pablogilano

ok cool thanks for the responses...I'll try with the lawyers...

ps what is the defination of moral terpitude...do they give one officially or it subject to the intricacies of the english language?

cheers

paul

ps thanks for the advice

J. J. Farrell

pablogilano wrote:
    > i don't think the h1b is a problem...i.e. it is a film job so they
    > normally always make exceptions.

They never make exceptions. If the employer is planning to use an H-1B
they can't apply until April 2007 and you can't start work until
October 2007. A small number of employers are exempt from the cap,
mostly non-profit research organizations. It doesn't sound like your
potential employer is one of them.

Bob

Well you have to ask about what visa they plan to get you, sounds like an H visa, so they won't be getting that any time soon.

The O visa is for someone with extreme talent and is famous or well published for it, think nobel peace prize winner, national team sports coach, that kind of talent.

The P visa is for a performer...not sure what the requirements are for that, but the sponsor would have a lawyer that will take care of it.

As for you finding a lawyer, if you google the london embassy, there's a list of US immigration lawyers in London, there are a couple, they ain't cheap though.

I wouldn't hold much hope tbh of getting any visa soon, especially added the fact that you denied an arrest on a previous visit, which is probably more damaging immigration wise than actually being convicted of the crime.

Bob

CIMT.....depends on the wording of the offence, and where the offence took place, certain crimes which are the same are classed differently depending on the state in the US, which is why having a lawyer that knows about UK law is also important.

fatbrit

Google is your friend (but spell it correctly). Fraud is one massive pointer to it.

pablogilano

ok...so have no chance of getting the job! then I shouldn't waste money on lawyers or flights, Shame as it has been a dream of mine...I should have thought of the visa implications before I applied and sorted all this out...don't know if i'll ever get a second shot at intervoew with this company ever again!

just to re-iterate...I wasn't convicted of the crime! please read above for details.

so just how bad is denying the arrest in the eyes of us immigration!!! anyone have any experience of overcoming this...I read online that US immigration can be forgiving...for instance they are even giving working visas to people have been out there working illegaly in some sort of amnesty, as long as these people pay back taxes on income earnt on the black market and qualify for employment.

Or am I in shit creek!

paul

feeling bloody depressed now!

fatbrit

Speak to your own COMPETENT and EXPERIENCED lawyer about it. At worst you've lost $100, which given the sinking $ really ain't that much! You might also apply for your criminal history in the UK and see if it pops up there.

P.S. Bleating about the luck of others will fall on deaf ears @ USCIS. Write the Daily Mail if you're that worried about it.

pablogilano

blimey you guys are SO quick to put people down... I really wasn't bleating about others....i was simply asking you people with reference to this information about the leniancy or not of the US immigration dept. If you don't know then just relax!

On the one hand you give me good solid advice and then...you accuse me of bleating abiout the luck of others...I am saying GOOD LUCK to these people...I hate the Daily Mail, and the daily express too!!! . Please don't be so presumptious!!!

$100 is great if it helps and yesi am willing to spend it but the problem here is that the other guy...maybe Bob said the lawyers are v expensive!

man all I can say is that I appreciate the info I have learnt from you guys but you don't half make it difficult for someone who is innocently asking questions about something that could REALLY have a massive impact on my life and the life of my family...put it this way and surely a little courtesy wouldn't go amiss!

I'll let you all know what happens with the lawyers...and REALLY..I do appreciate the advice, lets stick to advice and leave alone judements and put downs...it ruins the thread.

thanks again (for the advice, not the flaming)

paul

Elvira

You were suggesting denying the arrest to US immigration, and were told to get a competent lawyer - what's flaming about that?

fatbrit

We're just toughening you up for your dealings with USCIS. We're very mild by comparison!

Bob

Well you've nothing to lose by giving it a shot, because the company will pay for the cost of the visa, and they should pay for the cost of the flight over for the interview if they are serious.

As for the arrest, it's probably more the issue you lied about the arrest than the fact that you were innocent, they don't really care to much about the result because different countries have different laws for crimes and way that they are dealt with, so it's more of if you are in the situation to be arrested in the first place, you have to explain it, that alone won't be a bar to entry to the US, but lying about it, or not disclosing it when asked could be more damaging, especially as there are waivers for arrests to some extent, but wouldn't know if there is anything about lying about an arrest in a previous visit...it could all be nothing, or it could be an issue, so it really could be worth chatting to a US immigration lawyer who understands UK law, of which, if you can't be arsed to google, the first one, which has been recommended before -

http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/

and some info from the consulate website-


http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new...nvictions.html

pablogilano

Hi Bob

thanks for the info...I will def speak to a lawyer...

