Visa Waiver Program Any Changes ?? [Archive] - Orlando Villas

ccarcher

14-02-2007, 17:17

Looking for thoughts or any help / advice

Just wondering when the Visa Waiver Program was introduced and any changes over the last 12 years which may affect my own circumstances

I've been to Florida now around 8 time over a period of 30 years since I was a kid around 10, the last time was for Christmas 95 when I was 29 and prior to that May 93 (Aged 27)

Now 41 and returning with my own children in July for 4 weeks cant wait, and cant believe its 12 years since my last visit

The reason for my question is that I have had no problems previously with immigration, but theres an incident in the back of my mind which is bugging me

Over 20 years ago I think I was around 22 but I can hardly recall it

I was involved in what at the time was a handbags at 10 paces, pushing and shoving between two teams whilst playing cricket after being struck with the ball

I ended up in what I think was the local magistrates court, and having to pay a member of the other team compensation for his apparent injuries (to this day is questionable as to who caused them)

Anyone else would of probbaly not even bothered with it, but he worked as a barrister it turned out and knew the law, so took it to court, knowing he would receive compensation for his apparent injuries (I think around £100)

I honestly dont know if it resulted in a criminal record or not, and it has never caused me a problem either in the UK or US previously, and never worried about it or been in court since

Any thoughts would be appreciated, dont want it to suddenly come up and mess up what will be a fantastic first holiday for my children of 5 and 4 in Florida

I think having been to Florida on at least 2 occassions since the incident, that it is obviously overlooked or of little importance

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill

Robert5988

14-02-2007, 17:36

All you need to do is read the relevant question on the I94W - there is a copy on this forum - and if you can answer 'No' you are OK

The main criteria is were you arrested? The second issue is was it for a crime of 'moral turpitude'.(and, although it is not possible to accurately define that term, it means a serious offence)

As you have explained it, there is absolutely no reason for you not to travel on a Visa Waiver.

Do not phone the Embassy as they will refuse to discuss the matter and you will be required to attend for an interview.

ccarcher

14-02-2007, 18:54

Thanks for that Robert

Your thinking is along the same lines as mine, I did think that by contacting the embassy or police I could be opening up a whole can of worms

Moral turpitude does seem rather difficult to define, and certainly appears to be for crimes more sinister and nastier than a few cricket players pushing an shoving

And certainly as the form suggests to the best of my knowledge I have not been involved in a crime of Moral turpitude, and can answer NO

whilst not knowing is no defence, from this description that I found, I honestly dont believe it relates to me

It has been held that the following offenses are crimes involving moral turpitude:
• Fraud or false pretenses in obtaining something of value
• Larceny or a misdemeanor theft by taking
• Larceny after trust
• Murder
• Soliciting for prostitutes
• Voluntary manslaughter
• Sale of narcotics or other illegal drugs
• Pattern of failure to file federal tax returns in years in which taxes are due
• Criminal Issuance of a bad check
• Making a false report of a crime

The following have been held to be offenses which are not crimes involving moral turpitude:
• Public drunkenness
• Driving under the influence
• Carrying a concealed weapon
• Unlawful sale of liquor
• Fighting
• Simple Battery
• Simple Assault
• Misdemeanor criminal trespass
• Child abandonment
• Misdemeanor offense of escape
• Misdemeanor offense of obstructing a law enforcement officer
• The federal misdemeanor offense of Conspiracy in Restraint of Interstate Trade and
Commerce
• Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana
[This is taken from Handbook of Criminal Evidence by Davis, 2000 edition.]

blott

14-02-2007, 19:17

But were you arrested as that's one of the crucial questions?

ccarcher

14-02-2007, 19:41

To me and maybe I am wrong it reads

"Arrested or convicted of a crime of Moral Turpitude"

not just arrested

blott

14-02-2007, 20:15

Mmmm... it's not an 'and', it's an 'or' as in either or I think you'll find.

In other words, it doesn't mean 'arrested AND convicted of a crime of moral turpitude'. it means 'have you ever been arrested... OR convicted of a crime of moral turpitude'.

Snapper

14-02-2007, 20:32

Gotta admit, I've always read it the other way ...

