Visa or VWP?

[djdigitald]

I read on another forum [:O] that if you have a speeding conviction that resulted in going to court you have to apply for a Visa? I had a quick look on the US Embassy website and found the following form http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/visa/forms/VCU001.pdf which suggests that it "Excludes minor traffic offenses where no injury occured"

My other half got 4 points and £100 fine 6 years ago but had to go to court to get it. We have ben 3 times since without any problems, last time being in November.

What do people recon?

[Robert5988]

This has been covered many times in this forum.

If you are confused now, you can trawl through every regulation on the Embassy and USA Immigration web sites you will still be confused; as there is no definitive instruction that covers court appearance.

Stupid as it may be, there is no doubt that the regulations state that if you were ever arrested you need a visa; even if there was no charge, mistaken identity, not guilty etc.

The confusion is caused by the terms: Moral turpitude, conviction, custodial sentence and the wording on the I-94W(VW Form)


The I94-W asks:
“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more ----“

I cannot see any way you could answer "Yes" to that question.

So it is quite clearly the intent that minor traffic offences do not disqualify you from using the Visa Waiver, regardless of whether you went to court or not. So, for me, it is a ‘no brainer’ you use the VWP.

Unfortunately however there are those who will try to interpret any regulation to their, and others, maximum disadvantage. Their normal ploy is to concentrate on the term 'conviction' and argue that any conviction means you require a visa.

Bear in mind that until the introduction of fixed penalty notices, everyone went to court for any offence – parking, riding a bike without lights etc and you were convicted(if found Guilty). Even now if you dispute the most minor offence, you go to court and are convicted.


One piece of advice. Do not telephone the US Embassy – at £1.50 per minute - as they will absolutely refuse to discuss this subject. Their standard answer is “if you are uncertain, apply for a visa and come for an interview.

[Tonish]

We've been through this in depth before and my wife is in a similar position to your other half. She went for the Visa because of the following sentence:

"Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified."

The problem is, as Robert states, the and/or in the above. If it said clearly "convictions for minor traffic offences are excluded", we'd have been a lot more confident, but it doesn't. We asked the embassy and got the stock reply, as per Robert's post. At the end of the day, I think we'd probably have been all right on the waiver, but we just didn't want to take the risk, no matter how small. My thinking was what happens when her name is punched into the computer at US immigration and up flashes "conviction" and there's no Visa there? At the very least it could be a lot of hassle. With our 4 kids with us we can do without any delays or problems.

Having said that, it's a lot of hassle getting the Visa anyway. Interestingly, no-one at the embassy, during the interview process, ever said "actually, you didn't really need this". They seemed to have seen a lot of similar situations.

Up to you. I'm sure you don't really need the Visa, but maybe just in case?....

Tonish

[Robert5988]

Just a couple of comments on Tonish’s measured response.

Everyone would agree the regulations and I-94W are badly written.

The Visa Waiver Programme is used by many countries, a lot of them do not have English as their Mother tongue. If those of us who speak English cannot interpret the regulations how is it expected that Johnny Foreigner would cope? Who, amongst the millions of visitors, goes into a web site to try to fathom out what it means?

Visitors are only required to answer the question on the I-94W. Why would it talk of 5 years confinement if a conviction for parking means you cannot use the VWP.

If any conviction, as Tonish seems to suggest, stopped you using the VWP, why would they not say just that? How can a large fine and points on your licence, without appearing in court be OK for the VWP and yet an appearance in court and a conviction for, say, riding a bicycle without lights, prevent use of the VWP?

Lastly there is no system for the USA authorities to routinely check the ‘criminal’ record of anyone. If they have suspicions then they can contact the person’s home country to find out. As for "flashing up on a computer" Previous threads have described the difficulty some people have had in getting their own Memorandum of Conviction even for serious offences as the police could not help.

Imagine this query from US Immigration to, say, the Italian Police.

"We have a lady here called Mary Gilespia, she now lives in Italy and has an Italian passport, but tells us was born in England and her maiden name was Smith. Her DOB is 13/08/34, Her address is XXXX, she has lived at the following 27 addresses throughout Europe ….

We want to know if she has ever been convicted in a court of any offence – parking, speeding etc. Will you please check with the British, French and German authorities as well; and hurry because we are holding her in detention until we have your reply."

[Ray9]

Interesting reading about what is or not a CIMT...

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1068321140.08/Flachart.pdf

[Robert5988]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote: Interesting reading about what is or not a CIMT...

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1068321140.08/Flachart.pdf[/quote]

Interesting link Ray

CIMT = Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.

The question you have to answer on the I-94W is:
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude

It appears from the link that Ray posted that a felony involving even a 4th conviction for DUI - Driving under the Influence - is [u]not</u> a CIMT.

Neither is DUI - [u]Manslaughter</u>

However some advocate that a UK conviction for parking, speeding etc counts as a CIMT!!

[djdigitald]

Legal Definition

Moral Turpitude
n. Blatant violation of moral conduct standards, vileness. Moral turpitude acts are considered to be intentionally evil which makes the act criminal. More severe charges or penalties may be incurred if moral turpitude exists.

