<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Hello?
yes he did read the esta form and to answer no he had never been ARRESTED would have been a lie! yes he did phone the embassy at £1.20p per minute and yes the official word straight from the horses mouth was he needs to apply for a visa. plain, simple! so according to certain people on this thread my friend should have replied no he had never been arrested and are you also suggesting he ignored the advice straight from the US embassy? just want to clarify once and for all. forget peoples interpretation of the wording. would you have said no to an arrest? would you have directly ignored the advice given to him from the US embassy. with your £10k for a holiday on the line. with the possibility of being turned away no matter how remote. would you have 'lied' and ignored the official advice?[/quote]Yes I most definately have answered 'NO' to the question on the ESTA and Visa Waiver form(about arrest/conviction moral turpitude etc). However that is only because I can read and understand regulations - which apparently your friend could not!
This has come up many times and I wrote(not called) the US embassy about this subject.
Their reply, in writing, was that all relevant information is in the regulations. If anyone has difficulty understanding the regulations, then they must attend for an interview. They will not enter into any discussion with any individual on their eligibility, either on the telephone or in writing, as they are not in possession of all the facts and there is the possibility of misunderstanding.
The relevant parts of their reply(I wrote on another issue) are: <blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Because of the differences between U.S. and UK law, and the various complexities that you point out in your letter, this office does not provide specific adjudicatory rulings or guidance until an applicant personally appears for his/her visa interview before a consular officer. Nor is it feasible to answer general or hypothetical questions on our website as to which criminal activities are morally turpitudinous or otherwise disqualifying factors according to U.S. immigration law, and which activities are not. Inadmissibility for criminal grounds is a complex area of law which requires a specially trained consular officer to assess each case individually.
We will not delve further into the matter as more in-depth guidance could likely be misinterpreted. If the traveler is uncertain how to proceed based, he or she should apply for a visa to err on the side of caution.[/quote]The above is confirmed by many people on this and other forums who have rung the Embassy; you must come for interview. It is a perfectly understandable position in many ways.(and it also brings in income!!!)
So ringing up the Embassy(at £1.60 a min) is a complete waste of time as the answer you will always get is 'attend for an interview'.
I don't know why you persist in stating that the ESTA/Waiver question is simply 'have you ever been arrested'.
This is the question:
B) 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;
You haven't answered why the wording in italics in the above quote is necessary and included if 'have you ever been arrested' was the sole criteria to prevent entry under the waiver program.
Why not seize on the word 'convicted' instead of 'arrested' and use the same interpretation?.(i.e. have you ever been convicted?) Prior to the advent of the fixed penalty system all offences resulted in a 'conviction'. As stated in a post some while ago, riding a bicycle without lights result
Bookmarks