youngmimesofharlem

I was convicted in Jan 2004 in the United Kingdom of drink driving, AND driving without insurance (friend's car). My sentence was a 20 month ban and GBP 500 fine.

Fast-forward many years later and I need to enter the USA very briefly to 'go round the flagpole' for visa purposes in Canada, where I currently reside. Am I able to even enter the states?

Even better, could I vacation there? My Dad has a holiday home in Florida I have never seen.

Noorah101

You can fill out the ESTA pre-clearance form and see if it comes back approved.

Rene

youngmimesofharlem

A solution so simple it's brilliant.

I'm just a little baffled, it took me 8 months to clear my past with Canada, now I just have to fill in an ESTA form?

I love it.

'Moral turpitude' though? hmmmmm. I guess not. It was a once in a lifetime moment of idiocy.

Thanks very much.

Noorah101

Don't take my post set in stone. Read more and find out what a CIMT involves. Drunk driving might be one, I'm not sure myself.

You must answer the questions on ESTA truthfully. You'll first have to determine if you have a CIMT, then you can answer truthfully.

Just from what I've read around these forums, Canada's policy on drunk driving is more strict than USA's, but USA is catching up.

Rene

crg

People who indicate that they want to flagpole to activate Canadian paperwork are not admitted to the US, even if they are admissible. They are usually sent back with a slip from the US officials stating to the Canadians that you were not admitted. That way if your Canadian paperwork is messed up and they can't approve it, Canada is still stuck with you.

Also, he may not have to even do the ESTA because it sounds like he's planning to walk over or drive over to flagpole his Canadian paperwork.

youngmimesofharlem

eh?

So If i explain I'm just hopping over the border for visa reasons I won't be allowed in. But I may not have to do an ESTA because I AM going to 'flagpole', but without the ESTA surely I won't be allowed in either. And when they ask where the ESTA is I'll say "oh I don't need it because i'm 'flagpoling' and then they won't let me in either.

So..... what now?

Tell the border official I heard there was a REAL good place for coffee just down the road and I'll be back as soon as I've had me some Latte and maybe an apple fritter?

meauxna

The flagpoling situation is well documented; you can check in the Canadian Immigration forum here for more info.

ESTA isn't required for land entries, only flight. You MAY still need to go inside and attempt to pay the VWP fee. However, as crg says, they might not do it because they won't admit you to the US for your purpose.

That doesn't mean you can't accomplish what you want.

tht

I am assuming that no ESTA, does not mean you don't need to fill out an I94-W, when you fill that out at the land border, question B on the back still asks the same question about arrest / convictions etc.... so it comes back to finding out if its a CIMT or not to see what you need to answer.

tht

crg

You pull up to the border. You tell the guy that you are landing in Canada, or processing a work permit in Canada. They send you inside. You do not complete the VWP form or pay the $6. They complete a Form I-160A. You return to Canada with the completed form. They process your application on the Canadian side. You can even walk over if the crossing allows pedestrians.

You don't need to do ESTA to cross by land. (If you have been denied an ESTA, you need a visa though.)

It's not that you won't be allowed in. You don't actually want to come in. It's in your interest to get the paper so that if there is a problem you can fix it from within Canada.

They don't need you to click a box about CIMTs for a flagpole because they can ask you if they feel the need to, and you're not seeking entry anyway.

tht

Ah now I understand, so he leaves Canada, goes to "no man's land" is not admitted the US, but has left Canada, and then enters Canada where the visa can be activated etc.

Works for that but not for " Even better, could I vacation there? My Dad has a holiday home in Florida I have never seen." as he would need and ESTA (by air) or a I94-W (by land), both of which would require him to declare and CIMT if there was one..

tht

crg

If he has a CIMT, he needs a visa. If he has a CIMT that doesn't qualify for the single petty offense or other exceptions to that ground of inadmissibility, then he needs a visa and a waiver. If he's Canadian, he just needs to the waiver to visit. It doesn't matter where he crosses.

The odd thing is that the no mans land thing only works with Canadian paperwork. If someone was in the US for just less than 6 months on a B-2, went over but was not admitted to Canada, they couldn't be granted more time in the US at the border on the way back.

scrubbedexpat099

I thought this had come up many times and a straight DUI was not a CIMT.

christmasoompa

It was a DUI *and* driving with no insurance though, so does that make it an 'aggravated DUI' as in the sticky thread above?

The very wise JCraigFong says the following is a CIMT: driving under the influence (aggravated), which includes drunk driving with knowledge that driver is without a valid license, but that normal DUI is not.

So the question is, does driving without valid insurance make it aggravated or not?

crg

I wouldn't classfify DUI (aggravated or not) or the insurance conviction as CIMTs. Courts have kicked around the idea that Aggravated DUI is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. Few, if any, have kicked around that it's a CIMT.

The OP had the DUI/Insurance conviction. I was responding to tht when he asked specifically about someone who actually had to declare a CIMT.

scrubbedexpat099

Driving without Insurance seems no biggie in the US, I have seen many threads talking about DUI's and No License but they very very rarely mention no insurance in circumstances where the chances of them having insurance is next to nil.

There is a tendency to assume that the relative importance of items US/UK is the same, this is probably an example where it is not.