17 wrote: »

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.

You're being paranoid on that one. Thats true, with a visa you can argue infront of an immigration judge, then get kicked out!

photome

I realise scottishperson knows more than me about the law, but as I said before, if they dont know your name and there is no trace of a record....if it was me I would be applying for an ESTA and answering No!

To scottishperson....what would be the pitfalls or problem of doing the above

You say check with police station where he was processed, but why? The US embassy are not going to do that

scottishperson2

photome wrote: »

what would be the pitfalls or problem of doing the above

You say check with police station where he was processed, but why? The US embassy are not going to do that

Maximum 2 years in US jail - although its normally the next flight back where you came from. Big stamp in your passport which always alerts other countries. If I was in this persons shoes I would do everything to find out if it is, or isn't moral turpitude, looking at previous cases. Only thing that strikes me is it could be seen as dishonest.

Basically it shows you have done everything possible to find out details of the crime. This is important if you intend going for a visa/intend showing at the border if asked its not one involving moral turpitude. The person beleives they were arrested (probably not for a crime involving moral turpitude), PNC shows no record of the arrest, but PNC is not always accurate and up to date. Next stage is check at the station you were processed see if they have records, then the court to obtain the memorandum of conviction. This shows due diligence.

In all honesty it it came back "no trace" I'd just say Great, no arrest. However, in the unlikely event of being stopped and asked at the border, what do you say? I beleive I was arrested, but no records exist.

Marylol

Some good information on here! Thanks

photome

scottishperson2 wrote: »

Maximum 2 years in US jail - although its normally the next flight back where you came from. Big stamp in your passport which always alerts other countries. If I was in this persons shoes I would do everything to find out if it is, or isn't moral turpitude, looking at previous cases. Only thing that strikes me is it could be seen as dishonest.

Basically it shows you have done everything possible to find out details of the crime. This is important if you intend going for a visa/intend showing at the border if asked its not one involving moral turpitude. The person beleives they were arrested (probably not for a crime involving moral turpitude), PNC shows no record of the arrest, but PNC is not always accurate and up to date. Next stage is check at the station you were processed see if they have records, then the court to obtain the memorandum of conviction. This shows due diligence.

In all honesty it it came back "no trace" I'd just say Great, no arrest. However, in the unlikely event of being stopped and asked at the border, what do you say? I beleive I was arrested, but no records exist.

But if you answer no on the ESTA, the chances of being asked any further questions on entry are virtually zero and even if asked you answer no to being arrested.

If the US authorities then want to check (which I am fairly sure they wont) where are they going to check? and how will they get a different amswer to the OP ie "no trace" ?

I honestly believe you are just scaring the OP

scottishperson2

photome wrote: »

But if you answer no on the ESTA, the chances of being asked any further questions on entry are virtually zero and even if asked you answer no to being arrested.

Which leads you into a heck of a lot more trouble. Its called immigration fraud.

photome wrote: »

If the US authorities then want to check (which I am fairly sure they wont) where are they going to check? and how will they get a different amswer to the OP ie "no trace" ?

Has the person been arrested, according to them, yes, so the answer to the question "have you been arrested" would be yes. It doesn't matter IF the conviction appears on the PNC, or at what point it was removed. Thats irrelevant.

photome wrote: »

I honestly believe you are just scaring the OP

What benefit is that to me, absolutely none.

If you wish to suggest to the OP that they should lie (and commit immigration fraud) at the point of entry, then fair enough. OPs old enough to make up there own mind whether fraud is the way to go.
Basically they came here to ask if Breaking and entering is a crime involving moral turpitude. Answer to that is it can be.

If they wish to use the VWP they need to be able to prove they can. Way they go about that is to be prepared, if asked, to prove that the crime wasn't one involving moral turpitude.

Way not to do it is lie about being arrested, then get kicked out to where they came from, with a big stamp in the passport.

photome

scottishperson2 wrote: »

Which leads you into a heck of a lot more trouble. Its called immigration fraud.



Has the person been arrested, according to them, yes, so the answer to the question "have you been arrested" would be yes. It doesn't matter IF the conviction appears on the PNC, or at what point it was removed. Thats irrelevant.



What benefit is that to me, absolutely none.

