paul1963

I appreciate that Rete but to be perfectly honest with you I don't believe for one minute that even if I filled in a new ESTA form, my honest mistake with the first one will somehow suddenly disappear and be overlooked.

Correcting the first form and admitting that I have a committed crimes involving CIMT, was not very clever I am so annoyed with myself tbh and as a result like I say I just can't believe that having sent two previous ESTA forms in within 15 minutes of each other last weekend with one authorising me to travel and one not, that this would not have already alerted Homeland security.

I have no doubts now that becasue of my mistake with the ESTA's, my passport, details of which they now have will trigger an alert when I go through customs, even with a visa.

snowguy

When you actually filled in both estas, I take it you initially filled in the cpb one, and then filled in one that charged you for the privilage. Or what websites did you actually visit on both occasions.

Chargeable ones won't send details until after you have paid them, as they will have to copy the details you have entered onto cbps own form (whether automatically or by cut and paste).

The problem wasn't the form filling, it was the criminal record. As Ray suggested, only option now is a trip to the consulate.

paul1963

Hi snowguy.

The forms I filled in were free from 2 different sites, the official one and another travel site that had the ESTA form available free.

The forms were different but had the same questions.

Rete downloaded a website and after playing around with it, it gave the Homeland security address in Washington on it, do you think it's worth writing to them to explain my situation and try to convince them that if there is one thing in the world that I want to do it's to show her Chicago and Washington DC, that's all I want to do because I just know that she will love the two places and the history that goes with them just the way I do.

I really can't imagine wanting to take her to any other destination.

crg

The waiver application can completed when the visa application can't be approved because the applicant is inadmissible for certain reasons. The waiver would have to be granted before the consulate could issue the visa.

The consulate submits the waiver application to a DHS office in the United States where each application is reviewed and then either approved or denied. You submit an explanation of the circumstances with the waiver application.

paul1963

Hello again everybody. I thought id have a break from this tpoic for a couple of days due to the distress and depression that it was causing me not forgetting the fact that I was bordering on the brink of boring you all to tears.

You have all read my predicament and I appreciate the responses so far but such is the frustration it is causing me I just can't let go, almost as if im looking for a glimmer of hope from somewhere however small it may be.

No doubt my offences fall into the CIMT area, the most recent one and the most serious as Ive said was Burglary in 2007 but it is the description of CIMT that are going to hold me back regarding a visa.

Wikipedia says:

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals."[1]

It is of great importance for immigration purposes, as only those offenses which are defined as involving moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into the U.S

The full discription of CIMT is:

moral turpitude n. gross violation of standards of moral conduct,vileness, such that an act involving moral turpitude was intentionally evil, making the act a crime.

Now my point is regarding the above, my Burglary conviction was intentional but it was not gross violation of standards of moral conduct and vileness.

I walked in to my works office, a place that was not out of bounds to me and took £440 which I had given the manager for a charity, money which I had raised and given to him to pass on to a childrens cancer charity CLIC which he never did and pocketed himself. I took back what was not his, it wasn't mine either but it came from me.

My point once again is, Burglary carries a prison sentence but in my case upon hearing the mitigation the court decided on a more lenient outcome. This was because they understood why I did it even though I shouldn't have done.

The only act of gross violation of standards of moral conduct and vileness was carried out by the person who kept the charity money, not me but he wasn't the one on trial.

What I am asking here is do the US Embassy allow you to explain what I just have or is it black and white to them, do they read what is on the cover (Burglary conviction) or will they ask me what is in the book a chance to explain myself.

I really do apologise if I am repeating myself it is not my intention but I just find it so ruthless that the USA see can jump to a conclusion of what CIMT when in some cases like mine there are overwhelming circumstances that surround the incident. Committing a crime to correct a crime which is what I did is not an act of vileness it is not deliberately setting out to permanantly deprive another person how could that manager be deprived of something that was not his in the first place?

Ray

Apply for the visa first ..work from that point ...
It does not matter what we think or say ....

paul1963

That may be the case Ray but there again if it didn't matter what fellow forum members said forums wouldn't exist surely.

The aim of my thread was to recieve some feedback from somebody who has been in the same position and had given up all hope of a visa until they visited the US Embassy and were allowed to explain their actions which resulted in a positive outcome.

Ray

Yours is a case nobody can predict ..the consensus is you will be denied ...
and I agree with that......but I have been around this site for a few years and strange
things do happens when applications are actually made

paul1963

I agree with you, as things stand a denial looks the most likely outcome.

Similarly a Prison sentence should have been the most likely outcome when I was facing the magistrates with the burlary charge, It wasn't the case however because I was allowed to explain certain things, it didn't even reach a Crown Court. So if a court can accept mitigation when dealing with my liberty why is it that a country can't do the same when dealing with a 14 day holiday.

To me it is a breach of human rights my criminal record should have nothing to do with them unless I committed crimes in their country, to have them impose a penalty on me which is far higher than the one I actually received for the crime is wrong. I agree on refusing entry but I feel very strongly about the the fact that a shopliftre for example can be tarnished with the same brush as a murderer.

Manc

Go on holiday to Cuba just to spite them then

ian-mstm

With all due respect, you are a non-US citizen living outside the US. As such, you belong to the largest "immigrant" group in the world... as seen through the eyes of US immigration. The US is not imposing a penalty on you. That might be the case if you were entitled to a visa and were being denied that visa based on past actions in a 3rd country... but there is no such entitlement to a visa, therefore there is no penalty.

Ray is right... if you don't apply, you will never know the answer... and there is no way to know in advance what will happen. If you get the visa, great! If the visa is denied, that will determine your next course of action. You can mull this around in your head all you want, but at the end of the day... you must apply for the visa in order to know what will happen.

Ian

crg

This is from their manual:

"9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.1 Evaluating Moral Turpitude Based Upon Statutory Definition of Offense and U.S. Standards (CT:VISA-753; 06-29-2005)

To render an alien ineligible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), the conviction must be for a statutory offense, which involves moral turpitude. The presence of moral turpitude is determined by the nature of the statutory offense for which the alien was convicted, and not by the acts underlying the conviction. Therefore, evidence relating to the underlying act, including the testimony of the applicant, is not relevant to a determination of whether the conviction involved moral turpitude except when the statute is divisible (see 9 FAM 40.21(a) N5.2) or a political offense (see 9 FAM 40.21(a) N10). The presence of moral turpitude in a statutory offense is determined according to United States law"

paul1963

Thankyou for you reply Ian.

When you say "If you get the visa, great! If the visa is denied, that will determine your next course of action"

Would you happen to know what courses of action would be open to me assuming I don't get a visa.

Manc

try again after 5 years of good moral character.

paul1963

Craig said try after 3 years last week, Im not splitting hairs but surely trying again and being given acceptance in 3 or 5 years whatever, just makes a mockery of the CIMT law anyway.