... ever been arrested for a crime involving moral turpitude OR ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Hmmmmm!

DiannaUK

14-02-2007, 21:01

It seems a little harsh if you have been arrested, but then released and not charged because they decided you weren't guilty of anything but you have to declare this and can't take advantage of visa waiver.

I interpret it as arrested or convicted of moral turpitude, not just arrested on anything else but then I'm no expert.

Dianna

Robert5988

14-02-2007, 21:55

We have had this discussion in countless threads.

The words on the I94-W are simply ambiguous. When you start delving into Embassy regulations it is even more convoluted.

Bear in mind that this is the very same form that is used for all Nationalities - many of whom do not speak 'proper English like whot we does'. If we can't understand what it means, what chance have they got?

If the intent was simply to find out if you have been arrested, why would they not put "have you ever been arrested?"
What is the point of even mentioning 'moral turpitude' or terms of confinement etc etc?

Leaving the technicalities apart, surely we must use common sense here. It clearly is not the intent to bar persons convicted of a minor offence. If the OP tried to find details of his offence, it pretty certainly wouldn't be on any police record or indeed court record.

blott

14-02-2007, 22:05

There are a lot of 'or' questions on the visa waiver form, all forming part of the same question. http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/topic_14753.asp

In fact, the 'or' questions aren't just limited to that one question and appear in most of the sections.

Snapper

14-02-2007, 23:21

You know, I still read it that both arrested and/or convicted would have to be for a crime involving moral turpitude. On other questions they use a semicolon where they want to put a harder break.

So if they wanted to include arrests (for any crime) plus convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, wouldn't they have written:

Have you ever been arrested; or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude.

In fact, while typing that I now believe even more that the or links rather than excludes. Take the last bit of the phrase: for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude. If the or was excluding you could read this as:
Have you ever been arrested for an offense?

A moral turpitude offense is a subset of all the offenses so if the or's were excluding or's (or whatever the correct phrase is) there wouldn't be a need to mention moral turpitude at all.

Given that you likely aren't arrested for doing nothing they could reduce the question to a much more readable:
Have you ever been arrested?

So all that said, for what it's worth, IMHO, usual disclaimers apply, I read this that if one has been arrested and/or convicted for a crime that does not involve moral turpitude, you can tick No and travel under the VWP.

One does wonder if the ambiguity is there by accident, or intentionally?

Robert5988

14-02-2007, 23:52

Blott,
The question asks:

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude"(all in the same sentence)

My English grammar may be a little rusty, but surely the subject of the sentence is 'an offence or crime involving moral turpitude' and thus 'arrested or convicted' refer to that subject.

Suppose a question read "have you ever ridden a motor-cycle or driven a car at over 70mph on a motorway". You are not seriously suggesting that you would answer 'Yes' if you had merely ridden a motor-cycle(at any speed below 70mph on a normal road)

ccarcher

15-02-2007, 00:30

Yep thats my interpretation of it to, the or links the two phrases of arrested and convicted to "the" crime of moral terpitude

As previously said the question overall refers to "the" crime of moral terpitude,(which mine certainly was not anyway) and therefore in my honest interpretation of the sentence, the "or" links the arrest to the crime of moral terpitude

if the or does not link the two, then simply arrested would suffice for any crime as being suggested by others to the arrest part of the sentence

as someone else suggested maybe the ambiguity is with intent

Thanks to all for their contributions, I believe that I am perfectly within my rights and can also honestly answer the question with a NO, as I have not been arrested or convicted of the crime of moral terpitude

When I am refused entry and deported on the 22nd July you will read it here first !![msnmad]

ccarcher

15-02-2007, 19:08

Also since the offence back in late 80's, I have travelled to the US in 93 and 95, on what I imagine was the same Visa Waiver program, then I would imagine that if there was a problem or an issue, then it would of been found before ??

ccarcher

15-02-2007, 19:24

Maybe I am trying to make myself feel better but this is worrying me :(sick[xx(]that it may spoil my kids first trip to the states, and really I should be enjoying the build up and planning[msncry]