If you wish to suggest to the OP that they should lie (and commit immigration fraud) at the point of entry, then fair enough. OPs old enough to make up there own mind whether fraud is the way to go.
Basically they came here to ask if Breaking and entering is a crime involving moral turpitude. Answer to that is it can be.

If they wish to use the VWP they need to be able to prove they can. Way they go about that is to be prepared, if asked, to prove that the crime wasn't one involving moral turpitude.

Way not to do it is lie about being arrested, then get kicked out to where they came from, with a big stamp in the passport.

I get all that but if the OP search comes back no trace how will the US authorites search come back any different.

And if the US authorites search comes back no trace why is there any need to answer anything other than no

How would they kick the OP out if there is no record anywhere

Tojo_Ralph

scottishperson2 wrote: »

They do turn you round, put a massive big stamp in your passport and send you back where you came from.

So what evidence do you have? ..... And bare in mind the situation related to a person concluding they could tick No, being questioned at immigration, explaining yes they had been arrested and/or convicted but not of a crime involving Moral Turpitude..... Only for the immigration to advise the crime did involve Moral Turpitude.

What evidence do you have to suggest the person is immediately expelled? What evidence do you have to say US Immigration do not evaluate such situations? I ask not to challenge but because I find it hard to believe that they would punt someone back to the UK/wherever because they incorrectly believed a minor crime commited years past did not involve Moral Turpitude.

As a side note however, In all honesty I do feel that whilst your posts are informative, their tone and content gives the unfortunate appearance that you are a bit of a sweetie wifie, especially with regards to the repeated references to the "massive, big stamp" one receives in ones passport.

scottishperson2

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

What evidence do you have to suggest the person is immediately expelled?

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/legally_admitted_to_the_u_s.xml

Also, If you are an alien, CBP Officers may decide that you should not be permitted to enter the United States. There are many reasons why this might happen (see INA § 212(a)). You will either be placed in detention, or temporarily held until return flight arrangements can be made. If you have a visa, it may be cancelled. In certain instances, Officer(s) may not be able to decide if you should be allowed into the United States. In this case, your inspection may be deferred (postponed), and you will be instructed to go to another office located near your intended destination in the United States for further processing.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

What evidence do you have to say US Immigration do not evaluate such situations?

They do, thats why they have secondary. Same happens in the UK. If they have doubts they pass you up the line and you get questioned.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

I ask not to challenge but because I find it hard to believe that they would punt someone back to the UK/wherever because they incorrectly believed a minor crime commited years past did not involve Moral Turpitude.

They do it daily, and that minor crime may just be admitting a crime involving moral turpitude, or drug use. Thats why you only answer the questions asked, and never provide additional information.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/accomplish/previous_year/fy2009_stats/fy09_typical_day.xml

One day stats from CBP in 2009

• 616 refusals of entry at our ports of entry
• 107 arrests of criminals at ports of entry

Only figures I could find on that and that'll include land and seaports.

photome wrote: »

I get all that but if the OP search comes back no trace how will the US authorites search come back any different.

They won't unless that record somehow manages to be on the interpol database.

photome wrote: »

And if the US authorites search comes back no trace why is there any need to answer anything other than no

Because that would involve immigration fraud and no-one can tell anyone else to commit fraud.

Tojo_Ralph

scottishperson2 wrote: »

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/legally_admitted_to_the_u_s.xml

All references relate to what might, may or can happen, rather than will.

scottishperson2 wrote: »

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/accomplish/previous_year/fy2009_stats/fy09_typical_day.xml

One day stats from CBP in 2009
989,689 passengers and pedestrians
616 refusals of entry at our ports of entry
107 arrests of criminals at ports of entry
Only figures I could find on that and that'll include land and seaports.

So we are looking at something like 1 in every 1,600 passengers being refused entry and of that 616 you can guarantee the vast majority of refusals will be folk who are not genuine tourists/business travellers, folk without the means to support themselves and/or folk who are in all liklihood trying to enter to work/overstay and all the other non tourist/business reasons. Then there will be the dodgy passports, questionable documents, communicable diseases, prior overstayers, etc, etc..... Which leaves how many folk who have stated No to CiMT only to find that the crime did involve MT at immigration?

Personally I believe it is all about perspective and can find no data to indicate the likely outcome of misplaced honesty.