"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offences for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities."
I always refer people to that question too. But bear in mind 'moral turpitude' has no official definition in US law - its lack of definition has been the subject of a court case, which the US Government won. The thinking is they want to keep it vague so it can be used to mean anything they like.
If you've ever been convicted of *anything* or arrested for *anything* then strictly speaking you should apply for a visa. Note that there's so statute of limitations in this case either, so 'ever' really means it.
A fixed penalty notice for speeding is Ok, because it's a penalty. However if you challange it in court and get convicted, then you have a conviction.
In reality the US Immigration Officers can't check in real time and, unless you do something to draw attention to yourself, you won't have a problem.
|
Bill,
I agree about the difficulty of defining crimes of moral turpitude. In the USA it is determined by precedent and varies from State to State. However even some very serious crimes that carry a heavy prison sentence are not considered crimes of moral turpitude. Almost no motoring offence, including the equivalent of 'Death by Dangerous Driving' is in that category.
Also it is not in dispute that a fixed penalty is not a conviction under UK law. However prior to the fixed penalty system all offences, however minor, were convictions. So you could have got a conviction 40 years ago for parking, or defective sidelight.
However I really do take issue with those who contend that any conviction "strictly speaking" disqualifies you from using the Visa Waiver Programme. It does not.
Firstly the regulations specifically exclude minor traffic offences.
Secondly the VWP covers a host of different countries that do not have the same system of fixed penalties and convictions.
Those who would wish to spread alarm and despondency look for the worst possible interpretation of the badly worded phrase "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude" and try to interpret it such that ANY conviction for ANY offence means you are ineligible for the VWP. If 'any conviction' was the criteria, why even include the word 'arrested'?
The intent of the US Immigration regulations is quite clear. Why anyone would wish to examine those regulations to see if there is an obscure way that they can be interpreted such that a minor traffic offence might disqualify you from the VWP is beyond me. If they wish to spend the money for a Visa, visit London/Belfast and spend hours hanging about the US Embassy that is their choice. However to unnecessarily worry others smacks to me of Schadenfreude
|
"Are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
Come on, is ANYONE going to tick that box if they are indeed entering the US with the intention of committing a crime?
|
A guy from the INS once explained to me that the state of the law meant that it was easier to deport someone for lying on their immigration form than it was to deport them for a specific crime.
So if you did engage in criminal activities, then that may or may not be sufficient to get you deported. But lying on your form was ALWAYS enough to get you booted out.
|
Here's the section, straight off the US Embassy web site - it's pretty unequivocal, so you have to really careful when giving advice to people that it's safe to ignore it:
"Travelers with minor traffic offenses and those with Arrests and/or Convictions
Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified. If you are not sure whether or not you are eligible to travel visa free, the only way to resolve this question would be to apply for a visa.
If the traffic offense occurred while you were in the United States, and you have an outstanding fine against you or you did not attend your court hearing, it is possible there may be a warrant out for your arrest, and you will experience problems when applying for admission into the U.S. Therefore you should resolve the issue before traveling by contacting the court where you were to appear. If you do not know the address of the court then information is available from the Internet at www.uscourts.gov/links.html.
Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. They are required to apply for visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States. Please follow this link for further information."
|
Here's the section, straight off the US Embassy web site - it's pretty unequivocal, so you have to really careful when giving advice to people that it's safe to ignore it: "Travelers with minor traffic offenses and those with Arrests and/or Convictions Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified. "
Bill,
I make no apologies for banging on about this because I have seen people put to a great deal of unnecessary worry, wasted time and expense because of this ?urban myth?. Some people have even stated they have cancelled their holiday.
As we agreed earlier, all visitors are required to do is read the I-94W(waiver form) and answer truthfully. There is no reason to read the US Embassy website.
If they then wish they can read the US Embassy extract you posted - although I cannot see why they would bother. Obviously I have read this and IMO it certainly is NOT unequivocal. To be unequivocal it would simply say 'any conviction' and not use the word 'arrested' or even refer to the exemption for 'minor traffic offences' at all.
