VISA Waiver Program to USA

[Evan]

I would say have a few drinks before you land...(makes it more interesting in the queue).... but generally its better to be not to drunk when you pass through immigtration and customs.... they tend not to believe your not hiding anything !

Amazing how un-funny those immigration and customs guys and girls are most of the time. And i don;t mean only in the USA, everywhere seems the same.

E

 

[LondonGenie]

I wouldn't give long odds on a "reasonable person" reading that and coming up with a unified, complete understanding.

My guess is that the average desk jockey would be able to read into that whatever they wanted to get out of it. If they don't like the cut of your jib, they won't let you in. If they think you're a good bloke, they'll pick one of the many exemptions.

Of course, a lawyer or senior bureaucrat could come up with a completely different interpretation..

I'd agree with that. I have a DUI from Florida (hard to hide eh) from around 1992. I also have a few missing exit cards on my arrival/departure records from the mid-90's (the airlines lost them). Since around 1999 on arrival in the US, the missing cards would flag up on their system, and they'd take me to 'secondary inspection'. I've been through this around 15 times now. They dig around in your records and basically give you a hard time. Each time they've asked me about the FL-DUI, and I achnowledge it, and they have let me in, certainly around 5-8 times using the visa waiver scheme. Anyway, so even at 'secondary', they have not considered DUI to be moral turpitude.

I was visiting the US on the VWS so frequently (other half lives there) over the last few years that they accused me of abusing the system, working their illegally, and said I had to get a visa to visit again. What an interview that was, terrifying really.

I went to the embassy (after weeks spent getting all the dox, jumping through all the hoops etc) to be told at the interview that DUI is moral turpitude (despite what their own manual says!), and that I should never have been allowed in under the VWS!

If even the embassy staff can't get it right, what hope have the rest of us?

 

[clodhopper]

Hi All,

This is my first post here, so please be gentle with me.


Having read through the thread I would like to get the opinions of members on my own sticky situation.

I have vague plans to travel to the US with my spouse and kids for a Disney/rollercoaster holiday sometime after 2010. Unfortunately I have 5 simultaneous dope convictions from about 1990ish, one of which was (deemed) supply. Got a bond and 5 x $100 fines, also 100 hours of pulling weeds at a nunnery ( no, the irony was not lost on me either )

By now these are well and truly spent, as I am about to begin part time work with a Federal law enforcement body. They were interested in them, but my interviewer said that as the convictions were spent that they were unable to bar my application, and that if I had chosen not to reveal them then there was not much likelyhood that they would come up. I convinced him I was a changed person and got recommended for the job. I have been knocked back by two State organisations and one O/S one for similar positions due to this history.

The way I interpret the thread I have a few choices to attack this;

1a> Keep mum and rely on the spent conviction legislation to get me in under the radar. Obviously be my usual polite self to all and sundry while in the US.

1b> Keep mum etc... and approach from Canoedia after visiting rellies resident there. ( Less time for a red flag...? )

2> Spill my guts on a visa form and hope that they see a 20 year clean record and current employment in para-law enforcement as mitigating circumstances to my application.


What do you reckon?

Also if you recommend 1b, by road or rail?

Any other alternatives?

 

[aybee]

I cannot stress enough that there is really no choice - come clean from the very start and go through the hoops for a Visa.
One does not screw with Uncle Sam post 9/11 and there are plenty of first hand accounts floating around from those that tried to - and came off worst.

Read the info on their Consulate AU www site - it's pretty clear they want to know about *any* form of previous criminal convictions and their background checks are now fairly thorough at the Borders and beforehand whilst you are en-route. Plenty of highlighted media stories of flights inbound to the U.S. being denied entry until such and such a person is removed at some unplanned intermediate point - they're checking you out before you even get there these days.
It's just not worth the risk - particularly with young ones in tow on a trip of a lifetime.

To highlight the lengths they are going to now, I can relate a personal story I was involved in - admittedly back in 2003 when they were still very twitchy about 9/11. A 72 year old little white haired Granny was denied entry at the border and sent back home on the first plane. Her crime was not declaring a criminal (minor) conviction from 32 years previous on the entry card and the background checks found it. There are many similar first hand accounts around.

Getting in from Canada isn't as easy as it used to be either - the land entries were fairly tame affairs in the old days, but now it's all ramped up and even the Canadians are now required to present passports as opposed to just flashing a drivers licence like they did in the old days.
Cheers.

 

[Maca44]

Remember that the USA visa application asks whether you have been CHARGED or convicted, not just convicted. I had a friend who applied for a visa two years ago when, after a slightly heavy night on the turps, took a forklift for a joy ride for only 150 metres, but caused $450 damage so he was charged. He got a "without recording a conviction" good behavious bond for 12 months, but the USA still refused his visa. You, on the other hand, have a drug conviction and this is very much frowned upon by the USA (except if you are a celebrity) and I don't like your chances of even getting a visa. In saying that, I would consult a lawyer who specializes in immigration law as spending a few dollars on a lawyer might get you over the line.

Although others have mentioned it, I am not sure the USA immigration have access to criminal records from all over the world, and I was led to believe that the purpose of taking the two finger prints and photograph on entering the USA is to ensure you do leave the USA and don't overstay your visit.

Having crossed from Canada to USA on many occasions I believe they do not seem as strict (and are nicer) than first entry points such as LAX, but it would be foolish to run the risk and ruin the trip for your family.

 

[opusman]

Don't forget there's also a Disneyland in France, where they are not as paranoid about drugs as the LOTFAP.

