bradaw42

No idea. I'm thinking it's a bit of an amazement and snap reaction from the attorney. They also asked if I've informed our HR?!?

I'm going to go to the interview - when eventually scheduled - and await the SAR information.

BenK91

If he’s straight off the bat told you to cancel it that seems pretty shoddy.

I’d have thought he’d have given you some more information as to why it’s worth canceling etc.

S Folinsky

Had a chat with an English solicitor friend. It helps we are both educated in Common Law jurisdictions.

There are two broad types of "assault" - one is apprehension of a battery, the other is attempted battery. So, let's say you strike a sleeping person with intent to injure, there is definitely a battery, but "assault" depends upon the definition used. This is what I was thinking of.

bradaw42

I'm really not too sure and quite surprised by the response.

The attorney is USA based so will need to wait till Tuesday to speak to them.

I'm quite concerned and confused at why an unexpected battery caution from over 5 years ago appearing on the ACRO would make the attorney ask to cancel the ds-160's where even I don't have any paperwork about it and I've sent for a SAR.

Surely this caution can't hinder the visa application that much? I just really don't know and feel pretty rubbish about the whole thing.

scrubbedexpat099

Presidents Day is not a general holiday.

Rete

President's Day is a federal holiday. A general search advised that the UPS, banking institutions, stock exchange, schools and other major institutions will be closed.

As a former legal assistant/paralegal, every law firm I worked for closed on President's Day.

Fred16

Perhaps HR in US have said stop and you are being notified via the lawyers.

bradaw42

Just got off a call with the company's attorney and they believe that because of the caution the visa has a much smaller chance of success and it would be something that the Officer will take into consideration.

In short because of the driving conviction and the battery caution - I would be highly unlikely to obtain the L1, because of the impact on admissibility and eligibility.

Seriously very upset and very p*ss*d off!

Former Lancastrian

Who with? The US for their rules or yourself for getting into trouble and becoming inadmissible?

materialcontroller

That's tough for you, but try and see it from their perspective. They are potentially looking at an AWFUL lot of money to relocate you and it's understandable that they might not want to jeopardise that investment by taking a risk on someone who has a less than squeaky clean background. It's just added hassle that they would rather avoid if possible.

At this stage, it's not clear at all whether the OP actually is inadmissible or not. On the face of it, given what (admittedly) limited information we have here, I'd be leaning towards them not being inadmissible on the grounds of those two offences.

But as I explained above, the employer's attorney is possibly being risk averse and they probably don't want to deal with a case where the outcome is so much more unpredictable than normal.

Rete

Does it matter to you why he is pissed? I can't see why?

scrubbedexpat099

The Lawyer works for the Employer, their interests are different to yours.

materialcontroller

The problem the OP has is that even if they employed their own personal attorney who came up with a different interpretation of inadmissibility, the employer is unlikely to risk spending the cash to proceed with the application anyway.

BenK91

Disappointing end result for you as you seemed really excited! I guess in some respects it's better to find out now then go to the interview with excitement to get declined.

BritInParis

I'd be interested to know if the OP's lawyer is of the opinion that the offence itself makes the OP inadmissible or its omission when lodging the application.