materialcontroller

Which probably won't be a factor in this case if ESTA is approved. Unless the question of the arrest arises at the POE. Even then, it's a remote possibility.

fatbrit

Just playing the devil's advocate!

If I were the OP I'd tick no to all the ESTA questions and not worry about it. In addition, I'd not expect concrete guarantees where none can be given.

materialcontroller

GarethThomason673

My ESTA has been accepted, obviously this is not the answer to the possibility of being denied at POE. The US department of state website lists disorderly & drunkeness as non-CIMT and because of this I have no issues in ticking no and I am being completely honest in ticking no. However the obstacle I am trying to overcome is having my fringerprints taken, dreading that they can see my arrest on record and to say that I should have contacted the embassy as I have an arrest on my record. Still trying to figure out what the certain limited circumstances are that are stated on a moral turpitude page on this website! Baffled!

fatbrit

Borrowing from Ian, it's time to switch to decaf.

GarethThomason673

I am trying to cut down on caffiene...

Don't quite understand what you mean though?!

fatbrit

You're getting worked up about nothing.

Nobody can guarantee your entry to the US on the VWP program. If I were you, I'd tick no on all the boxes and enter as planned. If I were questioned about if I'd ever been arrested, I'd tell them the truth -- but I wouldn't volunteer that information if it wasn't asked. I'd guess I'd have about the same chances of being admitted as anyone else on a VWP -- 99% plus.

GarethThomason673

Should have guessed that's what you meant, I do hope you're right!

It's the 1% part that worries me...

Surely there are hundreds if not thousands of tourists that were arrested many years ago (I myself completely forgot about this until my partner kindly reminded me) that forget an arrest occurred, or simply don't think it falls under moral turpitude after looking it up. If the Embassy wanted to make it crystal clear that you cannot travel without a visa with any arrest, shouldn't this be made obvious when looking for a flight? And not in the small print?

Even if the border agent discovers my arrest, could I not say that I've researched it on the US department of state website and drunkeness and disorderly do not fall under this? Not that my words will mean much to them!

ian-mstm

Might I suggest a new partner!


No - because an arrest, by itself, is not sufficient under law to deny entry to the US. The devil is in the details... so the subject matter of the arrest is as important as the act itself. Besides, leaving the rules vague and undefined gives the CBP officers the widest possible latitude to perform their job which, by definition, is to keep non-USCs out of the US.


Your words will mean nothing to them... because the CBP officers don't work for the DOS!

You are so focussed on being denied entry you are losing your proper perspective. For every failed entry story you read, there are many thousands upon thousands of successful VWP entries.

Ian

GarethThomason673

Do you by any chance know of any stories of people being denied entry at the border due to a minor arrest in the past?

materialcontroller

You've already established that your crime didn't involve moral turpitude - so you aren't inadmissible on that basis. You've applied for ESTA and gained approval which, provided you answered the questions honestly, now allows you to travel to the USA. Yet you still seem to be worried that you'll be refused entry for the old arrest. Why do you still think that it's significant?

fatbrit

Most of them are disembowelled before their remains are deported to their home country.

GarethThomason673

I honestly don't mean to come across as annoying. I just have a doubt in my mind, I just hope the arrest doesn't show up on the police national computer (if they have access) and for the border agent to say pretty much you're fault, you should have read the terms and conditions of your vacation in greater detail, which reads: "That is, if no-one in your party has ever been arrested (even if not convicted) or is suffering from a serious communicable disease (vist: www.usembassy.org.uk for details of all restrictions" when discussing visa waiver requirements.

The conflicting information just frustrates me. They expect me to call the embassy at a ridiculous rate, travel to and from york to london for a meeting regarding a visa, then pay for the visa, all because of a silly little arrest years ago that resulted in a fine!

I will go-ahead and travel and tick no on the visa waiver you receive on the plane. I am being honest and not lying, but I am slightly guilty in that I know what the US Embassy and my travel conditions state.

fatbrit

Their sand pit, their rules!

Just as an FYI, most of the country is run this way. By putting multiple agencies in charge of everything, you can ensure there can be no overall power.

materialcontroller

I'm still interested in finding out exactly what grounds you think they've got for refusing you at the point of entry? If it isn't moral turpitude (and we're all pretty much agreed by now that it isn't), then what else? Have a look at the list of inadmissibilities in the following link and have a guess which ones might apply to you: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86933.pdf