This quote from another forum applies perfectly:
"It seems to me crystal clear that those with convictions for minor traffic offences, which are not offenses(sic) of moral turpitude in any case, that did not result in an arrest are intended by US immigration to use the Visa Waiver scheme.
I have known people who employ lawyers and go to inordinate lengths to examine the minutiae of laws and regulations in order to get themselves 'off the hook'.
Despite the absolutely clear spirit and intent of the US regulations; this discussion is unique in my experience in that we have those going to great length to see if there is any way they can (mis)interpret the wording of regulations to enable themselves, and others, to get 'on the hook'"
Perhaps you can give your interpretation of the I-94W that would lead people to think that a minor traffic offence does disqualify them from a visa waiver.
|
People worry that they might find themselves "on the hook" when they fill in the form on the plane. While the spirit and intent may be clear the phrase Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction is itself confusing. Where does it leave someone with a conviction for driving without due care?
Is it something like a third of young males who have a criminal record?. I have one or two perfectly respectable professional acquaintances who had convictions twenty plus years ago after beong on the wrong side in a pub brawl.
People in those circs can have a fear, albeit perhaps based on scare stories, that they risk being separated from their families and deported loosing their holiday in circs where an insurance refund is unlikley.
|
People worry that they might find themselves "on the hook" when they fill in the form on the plane. While the spirit and intent may be clear the phrase Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction is itself confusing. Where does it leave someone with a conviction for driving without due care? Is it something like a third of young males who have a criminal record?. I have one or two perfectly respectable professional acquaintances who had convictions twenty plus years ago after beong on the wrong side in a pub brawl. People in those circs can have a fear, albeit perhaps based on scare stories, that they risk being separated from their families and deported loosing their holiday in circs where an insurance refund is unlikley.
I have not touched on the aspect of assault because we will get away from the motoring aspect. However I am very clear that a conviction for 'driving without due care' is not a crime of moral turpitude and, provided you were not arrested, you can use the Visa Waiver Programme. In any case it is a minor motoring offence which is exempt.
Bear in mind that a visitor has only has to answer the question on the waiver form, posted above, about crimes of moral turpitude and 5 years confinement etc. The same form(written in English) is given to all EEC nationals. How a foreign national is expected to follow such semantics is beyond me.
A definition from a US legal website gives the following:
"Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience. Offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, robbery, and aggravated assaults involve moral turpitude. However, assaults not involving dangerous weapons or evil intent have been held not to involve moral turpitude."
I have looked at many sites giving the rulings on precedents in different States and never seen any offence involving a vehicle - even causing death when DUI - that has been classified as a crime of moral turpitude.
So you would have to have done something pretty serious to be ineligible.
However if you go into the US Embassy website they will see quite clearly that if they were ever arrested they cannot use the waiver scheme. That(unbelievably) is the case even if they were arrested by mistake or found not guilty of any offence. So the operative word is arrested! That does indeed put your professional acquaitances in a difficult position.
It is quite another question whether the US authorities could ever find out about an arrest 20 years ago for a minor offence; it is hardly likely to be on CRO records.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you can give your interpretation of the I-94W that would lead people to think that a minor traffic offence does disqualify them from a visa waiver.
So the thing you're doing wrong is you're mixing up the qualification to use the Visa Waiver programme, with the I-94W arrival/departure form itself. You can't use the form unless you qualify to use it - the test isn't the questions on the form, the test is ..(see post above!).
Bear in mind that the US *hates* the visa waiver programme and they would far rather everyone applied for a visa, so they've phrased the rules to snare as many people as possible.