 

[simongr]

But they are French...

 

[NM]

But they are French...

and so id champagne ... is that bad?

 

[simongr]

The exception proves the rule

But dragging this quite serious thread back on topic (and yes I did drag it off).

The recurring theme througout these repeated questions is apply for a visa if you think you need one - it is just not worth risk of being turned back at the border...

 

[NM]

And do note that with the right legal weight, high-profile sports (or other) people can manage to obtain a visa to visit the USA even with a known record of drug offences. So it can be done, but may require the engagement of the right level of legal assistance.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Hi All,

This is my first post here, so please be gentle with me.


Having read through the thread I would like to get the opinions of members on my own sticky situation.

<sorry tale snipped>

The way I interpret the thread I have a few choices to attack this;

1a> Keep mum and rely on the spent conviction legislation to get me in under the radar. Obviously be my usual polite self to all and sundry while in the US.

1b> Keep mum etc... and approach from Canoedia after visiting rellies resident there. ( Less time for a red flag...? )

2> Spill my guts on a visa form and hope that they see a 20 year clean record and current employment in para-law enforcement as mitigating circumstances to my application.


What do you reckon?

Also if you recommend 1b, by road or rail?

Any other alternatives?

I would, in the following order (of escalating expense)...

1. Ring the visa hotline - I recommend the 1800-687-844 number as it is a flat rate regardless of time on the phone. Tell them the story above and see if they think you have any chance.

2. Retain a immigration lawyer who specializes in 'difficult' cases. Most of them focus on work visas, so they may not be too interested/experienced in waivers for a B1. Unfortunately I don't have any recommendations on this, the immigration lawyers I deal with are work appointed.

I would not attempt to "fly under the radar". If for, whatever reason, they get suss and deny you entry, you'll be barred from the US for at least 5 (probably 10 years). I guess if you don't ever plan to return there after your holiday and you feel like taking a punt on several grand of non-refundable expenses, well, that's your call.

mt

 

[mainly tailfirst]

And do note that with the right legal weight, high-profile sports (or other) people can manage to obtain a visa to visit the USA even with a known record of drug offences. So it can be done, but may require the engagement of the right level of legal assistance.

IMO, Tex Perkins says it best.

mt

 

[stevemilo]

I can tell you that I have to wait 5 years to enter the USA following a stupid petty crime and even though I was placed on the diversion program and no conviction was recorded that doesn't matter according to the embassy. You still are classed as a criminal and have to wait 5 years before you can try to reapply.

 

[stevemilo]

p.s - Canada is exactlty the same as the USA in relation to criminal convictions or charges/arrests.

 

[simongr]

So I guess you decided not to risk it stevemilo?

 

[Dave Noble]

I can tell you that I have to wait 5 years to enter the USA following a stupid petty crime and even though I was placed on the diversion program and no conviction was recorded that doesn't matter according to the embassy. You still are classed as a criminal and have to wait 5 years before you can try to reapply.

But looked at another way, why should a peculiarity of the Australian legal system give an Australian an advantage over the resident of another country where all convictions are convictions

Whether the crime is of a nature to affect a visa application is down to the USA immigration service

Dave

 

[stevemilo]

No, I decided not to risk it, why would I even waste my time and money. After this whole incident I no longer even have the want to go to the States, I am happier travelling where I don't have to feel like a criminal on the run. Oh, Dave Noble, if the USA wants to have a rule like this that's fine, but imo they should limit it to people that just have a criminal record, not some1 that received no criminal conviction. The diversion program is specifically designed for low rate crimes, petty crimes and first offenders, it's not easily handed out, trust me and once handed out it still has to be approved by the magistrate. It's not a "peculiarity of the Australian legal system".

 

[Dave Noble]

No, I decided not to risk it, why would I even waste my time and money. After this whole incident I no longer even have the want to go to the States, I am happier travelling where I don't have to feel like a criminal on the run. Oh, Dave Noble, if the USA wants to have a rule like this that's fine, but imo they should limit it to people that just have a criminal record, not some1 that received no criminal conviction. The diversion program is specifically designed for low rate crimes, petty crimes and first offenders, it's not easily handed out, trust me and once handed out it still has to be approved by the magistrate. It's not a "peculiarity of the Australian legal system".

I don't know what the offence was nor whether it is one where there was a logical reason for the US to refuse entry

It is a peculiarity that the Australian system has the concept of being convicted but the conviction not being recorded and so I can understand the US asking about arrests regardless. Whether the conviction was recorded or not, an offence was committed

It would not make sense, imo, for Australians to have an advantage over , say, a UK citizen who committed the same offence but where there is no concept of not recording it

Dave

 

[stevemilo]

Yes I agree but as I have previously mentioned in this thread even the consulate officer thought that I should be allowed in considering my circumstances but because rules are rules he couldn't grant me a visa. Personally I think it's a nonsensicle rule they have inplace which doesn't really achieve anything except make that country "think" they are making it a safer country.

 

[JohnK]

In my opinion I do not think it is logical to lump all "so called" crimes in the one basket.

So someone who has been caught soliciting a prostitute in Australia is put in the same category as a murderer, a armed robber, a drug dealer, an arsonist, a rapist etc. Just as well the Australian justice system sees fit to fine the person soliciting a prostitute and not record a conviction against their name.

And why would the USA care about someone who has not had a conviction recorded against their name?

In some Middle Eastern countries it is a criminal offence if you have committed adultery. So now you have a criminal record and would be not be allowed entry to the USA. Yes sounds very logical to me.