materialcontroller

Then why do the accompanying help notes to ESTA not point out that distinction? They merely say that the question is referring to CIMT and that is the context in which the question needs to be interpreted.

I've spent a long time on BE and we have never advised anyone with an arrest to answer YES to the ESTA question unless that arrest was for a suspected CIMT.

MidAtlantic

Why don't we follow the guidance given by the US Embassy in London?

We do not recommend that travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, have a criminal record, certain serious communicable illness, have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed under the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, attempt to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to US visa law and spent convictions,regardless of when they occurred will have a bearing on a traveler’s eligibility for admission into the United States.

https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-...-requirements/

shiversaint

Stating that I'm wrong without showing why is not helpful to achieving a consensus. I'm sitting here saying I'm happy to be proven wrong but at the minute it's just me and materialcontroller explaining that the second part of the sentence is redundant if the first part of the sentence is to be treated as a singular question, with no-one really refuting that point with a decent explanation.

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?

Do you agree that anybody that answers "yes" the bolded part of this sentence would be captured by anyone that would answer yes to the italicised part of the sentence, IF that italicised part of the sentence was supposed to be answered in solitude, as you are suggesting?

The only situation which benefits when this sentence is actually two questions is for people convicted in absentia - which is clearly not the intended purpose given no documentation even refers to it.

materialcontroller

The reason why we don't follow that advice is because it is incorrect and incompatible with US immigration laws. This is a long standing issue that regular contributors to the forum are more than familiar with.

retzie

When did people on BE suddenly change their opinion on this issue?? There have been countless discussions about CIMTs over the years exactly because CIMT/non-CIMT arrest was the decisive factor. I know the ESTA questions were changed somewhat recently, but IIIRC, the general consensus at the time was that they were more clear about not referring to a non-CIMT arrest.

Anyway, this is merely my opinion. Both shiversaint and materialcontroller have relevant experience and the fact that they are both saying the same thing should count for more than arguing grammar (which is also on their side...).

Kimberly1471

Pollyana