Also found this: -

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/DA%20Guide.pdf

Page 6 , Grounds of Inadmissability

Also

Page 20, Crimes Involving Moral Terpitude.

[imported_n/a]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
This has been covered many times in this forum.

If you are confused now, you can trawl through every regulation on the Embassy and USA Immigration web sites you will still be confused; as there is no definitive instruction that covers court appearance.

Stupid as it may be, there is no doubt that the regulations state that if you were ever arrested you need a visa; even if there was no charge, mistaken identity, not guilty etc.

The confusion is caused by the terms: Moral turpitude, conviction, custodial sentence and the wording on the I-94W(VW Form)


The I94-W asks:
“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more ----“

I cannot see any way you could answer "Yes" to that question.

So it is quite clearly the intent that minor traffic offences do not disqualify you from using the Visa Waiver, regardless of whether you went to court or not. So, for me, it is a ‘no brainer’ you use the VWP.

Unfortunately however there are those who will try to interpret any regulation to their, and others, maximum disadvantage. Their normal ploy is to concentrate on the term 'conviction' and argue that any conviction means you require a visa.

Bear in mind that until the introduction of fixed penalty notices, everyone went to court for any offence – parking, riding a bike without lights etc and you were convicted(if found Guilty). Even now if you dispute the most minor offence, you go to court and are convicted.


One piece of advice. Do not telephone the US Embassy – at £1.50 per minute - as they will absolutely refuse to discuss this subject. Their standard answer is “if you are uncertain, apply for a visa and come for an interview.
[/quote]

Hi Robert

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me,to do with my son.
When my son was 17 (he is now 21) he lent his car to his friend who he had lost touch with but met one evening when he was out,unfortunately un beknown to my son he had not past his driving test,or had any insurance and was subsequently stopped by the police,and my son was summons to court for aiding and abetting,the judge realising that my son had learnt a very hard lesson took pity on him and gave him a 7 day ban and a £200 fine,I have been reading your comments on the visa waiver, and wonder if i am right in thinking that we do not need to apply for a visa for him,as he has never been arrested and has no criminal record,could you please pass your comments, as i am as confused when going into the embassy site as everyone else.i would be very grateful for some advice. Thank you.
Jayne

[florida4sun]

Hi,
it is best to get this advice direct from the US embassey, although we have some excellent advice givers on here the us embassey are the only ones who can give you their version of the answer to your question.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by JAYNE ROZARIO
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
This has been covered many times in this forum.

If you are confused now, you can trawl through every regulation on the Embassy and USA Immigration web sites you will still be confused; as there is no definitive instruction that covers court appearance.

Stupid as it may be, there is no doubt that the regulations state that if you were ever arrested you need a visa; even if there was no charge, mistaken identity, not guilty etc.

The confusion is caused by the terms: Moral turpitude, conviction, custodial sentence and the wording on the I-94W(VW Form)


The I94-W asks:
“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more ----“

I cannot see any way you could answer "Yes" to that question.

So it is quite clearly the intent that minor traffic offences do not disqualify you from using the Visa Waiver, regardless of whether you went to court or not. So, for me, it is a ‘no brainer’ you use the VWP.

Unfortunately however there are those who will try to interpret any regulation to their, and others, maximum disadvantage. Their normal ploy is to concentrate on the term 'conviction' and argue that any conviction means you require a visa.

Bear in mind that until the introduction of fixed penalty notices, everyone went to court for any offence – parking, riding a bike without lights etc and you were convicted(if found Guilty). Even now if you dispute the most minor offence, you go to court and are convicted.


One piece of advice. Do not telephone the US Embassy – at £1.50 per minute - as they will absolutely refuse to discuss this subject. Their standard answer is “if you are uncertain, apply for a visa and come for an interview.
[/quote]

Hi Robert

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me,to do with my son.
When my son was 17 (he is now 21) he lent his car to his friend who he had lost touch with but met one evening when he was out,unfortunately un beknown to my son he had not past his driving test,or had any insurance and was subsequently stopped by the police,and my son was summons to court for aiding and abetting,the judge realising that my son had learnt a very hard lesson took pity on him and gave him a 7 day ban and a £200 fine,I have been reading your comments on the visa waiver, and wonder if i am right in thinking that we do not need to apply for a visa for him,as he has never been arrested and has no criminal record,could you please pass your comments, as i am as confused when going into the embassy site as everyone else.i would be very grateful for some advice. Thank you.
Jayne
[/quote]

[Robert5988]

As Martin states we can only give advice(and I have made my views clear in previous posts.) However I take issue with him in one respect. As I posted above:

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:One piece of advice. Do not telephone the US Embassy – at £1.50 per minute - as they will absolutely refuse to discuss this subject. Their standard answer is “if you are uncertain, apply for a visa and come for an interview.[/quote]
If you want confirmation of that spend a few pounds on a phone call and see what they say.

So you will not get any advice from the US Embassy short of applying for a Visa and attending for an interview in London/Belfast after obtaining a Memorandum of Conviction from the court etc.

All I can say that if it was myself in the situation you describe(i.e. not arrested and a minor motoring offence) I would enter on a Visa Waiver without a second thought.