Sadly we may never know whether @jackotekk received their passport back with a visa or not. I have sent a personal message a few times with no response, so all we know for sure is that they got the email to send their passport in. Hence we assume waiver granted, but no idea if visa subsequently issued or not.

If you are still here jackotekk , do let us know...

jools

You can take my observations with a pinch of salt and I have no experience with US Immigration Law but I do have experience with criminal inadmissibility into Canada but not as a visa officer.

I am only observing on the criminal inadmissibility aspect.

So you have been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or other countries which makes you have to apply for the waiver at Consulate/Embassy.

Now dependent on how many convictions you have amassed and regardless if they are considered spent in the UK the reviewing officer has to follow whatever the US law says and what the current policies and procedures are.

How serious is the offence and I know the US uses the CMT and I don’t believe the moral turpitude has been defined by US Federal Law however some states have their own definitions of it.

Let’s be honest someone with a previous criminal record will probably not be a high priority and there will need to be clear and compelling reasons as to why they should be admitted to the US. The application will have to be processed at some time and dependent on how many applications of other waivers for inadmissibility then I suspect it will not be a priority.

Every reviewing officer is different but they should all be following the procedures.

Why does this person need to come to the US? How long do they intend to stay? What information have they provided? When was the last offence and does it appear to be a pattern of habitually committing offences or a one off.

What you think are compelling reasons to enter the US the visa officer may think otherwise. Estimated timelines are just that and each application has it’s own unique story. I have seen waivers granted and some refused for a case that is similar and you think why?

Yes everybody make mistakes in life and looking for that 2nd chance and I agree however entering the US is a privilege not a right and life sometimes is not fair.

You will drive yourself mad by trying to compare timelines, types of offence committed, which Consulate/Embassy is quicker all you can do is apply, supply complete and accurate documentation and then wait. I understand you want answers and decisions to be made quickly on your side but the US don’t consider you a priority compared to those with NO criminal convictions.

Might sound harsh but this is the true reality so don’t shoot the messenger.

This link might help or not
https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...a-denials.html

There's a lot of misinformation in your post which makes it rather unhelpful in this thread. You even state you have no experience with this process and compare it to another nation's.

Would you kindly point out the misinformation posted. Do you honestly think that the US system is vastly different to the Canadian system on how they treat inadmissible people and how they would also apply to overcome inadmissibility. Slight differences yes overall very similar processes.

It is vastly different, yes, because they are completely independent countries with different laws. I am not going to spend time educating you. I am merely pointing out that you should reconsider such lengthy instruction in this type of thread when you self profess a lack of experience.

It's equivalent to saying "I don't know anything about ITV but I watch Channel 4 all the time and so I'm pretty sure I know how it works".

I see you went through the visa process yourself and have now moved back to the UK and yet you want to educate me. Be it the US, UK, Canada we can agree that they all have laws that determine who can enter their country when found inadmissible for a variety of reasons. I am specifically talking about criminal inadmissibility which I do have quite a fair amount of experience in over the last 17 years. What is yours?
I think we can agree that if you are criminally inadmissible you would normally have to apply for a visa/waiver or whatever other countries care to call their procedures. Canada calls it rehabilitation where required and we also have a passage of time for certain offences.
We also have a process that certain people can make an application at a port of entry for a temporary resident permit for certain offences committed and be determined to be rehabilitated for lesser offences. Does the US allow this?
So yes there are differences but the thought process conducted by officers will be this person is inadmissible and should I allow this person to enter the country or in the case of visa officers should I approve this application submitted to allow this person to come to the US.

Anyhoo you have your opinion and I have mine and others may chime in with their thoughts as well.

I think the confusion from your post is that unlike Canadians, NIV applicants do not, as you state, "apply" for a waiver of ineligibility. We only apply for a visa. If the consular official determines that you have an ineligibility, then based on whether or not a waiver of that ineligibility is available, they may or may not recommend you for a waiver. Per INA rules, this determination is not based on your reason for wanting to travel to the USA - you do not need to "provide clear and compelling reasons."

Moreover, NIV applications do not and have no option to supply copious amounts of backup documentation as Canadian applicants have to do through their legal representative usually. The decision by the consular official is based on a usually very short in-person interview, at which they review your police certificate and ask a handful of questions. They may or may not ask to see a salary slip or some other document, but more often than not, it's just some questions. The only information which is sent to the ARO is information which the consular official chooses to enter into ARIS at the interview (and possibly after), and the applicant cannot ask for additional documents that they think are relevant to be "uploaded."

Why you want to travel to the USA, how long you want to stay for, demonstrating your intent to return, etc., are all visa-related questions unrelated to the waiver recommendation.

If a recommendation is made, then it is forwarded to the ARO which handles all waiver of ineligibility requests, whether NIV or from visa-waiver countries like Canada.

So everyone here is well aware of CIMTs, the process, the right of countries to decide who can and cannot enter, etc.

We're a support forum which allows applicants to see when they might start to expect a response based on others in our forum who have applied at a similar time. The very limited dataset we have simply shows that waiting times have increased substantially for NIV applications, particularly for applications submitted from June 2024 in London, with an average considerably above the London consulate published wait time of "up to 9 months". Additionally, and based on ever more limited data, there appears to be uptick in visa denials after a waiver has been granted, which may simply reflect that consulates are taking a more rigorous approach to visa requests, per current State Department guidelines.

All the best

jools

Fair points and isn’t it all down to wordings and interpretation?

