materialcontroller

Yes, all of that is perfectly normal.

It seems to me, as I've already pointed out, that your offence is viewed very seriously indeed (rightly or wrongly) and therefore the question of your rehabilitation is being scrutinised rather heavily. Hence why the interviewing officer mainly concentrated on exploring your offending and possibly why your visa application was denied. You can expect the same angle of questioning at any subsequent interview.

luke433

ok i see , well thanks for your help, but what i couldnt understand is why they were asking me why it happened and how it happened .. surely they can just find out the activities of the offence through the police ? and find out what happened?

jeffreyhy

You are the visa applicant. They want to see what you have to say for yourself with regard to the incident. Would you really want them to depend on how someone else describes the incident and not give you an opportunity to explain your actions?

Regards, JEff

luke433

i see , i just thought they would of got hold of the statements from the police ?

materialcontroller

The US authorities are trying to get a picture of what sort of person you are. Part of the reason for that is to gauge whether you can be trusted to behave yourself if they allow you into their country. They want to be satisfied that you are truly rehabilitated and aren't likely to commit further offences on their soil and against their people.

So they'll ask you to explain how and why you got caught up in the offending and how you felt about it. They might ask you questions about where you live and who you hang around with. They'll want to know if you've changed things about yourself and your life in the period since the offending.

It's all part of building up an idea of your personality.

KCK_DR

Yeap! I think that is the case, but others more knowledgeable than me can discuss it for the benefit of the op.

luke433

Well thank you all for your help and advice .. I'm going to re apply again next January so that will be 2 years since my first refusal .. Ill let you all know how it goes ..

Regards

materialcontroller

Good luck to you.

S Folinsky

By the way -- "intent" can be a legal term of art in criminal law. Quite often, whether or not a particular crime is a CIMT will be determined by the language of intent in the particular statute. For example, in assault, "general intent" does not a CIMT make. However, words like "willfully" or "maliciously" probably do.

Although not involving a CIMT, John Lennon famously beat back the bar imposed by a UK conviction for possession of hashish -- at the time, UK law was strict liability.

S Folinsky

BTW, this discussion seems to indicate that the offense COULD be a CIMT under the "modified categorical approach" of Silva-Trevino.