paul1963

As I have said before I find this forum very helpful as well as Informative but sometimes it is also very frustrating because I read through the posts looking for something to point me in the right direction and sometimes I come across mixed messages.

Some of you know my situation, I want to apply for a B1 visa to visit The States next year but I have a criminal record, last offence October 2007.

Now according to Sportychico he said on a different thread when answering to a fellow member “If you cant get through on VWP you need to apply for a B2 visa...your police certificate (from Acpo) will probably state 'no live trace' if the incident was over 5 yrs ago and not a major crime.....If you are turned down for B2 you can then apply for a 'permanent waiver of inadmissibility“

Crg14624 who to his credit appears to know his stuff then added “The decision to grant or deny the waiver will take into account the amount of time that has passed without any further incidents of criminal behavior. The minimum amount of good behavior is supposedly 3 years starting when all jail/prison/probation/parole/etc has been completed.”

Now these two responses above offer me a little bit of hope but then to turn it on it’s head, andy1 responded by saying “ Any offence you have EVER been to court for and have been convicted of WILL be on your police record , there is no amnesty /removal , they stay on your record for life !! i had some 27 years ago and low and behold there they were when i applied for my police record . i even got in touch with the records dept in Hampshire and they said they cannot be removed ..EVER “

Noorah101

I agree, answers posted by members can vary. What is your actual question?

Rene

Ray

Just apply for the thing ...

ian-mstm

Then... go ahead and apply. You lose *nothing* by applying, and you will then have a definitive answer to your questions.


You need a definitive answer... the only way to do that is to apply for the visa. There's nothing we can say that will help you more than what we've already done... we can't help you anymore... apply for the visa. It is the *only* way to get the answers you need.

Perhaps you're afraid to apply... well, we can't help you with that. Seriously though, what's the worst that could possibly happen? You don't get the visa. It's not like you're going to be arrested and thrown in jail... you'll either get the visa or you won't. You will *never* know, however, unless you actually apply.

Do it now. No more questions. Apply now.

Ian

paul1963

Of course you are absolutely correct and apply for the visa I will, but the point I am making here is that some people appear to be answering questions based on guess work, I can't see myself how that contributres to an advice forum!!

The quotes above that I have listed are on different ends of the scale as far as advice goes, none of which will have any bearing on whether I will get a visa or not, only applying can answer that question but as I say why do people offer advice based on a hunch rather than a fact born through an experience that they or somebody they might know has had.

Im not in the least bothered by the short shrift some people are giving me on here, I came here in the first place hoping for an insight rather than a concrete fact for an answer but there is no doubt that some of the answers on here deter people from facing visa problems full on because after my last visit the feeling I was left with was there would be no hope yet after speaking to the US Embassy advice line things are not quite as dead in the water as some would have me think.

I think that this is more of a reflection on this forum than it is to do with anything else and I apologise if the truth hurts..

AdobePinon

You get what you pay for.

ian-mstm

Two things you need to know... 1) the "advice line" is a call center in Scotland with personnel who know little of immigration rules and procedures; and 2) the Embassy does *not* issue visas... that's handled by the State Department... so they can say whatever they want... they're not part of the visa process.


Doesn't hurt my feelings at all... this is a public forum. You're often going to get opinions - especially if your question is only similar to, but not exactly the same as someone else's specific experience. If you want reasonable opinions, we've got 'em... if you want perfect facts, you need to pay an attorney!

Ian

meauxna

Well that, and the fact that there are NO concrete answers for some of these questions. Personal experiences are helpful, but don't assure anyone that the circumstances are *exactly* the same, in order to get the same outcome.

You only have to read a bit to see that the lawyers often disagree with each other or can not know which crime is a CIMT, and therefore which penalties apply, for starters.

andy's reply is correct in that these things will never go away; they happened, they are a fact of life. Why did that discourage you?

Sorry you're so bitter about it, paul, but we're not the ones who sold cocaine to an undercover officer outside of a school (paraphrasing MrF--I know that is not your crime).

bjohn

Sorry but I don't see where the mixed messages lie. Sportychico is referring to what is stated on your ACPO form after a period of time. Crg14624 is referring to the minimum amount of time of good behaviour before a waiver is considered. andy1 is referring to how long a conviction stays on your record. All 3 items are completely different things. - where's the mix?

paul1963

I apologise if I had come across as sounding bitter it was not my intention.

