Barnes2015

Hi Trebor82, sorry I've been a bit slow responding. I'm trying to seek further advice about whether it is automatic that I'll need a waiver of ineligibility, if this is the case I won't bother as there's no way I'll get it in time and I'd rather wait longer so it's more likely I'll be recommended.

If there's any hope for the discretion of an official I'm going to go for it. I've read some legalese which implies the ineligibility is automatic, but heard stories from others, admittedly online, which say they've just received a ticking off from the official, apologised and received one.

If anyone has anyfurther advice on this, that would be terrific.

Unless you're Ian, if you're Ian, please just stop. If, in the future, when I get in, with all the other MDMA-ridden junkies and general criminals, I will not be going to Kentucky.

Barnes2015

I have decided to come clean though, because if you ever want to work, live or study there they ask for a criminal background check, so all of this stuff (plus subsequent lying) would come out and you'd probably be banned for life. I don't especially plan to, but you never know, so I'd rather give up one holiday than bring on a lifetime of trouble...

Jerseygirl

You may not like Ian's advice, you may not like the way Ian formulates his posts...but his advice is usually good advice.

Enigma368

Not advocating lying or doing anything illegal but purely on a technical point, are details of cautions made available to US immigration?

In my own naive mind, I would have assumed a caution was pretty minor and the US would never know about it unless you declared it. Of course it's illegal(I assume) not to declare it so I guess it is a moot point unless you want to risk being banned for life.

Barnes2015

I'm fairly sure they wouldn't pick it up, BUT, if one were to move there in future for study etc, one.would need to give an.ACRO certificate, which would show the caution, then it would become apparent that you had lied before and then you may well be banned for good (I think)

johnnybrown532

Not just that but U.S immigration may very likely have access to uk police records one day likely by fingerprint and it would show up when you visited the USA on the VWP for which ACRO would not be required. And besides if you lie now you are therefore forced to lie every time in the future because you lied the first time and a lie must always be retold.

S Folinsky

General comments: The UK caution is often misunderstood. US law requires either a conviction of the proscribed offense or admission of the essential elements of the offense.

Just saying.

YouWantFriesWithThat

1st Golden Rule: never ever try and out-think the law, especially in regards to entering and exiting foreign countries. Not so much from a moral point of view but form a logistical one - you can never be in receipt of all the relevant facts to enable you to formulate a plan or scheme.

2nd Golden Rule: Never lie. http://britishexpats.com/forum/us-im...ont-do-624065/

Don't try and second guess what records may or may not be held regarding your criminal past, your ante cedence. Protocols, agreements and MOA's are forever changing and so therefore does the level of information held and shared about individuals. The safest way to proceed is to assume that an officer at a port of entry or exit knows everything about you.

I would see the caution for the MDMA (aka ecstasy, etc) you received as a kind of of blessing in disguise really. If you'd been caught with it within the confines of a port on entry, either UK or US, the outcome would probably have been different. Class A drugs, even small amounts, attract a firm response form the law.

Pulaski

Therefore the problem being that typically in the UK the caution has to be "accepted".

S Folinsky

A slight "war story." It used to be that UK police reports were confidential, e.g. the ACPO did not exist. A law school classmate went to work for the State Department as Consular Officer and he was posted to London. The visa applications for the Sex Pistols tour came before him. Lets put it this way, he had telephone contacts in the British government -- he refused the visa for Sid Vicous. Later got overruled, and you can look up what happened later in the US.

Moral -- you don't know what information may or may not be shared.

lansbury

As I've said a few times here that telephone used to be on the desk I sat at.

It is much easy today when it is official, then it was when I was working.

n1cholas90

Just thought I'd share my experience from last year as it is in the same ball park as this.

I applied July 2014 and was denied a B2 visa and was not recommended for a waiver due to a simple caution for possession of a controlled substance (also class A) which I received June 2013 after an arrest in April 2013.

The reason I was given for not being recommended a waiver was the length of time since the arrest (just over one year). The consular officer recommended that I wait "at least" another year.

Cautions received since 2008 are now viewed as admissions of guilt for US immigration purposes as a result of a review of US government policy to UK police cautions which concluded early last year.

Will be applying again June of this year by which time over 2 years will have passed since I received my caution. Whether I'll be recommended for the waiver will of course again depend on whether the consular officer on the day feels enough time has now passed.

Hoping for the best, and at least I'm a little more equipped for dealing with a rejection this time around.

Thankfully USC fiancee and family are very understanding and patient in waiting for me to come visit!

Barnes2015

Hi N1cholas90, thanks for getting back to me. Shame to hear your experience from my point of view, but useful to know. Wishing you luck for next time.

Barnes2015

As a coda to this thread for anyone interested in the outcome:

It was very similar to N1cholas90's experience.

I went to Belfast (as that was the only place with appointments). The official was very polite and non-judgemental but said that it was far too soon to be considered for a waiver of ineligibility. She suggested "at least a year, possibly 2 or 3, depending on the person you get on the day" before I'd get approved for a tourism visa, and then the process would probably take six months. From arriving to leaving, I was about 45 minutes at the consulate, although they say to leave 2 hours.

The waiver of ineligibility does not cost anything more and they don't hold your passport. She also said you could "very much" apply speculatively. She also added that if travelling for a legitimate business reason they could fast track your application and would be more likely to allow you in if less time had elapsed, so at least if work want me to go I may have a better chance.

I hope this is helpful to anyone else in my position in future, thanks to those who replied to this thread.

HenryBD2

[QUOTE=Barnes2015;11601205]As a coda to this thread for anyone interested in the outcome:

She also added that if travelling for a legitimate business reason they could fast track your application and would be more likely to allow you in if less time had elapsed, so at least if work want me to go I may have a better chance.


I'm interested to know if anyone has further details on Barnes2015's comments above: that there is a better chance of quicker waiver of ineligibility if for business. I applied for B2 visa under "Professionals and Academics in the Areas of Science and Technology" and wondered if this counts as "Business" and whether this might result in any quicker processing. (i have a 5 year old caution for possession)

probably a long shot, but thanks in advance for any advice