US Visa with a Criminal Record...Need help!

pompeyrich

When I applied for a visa, albeit pre 9/11 when it could be applied for by post, they seemed much more interested in my financial situation, ties to the UK, work and housing situation etc. Basically wanted to be as sure as they could that I intended and was likely to return after the visit.

client1_2

They still are. Even if people are eligible (say via the petty offense exception) they can still be refused for not showing strong ties to the UK. Basically its another get out if they don't want you.

shaun_from_Africa

I flew into the USA (Charlotte NC) about 1 year ago, and despite having a valid B1/B2 visa & having visited the US once or twice every year for the past 8 years, I was still stopped at immigration and given a thorough questioning.

This was probably because my passport had many stamps and visas for Libya (and a few other dodgy places), but it may just have been that they didn't like the look of me and felt that something was wrong.

I never felt intimidated by the immigration officer and was eventually allowed to go, and I had nothing to hide, which I'm sure the officer was able to determine from my body language.

However, if I had lied, either directly to him or on the immigration form, I'm reasonably sure that he would have picked up on my nervousness which is the same thing that could happen to the OP's hubby if they failed to declare the conviction and hoped that they wouldn't get found out.

IMO, it's not worth the risk to try and get in on an ESTA.
Apply for a visa and be totally honest and upfront at the interview and there is a very good chance that the visa will be issued.

Cardew

client1 wrote: »

You have to differentiate a waiver as in the visa waiver program, or a waiver for the offense.

Have we indeed? - Has there been any mention in the thread about a waiver for the offence?

Anyways, on to more serious bits.

The US may not (currently) have DIRECT access to the PNC, but they have indirect access to it. This can be done officially or via a quick phone call to the nice police officer working at heathrow on secondary asignment with our border security.

Secondly, the US have direct access to interpol records.

Thirdly, the person cannot use the VWP, nothing to do with a crime involving moral turpitude, more to do with the "violation related to a controlled substance" bit.

As stated twice above! -

Fourthly, does petty offenses apply? In which case the visa should be forthcoming after a trip the London.

Fifthly. The offense happened 10/12 years ago. IF this person has been criminally clean since, the visa should be given.

You rather miss the point that the Visa application costs a non-refundable US$160, means a trip to London or Belfast and usually many hours in a queue outside the Embassy.

Glad you have the confidence to advise that a Visa 'should' be given; many people on other forums have a different tale to tell - including in this thread.

Sixthly, NEVER tell people to break the law, which a lot of you seem to be doing here.

LAW? The entry regulations to the USA are well recognised as a farce, by USA citizens as well as the rest of the world.(I have a property in the USA).

The 'guidance' in the US Embassy in UK, and their blogs, is even more farcial. As stated above:

It is patently stupid that an arrest, say 40 years ago, in a case of mistaken
identity - and no subsequent charge - should prevent entry under the scheme;
which would be the case if the US embassy guidance was to be taken literally.

Nothing in any US immigration regulations that supports that interpretation.

A theory has been advanced that the stance taken by the Embassy is motivated by a desire to justify, and fund, staff numbers in a popular posting.

Personally, if it were myself with a record for drug possession 12 years ago, I would have absolutely no conscience about using a visa waiver, and be very confident about gaining entry.

However as stated above - I am not offering advice.

I speak as someone who drove down the motorway tonight at 75mph - please don't tell me off;)

client1_2

Cardew wrote: »

LAW?

Basically only the first point of my post was aimed at you, and depending how you read it it can come out as a waiver of inadmissability. It was only a point of clarity.

I have the confidence to say "should", because I understand the legislation involved and how the system should work. I also didn't say "will be given".

Generally offenses occuring more than 12 years ago, (although I know of cases with a lot less time than that) can be granted vaivers of ineligibility due to the wording on the INA. They look at

"The recency and seriousness of the activity or condition causing the alien's inadmissibility"

Cardew wrote: »

You rather miss the point that the Visa application costs a non-refundable US$160, means a trip to London or Belfast and usually many hours in a queue outside the Embassy."

That point wasn't missed, and is part of the process to obtain the visa.