Elvira...In my opinion the term bleating is rather offensive...it actually is an onomatopoeia for the sound that sheep make. maybe I am being sensitive, and yes i know I will be in for a tough line of questioning and maybe I should get used to it...but I was not expecting it from you guys and itwas kind of a rude shock!

cheers

paul

J. J. Farrell

pablogilano wrote:
    > > No you can't!!! It asks about CIMT. Fraud is most often considered a
    > > CIMT, and you *were* arrested for fraud. Now there's certainly some
    > > wiggle room here for a swarmy lawyer to work with. But basically you
    > > probably lied on entry before and they usually hold this against you.
    > > You need a lawyer, PRONTO, if you have any hope of sorting this out!
    > ok
    > well i still feel that when I holidayed there, and they asked that
    > question on the form, the answer was based on my intepretation of the
    > question!

So you keep saying; why on earth do you think that's relevant? The law
doesn't depend on your interpretation of it, and ignorance of the law
is never an excuse under the law.

pablogilano

I am seriously tyring of the ATTITUDE on this forum
"The law doesn't depend on your interpretation of it?" maybe you don't understand that Law is defined in language and that language can be amibiguous....My Cousin is a barrister here in the UK and, as can any legal pro tell you... every single case that comes to court is based on a battle of interpretation! be it interpretation of evidence, language, actions, the law itself, etc

The more I listen to people on this forum the more I realise that people like to think they know everything and make massively important statements without getting the facts right...like I say, treat this thread with respect as it could well have a big outcome on my and my families life...well thats what I thought...now I know better than to listen to random anonymous and uneducated opinions professing to be facts! read below:

well here are some examples regarding the interpretation problems of the term moral turpitude:

"To be blunt, such definitions provide no meaningful guidance on how to distinguish between those felonies that do involve moral turpitude and those that do not. This Court agrees with the conclusion of one commentator that “‘moral turpitude’ is an elusive, vague and troublesome concept in the law, incapable of precise definition; such is evidenced by the myriad of definitions and interpretations in judicial opinions.” Wilson, The Definitional Problems with “Moral Turpitude,” 16 J. Legal Prof. 261 (1991). . . .

(B). The crime of moral turpitude in Williams v. State, quoted above, was sodomy. TheCourt of Criminal Appeals concluded there that homosexual conduct, even if consensual, was a crime involving moral turpitude, characterizing the offense “as abominable, detestable, unmentionable, and too disgusting and well known to require other definition or further details or description.” 316 So.2d at 365. Today, while “deviate sexual intercourse” — defined in Ala. Code §13A-6-60 – is still illegal, it is now only a misdemeanor under Ala. Code§13A-6-65(a)(3). Under changing societal standards, it would no longer serve as the basis of disqualification under the language of Section 177(b) of the Alabama Constitution.

(C). Selling marijuana is a crime of moral turpitude. Jones v. State, 527So. 2d 795 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988). Selling cocaine isn’t, at least not according to Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340 (Ala. 1916).12

(D). Here in Alabama, simple possession of marijuana is not a crime of moral turpitude. See Ex parte McIntosh, 443 So. 2d 1283 (Ala. 1983). Conceptions of right and wrong apparently depend on where you live, however. In Oklahoma, for example, a misdemeanor charge of simple possession of marijuana is a crime of moral turpitude, at least in the context of disciplinary proceedings against an attorney. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Denton, 598 P.2d 663 (Okla. 1979).

(E). In Meriwether v. Crown Inv. Corp., 289 Ala. 504, 268 So. 2d 780 (Ala. 1972), the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that income tax evasion was a crime of moral turpitude. That Court later held that “the failure to pay income taxes, as opposed to the failure to file an income tax return,” is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Clark v. Alabama State Bar, 547 So.2d 461 (Ala. 1989).

Because the term is so vague, what it means will depend largely on the person defining it. Judge Vance:

Under the current process, those attempting to interpret [moral turpitude] must make post hoc decisions, using subjective assessments of what felonies are particularly immoral so as to fall in the category of moral turpitude. This Court has no doubt that when assistant county attorney Theo Lawson attempts to undertake that task, for example, he does so with skill, diligence, and a conscientious desire to do his job correctly. His decisions, however, may differ from those of an equally skilled and conscientious official undertaking the same task elsewhere. A crime that one may regard as involving moral turpitude, the other may regard as not. The problem is, if anything, made worse if the decision-makers are voter registrars who lack the familiarity that attorney Lawson possesses with our criminal justice system. Nor can a court review any such decision without using its own subjective assessment, armed with only the language from the above-quoted cases that shine precious little light on the matter.


If courts and judges are saying this then I think I MIGHT(sic) be entitled to say that I misinterpreted the question...

this is my last post so NUFF SAID. respond how you like...Oh how I have learnt the error of trusting forums for advice. I guess my problem is that when someone with enough confidence makes a statement I am naive enough to believe them...not anymore.

dbj1000

BAAAAAAH!