[md95065]

Originally Posted by crg Of course, the charge may not have been a CIMT, but that gets very complicated with assault charges.

Indeed - while I am sure that we would all agree that whacking an irritating boyfriend with a bread knife doesn't come even close to "moral turpitude" and, in fact, might even have been exactly what he deserved, the law might not see it that way ...

[crg]

Originally Posted by md95065 Indeed - while I am sure that we would all agree that whacking an irritating boyfriend with a bread knife doesn't come even close to "moral turpitude" and, in fact, might even have been exactly what he deserved, the law might not see it that way ...

Don't be so sure. These CIMT cases are complicated. I've heard of cases where someone was hit with a CIMT for whacking their kid with a shoe.

[md95065]

Originally Posted by crg Don't be so sure. These CIMT cases are complicated.

I think that you may possibly have missed the fact that my reply was not intended to be taken entirely seriously and that I did end it with the following disclaimer:

Originally Posted by md95065 the law might not see it that way

[superkruz]

It is unfortunate how the law can have unintended results. I cannot imagine that it was the intention of lawmakers to stop people like OP and his wife getting visas.

[md95065]

Originally Posted by superkruz It is unfortunate how the law can have unintended results. I cannot imagine that it was the intention of lawmakers to stop people like OP and his wife getting visas.

Then I think that you misunderstand the fundamental intent of US immigration law...

It certainly was the intention of US lawmakers to keep out absolutely everyone except for those that met certain specific requirements.

Anyway it is likely that the OP's wife can get a visa - in fact she already has one - the discussion on this thread is about whether a particular incident in her past should have been disclosed and whether or not it is likely to be a problem.

[superkruz]

Originally Posted by md95065 Then I think that you misunderstand the fundamental intent of US immigration law....

I think that you misunderstood my post.

[materialcontroller]

Originally Posted by crg I really don't see how someone who had to post bail can claim they weren't arrested. If they were not arrested, that means they were free to leave. Posting bail was required before the person could leave. That means they were not free to leave, and therefore were arrested/detained. Of course, the charge may not have been a CIMT, but that gets very complicated with assault charges.

People don't necessarily have to "post" bail. They can be released on police bail while the police continue their inquiries. As to whether or not this means they were arrested, I don't honestly know. Perhaps it's possible to be interviewed and "cautioned" (ie. "read your rights") without being arrested. lansbury would know the answer. He is the law-enforcement expert of the forum.

[daniel.thomas10]

wow thanks for all the repays guys. Im filling in a ACRO form to take down to the US embassy.
once we have that I am witting a letter to accompany it. (just stating it was a a accident) and fingers crossed she can have her visa reissued or revalidated... what ever they do after you have a visa and commit a 2nd offence