B2 following VWP entries
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
B2 following VWP entries
Long story short, my partner has visited the US under the VWP on a number of occasions over the past 16 years. We now realise they should have had a B2 for a previous CIMT conviction.
We would like to enter the US legally, but I wonder if applying for the B2 would just open whole can of worms and be unlikely to succeed due to the previous unlawful entries. They did not deliberately lie, but I suppose this would be down to the embassy's discretion.
Does anyone have experience of this or advice? Do we need a lawyer?
Thanks.
We would like to enter the US legally, but I wonder if applying for the B2 would just open whole can of worms and be unlikely to succeed due to the previous unlawful entries. They did not deliberately lie, but I suppose this would be down to the embassy's discretion.
Does anyone have experience of this or advice? Do we need a lawyer?
Thanks.
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: B2 following VWP entries
First is it a CIMT or you think it might be?
What did they do?
What did they do?
#3
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
According to Google we think it is, although it was 20-odd years ago and we're not sure about the actual charge. So we'll need to look in to that. BTW, I am not suggesting we attempt an illegal entry (just to make that clear!).
#5
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,891
Re: B2 following VWP entries
If you aren't yet certain of the specific charge, how about giving us a general idea of the type of offence involved and why you think it constitutes CIMT?
#6
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
It will take time to get the facts, but I am 99% sure it is CIMT since it was theft related and they were over 18.
#7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
Long story short, my partner has visited the US under the VWP on a number of occasions over the past 16 years. We now realise they should have had a B2 for a previous CIMT conviction.
We would like to enter the US legally, but I wonder if applying for the B2 would just open whole can of worms and be unlikely to succeed due to the previous unlawful entries. They did not deliberately lie, but I suppose this would be down to the embassy's discretion.
Does anyone have experience of this or advice? Do we need a lawyer?
Thanks.
We would like to enter the US legally, but I wonder if applying for the B2 would just open whole can of worms and be unlikely to succeed due to the previous unlawful entries. They did not deliberately lie, but I suppose this would be down to the embassy's discretion.
Does anyone have experience of this or advice? Do we need a lawyer?
Thanks.
Legal consultation might be in order. Provide what paperwork you can.
#8
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
Has entered under the VWP when we now realise they shouldn't have. Am I correct in thinking this is unlawful?
#9
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: B2 following VWP entries
Since the wording on ESTA has changed recently, he may still not need a visa. There is no mention of CIMT in the new ESTA questions.
Ian
#10
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
Well, theft of any description is certainly a CIMT from what I have read. The new ESTA questions are confusing though. Does 'serious damage to property' include theft or burglary? His instinct would be to answer 'no' to that one but it doesn't mean he is technically eligible to enter the US. Does it!?
#11
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 366
Re: B2 following VWP entries
No. To be an issue, there has to be "willful misrepresentation" - meaning that he knew he wasn't eligible to use the VWP but used it anyway. If there was no willful misrepresentation, then it's likely not going to be a major issue.
Since the wording on ESTA has changed recently, he may still not need a visa. There is no mention of CIMT in the new ESTA questions.
Ian
Since the wording on ESTA has changed recently, he may still not need a visa. There is no mention of CIMT in the new ESTA questions.
Ian
#12
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 366
Re: B2 following VWP entries
I sorry I know you won't like this but shouldn't they just continue to lie to U.S immigration given that they have been doing that for 16 years now. I don't believe they forget about a record more likely they didn't understand they may have needed a visa but didn't want to get turned back at immigration either so they decided to tick no on the green form and sign it and took the holiday once they did they had to continue doing it. Isn't it a bit late in the day to find honesty now?
#13
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
Re: B2 following VWP entries
Maybe it is too late. No, he didn't forget, but did not think it was a CIMT when answering vwp. So in that sense answered honestly. Of course we should have been more careful. Is there no point in being honest now? Should he just not travel anymore? . The only reason either of us go is because I am a USC and have family there.
#14
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: B2 following VWP entries
This is the beauty of the whole thing. He gets to make up his own mind whether or not what he did caused "serious damage to property".
And that is a perfectly valid response.
It's up to the CBP officer at the POE whether or not he's allowed to enter. However, if he believes he can honestly answer "no" to the question, then ESTA will likely be approved. If he arrives in the US with a valid ESTA, it's highly unlikely that he'll be denied entry. It could happen, of course, but it's highly unlikely.
Ian
His instinct would be to answer 'no' to that one...
... but it doesn't mean he is technically eligible to enter the US. Does it!?
Ian
#15
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: B2 following VWP entries
He doesn't have to prove it... because the burden of proof is on the government. They have to prove that he did commit willful misrepresentation.
No. Why? Because he hasn't been lying. You understand that, right? People lie when they know something is wrong but do it anyway. If you don't know it's wrong, how can there be a lie?
No.
Ian
I know you won't like this but shouldn't they just continue to lie to U.S immigration given that they have been doing that for 16 years now.
Isn't it a bit late in the day to find honesty now?
Ian