lisa67

Why do I end up getting so confused when reading threads containing comments from abj24 ?

ian-mstm

Because... in his attempt to be "helpful" (and I really believe he *thinks* he is helping), he posts answers and solutions that are, at best, questionable... and, at worst, just plain wrong.

Ian

lisa67

totally agree !

bjohn

Has anyone had any experience with this link?

http://france.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/esta.pdf

MsElui

that post shows how little you know about the embassy. PLEASE stop posting such crap in the immigration forum - you are going to cause some poor soul a tonne of grief and /or needless expense if they attepmt to rely on such patently wrong advice.

ajb24

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new...add_crime.html

This posting clearly states since he has no conviction there should not be a finding of permenant inamdissability, it is messed up the way one website says one thing and one says another.

christmasoompa

Then don't rely on random websites to get your information from! They are often inaccurate. And if you do, don't repeat it on here to people that might think you are giving them facts from certain knowledge - which is certainly not the case.

Unless you are 100% certain that what you are posting is the law and correct information, then refrain from posting and let somebody that does know answer to avoid confusion!!

bjohn

The first line of the UK Embassy link states something rather interesting "Under United States visa law, people who have been arrested at anytime are required to declare the arrest when applying for a visa." - is this only "when applying for a visa"?

So what constitutes the need to apply for a visa? Answering Yes to any question on the I-94W form.

Now I might be clearly wrong here but it does not state that all people arrested require a visa.

It also mentions a obtaining a police certificate from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). This organisation provides police certificates for the purpose of visas to the US, Australia and NZ. I gave ACPO a phone call and the lady advised me that a police certificate would be useless as it does not cover arrests and she advised me to tick "No" to the I-94W question.

So it does seem come back to the original question at the beginning of this post about moral turpitude.

Regards
B

BTW - thank you for all the responses

bjohn

OK. This link is more certain on this topic. Not the one originally posted

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new...nvictions.html

Rete

This is your doubt. The DOJ might think otherwise. The DOJ is the one that will either accept or deny his B-2 visa application. The DOJ is the one that will either accept or deny his appeal via waiver.

I'm sure you don't know that the simple case of shoplifting can be a crime of moral turpitude and that is why if you are a PR in the US or have a PR pending and you commit a crime, you do not plead to any offense without first consulting with an immigration attorney.

Your advice is to cavalier for such serious matters.

Rete

That is correct -- you answer yes on the I-94W. It is a form that will waive your need for a visa to enter the US.

Not all people with a criminal past need a visa. You certainly need a visa is needed if you check "yes" and the agent at the POE decides your crime was such that you cannot be allowed. You will be sent home and then need to apply for a visa and if that is denied, you apply for a waiver.

The agent at the POE holds your trip[s] in his/her hands.

Police certificates will often not show criminal activity that occurred 5 or more years past or arrests that later dropped, etc. It doesn't mean that the arrest and charge didn't happen. It is still required that it be made known on the I-94W and at the POE. The person advising you was not a USCIS agent or a member of the DOJ. So their advice is worthless as they are NOT familiar with the laws and regulations regarding entry to the US.

Whether or not a crime is considered one of moral turpitude will depend on the crime, the pleading, the maximum punishment by law for that offense, etc. It is not clear cut unfortunately.

ajb24

[QUOTE=Rete;6874114]This is your doubt. The DOJ might think otherwise. The DOJ is the one that will either accept or deny his B-2 visa application. The DOJ is the one that will either accept or deny his appeal via waiver.

I'm sure you don't know that the simple case of shoplifting can be a crime of moral turpitude and that is why if you are a PR in the US or have a PR pending and you commit a crime, you do not plead to any offense without first consulting with an immigration attorney.

Your advice is to cavalier for such serious matters.[/QUOTE

http://www.newstatesman.com/200411220005

I happen to know about shoplifting being morale turpitude and I also know about the law that turns into any offence committed by a foreign national on U.S soil into an aggrevated felony resulting your deportation, deportation no matter how long ago the offence was committed some people have now been deported under this law signed by clinton and robustly used after 9/11 for offences committed 30 years ago. The Article didnt say the law had been repealed so u have to assume it is still in effect Based upon that I would disagree that my insights have been cavalier telling him to lie about it would be cavalier if he follows the advice of this forum he should avoid a finding of inadmissabilty since no conviction was recorded and his waiver should be approved. And based upon this article anyone found to have lied to U.S immigration like our friend with the business will almost certianly be treated an aggreavated felon and banned from the U.S my saying that in my posts was not incorrect or cavalier

If I were him having read these posts I would speak to an U.S immigration law specialist before proceeding and follow his lawyer advice to the letter

meauxna

Seriously guy, you have been asked on the boards by the group and in private by the moderator to pull it in; your advice frankly sucks.

Take my non-suck advice: Read More and Post Less.
Bonus Round: Ask questions instead of making statements. You might actually learn something.

bjohn

Pete

Thank you for you response. Being a law abiding citizen in what ever country I would not dream of lying to any official.

Thus I pose this question. (not trying to be funny here either). If I answer "Yes" to an arrest of a crime that is moral turpitude and the crime was found not to be moral turpitude then would this be a lie to a POE official?

Also do you know if the maximum sentence is the maximum sentence in the country where the arrest occurred or is it for the equivalent offence in the U.S?

Not having a great deal of knowledge of the law in both the UK and US it appears an arrest in the UK is treated with a very much softer approach. It appears that police can arrest on "suspicion" in the UK and in the US it has to be pretty clear the suspect is going to face conviction in court. Hence the reason why the act of arrest is seen so much more highly in the US than the UK. Possibly the reason why there is a 4 month wait to get a visa interview at the US embassy in London.

Anyway on ground of suspicion and maximum penalties take a minute to feel for the poor guy in the article below who will probably never get the chance to take his kids to Disneyland.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle192391.ece

MsElui

Im no expert but I would think its better to get it wrong by saying yes - than in saying no (if that makes sense).

I believe its the max sentance in the country it was carried out - but it then may be compared to the us equivalent offence to detrmine if its is serious enough to warrant exclusion etc.