civilservant

Thing is, the ESTA questions aren't going to catch every circumstance, and you can answer them very selectively.

The OP could pretty reasonably put 'no' for all the questions and be issued an ESTA, but that doesn't mean he should have been. This is a pretty tricky situation.

CH90

So, I've paid the 14 dollars. I've answered the questions. I haven't been arrested or convicted for seriously injuring anyone nor have I seriously damaged anyone's property. I have no convictions for drug related offences. Its come back approved.

chawkins99

Congratulations! $14 well spent and much less hassle than applying for a visa.

The bar is set pretty low for an ESTA authorization. Now, if you were actually applying for a visa, you would have to disclose all of those 'infractions'.

CH90

I get that, but the questions are quite specific. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious injury to another person or government official.
Have you ever violated any law relating to possessing, using, distributing any eligal drug.

The answer to both is 100% no. So why would I need a visa? The whole process is extremely confusing.

civilservant

The precise wording of that the statue that you were convicted/cautioned under is really the important thing here. So what exactly was the offense?

CH90

civilservant

This is interesting - the statue (from what I read) does not differentiate between the person who actually committed the TWOC and a person that is carried in the vehicle that they know to be TWOC.

So essentially, you also committed the offense of TWOC just by riding in the car, assuming that you knew it to be stolen.

I'd want a legal opinion in this one.

CH90

OK, I'll get some legal advice on this. It just baffling though, how I could answer no on the form but yet have a caution for that and nothing is flagged. Would the attached not show up on the esta?

civilservant

ESTA relies on you telling the truth, it does not have access to the UK Police National Computer or similar database.

CH90

The thing is, I have told the truth. If there was a subsection to quote the attached, I would have.

civilservant

That remains to be seen. I remain unsure.

Either way, it's simply a matter of risk tolerance. You have an approved ESTA, so if you where that way inclined, you could let the matter drop at that.

CH90

I could, but it's a family holiday and I would like to eliminate any risk.

chawkins99

This is really the crux of it. The crime did not result in serious damage to property or serious injury to another person. You answered truthfully.

Threatening behavior does not result in serious injury.

Don't sweat it. Just go and enjoy yourself.

Noorah101

There's no way to eliminate all risk anyway. Even an approved ESTA only gets you to the POE. It's up to the POE officer to grant entry.

Rene

shiversaint

Wild, wild speculation there! You have no idea if OP abetted this particular crime and the leap you've taken into what was actually said at the time is really unhelpful.

But moving on from that....I'm intrigued how TWOC is not the same thing as theft? Isn't taking anything without the owner's consent the very definition of theft?

NAL but given that being a passenger is effectively the same as TWOC, which to me sounds a lot like theft, then this must be a CIMT and therefore ESTA ineligible. Definitely a tricky one and generally better to be safe than sorry.