Cardew wrote: »

LAW? The entry regulations to the USA are well recognised as a farce, by USA citizens as well as the rest of the world.(I have a property in the USA).

The 'guidance' in the US Embassy in UK, and their blogs, is even more farcial.

Yes, the entry regulations, or in this case the questions on ESTA, are to complex for there own good. However, if you don't like it you don't have to go.

I totally agree the "guidance" on the embassy site is a farce, infact it shouldn't be heeded as it is wrong.

Walter_Sobchak

damo24 wrote: »

I don't want to get into an argument about this especially as it is off topic but I think you are confusing convictions with arrests, charges and intelligence.

Having worked with the Police for more than 12 years I can guarantee that ALL formal cautions and convictions (including formal warnings issued to juveniles) are recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC). When the PNC system was initially introduced in 1974 only new convictions were added to it (a formal caution or warning is counted as a conviction in the eyes of the law as they can only be given if the offence is admitted). However in the late 80s and early 90s all Forces were compelled to and all historic convictions for anyone currently still alive.

When someone dies, their details are removed from the PNC and from any local Force computer or paper systems too. The only way to remove a conviction of someone still living from the PNC is for that person to have their conviction or caution overturned on appeal.

The reason Ian Huntley slipped through the net is that prior to the murders he was never convicted of any offence even though he had been previously investigated and even charged with both sexual offences and burglary. Humberside Police did have intelligence records relating to Huntley but at the time they (wrongly) believed that the retention and / or disclosure of these records was in breach of the Data Protection Act.

Since the investigation into the Soham murders, all arrests are now recorded on the PNC including details of the disposal or outcome of the investigation (ranging from eliminated from enquiries, no further action taken, insufficient evidence to proceed, charged but not convicted, formal caution or warning issued right up to a conviction at Court with the sentence recorded too). There are countless sites on the web that will list in much more detail the circumstances surrounding Ian Huntley and also the PNC and what is and is not recorded however Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the failings which you can read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Murder_trial_and_subsequent_revelation.

It is for this reason that I suggested that the OP obtain a "Subject Access Request" from her local Police Force and this should help to show to the Embassy that her husband has had no other issues with the Police since his conviction.

Well I was given a police caution back in the late 80s for stealing a chocolate bar when I was 15, also was arrested and charged with common assault(charges later dropped through lack of evidence) over 10 years ago. I applied for the "Subject Access Request" from my local Police Force and they had no information on record about me at all.

I have travelled to the US on 3 occasions recently and did not bother with applying for a visa with no issues.

pimento

callum9999 wrote: »

... Boy George, ...... have all been denied US visas.

Oh really? How did he manage to do this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/01/arts.artsnews

client1_2

pimento wrote: »

Oh really? How did he manage to do this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/01/arts.artsnews

He was denied a visa due to a "false imprisonment" case back in 2007/2008.

Your article dates to 2006.

His current admissability into the US is of absolutely no concern to me, so whether he has been readmitted or not I basically don't know.

Cardew

Walter_Sobchak wrote: »

Well I was given a police caution back in the late 80s for stealing a chocolate bar when I was 15, also was arrested and charged with common assault(charges later dropped through lack of evidence) over 10 years ago. I applied for the "Subject Access Request" from my local Police Force and they had no information on record about me at all.

I have travelled to the US on 3 occasions recently and did not bother with applying for a visa with no issues.

Indeed on the 'Florida' holiday forums there are many cases of people, who have applied for a visa, attempting to obtain details of their(serious) offences from police records to take to the Embassy and have a similar experience to yourself. They cannot even find anything from the court records.

Without a lengthy investigation, what chance would there be of the US Immigration identifying that Mrs Jane Stewart from Glasgow, who is telling lies on a visa waiver application! had committed an offence when she was Miss Jane Smith of London.

Ditto Mr John Smith originally of London, now living in Belfast had committed an offence whilst working in Devon.

The point I made earlier was that police records - particularly for minor offences - are far from complete. Indeed many Forces destroyed records in accordance with their(then) interpretation of the Rehabiltation of Offenders Act.