I know *loads* of people who just ignore the rules but you have to be careful advising other people to do the same - that why other websites don't allow discussion of this topic.
|
>> Perhaps you can give your interpretation of the I-94W that would >> lead people to think that a minor traffic offence does disqualify >> them from a visa waiver. >> So the thing you're doing wrong is you're mixing up the qualification to use the Visa Waiver programme, with the I-94W arrival/departure form itself. You can't use the form unless you qualify to use it - the test isn't the questions on the form, the test is ..(see post above!). Bear in mind that the US *hates* the visa waiver programme and they would far rather everyone applied for a visa, so they've phrased the rules to snare as many people as possible. I know *loads* of people who just ignore the rules but you have to be careful advising other people to do the same - that why other websites don't allow discussion of this topic.
I really am not confusing the I-94W with the US Embassy phrase you posted.
How do you construe that phrase to mean you are ineligible?
Why use the word 'arrest'? and why use the term ?minor traffic offence' when I assume you mean a conviction is all that matters.
Also why do you contend that the USA hates the VWP. Admittedly post 9-11 some Senators have expressed reservations about terrorists gaining entry under the scheme, but the I-94W and the Embassy and Home Security regulations pre-date 9-11.
As far as I am aware the only discussion connected with this subject, that other websites discourage, is people advocating that you take a chance as will not get caught by US Immigration if you have a criminal record.
I note your comment about what advice I should offer; and I am perfectly comfortable with the advice I have given.
Are you seriously advising that a parking conviction 40 years ago means that you cannot use the VWP and you have to go to London or Belfast for an interview(armed with your memorandum of conviction)to get a B2 visa?
|
for the complete "official" picture, see the following
(note: the uk driving convictions info on the us embassy webiste is a comparatively recent addition - over 2 years ago, there was a blanket refusal on that site to treat uk driving offences leniently ! )
visa waiver program
www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_199...4
visa waiver form
www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/vwp/i94_samples...l
from full list of ineligibilty:
www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l
the relevant criminal convictions are:
"(2) Criminal and related grounds.-
(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-
(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-
(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or
(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.
(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-
(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
(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).
(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 2/ were 5 years or more is inadmissible."
also see previous discussion of this on this forum here :
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=31864&...f
in particular the last posts 16 & 17 May 2005:
Criminal offence? - tack Mon 16 May 05 21:53
Criminal offence? - Dwight Van Driver Tue 17 May 05 07:53
|
My understanding is that if you are a convicted of an offence of murder, terrorism, sex crimes, money laundering, gun crime, drugs offences etc. Then you fall outside the VWP.
Similarly if you have been convicted on two or more charges where the total sentences exceed 5 years then again you fall outside the VWP.
Overall who can blame them!
Otherwise you can use the VWP, subject to other tests on matters such as 'Health Tourism' etc.
Quite how people think this applies to a speeding offence is beyond my wildest imagination. If in doubt read the legislation!
Finally the US immigration service does not have any access to the detailed records on every traveller to stop anyone other than those they know. If you get arrested in the US they may then check. But that will be the least of your problems, unless your lucky and they simply through you out!
|
Quite how people think this applies to a speeding offence is beyond my wildest imagination.
But they do! They really DO!
What's more it is posted on websites, then picked up and repeated ad nauseam in an authoritative manner on all sorts of other website(as in this thread)
It wouldn't matter if it was just a hypothetical discussion but the worry it causes for some people is immense. Cancelling holidays to the USA, dashing to London and spending lots of time and money to get an unnecessary Visa, or being worried sick that their speeding offence might be discovered and they will be clapped in irons and deported.
|
I had previously locked this thread but have re-opened it following representations from one of the posters.
While it is an important issue for people travelling to the US, and at least some of the contributors have wide experience in this area, if you are unsure of your position check via other means.
smokie, BR Moderator
|
>> Quite how people think this applies to a speeding offence is >> beyond my wildest imagination.
A fixed penalty is fine - it's exactly that: a penalty. However, if you're convicted in court then you have a conviction.
Note that you don't even have to have been convicted - it you've ever been arrested for anything then the US wants you to apply for a Visa. It's a huge money spinner for them. In reality, unless you otherwise come to the attention of the US authorities, you shouldn't have a problem.
|
My understanding is that if you are a convicted of an offence of murder, terrorism, sex crimes, money laundering, gun crime, drugs offences etc. Then you fall outside the VWP. Similarly if you have been convicted on two or more charges where the total sentences exceed 5 years then again you fall outside the VWP.
