Visa Necessary or Not

**ccarcher** · 28-03-2007, 15:52

Apologies for kicking off this much talked about subject once again,

Hopefully my own situation may help others decide, one way or the other whether they need a visa or not

feel free to DM me once you have read this, if you require any additional information

I have a conviction for assault occassioning actual bodily harm [msnmad]

Honestly it is made to sound a lot worse than it was,

Basically a load of pushing and shoving during a cricket match I was playing in back in 1989

Unfortunately for me it just happend that one of the other team who got pushed about a bit was a lawyer, and knew he could get compensation

I have visited the US on at least 3 occassions since the conviction (last time 1995), with no visa (mainly due to parents or others booking the trip) so I guess I have gained entry via the VWP, and no problems and also because the incident was like 20 years ago I have never worried about it

Booked back in January to take my own children for the first time in July, and suddenly came across (like many others) all these horror / scare stories relating to Visa Waiver Program and Visa Requirements

Suddenly my dream holiday was worrying me sick, at the thought that I would get put back on the first flight home with my wife and 2 kids in tears

So basically I have taken legal advice from a highly respected US Immigration Lawyer (clients include many celebrities and cases far worse than my own)

Whilst not cheap (I claimed it on my business) for me it was worth it for the peace of mind, and on his advice I decided to obtain a visa

His suggestion was that they they would much rather have these incidents presented up front and out in the open, rather than finding out about them later

I applied for and have now received back (in around 30 days - can take up to 40) my subject access report from the met police which shows any arrests / convictions etc. and is a requirement to get a visa

After waiting 30 days from applying for my Subject access report, I also made an appointment with the US embassy in London, first date available was like 14 days from date I called

I allowed a period of one week beyond the 40 days I should receive the report back in - my appointment 12th April 2007 9am at a cost of $100

You will need your passport number and means of payment when making the appointemnt

Your fee is non refundable if you cancel or fail to turn up, however you can reschedule your appointment for a different date if you dont get the subject access report back, cant make it, at no additional cost

The report I have now received, shows nothing more than I was expecting assault occassioning actual bodily harm £100 fine £100 costs £30 compensation [msncry]

I have also had it confirmed by the legal expert that the conviction as it shows in his words will cause me no problems obtaining my visa [msnsmile2]

"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 on the green visa waiver form given out on board every flight"

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 / caution considered to be of moral turpitude by US immigration law, then you can honestly and are perfectly within your rights to answer NO to the question on the visa waiver form

**Robert5988** · 28-03-2007, 21:59

Thanks for the update.

I really am not intending to be critical, but so many people are worried unnecessarily, and go to huge trouble and expense by a lot of the scare mongering that is put about on this subject. So please take the comments below in that spirit

As you say this has been covered many times and this post does not clarify the situation at all for anyone in this situation.

Firstly if anyone wishes to go through the nugatory process of obtaining a Visa, for their peace of mind, that is entirely their prerogative.

[ <blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:quote"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.

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 on the green visa waiver form given out on board every flight"

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 / caution considered to be of moral turpitude by US immigration law, then you can honestly and are perfectly within your rights to answer NO to the question on the visa waiver form

The problem would only come if on going through immigration they find details on their database (however unlikely that maybe be, thats an awful lot of information to hold about an awful lot of people across the world)

If that were to happen, 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
][/quote]
[/quote]
In the quote above you clearly asked the sensible question, but the reply is a nonsense IMO.

If your high powered immigration lawyer can “confirm” it is not considered a ‘crime of moral turpitude’ you can obviously answer ‘No’ on the relevant question on the Visa Waiver. If the answer is No it means No – full stop. There is nothing to be found out.

It is just unbelievable for your UK based lawyer to claim that he can confirm what is, or what isn’t a ‘crime of moral turpitude’ but US Immigration cannot. You quite obviously saw the inconsistency of his reply; and you surely could not have been content with his response. Which summed up is:

"You fill all the requirements, are entitled to enter on a Visa Waiver, but they might not let in on a Visa Waiver – so go and get a Visa."

So what has your expensive consultation with the lawyer achieved?

What advice can you offer?

Simply if you are not sure - go get a Visa; which is what everyone on this Board has said for years; and apparently even if you are sure you are entitled to enter on a Visa Waiver – go and get a Visa.

**ccarcher** · 29-03-2007, 15:09

I Take on board your comments (and others for that matter) Robert as I did previously, and as previously said I agree that so many do indeed resort to action that in probably 90% of the cases is unnecessary,

mainly through the unknown and caused by the confusion and refusal to clarify the whole situation by the US Immigration system and Embassy in the UK

but at the end of the day, confusion leads to revenue for the Embassy

Maybe I should of pointed out that the Lawyer whilst being UK based is actually a US Citizen having qualified in the US, and highly respected by US Immigration authorities

He's not as you may be suggesting a UK laywer offering advice on a US immigration system

Not 100% sure of what your second point was, other than that again I tend to agree with you and my own belief that I would be within my rights to answer NO on the VWP, as the lawyer also admitted that the crime is not of moral turpitude when viewed by US immigration

However I believe the point he also makes quite clearly is that, there is no guarantee that this would be acceptable upon on arrival in the US were they suddenly to find this information out

Where they are not in the supposed best position (or willing to) make a decision based on the information available to them

The outcome for me, confirms that I have the timescale and in my position to be on the safe side, should proceed and obtain a visa, but I would also be within my rights not to obtain one

AS for "if you are not sure - go get a Visa" being what everyone on this board has been saying for years,

I think just by the number of postings on this very issue, and the confusion that seems to surround it, then this is clearly not quite as true as you may suggest or believe it to be

At the end of the day the decision is to be made by each individual, in a similar situation

All my posting is doing is presenting my own situation upon which others may see similarites to their own situation, which will be of use to them in making their own decision

**ShirleyD** · 29-03-2007, 22:13

Thanks for sharing this with us Colin. I suppose the fact that it depends on the immigration officer and what info they may or may not hold on you and how that is interpreted, is the reason why the embassy and the lawyer won't say no you don't need a visa. They like to protect themselves to!

