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 ...

crg

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

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:

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

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

I think that you misunderstood my post.

materialcontroller

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