However the more I read it (and it would appear there are a number of parts to the same question), the more I am sure it relates to

an arrest or conviction for a crime of moral terpitude,

A arrest , conviction or violation related to a controlled substance

an arrest or conviction for two or more offences with a prison sentence of 5 years or more

In which case I am happy to answer NO as none of the above apply to me

At the end of the day, without access to the internet, I would be none the wiser until the time I was completing the form on the plane,

ccarcher

20-02-2007, 01:38

Just an update

having mused over this for the weekend, I took some professional advice today, which whilst not cheap was certainly worth it in the peace of mind it gave me alone

Anyway following the advice, whilst his opinion was that I would probably be ok should I choose the waiver option, and be found out the worst I was likely to experience would be some uncomfortable questioning

Was also advised that there was no reason that a visa would be refused and therefore would make sense as I have the time to obtain one which I will now do

You'll be suprised how much they find acceptable apparently at US immigration, and they also like the upfront approach and effort of to reveal and resolve an issue rather than keeping it hidden and hoping it wont come to light

Although word of warning here, drug related is really not good, and can prove very difficult to overcome

So I have completed the subject access form, will wait 30 days or so for it to arrive and in the meantime schedule my interview to coincide with its return

and hopefully all being well, by the end of April I shall have had my interview and have received back my passport with visa

As I say may not be for everyone but at least I can then travel with peace of mind, rather than thinking the worst for the next 5 months

If anyone else is undecided then I would also perhaps advise to perhaps seek good quality professional advice

Happy to pass on the details of who I visited if anyone is interested but obviously I cant post it on this forum

Robert5988

20-02-2007, 03:11

Who gave the 'professional advice'? Not his name - what is his profession? and you paid for that advice!!!!

How do you know it is good quality advice? Did you get a second opinion? or a third opinion? or are you expert enough now to judge what is good quality advice?

Why can't you 'obviously' give details on this forum; like how much he charged?

What do you mean by 'found out'?

If you have read the regulations and are not sure if you qualify for a Waiver, then apply for a Visa. Why go to someone else(and pay) to be given exactly the same advice. Do you think he has access to some regulations that are not publically available?

Now you will probably need to get hold of your Memorandum of Conviction and from 20 years ago for something you "can hardly recall" that will be difficult. Take a day off travel to London/Belfast to get a Visa when you had clearly decided that you qualified for a waiver.

Of course a Visa will not be a problem to obtain, if your offence was something that wouldn't be a problem on a waiver, it is self-evident it wouldn't be a problem.

I must say I find it a little surprising that you join this forum a week ago seeking advice and now are advising people to pay for professional advice. That advice being go to the embassy and get a Visa; and what looks suspiciously like touting business for this unknown person.

Well anyone else reading this thread, and who is undecided what to do, here is some free advice - go to the Embassy and don't pay for someone to tell you to go to the Embassy.

Unbelievable!!

roger

20-02-2007, 15:42

Personally Robert, I think your reply is on the harsh side to say the least. I see nothing wrong in paying for professional advice over such matters especially when the Embassy are known to be sketchy with such information.

As long as the professional really knows their stuff of course, but we have no reason to believe they dont in this case.

If the professional is a Visa Attorney for example, then they will have more knowledge than can be found on the Embassy web site.

ccarcher

21-02-2007, 15:16

Sorry you feel like that Robert, I certainly have no link to the person or company, and have no intention of promoting their business in anyway

Yes I offered to pass this information on, if others felt they required it(I could of just posted it anyway),

But thats not how forums work, and it would only be contact details I would pass on, it would then be for the indivdual to decide if it was right for them or not as I did

The fact that I only joined this forum a week or so ago , has no bearing on this, the reason I came to this forum was to find out information on this very issue

And it was from the content of this such forum that I found I may have a problem travelling now under the visa waiver program something I had never realised before

so having listened to the OPINIONS (and thats what it comes down to) of others on this forum including yourself, I decided that for my own peace of mind I would seek further professional advice, with my situation

Yes I could have gone directly to the embassy, but I was unsure at that time whether this would in itself be a good or bad thing, and potentially open a can of worms

and that is why I made the choice I did, seeking professional advice from a qualified US Immigration and Visa Laywer with many years of experience dealing with these such issues on a daily basis

