I would have interpreted the question asked by ESTA - Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property - referred to doing actual damage; burning something down, taking a sledge hammer to a car, removing a fence so that the cows got out onto the highway etc. Would not have related it to the cost of shoplifting.....

this applied for us for sure (other half erroneously travelled on Esta). My attorney argued the ambiguity also - resulting in visa approval with a waiver

Thanks for confirming, really appreciate that input as it gives me a little hope. How long did it take for you to get approval?

no problem. it was 2018 so things may have changed, I think it was maybe 4 months but I don't remember exactly

Yes, I am aware of the difference between "damage" in the singular and "damages" in the plural. That said, I think the distinction is more legal than common usage. "Actual damage" includes total destruction of which theft results in the equivalent.

Waivers are about 10 months from interview date at the moment - there's a long running thread you can read up on for current timelines and experiences.

It would be maybe £30 for a M&S shirt, for a company that has revenue of £13billion a year, I'd not consider that 'serious' harm personally and that's why I think the question is ambiguous. It's just too subjective. And as we have a couple of examples of people who've done it on this thread, it seems I'm not alone in finding it far more confusing than the previously clearer 'CIMT' question.

I'm not a lawyer so have no idea what the actual answer is, but if I was just reading and deciding on it myself, to me I'd be thinking, does it class as serious damage in so much as the property (coat in this example) was stolen and therefore serious damage was done, in the sense that to the shop owner, they no longer have the coat (property) anymore since it was stolen. Again, not a lawyer, just thinking about different ways lay persons may think about this question.

Hi everyone!

I had my interview for L1 visa at the US embassy in London today, and wanted to give everyone a final update, mostly because if I’d have seen this before it would have saved me many a sleepless night and hours of scrolling on this website!

My visa was approved today, with no requirement for waiver of ineligibility. I will receive my passport and visa soon and will be off to live in the US from April!

I took as much documentation as possible after reading all of the info on here, including my ACRO which showed no live trace (with my reprimand being 16 years ago), SAR from the police national computer, completed VCU form.

The main thing I did do was get some advice from the company attorney and she gave me a good way to phrase the information on the DS-160 and when I was interviewed, and she also reminded me to address the interviewers as Sir / Ma’am which I think helped.

They explained that as I was <18 and it was a single offence, I wasn’t ineligible, so they were able to approve then and there. They didn’t even ask me about my previous entries under the VWP, so all good.

I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Thanks everyone for your advice.

Thanks for reporting back, good luck with your move. There's a lot of things to sort out but ultimately it will be the experience of a lifetime living in the US.