Just to add to this I was in Tesco's half an hour ago and bumped into my solicitor, I told her about my plans and concerns about the visa.

She agreed that I may have a problem but said that maybe I will have the opportunity to explain to them that it was a TECHNICAL burglary which explained the light sentence.

It's opened another can of worms though because, I know the crime was technical, so does my solicitor and the magistrates present on the day but very frustratingly the word TECHNICAL is not listed in the crime description on my Police record instead it states Burglary-theft of other than a dwelling.

As for the explanation of it all to the Embassy like she suggested, does anybody have any knowledge or experiences of this actually possibly being allowed to happen? Personally I can't see it myself.

JCraigFong

I also think it's important to look at the point of view being taken here. There's (a) the ACPO -- will the incident be on my record, (b) the applicant -- will the incident STILL be on my record and if not, can I avoid mentioning it, (c) the attorney -- is a waiver necessary and how much can I soak this guy for it, and (d) posterity -- if I received a pardon, or if it was a light sentence, or if there's been significant passage of time, or if the incident has dropped of my record.

Alas, AmEmb has it's own point of view, encapsulated in the question: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action?" [emphasis added]

In the present case, if the conviction was for burglary -- "technical" or not, most consular officers would probably see this as a crime of moral turpitude. (Reasonable people can disagree on this last, and precedent varies widely; however, I think a conservative analysis is warranted here, because the applicant would not likely want to climb aboard Virgin or BA only to be turned back at JFK.) Therefore, the VWP is out.

Getting a visa at AmEmb-London. Well, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, a lot depends on how old the matter is, other past offenses, the sentence imposed versus the sentence that COULD have been imposed, the manner in which you present yourself at the visa window, etc.

I hope that helps.

--J Craig Fong
Los Angeles, CA

lansbury

Well to throw another can of worms into the mix as a retired police officer with 37 years service I have never heard of a technical burglary. It either fitted the definition of burglary in which case it was or it didn't and it was theft. Either was defined by the same act for most of my service and the possible sentence for each was of the same seriousness. I very much doubt anyone at the US Embassy would understand the difference.

paul1963

The technicality was because I entered my works office and took £440 from the nights takings, The office was not off limits to me during the day time but at night I had no reason to enter. It was a nightclub open to the public at the time that it happened therefore I walked through the entrance door the same as everybody else did, I did not break in, I caused no damage and there was huge mitigation in that the money I took was only what I had given the manager over a 6 month period, money I raised for a childrens cancer charity whilst operating a fun casino on the premises. My donations were a stipulation of the fun casino being allowed to take place in the building by law.

It turned out that the manager had pocketed the money.

At the time of taking it there was several thousand pound at my disposal if I wanted to really steal or burgle the place, I just took what wasn't his with the intention of giving it to the charity myself because I had been given two certificates from the charity which turned out to be fraudulant, they knew nothing about them.

No offence but the burglary charge stuck because of the two bent police officers dealing with it. I had overwhelming evidence that a fraud had taken place, letters from me to the charity CLIC and vice versa, yet on the morning of my arrest I told the two policeman I want to bring this to the station with me but they refused to allow me, then when I presented the evidence voluntarily at the station a week later they still refused.

By the way it was a big nightclub used in the daytime buy the police to train drug sniffer dogs, they knew the club manager was corrupt but pinned it all on me.

Sorry for boring those of you who have read this before.

The charge and conviction were light as far as Burglary punishments go so why was this or have you already worked that one out? If not I'll tell you it's because everybody knew there was mitigation, even the cps did not want to raise my previous convictions in court!!!

Mitigation and technical burglary went hand in hand in this one.

Finally thank you for your replies especially JCraigFong. I was interested to read you say that part of the application depends on the sentence imposed against the sentence that could have been imposed. Could you tell me how they arrive at a decision based on this alone. Thanks

ian-mstm

With all due respect, the charge stuck because you "entered my works office and took £440 from the nights takings". End of story. Whether you were justified or not, you shouldn't have done it.


Regardless, it was not your place to take the money without due process.

Ian

Norri

It really is one stop shopping in Tesco