Is it fair to say that those applying for the visa are doing so as they are not seeking entry under the Visa Waiver Programme as they are not eligible for the VWP?

These waivers allow certain INADMISSIBLE foreign nationals to enter temporarily as non immigrants.

I spoke and indicated specifically that my observations related solely to criminal inadmissibilities. There are other reasons for applying for visa waiver.

Time to step away as I obviously know nothing about this subject regarding CRIMINAL inadmissibility and how this would be looked at by sensible officers from a variety of countries even if the laws are different.

https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/A...language=en_US

Oh don't take any offense :-) Honestly I think your advice was probably a bit too generic for here. There is another forum specifically for UK citizens travelling to the USA with a criminal conviction, to discuss all aspects of the ESTA process, CIMTs, legal views, etc. This forum really just focuses on timeline.

jools

Far be it for me to discourage you from stepping away but just to illustrate my point a bit, even though jools has done a very good job of educating you on the differences already, you opened with "isn't it all down to wordings and interpretations"...

Well, yes it is, that is pretty much the reality of working with the law in a nutshell. From memory you are an ex officer of the law so you should be well aware of the consequences of intepreting something incorrectly. But you even go on you provide an incorrect interpretation:

"These waivers allow certain INADMISSIBLE foreign nationals to enter temporarily as non immigrants."

This may feel like it's true but it's technically not. The waivers allow a visa to be issued - that is all. The issued visa will have some subtext stating "inadmissability XYZ waived" or similar. The existence of that visa is what allows the passport holder to request entry to the United States at the border. That is all it does. A CPB officer can still decline entry if they really want. Or they may allow entry (as happens in 99.9%+ of cases), and grant status through issuance of an I-94 form. That document is what allows them to enter and be present in the United States.

I am being pedantic about this because it is essential that the people who get information from this thread understand their situation in a very factual sense. Saying the wrong thing at a consular interview - something every applicant (including myself, to answer your curiosity) that needs a waiver must go through - can absolutely kill their case in a matter of seconds.

Consular Officers at US Embassies and Consulates are very sensisitve individuals because they are trained to detect problematic explanations from applicants. That is their very job. If you think I'm pedantic, they are on another level. They also have a huge amount of power to decide what happens next.

This is why I take the time to discourage vague summaries of the process that people have to go through, to prevent someone repeating a misunderstanding in an interview that has a very real chance of being a one-shot experience. You may think I'm criticising you personally, but my primary concern is to set up every applicant here for success. This forum was a great help to me in the early days, and I've spent many years repaying that debt in kind to dozens of people who came here confused, worried and anxious like I did.

You make some interesting points in your response, but one of my observations would be that this forum in particular, and it may be that it is different today compared to how it was years ago, is specifically for after you have been recommended for a waiver, in which case what you said and how you said it at the interview is no longer relevant.

We don't in this forum provide any advice on what you need to do in order to improve your chances of getting a waiver, and as with other forums, everything would be prefixed with, "I'm not a lawyer" or "Speak to a lawyer" or similar, were we to do so.

All we're ultimately doing here is supporting people who are worried and anxious about when they might get a response from the consulate, giving them some indication that they're in the final stretch based on the data we have.

Hence too generic information here, while shared with good intentions, may be better posted in other forums where the process before you go for your interview is discussed.

jools

Excellent question. As a retired immigration legal practitioner I found the post to be quite accurate and a reflection of my own thoughts.

Do we not? I don't believe you speak for me and I quite regularly provide advice to that effect. This is a community forum. The content on this board is purely decided by individual contributors, so me giving advice or you not giving advice can co-exist.

I don't really understand the authoritative statements of what is and is not said in this thread, or whether there is advice given on this forum - there is no leader, democracy, forum rule or otherwise that dictates on this. It's also not true, there are dozens if not hundreds of threads seeking advice on ineligible applicants, including history in this thread.

I'm sorry if this is too direct on my part, but why would we reduce the output of content on this forum to emotional support and merely tracking? This forum as a tool is most useful when a wide range of opinions are provided and debated, from reassuring individuals that what is happening is normal, to discussing whether something is a CIMT or providing advice on how best to interview.

Some of the best threads here have been robust, non-personal debate that address really unique situations.

I am baffled.

Accurate of what? Again, your thoughts on what? It's a general post in response to no-one in particular. It's a series of questions, some of which are applicable to the process of obtaining a waiver, some of which are applicable to all applicants, and some of which are not applicable at all. I appreciate the contribution but it's not an objective summary of how it works, and is openly contextualised by a lack of experience in the very thing this thread discusses? Jools makes a fair point that it's clearly well meaning, but it doesn't actually help anyone navigate the process of obtaining a waiver.

What is going on on this forum lately...

As I said, "my observation" was that this forum was very much being used for tracking waiver status after the application was submitted. The only people I see finding their way here are those who have already submitted applications, and are looking for support as to when they might get an answer back. Therefore, unless there are others in this forum who are actively signposting applicants to this forum from the other forums which are considerably more active with regards to discussions re CIMT, process, etc., the challenge we have is that pretty much everyone who actually posts here are doing so to find out when they might expect an answer.

To be blunt, I wasn't the one who criticised Former Lancastarian's post and questioned their suitability/experience to be able to comment in this forum!!! That very much seemed to be policing the forum. I didn't personally think the advice was particularly useful or relevant, but it's a public forum, and for the moderator ultimately to decide if it falls within the scope of this group.


jools