BritishExpatriate

As stated, I'm very glad with the outcome of this thread, people have given me very good advice. I realised within seconds of starting the thread that it was silly to include a poll, and that's why you'll see there's an almost identical thread by me, without a poll, that shows up as having been deleted by a moderator because I couldn't work out how to delete this one in time.

CIMTs are a tricky legal topic, that's why, even though I'm thankful to those who answered my poll and the results are interesting from a curiosity point of view, I wouldn't base my answers on the ESTA form on the results of the poll.

At the end of the day, I was convicted of causing endangerment on the railway and one only need to look as far as this page ( http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=559272 ) to see that 'reckless endangerment, attempted' has been found not to be a CIMT.

Also even if one assumes it was a CIMT, the guidance on the ESTA website states:

"There are factors, such as the age of the offender or the date of the offense, that may affect whether an offense will be considered a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act."

When I looked up the Act, it states:

(2) Criminal and related grounds. -

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime"

...and then states...

"(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age"

...ESTA guidance tells me to consider the conviction for the purposes for the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act says that for the purpose of the Act, I wouldn't be considered to have committed a crime involving moral turpitude because of the age I was at (17) at the time of the conviction.

If, on the other hand, my research had told me I was ineligible for the VWP, then I would have been first in line at the US Embassy to get a visa. Anyway, once you've got the visa, you're arguably in a better position than somebody travelling on the VWP, because if a CBP officer wants to refuse you entry, I believe you have a right of appeal if travelling on a valid visa- a luxury that VWP travellers aren't afforded!

scrubbedexpat099

At least with the poll you obtained a very clear result.

captainsensible

Is boring people to death a CIMT??

BritishExpatriate

Just as well the poll is not legally binding and that the law says something else!

helpmeplease123

On the up side, maybe the POE will decide the quickest way to get rid of him is to let him through..

hoofie2002

Jesus, that's ten minutes of my life wasted reading this thread.

i do hope the OP really keeps his trap shut when he rocks up at US Immigration - but I doubt it.

I do remember a friend of mine years ago getting nicked for mouthing off to a copper in Glasgow - his forthright statements to aforesaid plod about him being a law student really didn't help....

Still, the OP was a complete twat for waving a replica gun about - perhaps he should reflect that such an action in the US would perhaps bring about a more permanent state of affairs than community service.

DavidLemon

My question is that the OP states what his conviction was, but never cited what his actual arrest was for. I am sure the two are different.

My impression was that you are asked if you have ever been arrested or convicted of an offense that is a CIMT. (not worded verbatim)

I am sure that the cops when they did nab him did not say you are being arrested under the dangerous railways act or something to that affect. More like for brandishing a firearm. If this is the case did the OP check out the status of the arrest record and if this in itself is a CIMT? Or does this not count once you have a conviction? I ask because people often write here stating they were arrested but never convicted, and the advice they genuinely receive here is, "you were arrested, and that is what the US are interested in"

I just do not understand how brandishing a firearm be it fake or real can be deemed irrelevant in this situation.

If OP gets through POE based on his answers, then good luck to him. However OP you may need to keep your fingers crossed that there is never a requirement for an actual visa in the future. Your drunken past may not be dismissed by USCIS as easily as you have dismissed it, and then there is the possibility that the entry to the US on VWP could be looked at as misrepresentation of the facts.

Im sure you have it all covered though. No need to reply with another essay, i know where you stand

fatbrit

Your research ignored medical inadmissibility -- I believe you were drunk at the time. Such behavior could exclude you on the grounds that you are addicted to a substance that makes you a danger to yourself or others.

GeoffM

Was also underage at the time he was drinking, though whether that comes up on his criminal record, who knows. I guess nobody will know as he's convinced himself he doesn't need to know.

BritishExpatriate

But why would the ESTA website itself tell people that age is a factor when it comes to determining moral turpitude and then refer people filling out the form to the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Surely if they wanted anyone who's been arrested period to go to the Embassy they'd just say that outright on the ESTA website, instead of telling you moral turpitude depends on age at time of offense and to go and check the Act yourself, etc. etc...

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHel...elp_1.htm#APA2

Jerseygirl

Making long and boring posts should be.

BritishExpatriate

Thanks but I think I'll take my chances on that one!

unic

Good luck to you.

BritishExpatriate

Thanks!

GeoffM

Says age may be a factor in that link.