fatbrit

You got excellent and sound advice from this forum. Fact is that you lied on your VWP and this may well queer your prospective immigration path. It's not the news you wanted to hear, I know, but it's really pointless to turn on the bearers of it. If you want to find out how CIMT affects your case, you need to source how it is interpreted by those who apply US immigratrion law. Currently, you are quoting how states define it, but this is largely irrelevant to your needs since immigration is a federal issue.

J. J. Farrell

pablogilano wrote:
    > > 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.
    > 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). . . .
    > ...

You illustrate my point very well. It's a poorly defined concept, and
what you or I think it means is neither here nor there. The courts
decide it, often case by case depending on precedent. In none of the
cases you quoted do I see the court asking the defendant whether or not
he thought it was a CIMT and ruling based on his opinion. If it came to
it, a court would decide whether or not your arrest was for a crime
involving moral turpitude. If it decided that it was, then you lied
when you answered "no" to the question. No-one will care whether or not
you thought it was a CIMT.

You've not explained why you think that your opinion of whether or not
it's a CIMT is relevant.

I'm sorry that you find my attitude tiring; I suggest you seek help
from experts who you don't find tiring.