Km88

Hello,
I work for a global company based in London and have recently been given the opportunity to relocate to the US and work from our head office which would be a dream come true, however… I have a drink driving offence from 2013 that resulted in a driving ban and fine.
since then I have travelled to the US many times under an esta and did not declare the drink driving offence - I put no in my answer. Maybe in hindsight I should have just put yes

This isn’t a “I must work in America”, just something my boss floated and and HR agreed that I’d be eligible for an L1 visa.

I have two questions-
​​​​​​— if I declare this on my L1 visa application and it gets denied, will this mean I am no longer able to travel to the US as I did not declare on esta?
-– I have not declared my driving offence to my company (it has now been spent but it wasn’t when I first joined, however this was not a question asked at any point prior to me being hired), will this likely hinder me by now declaring it? If I do declare it, will this information get passed onto senior management or stay within HR/legal?

Thanks so much for any advice given!

LegalEagleTX

The current eligibility question in the ESTA is "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?". Arguably a DUI for alcohol without being involved in an accident doesn't fall within it. If a DUI involves drugs then this could be more serious and such has been held to be a crime of moral turpitude in the U.S. It probably won't affect your L1 visa, but you may need a waiver. If you get rejected for an L1 visa then this could impact your ability to get an ESTA as this is a separate eligibility question. You might then have to apply for a visa but it's unlikely a DUI for alcohol would prevent you getting one ultimately. If you want to work in the U.S. go for it. As for your declaring it to your employer, how would we possibly know whether it would hinder you?

Km88

thanks for your response. That was the reason why I clicked no on my esta as I had read multiple times that one dui without any injury to another person wouldn’t be seen as a crime of moral turpitude.

i guess my question should really have been, if my L1 for whatever reason got denied and I had to get a waiver, would this be something my employer would find out without me telling them?

it’s not something I have to do at work, it’s more something I’d like to do so it’s not a life or death situation but I of course don’t want to dig myself into a worse of situation if it were to hinder me by this coming to light at work. Thanks!

LegalEagleTX

If you are denied or need a waiver then assume your employer will find out why. Most employers will hire a lawyer to help you. This lawyer is the company's, not yours. Even if they don't hire one, they will likely straight up ask you why you are denied or need a waiver. Lying to them at this point could be grounds for dismissal. Best to assume they will always find out.

S Folinsky

The post from LeagleEagleTX is quite erroneous in numerous ways.

I am an inactive member of the California bar. I also live in California. California has had much in the way of problems with people giving legal advice and assistance regarding US immigration law. Accordingly, California law on unauthorized practice of law is applicable and is quite strict (Contrast immigration with taxation or residential real estate and the disparity in legal treatment is quite apparent).

The only advice I believe I can give is to obtain competent and lawful advice.

LegalEagleTX

I am not giving legal advice If you think I have broken a law, report me.

S Folinsky

<sigh> I have no idea what jurisdiction’s law would apply to you. I noted the jurisdiction which applies to ME. I’d rather not violate California law on UPL nor subject myself to malpractice liability.

Also, if nothing else, your posts have at least the appearance of giving legal advice to OP. Advice which is wrong and misleading and to a large extent off topic.

i believe that OP is entitled to correct information. If you don’t share that belief, then perhaps you should let OP know.

LegalEagleTX

I think given your jurisdiction, you say absolutely NOTHING and not even post on this forum. By saying something is wrong you are also giving advice, and potentially legal advice, if you are opining on whether something is legally correct.

I also stand by everything I have said. You may disagree with me. But frankly I don't care.

Expatrian

I’d really like to hear your [personal] opinion on some of these posts, rather than just calling them out. Isn’t your forum signature, along with careful wording, sufficient to protect you from liability? If it’s that subjective, maybe it’s not worth risking malpractice liability on yourself being on this forum at all. It seems self evident to me that nobody should expect content here to be legal advice, absent an attorney-client agreement, on a public forum like this?

S Folinsky

Fair comment. That said, as part of education on “legal ethics” there is the issue of creation of the attorney client relationship and there are cases of liability for erroneous advice given in social circumstances. So, not as “self-evident” as one might think.

Also, much in the way of legal advice is by way of “opinion.”

As to LeagalEagle, the funny thing is that he does NOT address the issues raised by OP’s questions. Rather he diverts from the relevant issues by discussion of moral turpitude.

As to my personal opinions, health issues are outside of my bailiwick in any case. And my experience goes back to DSM-IV, which was superseded by DSM-IV-TR which was superseded by DSM-5. Very recently DSM-5-TR has come out.

My opinion is that OP will be OK, but it should be addressed.

LegalEagleTX

If you can’t comprehend why I mention CIMT in this context, heaven knows how you ever remained in private practice without being brought before the State Bar.

Km88

Don't worry all, I am not taking anything as 'legal advice'.

I don't think the visa is actually my issue here, it's more about not declaring the DUI to my employer even though it wasn't a question I was asked. Is this something people have been forthcoming with in the past even if the conviction hasn't been spent? This is the part I am unsure of, because if I haven't been asked, I had no need to declare. If I had been asked, I would have been honest. Now under law in England & Wales, my conviction is spent so I wouldn't necessarily I have to divulge that information, however if I am applying for a visa with my company, it will of course come out. I just am not sure (from anyone else's experience) is this going to be seen as me being dishonest to my company? And from experience, are companies generally not going to take it further if it is now spent?

I know my experience, as is everyones, is unique. I am really just seeking others experiences with this kind of thing and whether a move to the US is actually worth losing my job in the UK for.

Thanks!

Jerseygirl

Please take your argument to PM. Thanks.

Expatrian

What would be interesting to know:

1) You state you weren’t asked about a prior DUI specifically. Were you asked about your arrest / conviction history in any way at all (i.e., was there any deception on your part)?
2) Were you under any legal obligation when you applied, such as due to your occupation type, to declare your prior DUI?
3) Regarding the position you were hired for, did your position require driving, and in particular, the use of your employer’s vehicles?

IMO, the fact that the conviction is now spent is not that relevant (I assume in the UK that means it is no longer on your criminal record?). What matters, if at all, is you had a prior conviction at the time you applied for the position. If the answer to the above questions is “no,” if your employer finds out about the DUI, it seems like they’d have no grounds to fire you (and possibly risk your legal action against them if they did?).

S Folinsky

As to UK criminal records, the ACRO summary will have the notation of “no live trace” in regards to spent convictions. In my opinion, the rubric of damning with faint praise applies.

Despite LegalEagle’s vehement conflation of substance abuse with moral turpitude, I think that position by people is quite rare in the business world. Both practice and immigration laws allow for rehabilitation in regards to past substance abuse.