AS opposed to those who are just passing on their own opinions and views based on experiences that have happend to them or others they know of

it may not be for everyone to take this approach, and maybe in my case I am indeed taking a hammer to crack an egg

But you pay your money and take you choice, and for me just as I have already said, just in the relief and peace of mind it has given I am glad I did

florida4sun

21-02-2007, 23:49

Dont worry about robert, we are used to him getting his knickers in a twist:D Thansk for posting some helpful info.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ccarcher
Sorry you feel like that Robert, I certainly have no link to the person or company, and have no intention of promoting their business in anyway

Yes I offered to pass this information on, if others felt they required it(I could of just posted it anyway),

But thats not how forums work, and it would only be contact details I would pass on, it would then be for the indivdual to decide if it was right for them or not as I did

The fact that I only joined this forum a week or so ago , has no bearing on this, the reason I came to this forum was to find out information on this very issue

And it was from the content of this such forum that I found I may have a problem travelling now under the visa waiver program something I had never realised before

so having listened to the OPINIONS (and thats what it comes down to) of others on this forum including yourself, I decided that for my own peace of mind I would seek further professional advice, with my situation

Yes I could have gone directly to the embassy, but I was unsure at that time whether this would in itself be a good or bad thing, and potentially open a can of worms

and that is why I made the choice I did, seeking professional advice from a qualified US Immigration and Visa Laywer with many years of experience dealing with these such issues on a daily basis

AS opposed to those who are just passing on their own opinions and views based on experiences that have happend to them or others they know of

it may not be for everyone to take this approach, and maybe in my case I am indeed taking a hammer to crack an egg

But you pay your money and take you choice, and for me just as I have already said, just in the relief and peace of mind it has given I am glad I did

[/quote]

ccarcher

22-02-2007, 01:26

No problem at all , and I think that Roberts points like every posters are valid and should be taken into consideration

Robert5988

22-02-2007, 04:03

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Dont worry about robert, we are used to him getting his knickers in a twist Thansk for posting some helpful info.
[/quote]Regular readers will also be getting used to Martin taking every opportunity to get in a ‘dig’, for earlier disagreements we have had, with such typically unconstructive remarks, together with a obsequious compliment to the OP – its just his style!

To the OP. On reflection I do agree with Roger that my earlier post was harsh, and so apologise for the tone; however I think you should be aware of the background.

All anyone wishing to enter the USA on a waiver needs to do is answer ‘No’ to the pertinent question on the I-94W. Any common sense interpretation of that question with its reference to ‘moral turpitude’ and ‘5 years confinement’ would be that it refers to serious offences. That is even for those who have English as their Mother tongue; let alone those from Europe etc who use the same form.

However as so often happens in Forums, there are those who seem to take it delight in looking for every possible semantic (mis)interpretation of the regulations and spreading ‘alarm and despondency’. There are those who seriously argued on this forum that any ‘conviction’ even for the most trivial offence meant a Visa was required. This has unnecessarily caused huge anxiety for many people(yourself being a good example), some of whom have cancelled holidays and others(again like yourself) have gone to a considerable trouble and expense to attend an interview to get a visitors Visa.

If you trawl through the US Immigration website it does not clarify the situation. The US Embassy website however does clearly state that if you have ever been arrested you need a Visa. As many people have discovered, if you call the US Embassy(at £1.50 a min) they will refuse to answer any questions. After we had a discussion on this subject a couple of years ago, I wrote to the US Embassy for clarification. Their reply was that the regulations on the website and the I-94W were self-explanatory; they justified their refusal to answer questions on the phone on the grounds that they would be misquoted.

If we take your specific case. You were in court for a minor offence over 20 years ago. You weren’t arrested and you have since entered the USA twice on a Visa Waiver.

Your posts above agreed with the logic expressed that you could truthfully answer ‘No’ to the question. So what has changed? I suggest nothing except the stupid scare stories that have been put about have got you worried.

If having read the question, it is quite clear that if you feel, for whatever reason, that you cannot truthfully answer ‘No’, then the sensible option is to apply for a Visa.

Whilst an Immigration and Visa lawyer will no doubt be useful in obtaining one of the more difficult Visas, he can only read the regulations on waivers like anyone else and give his OPINION. If you can’t answer ‘No’. what else could he possibly say to you, except go get a Visa?