No. I don't know how it's possible to misunderstand the intent of the statement regarding qualifucation to use the VWP:
"Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program."
Finally the US immigration service does not have any access to the detailed records on every traveller to stop anyone other than those they know. If you get arrested in the US they may then check. But that will be the least of your problems, unless your lucky and they simply through you out!
Exactly. Most people take a chance - if you're travelling with your family to DisneyWorld then the US is unlikely to rock the boat. But it's up to the traveller to make that judgement.
|
from full list of ineligibilty: www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l the relevant criminal convictions are: "(2) Criminal and related grounds.- (A) Conviction of certain crimes.- (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- (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or (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. (ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if- (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 (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). (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 2/ were 5 years or more is inadmissible."
It's important to note that this list relates to people applying for a Visa - it has nothing to do with the Visa Waiver scheme.
|
it has nothing to do with the Visa Waiver scheme. ..
>>
bill payer:
in my opinion, you are plain wrong to make that statement. why? well if you follow the first link i posted, and read it, you will find it says:
When does a national of a VWP country need to apply for a visa instead of using the VWP?
Nationals of VWP countries must meet the conditions noted in ...... ..... ...... .....
* Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa (see Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas).
www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l
do you now wish to reconsider/withdraw your very misleading statement?
or do you know something i don't? please do tell me what. thanks.
smokie was wise to lock this thread initially - too many barrack room lawyers around here, methinks.
|
* Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa (see Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas). www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l
The crucial phrise there is 'ineligible for a visa' NOT ineligible to use the VWP. What they're saying is, 'you wouldn't even get an ordinary Visa, so don't even think about trying to use the VWP'!
|
ok, one final time, this time i will quote the whole paragraph (sorry mods, it seems necessary to cut and paste so much ):
www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_199...4
When does a national of a VWP country need to apply for a visa instead of using the VWP?
Nationals of VWP countries must meet the conditions noted in Which travelers may use the Visa Waiver Program to enter the United States? in order to seek admission to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program. Travelers who do not meet these conditions must apply for a visa. In particular, a visa must be requested if the traveler:
* Wants to remain in the U.S. for longer than 90 days, or envisions that they may wish to change their status (from tourism to student, etc.) once in the United States;
* Wants to work or study in the United States, wants to come to the U.S. for other purposes not allowed on a visitor visa, or intends to immigrate to the U.S.;
* Does not have a machine-readable passport (MRP) as of June 26, 2005.
* Intends to travel by private aircraft or other non-signatory air or sea carriers to the U.S.;
* Has been refused a visa or admission to the U.S. before, or did not comply with the conditions of previous VWP admissions (90 days or less stay for tourism or business, etc.); or
* Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa (see Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas)www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l
ities_1364.html
.
hope it helps people who do not wish to look up the full details on those links.
no more to say, really.
|
In particular, a visa must be requested if the traveler:
Note it says 'In particular' - what that means is that it's giving some specific examples, but it not a totally inclusive list
* Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa (see Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas)www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ine...l ities_1364.html .
How contadictory is that? It says you must apply for a Visa if you're ineligible for a Visa.
You should note that it's well accepted that the the Immigration rules / laws have been deliberately framed to be a vague as possible so that the US can use them as it it wishes.
If I had any doubt about my eligibilty then I simply wouldn't go to the US - they need the tourism so it's their loss.
|
If I had any doubt about my eligibilty then I simply wouldn't go to the US - they need the tourism so it's their loss.
Bill,
If I may say so this discussion is not for your benefit or mine. It is for those people who DO wish to go to the USA and have doubts on their eligibility raised by people posting this type of urban myth.
If we can bring this discussion back to the motoring connection. You seem to be grasping at straws in that you are now basing your whole argument on the premise that a *conviction* - even a *conviction* for minor motoring offence - makes you ineligible for entry under the VWP.
