Jakov

Hi All,

I recently moved over to the US, and after much persuasion managed to convince my parents to take a holiday to come and visit me. Unfortunately, at the last minute we found out my father cannot, technically, apply for an ESTA due to the question about convictions for acts of moral turpitude. Specifically, he evaded a train fare, was caught by a ticket inspector and was convicted of this offence.

How to deal with this precise subject has been covered in numerous threads around the Internet and the general consensus is: fare evasion IS an act of moral turpitude however it will fall under the 'petty offences' exception. As such the correct course of action is to say 'yes' to the question on ESTA, be denied, and then apply for a B-2 visa which will very likely be granted due to the exception.

Indeed, dad has already gone through part one of this process and been denied an ESTA and submitted a DS-160 for a B-2 visa only to find there are no appointments available for interviews at the US embassy in London until June. This isn't useful though as the flights were due to depart in early April. Yeah, yeah, he should have done this ages ago but this is the situation we are in now.

In practice, I'm sure there are people who have done much worse things and just answered 'No' to the original ESTA question. So, my question is: what is the real risk at this point if he re-applies for an ESTA and just says 'No'? Does anyone had any practical experience of being badgered about the answer to this question? particularly if they re-submitted their ESTA with changed answers?

Many thanks,
Jakov

civilservant

No one is going to council him to lie. Simple as that.

Pulaski

If you're looking for advice that it is OK to lie on an ESTA application you've come to the wrong place.

Duncan Roberts

Is dodging a train fail a crime involving moral turpitude? The issue now includes how does he answer the question about being denied a visa.

Sue

Agreed.

Thread closed.