So advising people to pay money(and you said it wasn’t cheap) to a lawyer, who cannot do other than tell you to apply for a Visa, is IMO plain bad advice.
Meanwhile it will get a whole lot of other people who read this thread unnecessarily worried and add to the Urban Myths on this subject.

florida4sun

22-02-2007, 12:25

[clap]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Dont worry about robert, we are used to him getting his knickers in a twist Thansk for posting some helpful info.
[/quote]Regular readers will also be getting used to Martin taking every opportunity to get in a ‘dig’, for earlier disagreements we have had, with such typically unconstructive remarks, together with a obsequious compliment to the OP – its just his style!

To the OP. On reflection I do agree with Roger that my earlier post was harsh, and so apologise for the tone; however I think you should be aware of the background.

All anyone wishing to enter the USA on a waiver needs to do is answer ‘No’ to the pertinent question on the I-94W. Any common sense interpretation of that question with its reference to ‘moral turpitude’ and ‘5 years confinement’ would be that it refers to serious offences. That is even for those who have English as their Mother tongue; let alone those from Europe etc who use the same form.

However as so often happens in Forums, there are those who seem to take it delight in looking for every possible semantic (mis)interpretation of the regulations and spreading ‘alarm and despondency’. There are those who seriously argued on this forum that any ‘conviction’ even for the most trivial offence meant a Visa was required. This has unnecessarily caused huge anxiety for many people(yourself being a good example), some of whom have cancelled holidays and others(again like yourself) have gone to a considerable trouble and expense to attend an interview to get a visitors Visa.

If you trawl through the US Immigration website it does not clarify the situation. The US Embassy website however does clearly state that if you have ever been arrested you need a Visa. As many people have discovered, if you call the US Embassy(at £1.50 a min) they will refuse to answer any questions. After we had a discussion on this subject a couple of years ago, I wrote to the US Embassy for clarification. Their reply was that the regulations on the website and the I-94W were self-explanatory; they justified their refusal to answer questions on the phone on the grounds that they would be misquoted.

If we take your specific case. You were in court for a minor offence over 20 years ago. You weren’t arrested and you have since entered the USA twice on a Visa Waiver.

Your posts above agreed with the logic expressed that you could truthfully answer ‘No’ to the question. So what has changed? I suggest nothing except the stupid scare stories that have been put about have got you worried.

If having read the question, it is quite clear that if you feel, for whatever reason, that you cannot truthfully answer ‘No’, then the sensible option is to apply for a Visa.

Whilst an Immigration and Visa lawyer will no doubt be useful in obtaining one of the more difficult Visas, he can only read the regulations on waivers like anyone else and give his OPINION. If you can’t answer ‘No’. what else could he possibly say to you, except go get a Visa?

So advising people to pay money(and you said it wasn’t cheap) to a lawyer, who cannot do other than tell you to apply for a Visa, is IMO plain bad advice.
Meanwhile it will get a whole lot of other people who read this thread unnecessarily worried and add to the Urban Myths on this subject.
[/quote]

Tonish

22-02-2007, 12:49

Hi ccarcher

You are facing a very common situation and we have discussed this many times. Usually with the disagreements you see above.

Perhaps it would help if I give you the benefit of my experience last year. we had a similar issue over my wife's driving conviction. She had a conviction for speeding which was beyond the usual £60 fine, and we could not decide whether or not to go on waiver because of the phrase "arrested OR convicted".

At the time, I disagreed with Robert, but I am now convinced I was wrong.

She got a Visa, and it was simply not needed. Unfortunately the embassy won't tell you if you need one or not - they simply tell you to apply and they will either issue one or deny one.

We only discovered it wasn't needed when we arrived at immigration in Orlando. Having a Visa makeds you stand out and you will be asked why you've got it.

In my wife's case, when she said "speeding conviction", the immigration officer gave her a long look. After dealing with the rest of us, he asked me and the kids to go wait around the corner and kept my wife for "a few more questions". As I was walking away with the kids, I heard him say: "Right lady. They're out of the way. Do you want to come clean with the real reason you've got a Visa or not?"

