Hi all,

I’ve got myself into a bit of a situation with a new potential job opportunity. I’ve worked for my company for 3.5 years and been given the opportunity to go to the US for a year as a secondment.

It would be a L1 visa i’d need to apply for, but I’ve got a few issues:

1) I was arrested at 16 years old for shoplifting, this was in December 2008

2) This arrest resulted in a reprimand. I have an SAR report that lists this as “disposed” in 2013

3) I have previously travelled to the US on an ESTA on 4 occasions

I have the following questions:

1) How likely would it be that I’d get the visa approved if I bring the ACRO certificate with “no live trace” and SAR details from the police national computer

2) Will the fact that I’ve previously travelled to the US under the visa waiver programme for ESTA count against me? I honestly thought the wording of the question about arrest or conviction meant that I didn’t meet that criteria but now I’m reading that even just an arrest as a child comes under that criteria to report

I’m not concerned about my company finding out about my arrest, more just the denial of the visa

ESTA asks the question:

• Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

Presumably you answered no to this question - personally I too would have questioned whether the descriptions in the question related to shoplifting.
However, you were arrested and so, probably should have answered yes.
The arrest was a long time ago - 16 years - you can only hope that the arrest will not affect your application. You might be asked to produce more evidence as to the shoplifting incident......

Legal consultation might be in order. My understating is that a reprimand was essentially a caution for youth. OP’s question may not be all that simple.

Yeah i answered no to that question as I wasn’t convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority. If the question is just really “have you been arrested” then surely that should just be a standalone question? It’s quite misleading in my opinion.

I can produce the evidence for the incident so will make sure to take it along for interview. I’m just concerned they will view it that I’ve previously lied to gain entry so would refuse me on that basis.

I’ll definitely get legal consultation, I’m just losing sleep over it now so wondered if anyone else had a similar experience

When were your entries on ESTA? The question changed relatively recent, before that it did ask about arrests for CIMT's, which theft is. So I think you could argue that the question now is ambiguous and you weren't sure how to answer it, but you'd have less of an argument for that if you did an ESTA app before the question changed.

Your company will be providing the immigration lawyer, so they'll be able to advise you.

Good luck.

In your first post you describe the arrest as being for “shoplifting.” Now you say otherwise. I think your posts are confusing; not the question.

Yes, the question changed. CIMTis a nebulous concept; damage to person or property less so. The question has been clarified.

I disagree, I think it's made it far more confusing for most people who tend to minimise their criminal record and think that the 'serious harm' bit doesn't apply to them. Which I assume is what you're (rather obliquely as usual) trying to suggest the OP has done above.

I don’t disagree on the tendency of people with checkered pasts to minimize the record. That was one of the reasons I always wanted to see as much of the written record as I could.

i was not trying to be obscure at all. Take a look at how the FBI classifies crime at this link. This conforms to the classic definitions of crimes against the person and crimes against property. And this derives from English Common Law, so presumably a Brit should understand. Theft is damage to property absent use of force against the person. Then it becomes robbery. The question obviates the need to determine whether the damage is to the property or the person.

• Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

Must admit, if I had been arrested for shoplifting I would be wondering if the above applied to me; No, I did not do serious damage to property, no I did not do serious harm to another person or government. " I stole a coat from Marks and Sparks" Does it warrant a yes or no answer?

Ditto. For the average layperson that isn’t going to delve in to what the FBI says, it’s very ambiguous. Perhaps if the word ‘serious’ was taken out it would make it easier to answer.

Shaking my head in puzzlement. Let’s take that shirt at Marks & Sparks. Assume its retail price is £75. That price defines the maximum amount of damage. The shirt is stolen thereby causing the maximum amount of damage - £75. The value of that shirt to Marks & Sparks is now zero. In context, the damage of is quite serious indeed.

I am not saying otherwise, I was arrested for shoplifting but only received a reprimand. Are you saying that that circumstance meets the criteria for “arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority”?

Thanks for the thoughtful input.

I went to NYC in March 2018, then more recently did a tour in 2023 and in 2024 went on a work trip. The latter two were under the same ESTA.

I think ultimately I’m just going to proceed to answering the questions on the visa application honestly with the help of the work supplied legal consult, include my ACRO certificate that will likely show no live trace and my existing SAR with the information of the arrest. Hopefully they won’t focus too much on the fact that I’ve entered the US in the last 6 years.