**CCollins** · 29-03-2007, 23:11

I would get a visa 100% off the time if you have EVER been arrested/convicted. It would not be worth the risk IMHO to travel all that way and only to be turned back by immigration.

The memorandum of conviction will be blank if your crime was over 9 years ago as the justice system in the UK will see this as 'spent'

USA is one of the countries that do not recognise the 'spent' system of convictions from the UK.

If you have been well behaved for 9 years+ surely you are not going to misbehave on holiday??

Good luck with your visa - I'm sure it will be fine and you will have a fantastic family holiday![msnsmile2]

**Robert5988** · 29-03-2007, 23:14

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:mainly through the unknown and caused by the confusion and refusal to clarify the whole situation by the US Immigration system and Embassy in the UK

but at the end of the day, confusion leads to revenue for the Embassy
[/quote]

In my personal opinion that is exactly the reason - the more people that apply for a Visa the more money the USA Embassy make and it justifies the high staffing levels in the Visa section.

It is crystal clear from the US Immigration regulations and indeed the Visa Waiver form(with its references to 5 years confinement and Crimes of Moral Turpitude - which are for serious offences) that it is not the intent to prevent Visa Waiver use for minor offences like being arrested for a punch up outside the Dog and Duck 20 years ago.

Yet, for those 'silly' enough to read the USA Embassy website for UK(and there is no reason on earth why you should), even if you were arrested in a clear case of mistaken identity and released with an apology, you are not entitled to use a Visa Waiver.

It is a disgrace.

**ujpest doza** · 30-03-2007, 14:43

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:In my personal opinion that is exactly the reason - the more people that apply for a Visa the more money the USA Embassy make and it justifies the high staffing levels in the Visa section.

It is crystal clear from the US Immigration regulations and indeed the Visa Waiver form(with its references to 5 years confinement and Crimes of Moral Turpitude - which are for serious offences) that it is not the intent to prevent Visa Waiver use for minor offences like being arrested for a punch up outside the Dog and Duck 20 years ago.

Yet, for those 'silly' enough to read the USA Embassy website for UK(and there is no reason on earth why you should), even if you were arrested in a clear case of mistaken identity and released with an apology, you are not entitled to use a Visa Waiver.

It is a disgrace.
[/quote]

[clap] 100% Spot On imo too.

**ccarcher** · 30-03-2007, 19:50

Could not agree with you more Robert , as we both know, all comes down to the economics of it all, and the US Embassy building in London's Grosvenor Square must be pretty expensive to keep with its staff

for me and the peace of mind it will provide, obtaining the visa will be worth it, whether it is actually a worthwhile exercise is an altogether separate issue

Personally I think I would go insane between now and my trip, especially on the flight at the thought and speculation of being turned back

Each to their own

**Tonish** · 30-06-2007, 12:08

I came across this yesterday. It's from Lily Allen's myspace blog.

From reading it, you get the impression that if had she been arrested or charged with assault there may have been a problem. Although I guess the problem would have been non-declaration. Interesting - I wonder if punching a photographer is a crime of moral turpitude?

Yo , Back in the US
Current mood: confused

So i'm back in America , I landed in Seattle this afternoon . It seems that the American Immigration peoples , know things about me that I don't . Twice now I have been questioned over things that are a little dubious . A few weeks ago I was pulled over at the border driving from Canada in the US and , the lady said " Mam , it has been brought to my attention that you have been caught in possesion. " " Possesion of what ?" I replied. " I can't discuss that , mam " she said . Now she declined to comment as to where she obtained this false and foggy information . To my knowledge , I have never been arrested or charged in conjunction with any illegal substance , so I dont understand where this information was obtained . I thought it interesting , but didn't do anything about it . Then , today I was at passport control , where I was handed a massive red card and was sent to an interrogation room for questioning before they would let me in the country , the officer was very friendly this time , but what he said was equally as strange . A few weeks ago I allegedly hit a photographer . According to the newspapers , I have been sent a letter by the police asking me to report to the Police station to face questions in relation to this incident . I have not recieved any letter and I have not had any contact with the police , so it seemed odd to me that the United States Citizenship and Immigration services , should have access to such information before even I have been notified of these charges or enquiries . The Immigration officer said , " I know why youve been pulled aside." "really , why ?" I replied . "Were you charged for assulting the photographer ? Have you been to court ? " " I haven't , even been arrested , not even questioned ! I have never even spoken to a policeman in regards to this incident." HHHmmmmm , I doubt that an United States Government agency would use unreliable sources such as Wikipedia or google news , quoting tabloid goosip and lies as factual evidence , would they ?