She had an uncomfortable 10 minutes explaining the reason, the immigration officer simply didn't believe her. Eventually he accepted her story and let her through, but she's not looking forward to going through immigration next time.

My advice would be - don't bother with the Visa, it's not intended for regular folk who've had a minor brush with authority.

Hope this helps.

blott

22-02-2007, 13:51

Just as a point of clarification, this is what it says on the US Embassy website currently about traffic convictions and also arrests and convictions.

Travelers with minor traffic offenses and those with Arrests and/or Convictions

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. If you are not sure whether or not you are eligible to travel visa free, the only way to resolve this question would be to apply for a visa.

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are required to apply for visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States.

http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/visa/niv/arrests_and_convictions.html

What we cannot do on this forum is suggest that people do something that's illegal or that may be breaking US visa law. So, it's up to each individual whether they take any notice of the above statement or not and to decide whether their own situation is covered by the above or not.

Robert5988

22-02-2007, 14:21

The discussion Tonish refers to in his post is here:

http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17091&whichpage=2

Whilst what Blott states above is absolutely correct; it is pertinent to point out that the vast majority of visitors on a waiver will never had heard of the US Embassy website - let alone read it.(some might not even have the internet) They will read the I -94W and answer accordingly.

Whilst my German is somewhat rusty, I could find nothing on German websites that that was similar to the extract from the UK embassy website. I have lived in Germany for some time and discussed this subject with German friends who thought I was joking; and no Nation on earth takes obedience of regulations more seriously IMO.

ujpest doza

22-02-2007, 14:51

I am in full agreement with Robert on this issue and think a lot of people have put themeselves through a lot of unneccessary anguish and expense for nothing.

Here is an extract from the US State Dept website advising about use of the Visa Waiver Programme, basically saying that convictions for serious offences are what they are interested in :

http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ineligibilities_1364.html

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:(2) Criminal and related grounds.-

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

(B) Multiple criminal convictions.-Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement 2/ were 5 years or more is inadmissible.

(C) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TRAFFICKERS- Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe--

(i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so; or

(ii) is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is inadmissible.

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10- year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized v

blott

22-02-2007, 16:09

Your quotation is a statement on those who are ineligible to receive visas (Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas is the title - a whole different ball park), not eligibility for visa waiver.

ujpest doza

22-02-2007, 16:17

It's what i was linked to from a link entitled Ineligibilty for Visa Waiver Scheme.

florida4sun

22-02-2007, 22:15

Thats odd my German uncle has just (6 months ago) applied for a visa as he could not do the visa waiver.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
The discussion Tonish refers to in his post is here:

http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17091&whichpage=2

Whilst what Blott states above is absolutely correct; it is pertinent to point out that the vast majority of visitors on a waiver will never had heard of the US Embassy website - let alone read it.(some might not even have the internet) They will read the I -94W and answer accordingly.

Whilst my German is somewhat rusty, I could find nothing on German websites that that was similar to the extract from the UK embassy website. I have lived in Germany for some time and discussed this subject with German friends who thought I was joking; and no Nation on earth takes obedience of regulations more seriously IMO.

[/quote]

ccarcher

25-02-2007, 01:24

Thanks to all for their comments they are appreciated, and hopefully this will be my last post on this (but then again you never know) as I have decided upon my own action

and agree with all that their appears to be a deliberate attempt by the powers that be, to allow confusion to reign over this issue, rather than making the postion absolutely clear

May I perhaps suggest the reason for this being a revenue creation opportunity scheme, and whilst this is the case no clarifcation will be forthcoming from those powers

I have to say I am in agreement with Robert also, in that I can honestly answer NO to the question on the waiver in that my own offence is clearly not a conviction or arrest for a crime of Moral Turpitude, and therefore I can use the waiver

However this is unfortunatley not the question posed by the US embassy site (for the UK) re visa's which summarises the question to any arrest or conviction for any offence other than motoring, even their own Visa Wizard poses a question along these guidelines

Saying that this again is not entirely true the world over, if you check the us emabassy site for New Zealand that cleary highlights for an arrest or conviction for a series crime and more in line with the waiver form

