Entry into the USA

scottishperson2

The question should be "can I legally use the VWP" not "will they find out if I lie"

Tojo_Ralph

scottishperson2 wrote: »

The question should be "can I legally use the VWP" not "will they find out if I lie"

I agree 100%, however to the best of my knowledge nobody on these boards is qualified to answer that question, thus MSE'rs are relying on a myriad of information from internet searches to informed opinion (option B as you point out is an immigration lawyer).

Following that search there are MSE'rs who are pretty confident/sure/comfortable that they can tick the No box. Now, your position appears to be that nobody should tick the No box unless they are near 100% sure of their facts, which I would agree with, however it does not stop me being interested in what actually (not might/may) tends to happen if a Person ticks No, is 100% up front with immigration if questioned and is subsequently deemed to have commited a CiMT.

scottishperson2

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

what actually (not might/may) tends to happen if a Person ticks No, is 100% up front with immigration if questioned and is subsequently deemed to have commited a CiMT.

They fail to meet the rquirements of the VWP and get sent back. That is what happens.

no1male

scottishperson2 wrote: »

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


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 part



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)

Thanks for the help, really appreciate it

scottishperson2

no1male wrote: »

Thanks for the help, really appreciate it

End of the day its your decision. If you think its not moral turpitude then you are justified in ticking no, if you think it is moral turpitude and you tick no thats a different matter entirely.

The ESTA form you are filling in states

Certification: I, the applicant, hereby certify that I have read, or have had read to me, all the questions and statements on this application and understand all the questions and statements on this application. The answers and information furnished in this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Usual scenario if you're wrong, sent back on the plane, lose your holiday and get told to apply for a visa.

What I would do, get hold of the memorandum of conviction that shows the offence (or at a minimum the ACRO certificate) but ONLY use it if needed, ie taken into secondary and questioned.

Never volunteer information, only answer the questions asked.

scottishperson2 wrote: »

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.

From what you've posted elsewhere, that sentence is nullified.

Tojo_Ralph

scottishperson2 wrote: »

End of the day its your decision. If you think its not moral turpitude then you are justified in ticking no, if you think it is moral turpitude and you tick no thats a different matter entirely.

The ESTA form you are filling in states... "I the applicant, hereby certify that I have read, or have had read to me, all the questions and statements on this application and understand all the questions and statements on this application. The answers and information furnished in this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief".

Usual scenario if you're wrong, sent back on the plane, lose your holiday and get told to apply for a visa.

In your previous responses to the same..... "What happens if a person genuinely believes the crime does not involve moral turpitude and is justified in ticking no, only to find out on arrival in the USA immigration deem the crime to involve Moral Turpitude"?..... you have stated categorically that the passenger will be denied entry, they will be sent back from where they came and they will have a massive big stamp put in their passport.

I highlight the above because your must recent post appears to imply that the issue is perhaps not as clear cut as your earlier posts would appear to indicate?

scottishperson2

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

In your previous responses to the same..... "What happens if a person genuinely believes the crime does not involve moral turpitude and is justified in ticking no, only to find out on arrival in the USA immigration deem the crime to involve Moral Turpitude"?..... you have stated categorically that the passenger will be denied entry, they will be sent back from where they came and they will have a massive big stamp put in their passport.

I highlight the above because your must recent post appears to imply that the issue is perhaps not as clear cut as your earlier posts would appear to indicate?

Thats 2 different issues.

Issue 1.

Filling in the esta with incorrect information. There is a difference between lying on esta and making a genuine mistake. Lying comes under "willful misrepresentation of a material fact", you thought you had committed a CiMT but decided to answer no. This seriously affects your options further done the line.

Issue 2.

You've been caught, they know (or think) you've committed a CiMT. You get sent back.

Tojo_Ralph

scottishperson2 wrote: »

Issue 1.
Filling in the esta with incorrect information. There is a difference between lying on esta and making a genuine mistake.

And it is only the one issue/scenario I have repeatedly outlined, the making of a genuine mistake, ticking No in the belief that you have not committed a CiMT only for immigration to advise you on arrival that based on your description of the crime you have committed a CiMT.

On each occasion you have advised that the result is unequivocal, the person gets two bounces, a punt back from where they came and a big massive black spot in their passport.

I have questioned the origins of this information and you have to date clarified it simply by repeating it.

Now your advice on the outcome appears to have changed? Now you speak of the Usual scenario being sent back implying the issue is not as Black and White as you have previously painted it?

Q1) What are the other potential outcomes?

Q2) In such ESTA situations where a person has been 100% honest, has made an error and has utilised the wrong Visa application process, are US Immigration in a position to suggest/permit a person to Withdraw their Request To Enter, to go home minus the passport black spot, get the correct visa and return?

scottishperson2

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

And it is only the one issue/scenario I have repeatedly outlined, the making of a genuine mistake, ticking No in the belief that you have not committed a CiMT only for immigration to advise you on arrival that based on your description of the crime you have committed a CiMT.

In which case you get sent back.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

On each occasion you have advised that the result is unequivocal, the person gets two bounces, a punt back from where they came and a big massive black spot in their passport.

Yes, because they cannot use the VWP.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

I have questioned the origins of this information and you have to date clarified it simply by repeating it.

Origin is the FAM manual, this is what CBP work to.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

Now your advice on the outcome appears to have changed? Now you speak of the Usual scenario being sent back implying the issue is not as Black and White as you have previously painted it?

The usual scenario is being sent back.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

Q1) What are the other potential outcomes?

Put in jail for 2 years.

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

Q2) In such ESTA situations where a person has been 100% honest, has made an error and has utilised the wrong Visa application process, are US Immigration in a position to suggest/permit a person to Withdraw their Request To Enter, to go home minus the passport black spot, get the correct visa and return?

They would be sent back. At the point of being told they were inadmissable they would be inadmissable.

scottishperson2

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html


[FONT=&quot] Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligibleto receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

.............................

[/FONT][FONT=&quot](2) Criminal and related grounds.-
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (A) Conviction of certain crimes.-
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if- [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot] (I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (B) Multiple criminal convictions.-Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement [/FONT][FONT=&quot]were 5 years or more is inadmissible. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]CBP can refuse whoever they like, you, me, anyone without reason.

You must tell them if you have committed a crime involving moral turpitude (so you cannot tick no, then say "I thought I could get petty offenses exception)

[/FONT]