Rete

Not really. The use of the word or can be seen as a comma rather than referring to the remainder of the sentence "or convicted for a crime that results in serious damage to property. Please remember which country wrote this sentence and their use of the English language. As an American, I read the below as: Have you ever been arrested, convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property or serious harm to another person or government authority. Just as more and more people are writing cannot as two words when it is really one word and has been since I was a child 60 years ago. Also people use the word "or" in place of commas and now they use a comma before the last or in the sentence. The rules of grammar have long since been discard by all and sundry in the US.

We all are familiar with the fact that someone who has been arrested for possession of drugs is will have problems with emigrating and will often require a waiver of inadmissibility and/or will be out and out refused with no hope of ever entering the US as a visitor or as an immigrant. That is not a crime that is included in that sentence. It seems like some people are choosing to rely on your interpretation, which is also theirs, and IMHO, I feel that interpretation is incorrect.

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?

materialcontroller

The question doesn't ask about all arrests. It specifically asks about arrests or convictions for CIMT. Those are the only ones that matter. The US simply isn't interested in people who've been arrested for stuff that doesn't have an immoral dimension to it.

tom169

Good luck with challenging this in courts, buddy.

BenK91

Twinkle0927

shiversaint

This is precisely what I'm trying to say.

I accept that an OR can be colloquially used to the suggested effect by Rete, but if that was the case, why wouldn't you just ask if you've ever been arrested and that's it? It's an unnecessary administrative burden for the US to interpret this sentence as anything other than what it plainly says.

shiversaint

I successfully argued this during a misrepresentation accusation from with the consulate. I visited the US on the VWP with a drug related caution, which is not a CIMT as we know. I said it was not a misrep issue as I'd been honest when interpreting the question, which they agreed with. Twice, for that matter.

It wouldn't ever get to court, because it isn't an issue.

And just in any anticipation of any queries on how I got away with this, my caution was before the 2008 court decision that deems cautions equivalent to convictions.

By all means be overly cautious. Doing so is a waste of time, but it's upto you or whoever decides to agree with you. I'm not advising anyone to do anything one way or another, I'm just stating the facts around how a sentence should be read if it is adhering to the conventions of the english language.

Rete

How does it make it redundant. They are two separate questions. One can be arrested and not convicted but one cannot be convicted without being arrested. The sentence uses the word "or" not the word "and" which is how I interpret your and shiver's viewpoint. Being that it is an or rather than an and, I do not see it the way either of you do.

materialcontroller

This forum has long considered the meaning of this question to be:

Have you ever been arrested for a CIMT?
or
Have you ever been convicted of a CIMT?

It's not "Have you ever been arrested for any offence?"

tht

shiversaint

If they are two separate questions then by definition they should be two separate sentences. Even if they are two separate questions, the arrest question makes the CIMT question redundant.

Being arrested of anything supercedes being convicted of a specific thing. There is no reason to ask the combination - doing so is nonsensical.

The "and" point is a misinterpretation because "and" would imply you need to satisfy both conditions to qualify the question. We know that you cannot satisfy the latter without the former, and I am saying you can satisfy the former but not the latter - therein lies the difference, and therin lies why the OR implies they are not asking whether you've been arrested for anything. They are asking if you have been arrested, or have been convicted, of a CIMT. I have inserted excessive oxford commas into my previous sentence to illustrate what I am trying to say.

Let me put it another way: if they wanted to know if you had specifically been convicted of a CIMT beyond an arrest, they would ask you specifically. How do I know that? They already do it for drugs related offences.

Rete

It has never been my understanding that the arrest or the conviction had to be for a CIMT. If you feel that this forum has long considered this the meaning, it is news to me.

Both you and shiver can argue your points, I disagree.

shiversaint

I think the gravity of this specific discussion is worth trying to obtain some consensus on, if only so people coming onto this forum can get clear advice. Being presented with a debate every time this comes up is going to be really unhelpful for future users.

I still don't really understand why you, Rete, and a few others, think that question is asking for anyone with any arrest record to answer yes to it? It would be great if there is some sort of ruling or known interpretation to demonstrate this.

Muna_93

According to English grammatical and sentence structure rules, this interpretation is the correct one.

az2014

Because thats what it does ask for?

Maybe thats not what they want to ask for but it clearly does, not sure how you can think otherwise.