meauxna

FTR, there are posts which are now deleted which may have influenced OP's last post.

marcsred

Folinskyinla, it was not you at all that I was talking about. It was the people making jokes and calling my husband a thieving bastard. I thank you very much for your advice.

I see that Rete must have read and removed most of the comments that I was referring to.

I was not at all referring you anything you have said. And as for telling me about this earlier, it was a shock for him too. When he did his Australian immigration just 2 years ago (his family now lives there) there was nothing on his police clearance certificate. So we we're both just recently blindsided by this.

Ray

Scottish law differ such that Housebreaking is not a crime in itself – there must also be a criminal intention to commit theft. In such cases, the intruder may be charged with 'Theft by Housebreaking'

That situation differs from the rest of the UK

Where it becomes breaking and entering... the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary..

How the US see it I leave to others ...

marcsred

I got that information from the Fife Constabulary as well, Ray. So I guess we just have to find someone more helpful in tracking down the actual record than the help we've gotten from the Procurator Fiscal and the Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court.

This whole thing is just a mess and we're being given the typical government office runaround. I'm sure a lawyer might be helpful, but how to find the money for one, and find a good one all the way from the US or Australia? I really wish I wasn't in the last two weeks of uni right now. I have 7 papers, 4 projects, 3 performances, and 4 finals in the next 11 days. Joy!

fatbrit

The three comments Rete removed were taking the mickey out of Folinskyinla for not knowing the correct adjectival form of the noun Scot. They had absolutely nothing to do with you, your problem, or your criminal husband -- as our moderator kindly pointed out in her just deletion. Just so we've got our facts straight here!

Sally Redux

I would certainly be criminal to make fun of a serious poster.

fatbrit

And regardless, the poster has had good news from a wise counselor. It certainly doesn't look like a deal-breaker from this seat -- just a bit of extra faffing about. Now, I'm looking at it though, I wonder if her husband has already entered the US on a VWP -- could be an extra spanner in the works to prepare for.

Sally Redux

Let us hope not.

marcsred

Yeah, our moderator kindly pointed out to Folinskyinla that posts had been deleted that may have affected the OP's last post-MY post. Meaning there were posts other than Folinskyinla's that I was referring to when I said people we're making jokes.

And by the way, my husband is NOT a criminal. But you ARE a jerk for saying that.

My husband has never entered the US under the VWP because it just seemed like they wouldn't believe he wasn't going to try and stay. We'd originally thought we'd be able to do DCF, so he cleared his debts and moved in with his family so he could come over ASAP. Obviously when we found out we couldn't do the DCF, that all looked suspicious. It would have looked like he had no reason to go back to Australia aside from his job. We didn't want to risk the cost of a plane ticket if he might just be turned away. So I've always just gone there. How would that affect us anyway?

fatbrit

I really do think you are going to need a lawyer or lawyers for your task in hand. Your emotional state seems unable to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant.

marcsred

I find it worth responding to when someone calls my husband something he's not. There's no need, whatsoever, for comments like that. It's rude, hurtful, unwarranted, and completely unnecessary. So get a life and amuse yourself in some other way if you have nothing useful to say.
Thank you to everyone that HAS offered advice and encouragement. It is truly appreciated.

fatbrit

Your husband has a criminal record. Get over it and sort the problem out instead of taking offense all the time. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Folinskyinla

Hi again:

I understood perfectly what Ray posted -- and that still leaves open whether or not it is a CIMT for US immigration purposes. And it can get strange at times -- "joyriding" is not a CIMT for immigration purposes, but it is a "theft related" crime for purposes of being an "aggravated felony" [which gets one deported]. Also, not all crimes entitled "burglary" are "burglary" for immigration purposes.

I realize you have a lot on your plate right now I see. Maybe you should prioritize, do some triage, and put off the immigration for the next 11 days. Also, can he work on his own case.

And don't get stuck on getting original records -- they may not be available. It happens in the US all the time for petty offenses. That solicitor in Scotland may be cheaper and quicker than you might think -- they may be able to take a look at what you have and be able to say there is no problem. Either he was not "convicted" or if he was convicted, the maxium sentence that could have been imposed by the court in question was one year -- so it comes under petty offense.

This is a difficult question. As for the expense -- please remember that, according to your words, he did break that window of someone else's premises to reach inside. And sometimes, those acts have consequences.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Please calm down. BOTH of the above statements are premature at this point. All I know is that your husband does have a blemish on his record -- an arrest and encounter with the criminal court system.

He may very well have a conviction there -- but it appears to be singular and petty offense if there is even a conviction.

This does not make him an evil person.

I'm being repetitive, but keep thinking "He broke the window of the premises of another with intent to enter." The act was done, he did have intent to enter through that window -- you have said so.

The meaning of the above has yet to be determined.

nettlebed

Agree. The details that are relevant to the US authorities are the documented details, not intent, not whether your husband is or is not a thief. The fact is, the record shows that he was charged with a criminal offence (which may or may not be a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, or CIMT).

What the OP needs to do now is to understand exactly what hurdles this documented record places in the ways of her husband's immigration, and focus on clearing those hurdles. USCIS are very unlikely to be persuaded that he is not a thief, since there are official documents stating that he is.

James, who has two convictions for CsIMT, and still managed to become a US Citizen through marriage.