noux79

Hi All,

Hope someone can help......

In 1997 my boyfriend was cought peeing in an alleyway on a night out by the police, took his name and address and let go home.
After 2 months Police Officer comes to the door with a piece of paper asking him to report to Magistrate Court.
At the Magistrate Court he was given a £100 fine and let go, all that was done and over in 5 minutes!

My question is,Does he need to declare as a conviction and apply for a VISA or are we OK to use the ESTA form and tick NO where it asks for convictions....as personnally I don't think it is a crime involving moral turpitude or a crime at all?

Your honest opinion much appreciated.

Thanks

civilservant

If he dosent believe it's a CIMT (and I tend to agree) then he can happily tick no to that question on ESTA.

lansbury

It doesn't matter what he believes, what matters is if the offence he was convicted of in Court is a CIMT. There is no offence of "peeing in an alleyway", we need the actual offence he was convicted under to know.

OP what offence was he convicted of in Court?

noux79

He can't remember what the offence was actually called and am not sure hw to get that info, we r in the UK btw.

civilservant

Get an ACPO police report, or contact the court that he attended. They will be able to provide the information.

noux79

Thanks for the info, I have seen that ACPO form and will b sending for the report but £45 is a bit of money for such simple info!
We only be going on a holiday to Vegas n New York, if we ticked no on the ESTA
Would this come up on their computer @ the POE?? And possibly be sent back?
Never been to USA and would love to know what happens from the moment u step off plane?do u get asked lots of questions............

civilservant

If he ticks no then the fact is that they are unlikely to ever know about the conviction, let alone him being sent back. That said, he should endevour to clarify the situation around what he was charged with so that he can answer the question on ESTA honestly. Especially considering the available options if it were to constitute a CIMT (which would leave him having to apply for B2 visa and potentially a waiver of ineligibility).

When arriving at the airport you will leave the plane and be naturally eb directed to the POE (US Border) Going through immigration you will be asked about the reason for and length of stay - routine questions so that the CBP Officer can satisfy himself that you have no immigrant intent. You will also have fingerprints taken digitally. Your passport will be stamped and you'll be sent on your way (as long as the Officer is happy)

If the Officer feels you need further investigation you will be sent to secondary inspection, which is significantly longer (read: hours with waiting times) and more detailed.

Ray

it may have been wanger waving

lansbury

I was thinking £100 fine seemed a bit stiff for a drunk and disorderly, and wondered if some public indecency was involved. No idea if that would make it a CIMT.

lansbury

The airlines submit the flight manifest before the aircraft departs the UK. What happens if JBOC runs that manifest before the aircraft arrives in the US?

civilservant

I said unlikely. Not impossible Ian. Stop being so pedantic.

Ray

S.5 POA is my guess..but of course the truth rarely comes out

lansbury

On what basis do you think it unlikely. I was always surprised at the number of people coming back to LHR who had been refused entry to the US for non declared convictions. Even more so when I ran outbound manifests through the PNC and saw how few hits I got. Well below the accepted percentage of the population who have a criminal record. I would suggest that you are not in a postion to know if it is unlikely or not, and I doubt anyone is. Being pedantic my name isn't Ian.

Pollyana

You could get the basic name of the offence from a Subject Access check through your local police - much cheaper (though not usable for US Immigration). If you are in the GMP area -
http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pa...jectaccess.htm

When I worked for the UK police doing checks for Protection of Children we did come up with this offence quite frequently - the offenders were usually prosecuted for Indecent Exposure, and in more recent times that meant they ended up on the Sex Offenders Register.
Can't help with whether thats a CIMT though, sorry.

ian-mstm

Respectfully, it's the difference between telling the truth and lying. The former is always encouraged; the latter, discouraged. Just so you know, if he lies to US immigration and gets caught, he faces a permanent ban from the US.


The truth is usually expensive! Don't you want to know the truth?

Ian