It has been conceded that prior to the fixed penalty scheme a prosecution for a parking offence, or defective light, resulted in a *conviction*. Even today an unsuccessful challenge in court to a parking ticket will result in a *conviction*. Citizens of countries that do not have our penalty system automatically get a parking *conviction* and they use the same VWP.
Despite the specific exemption for minor traffic offences, can you please explain the logic that leads you reach the conclusion that any conviction disqualifies you from the VWP.
Are you still seriously stating that a 40 year old parking *conviction* makes you ineligible for a visa waiver?
Can you give any shred of evidence, that supports your theory?
|
Are you still seriously stating that a 40 year old parking *conviction* makes you ineligible for a visa waiver? Can you give any shred of evidence, that supports your theory?
From the Embassy website:
"Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified."
So therefore, if your minor traffic offence *did* result in a conviction (or even if you were arrested) you can't use the VWP.
|
ok, we are now getting there.
what it means is that you cannot use vwp if you are ineligible for a normal visa. makes sense, does it not?
then on the ineligibility page, you are given the option to apply for the ineligibility removed by applying for a visa :
.... Waiver of Ineligibility
Aliens who are ineligible for a visa under one of the classes enumerated above may be eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under one of the following provisions of the Act.
....
it makes perfect sense if you are a lawyer.
|
>>.... Waiver of Ineligibility Aliens who are ineligible for a visa under one of the classes enumerated above may be eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under one of the following provisions of the Act. .... it makes perfect sense if you are a lawyer.
As an immigrant to the US I've had a lot of dealings with INS and its successor agencies. Although it is a large bureaucracy I have always found it to act professionally and my dealings with them have been straightforward.
The example above seems clear enough to me, for example,. If something you have done (such as overstaying) would make you inadmissable to the US, or ineligible for a visa (such as a conviction), you are free to apply for a 'Waiver of inadmissability', or a 'Waiver of ineligibility', in other words to ask INS to disregard whatever it is that is causing the problem. Obviously it is then up to an INS official to make such a determination.
On the initial point about motoring convictions. Again the information on their web site seems clear enough to me.
The VWP exists to allow visa-free travel for pleasure purposes. If there is something in your past which prevents you checking 'no' to the I-94 questions, then you are advised to apply for a proper visitors visa.
The individual traveller has to determine what they should do in order to comply with the immigration law. They can use translators or the services of immigration lawyers if they wish. INS does not offer immigration advice, that is the job of a lawyer.
Nobody has a right to come here, and all INS are doing is trying to enforce the law as laid down by congress.
|
ok, we are now getting there. what it means is that you cannot use vwp if you are ineligible for a normal visa. makes sense, does it not? then on the ineligibility page, you are given the option to apply for the ineligibility removed by applying for a visa : .... Waiver of Ineligibility Aliens who are ineligible for a visa under one of the classes enumerated above may be eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under one of the following provisions of the Act. .... it makes perfect sense if you are a lawyer.
You're looking far too deep - if you don't qualify for the VWP in the first place, because you can't get past the initial screening 'any arrests or convictions' qualification, then it's not going to do you any good trying to challenge interpretations of US Immigration law.
|
Fine Bill Payer. You carry on believing that, I'm happy that you are completely wrong :-)
|
|
I know a boy who was arrested by mistake for GBH when he was 17. It was a case of mistaken identity and the victim confirmed he was not his attacker. He was therefore released with no further action. Does this mean he cannot use the visa waiver form?
|
|
|
|
""Are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
Come on, is ANYONE going to tick that box if they are indeed entering the US with the intention of committing a crime?"
--I believe Winston Churchill did. Added the comment "Sole reason for visit"
|
""Are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?" Come on, is ANYONE going to tick that box if they are indeed entering the US with the intention of committing a crime?" --I believe Winston Churchill did. Added the comment "Sole reason for visit"
See Mark (No FM2R) response above as to why these questions exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
