bma999

Was looking some info on a failed holiday visa. After three trips to orlando,00,07,09 I was planning on going next year. I had a work issue over a bonus payment which in case lend me to court to small fraud charge to which i was found guilty.

WIth it been such a small charge my family wanted me to get a visa incase the charge flashed up on there computers going threw passport control. Had my interview few weeks ago failed visa. The sheet they give me said not to apply again as it will be turned down.

The info on there website says "If a favorable recommendation is made to the DHSCBP for a waiver of the permanent ineligibility, the application will take a minimum of sixteen weeks to process; some applications may take longer." Does this mean I could get my local MP to make a recommendation for me?

S Folinsky

Can you clarify what you mean by "MP?" As a general rule it is either "Member of Parliament" or "Military Police," neither of which fit the question.

bma999

Yes sorry - Member of Parliament

materialcontroller

The way I understand these things is that the "recommendation" for the waiver can only be initiated by the consular official who interviewed you at the embassy, following their appraisal of your circumstances based on what you've told them. It wouldn't be something that a British MP could assist you with. Seems like the embassy may have classed your "small charge" as moral turpitude and that could be what has led to your inadmissibility. What did they say to you after your interview?

fatbrit

Qualified with the adjective local, it could only have one logical meaning.

bma999

The refused visa sheet had a list of different things on it and he had X moral turpitude on the sheet and send me on my way. He didn't give me a chance to explain the story behind the charge. So if it's true what you say I would be wasting my time contacting my MP

materialcontroller

There isn't much your MP could do in this case. This process is entirely within United States jurisdiction, so the British parliament cannot intervene.

crg

The recommendation is from the Department of State to the Department of Homeland Security.

I'm not surprised they didn't want to hear an explanation. The nature of the conviction speaks for itself. The recency of the offense most likely doomed the possibility for a waiver.

Since one CIMT conviction essentially did you in, it wasn't a small offense. Since just one conviction doomed the application, it sounds like the max sentence you could have received was more than one year. When it is time to apply for the waiver, try to avoid downplaying it as a "small fraud charge". You may want to have learned your lesson and be remorseful. Seeking legal advice may help during the waiver application process so you need to decide if how bad you want to visit vs. how much you'd like to pay to an attorney.

materialcontroller

That pretty much says it all. Excellent advice.

bma999

So becasuse it falls under fraud no one has a chance? It was a small charge £150 linked to a bonus payment. I pleaed guilty and was ordered to pay the £150 back, I still work at the same company. Thanks for all the advice seems would of been better off just answering no on the ESTA forms.

Noorah101

But that wouldn't have been the truth.....

Rene

fatbrit

The lie is a condition of life -- Nietzsche

crg

Some people have a chance with a fraud conviction. There is a single petty offense exception.

A single crime involving moral turpitude (such as fraud) where the max sentence possible was one year or less wouldn't have triggered the requirement for a waiver of inadmissibility provided you didn't get a sentence (either suspended or imposed) of more than six months.

Check out the section of law you were convicted under and look at the max sentence you could have received. It's possible the consular officer made an error in finding you needed a waiver.

bma999

Well the officer didn't even give me the chance to explain which did annoy me. Thanks again I will get onto them again and take it from there.

crg

There was really nothing to discuss. A discussion wouldn't change what was on the records you submitted.

Unless you have something that says the max sentence possible was a year or less, there is no reason for you to "get onto them again".