Former Lancastrian

Errr because I see it a lot on both the US and Canadian Immigration forums and I just might work in that line of work and sometimes manage to help posters with their queries or give them a perspective from that side.
Most posters are pissed at the system and tend to downplay their role in for getting into situations where it can now hinder their entry into either country.

bradaw42

Good morning again, I've had near a week to think of all the possibilities of this and the next difficulty of speaking to my immediate manager in the US today.

A few things to clarify;

the visa is for L1 intra-company transfer (with my wife)

the driving conviction is for a DUI with a 1 year 1 month 1 day ban (December 2011)

the "caution" I was not aware of that turned up on the ACRO is "Battery" (September 2012) - and does not say anything else at all on acro (still awaiting the SAR), and btw I'm married now 3 1/2 years to one of the people at & involved in the incident (no violence or harm / injury reported)

What really is confusing and frustrating to me is; this CIMT - which is what I am guessing the attorney is basing the "battery" caution, could hinder and deny the L1 visa application.

Also what is confusing to me is this "Nonimmigrant visas: Ineligibilities and Waivers", I'll get to this further on.


The situation now stands as thus;

paid for MRV for myself and wife
DS-160's completed for myself and wife (caution not placed on mine, DUI is)
awaiting interview slot
awaiting SAR for ACRO (for caution information)

Could I not, re-complete my DS-160 and include the Caution, then tie the Intra-Company Transfer application and my wife's DS-160 to this?

Then - as I have in essence paid for the interview (albeit I can if so wished recoup from the company) - go to the interview with all my information and explain to the Consulate Officer my convictions - and see what they say?

2 things here - I have an ESTA (runs out August 2018), where I definitely placed my DUI on it, but not my caution as I mentioned within the thread, I only realise I had one until on return of the ACRO. Is the Consulate Officer going to question whether I put these (both) on the ESTA?

If the L1 is denied, can I not go through or does the "Ineligibilities & Waivers" route to get the visa approved / can it apply to me? A longer wait I know but something my company may be happy to wait for?

And lastly;

If - I go to the interview, with new DS-160 and all information, explain myself etc... Is there any other cost involved at that point of interview, which I / company, may never see the money again if the visa is denied (for L1 Blanket + wife)? This is unclear to me?

I'm probably willing to take the hit if they are reasonable and the companies attorney is still being so risk averse!

Sorry for the lengthy post. Any help or advice appreciated as always.

S Folinsky

Under the current administration there is interest in "extreme vetting" and a concern about "aliens" committing crimes. It has been noted that one of the San Bernardino killers had entered with a visa.

OP has a record - violence and drug abuse.

bradaw42

Sorry. I don't understand. What does OP mean?

Fred16

OP
Person who starts the thread
And there has been a fee on the day for L1 at interview(was for us)
I think it was about $250

scrubbedexpat099

Plenty of people enter the US with a DUI, now Canada treat it much differently.

Battery may or may not be a bigger issue, if this was a family immigration matter you would just proceed and see what happens, problem is that you are dependent on a willing Employer and their legal advisor seems not to want to try.

lansbury

I think a problem is that the US attorney is taking what a battery could be in the US, either a misdemeanor or a felony, and not what it was in my day in the UK on a par with a Sec 42 Offences Against the Person Act assault. In layman's terms a common assault, akin to a slapped face where no injury occurs.

Sec 42 is below an ABH, and most ABHs are not a CIMT. IMO a Sec 42 would never be a CIMT.

Twinkle0927

I'm sensing the the employer is not wanting to proceed and is hiding behind this issue with the police certificate to find a get-out clause. Maybe the employer sees being given the chance to work at an overseas location a huge privilege (it certainly was where I worked in the U.K.) and maybe they don't think the OP now cuts the mustard.