crg

The person adjudicating the waiver application may think the story is b*llsh*t too, decide the person hasn't been rehabilitated, and deny the waiver.

It reminds me of the senior citizen speaking to Forrest Gump at the bus stop.

She said, "Well, I thought it was a very lovely story. And you tell it so well. With such enthusiasm."

The DHS official may have a similar response.

ST95

I've been reading this forum for the past week or so trying to gain answers to a similar question...
Given whats already been mentioned in the thread, how would a police caution for class A drugs differ to a full criminal conviction [if at all]

Sorry to hijack your thread Andrew.
Regards, ST95

ian-mstm

From whose point of view? And with what ultimate goal?

Ian

crg

A caution is not equivalent to a conviction or an admission of guilt. It could possibly cause you problems if the consular officer decides to pursue the matter.

You have to answer YES to the arrest question on the visa application and the ESTA.

Here's a link to an in depth discussion on caution vs. conviction:

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=608486

snowguy

A caution is considered an admission of guilt, although a caution is NOT considered as a conviction

A caution results in a criminal record for the offence.

Under UK law there are 5 requirements for a caution

Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 3, Conditional cautions

23 The five requirements

(1) The first requirement is that the authorised person has evidence that the offender has committed an offence.

(2) The second requirement is that a relevant prosecutor decides—

(a) that there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender with the offence, and
(b) that a conditional caution should be given to the offender in respect of the offence.

(3) The third requirement is that the offender admits to the authorised person that he committed the offence.

(4) The fourth requirement is that the authorised person explains the effect of the conditional caution to the offender and warns him that failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to the caution may result in his being prosecuted for the offence.

(5) The fifth requirement is that the offender signs a document which contains—

(a) details of the offence,
(b) an admission by him that he committed the offence,
(c) his consent to being given the conditional caution, and
(d) the conditions attached to the caution.

crg

Make sure you read the other thread. We've been over this.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=608486

We're dealing with apples and oranges here. The admission of guilt required and the level of documentation for a UK official to issue a caution is not the same as the standard that the consular officer uses to determine if the person is inadmissible for admitting to the essential elements of a CIMT or controlled substance violation.

In order to meet that standard, the UK official must have:

- Given the applicant a full explanation of the purpose of the
questioning.

- The applicant must have been placed under oath.

- Recorded the proceedings verbatim.

- Before the actual questioning, given the applicant an
adequate definition of the crime, including all essential elements.

- Explained the definition to the applicant in terms he or she
understands, making certain it conforms to the law of the
jurisdiction where the offense is alleged to have been committed.

- Have the applicant admit to all of the essential elements, which
constituted the crime.

- The admission must be explicit, unequivocal and unqualified.

Does the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a verbatim sworn statement, does it require that the person be given a copy of the law etc etc etc? Can UK police officers even place someone under oath?

I don't see these requirements listed under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003.

We're dealing with two very different sets of regulations.

snowguy

Yes, and no-one was in agreement. Those standards (FAM ones) do not even apply in court proceedings here.

crg

You obviously just don't get it. I didn't say that the FAM had any impact on UK legal proceedings. What I said is that a UK caution doesn't mean nearly the same thing to the Consulate as a UK conviction or an admission to the essential elements directly to the consular officer.

It has been demonstrated by the people on this forum who have received adult cautions for simple marijuana possession who have received visas without a waiver. If a UK caution was always considered, in the eyes of the consulate, to equate to a conviction or admission, this would not happen.

snowguy

Neither did I. I said that the standards set by FAM would mean any guilty plea in a magistrates court would not meet there standards.

As you stated here

crg

The standards I listed from the FAM are related to admissions of guilt. Pleading guilty in a court with an actual judge is much different and covered by other regulations detailed in the FAM. Per the US Immigration an Nationality Act, a conviction has to include specific criteria. The caution does not meet them.

9 FAM 40.21(a) N3.1 Defining Conviction
(CT:VISA-753; 06-29-2005)
INA 101(A)(48) defines “conviction” as either:
(1) A formal judgment of guilt entered by a court; or
(2) If adjudication has been withheld,
(a) either:
• A finding of guilty by judge or jury; or
• A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the alien; or
• An admission from the alien of sufficient facts to warrant a finding
of guilt; and
(3) The imposition of some form of punishment, penalty or restraint of
liberty by a judge

ian-mstm

Should I buy some popcorn?

Ian