S Folinsky

<sigh>
I used the word "may" on purpose.

As a general rule, "assault" is not a CIMT. Various flavors of aggravated assault ARE CIMT's.

The generic Common Law "burglary" is a CIMT. However, there are various flavors of burglary in many jurisdictions that are not CIMT's.

BTW, from experience, many of the UK court records may just state generic grounds behind the conviction without reference to the actual statute underlying the conviction.

All I am saying is that the offense possibly may not be a CIMT. It probably is, but I would not bet money on just yet.

crg

It's complicated.

There are also big differences in the rules for people with convictions who are seeking to enter the US vs. people who are already in the US.

Any tourist who gets any jail sentence for anything while in the US is removable. However, a student who gets a jail sentence but manages to maintain his course of study despite the sentence may not be.

CIMT is relevant because most US immigration laws that bar people for criminal reasons hinge on whether or not the crime involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is complicated and depends on how the law is written.

For example, someone in Canada could be convicted several times for possession of stolen property and not have any problem being admitted to the US. However, someone convicted of possession of property obtained by crime would likely be inadmissible unless it was a handled summarily (similar to a misdemeanor. If they had two counts, they would be done.

A guy who pays a prostitute for services and gets convicted of a single act of solicitation is still admissible, but the prostitute is most likely not.

Car theft is a CIMT, but joyriding is not.

Felony possession of a firearm is not a CIMT.

Stealing a pack of gum is a CIMT, but putting a slug into a coin slot to ride a train is not.

You can read up on this stuff.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

customsquestion

But prosecutors are sneaky though aren't they? Half their intentions with attempting to remand foreign nationals to custody is the hope they lose their jobs or mess up the college situations so they can get deported should the prosecution lose in court they can still kick em out.

cimt just sounds bizzare and unfair to me, maybe a few things out to be reclassified as cimt that are not

customsquestion

Ok so what jurisdictions are there with regards to immigration law - which is a federal matter - when it comes to determining whether and offence committed outside of the U.S by person outside of U.S is a cimt?

jxv73

As many jurisdictions as there are criminal statutes in the world. Your conviction is judged a CIMT based on the actual statute under which you were convicted. The act you commited usually doesn't matter - what matters is what the statute and conviction record say.

ian-mstm

US immigration law is specifically written to keep non-USCs out of the US. Do you understand that? They want to keep people out. That's the way the law is written. There is no specific definition of CIMT, because that way they can include or exclude just about anything they want. That's how the law is written.

The US doesn't care whether or not their rules and regulations are bizarre or unfair... it doesn't matter to them at all. Why? Because they don't care if you ever visit the US.

Ian

customsquestion

Then why all are all felonies not cimt? That would give far greater scope to keep people out than current cimt provision does wouldn't it?

Shezi59

Not wishing to sound contentious, but this is one of the dangers of having too much detail. Yes, on the one hand, often the more we know the more we can advise but also, the more detail we are given, the more we can be focused on it, the more we want to have an opinion on it.

I can see why Ian had said we don't need to know.

scrubbedexpat099

I for one have no idea what you can and can not do on Parole, sort of surprised he did not get booted when released from prison.

ian-mstm

You just don't get it, do you? By keeping things vague, the US government can pick and choose who gets to enter, or who gets a visa. Travelling to the US and asking permission to enter is a privilege, not an entitlement, and not a right.

Ian

customsquestion

No maybe I don't get it. I accept they can pick and chose based off that vagueness as you call it but I don't understand why they let things go that other countries don't such as drunk driving, drugs and firearms offences. But as you they can make their own policy I am just surprised it isn't as tough as some other countries.

ian-mstm

All foreign offenses are, ultimately, reduced to their US equivalent as part of making the determination whether or not to issue a visa or allow someone to enter. Something that may be a crime in another country might not be a crime in the US. Something that could be acceptable in another country might be a crime in the US. Between that and the vagueness of the language... I think it's pretty tough to get to the US.

Ian