As I was arrested at the time of my offence then going by the US embassy site information then I have to apply for a visa, so I now have two conflicting answers and a choice to make

And this is where the confusion is, not just for me but no doubt for many others who are not prepared to risk their holiday or trip, for the sake of going through the additional steps of obtaining a visa, and the reason this type of thread has appeared so often and will continue to do so

Yes the information from any lawyer or visa immigration specialist would give me the same answer that I have come to, nothing has changed, and I need a visa according to the US embassy as I was arrested and therefore require a visa

Yes again it is probably completely pointless, irrelevant, unnecessary and may well cause me some additional aggravation on arrival in the US, once I actually obtain this visa, as opposed to saying NO on the waiver form which I am also quite entitled to do

However in the 5 months leading up to my trip and during the 9 hour flight, I will be happy knowing that I have taken the steps necessary to deal with my own situation

Maybe all contributors to this thread and others of this type should somehow direct our efforts at obtaining a more definate answer and clarification on this subject

However as previously suggested, where there is money to be made, in the land of opportunity and all that, then that may well be easier said than done

Thanks again to all on this, and good luck to you all on whatever you decide for your own personal situations

ccarcher

28-03-2007, 15:06

Just a final update and may help others decide one way or the other whether to obtain a visa or not

Having taking the legal advice, and decide to obtain a visa due to my conviction for assault occassion actual bodily harm (honest sounds a lot worse than it was, basically a lod of pushing and shoving during a cricket match I was playing in back in 1989)

I have now received back my subject access report from the met police
this shows nothing more than I was expecting

I have also had it confirmed by the legal expert that the conviction in his words

"I am happy to confirm that your conviction for ABH in the Magistrate's Court in 1989 is not considered a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude under US immigration laws and as such will not bar you from obtaining a US visa.

You will receive a decision on the day of your appointment and if otherwise eligible for the visa applied for your passport and visa will be returned in about 3-5 working days after your consular interview."

Being not of moral turpitude I then asked

"So in reality as it’s not of moral turpitude I could honestly answer no to the question the visa waiver form"

and his reply being

"yes, but should they have details of an arrest in their database (albeit highly unlikely) they could still refuse entry and request that you apply for a visa since they are not well equipped to determine on the spot whether it is or is not a crime involving moral turpitude."

So it would appear that if its not a crime / conviction / arrest considered to be of moral turpitude by US immigration law, then your are perfectly within your rights to answer NO to the question on the visa waiver form

The problem would then come if on going through immigration they find details on their database (however unlikely) then it is possible entry could still be refused until you obtain a visa, as they are unable to decide on the spot and or prove it was not of moral turpitude

Looks like if you have time and for peace of mind go get a visa

ccarcher

13-04-2007, 15:17

Final update to put this one to bed

Went to the US Embassy yesterday to get my visa

Got my Visa as expected and all had predicted,no problems at all apart from the 6 hours wait, convinced thats also a deliberate ploy

Had 8 am appointment, queued from 8.am finally get in at 8.45 and then complete first interview (just a check all documents present and correct) by 9.45

then sit around until 1.30 for the so called second interview and the decision(all of 3 questions and 2 mins to tell me its been approved)

Have no idea what they were doing in between time

Finally you have to pay for the safe return of your passport and new visa

Basic cost is £13.50 for between 8 - 6 on whatever day of the week, options to pay for guaranteed delivery before 8 £20 before 10 £15 before 12 £10

Just Another money making scheme for the US embassy I would suggest, as you have no option but to use their carrier

But there you go just wait for it to arrive by the end of next week

Strangely enough also there yesterday morning along with myself was Naomi Campbell of all people, along with the US Visa Lawyer I had been to see

Strange how she also had an 8.am interview, her experience slightly different to mine and that of many others no doubt

Arrives at 8.05 straight out of the chauffer driven Mercedes to the front of the queue

Bypasses security and all the checks, and straight into the building at 8.10

Finally leaves the building on her mobile phone (everyone else have to leave electronic devices at home) with a smile on her face (that must be a first) at 8.25, and into the waiting Mercedes to be whisked away

Anyway as previously posted, hope my own experience helps or assists others in making their own decision as to whats right for them