justmaxxxie

This is exactly the debate I've been going through because I don't want to go under the ESTA then get sent back. A number of sites have mentioned shoplifting of a low value to be a "misdemeanor" or "petty theft"... "Generally, a single conviction for shoplifting can be covered by the petty offense exception." Though mine wasn't a conviction.

I don't know if there is actually someone who I could email the ACRO to and get a straight answer - but thanks for the heads up that the embassy people are they wrong people to send it to, I thought they would be!

It's all in whether this reprimand is a CIMT or not. To answer people's queries -

A reprimand is given to a minor because they can't give the usual police caution. It isn't the same as a caution and it is definitely not a conviction. It's something that's given under two conditions (or else the minor is sent to court and may be convicted) - You have to make an admission of guilt and a sincere apology, both of which I did. It's described as a "telling off" for minor first offences, more info here. It specifically says "A reprimand or final warning is not a conviction and does not constitute a criminal record. However, police records are held for up to 10 years on young offenders who receive a reprimand or warning."

Do you mean 'don't think she was arrested'?

Yes, I was arrested. But not convicted.


I have found this page on whether or not shoplifting is a CIMT, it may be useful.

• "If a person is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude committed within five years of entering the U.S., s/he could face removal even if the crime was shoplifting or "petty theft."
• Under state laws, shoplifting is considered a misdemeanor (often called petty theft) if the value of the merchandise is less than a certain amount, usually $300 or $500. (Note that criminal laws vary from state to state.) A higher amount is considered a felony, often known as grand theft or grand larceny. "Petty theft" may sound minor, especially if it involves merchandise of very low value, but the consequences can be major. The type of consequence depends on whether the issue arises in connection with the application for a nonimmigrant visa or for permanent status; a removal (deportation) proceeding; or a naturalization (citizenship) application.

Is this maybe any help?

I think this page really maybe sums it up:

"Because shoplifting is a crime involving moral turpitude, it typically makes an applicant inadmissible. However, if this is the applicant’s only offense anywhere including the United States and any other country, she might be eligible for the petty offense exception. To be eligible, he/she must meet the following requirements: the alien has committed only one crime of moral turpitude; the maximum penalty possible for the crime for which the alien was convicted did not exceed one year of imprisonment; and the alien was not sentenced to imprisonment for a term greater than six months, regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately satisfied. When multiple convictions exist, inadmissibility will likely be found."

And finally, wiki says

"No guidance is provided to the traveler as to which offenses are included in the definition; however the website of the U.S. embassy in London advises that a visa is required for anyone who has ever been arrested or convicted for any offense.
An arrest that does not lead to a conviction technically causes a person to be inadmissible (under the Visa Waiver Program) to the United States if that arrest was for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude. There are Petty Offense exceptions to this rule, even if convicted". Shoplifting is not on their list of CIMTs which is said to be from the United States Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual.

I am so grateful for help on this

crg

Sith? Is that a variation of the Chewbacca defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

justmaxxxie

Bumps this up hopefully

crg

I understand that this is becoming a bit confusing. Let's try to simplify things.

The ESTA/VWP question asks (among other things):

"Have you ever been arrested for a crime or offense involving moral turpitude?"

It asks some other things, but if you answer YES, to any of the components within the question, then the entire answer is YES.

The disposition (in this case the reprimand) and single petty offense aspects are not covered by the question and should not be considered when answering the question. Those apsects would be reviewed during the visa application process to determine if special permission (a waiver) would be required prior to issuing the visa.

You simply need to decide if you were arrested, and if so, was it for a CIMT.

marketlegend

Come on guys, she's just going on vacation - clearly the offense is so minor that the answer is NO!

ian-mstm

For US immigration purposes, it is US law that determines how minor an offense is... and the US has determined that shoplifting is a CIMT. Please remember, you aren't the one who has to deal with the consequences of your bad advice!

Ian

marketlegend

Read the crime and disorder act 1998. she has not been convicted, it is not a formal record - legally she can answer no. End of story. Unless they can read her mind.........

crg

You apparently don't know the difference between the word arrested and the word convicted. They are not interchangeable. Now if the question on ESTA was "Do you think we will find out about your arrest" then they may be able to answer NO if they are confident that their lie wouldn't be caught, but it would still be a lie.

We don't encourage people to lie here. If you feel like doing that, I suggest you go elsewhere.

marketlegend

A reprimand legally allows you to answer 'NO'. Thats why its a reprimand. Read the act, that's what it's designed for.

crg

The only act that matters is the US Immigration & Nationality Act.

They tell you the same thing about being able to deny it when you get a pardon in some countries. The US doesn't recognize foreign pardons either.

ian-mstm

The only law that matters is US law... UK law is irrelevant for US immigration purposes. It's a simple concept, so I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand it.

Ian

Coppock

Hi Guys... just been looking into this again - my OH has a caution for theft at work (genius or what).

He wasn't arrested - the police turned up and asked him to fill out some forms and if he refused he'd be arrested, he agreed and was never arrested but received a caution.

However, according to the UK home office in the link below "A simple caution is not a criminal conviction, but it will be recorded on the police database."

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/

Therefore he surely should be fine for a visa - he was never arrested and doesn't have a criminal conviction...

Just thought i'd run it past everyone and see what you all think, and hopefully it may help someone researching in the future.

Have a good evening everyone!
Jen