Re: Past conviction and VWP
Sapphyre
source said simple assault is not regarded as a CIMT, but the officer
might ask the circumstances of what happened (if it came up) to make
that determination. Assaults involving bodily harm or weapons are CIMT.
The circumstances might also be an indicator, for instance, did you
walk up to someone and hit him, or did you assault someone in self
defence? The latter is not a CIMT, but the former may be regarded as
one (based on the details).
There's also the petty offence exception and juvenile offence
exception, one of the regular posters here would be able to give
accurate details on that (which means a petty offence depends on the
sentence imposed). There's also a clause where there are two or more
convictions, but I'm going to leave that for someone who knows the law
to post.
Disclaimer, my information came from someone who works at the POE.
S.
Marco wrote:
> Can someone with a conviction for theft, or simple assault, use the
> Visa Waiver Program? According to the I94 visa waiver form, you may be
> refused entry if previously arrested or convicted of a "crime involving
> moral turpitude" (CIMT). I remember reading years ago that crimes like
> theft or simple (not aggravated) assault did not qualify as CIMT.
> However, looking at the "visa wizard" on the website of the US embassy
> in the UK, it seems that anyone arrested or convicted of _any_ crime,
> except minor traffic violations, is barred from using the VWP.
>
> http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/visa/visa_wizard.html
>
> Is the "visa wizard" too strict, or has the definition of CIMT been
> widened?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marco
tai fu
like forever.. when it starts it includes a few serious offense, and the
list keeps growing. There are petty offense but it has to be very petty.
They have a definition of "aggrivated felony" which is a very large list
that includes anything but traffic and other very minor (things you get
fined for) violations. If you are convicted of anything CMIT or "aggrivated
felony" (both has the same end result) then you are banned from the USA
forever unless you apply for a wavier. They do not last forever either...
Worst thing is there is nothing you can do about that either.... they have a
once strike policy when it comes to any crime. Also I think the BICE has
been looking at any immigrants, you know legal green card holder and if they
find anything, even if its a relatively minor crime that happened over 20
years ago, they deport them and revoke the green card.
All this immigration laws to "cure" illegal immigration seems to make it
harder for legal immigrants... makes me wonder if the immigration agencies
actually want the illegal immigrants here so they can help the rich
companies become richer.
--
TAI FU
"Marco" <marc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168525640.8...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
JulianB
Look Mr Tai Fu...stop pissing and moaning. This is the United States of
America, and if you don't like the laws of the United States of
America, then go elsewhere, simple as that. BTW your tea bags are
inferior to Tetley's.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
tai fu
> Look Mr Tai Fu...stop pissing and moaning. This is the United States of
> America, and if you don't like the laws of the United States of
> America, then go elsewhere, simple as that. BTW your tea bags are
> inferior to Tetley's.
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
You know, it is because there are people "pissing and moaning" about unfair
laws or bad/poorly written laws is what makes America America. You also
admit this is the US of A and in the US of A it is everyone's right to piss
and moan about bad laws so that steps can be taken to repeal them. Of course
I guess USA isnt the same USA of the late 1700's...
In the wise words of Mr. Ben Franklin... "Whoever gives up liberty for
safety deserves neither safety nor liberty"
You
"tai fu" <sada...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eo6qvv$fjo$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
| As far as I know US immigration has been expanding the definition of CMIT
| like forever.. when it starts it includes a few serious offense, and the
| list keeps growing. There are petty offense but it has to be very petty.
| They have a definition of "aggrivated felony" which is a very large list
| that includes anything but traffic and other very minor (things you get
| fined for) violations. If you are convicted of anything CMIT or
"aggrivated
| felony" (both has the same end result) then you are banned from the USA
| forever unless you apply for a wavier. They do not last forever either...
|
| Worst thing is there is nothing you can do about that either.... they have
a
| once strike policy when it comes to any crime. Also I think the BICE has
| been looking at any immigrants, you know legal green card holder and if
they
| find anything, even if its a relatively minor crime that happened over 20
| years ago, they deport them and revoke the green card.
|
What's wrong with that? The US government has the sovereign right to decide
what kind of people she wants to allow into the US.
JulianB
> >
> > Look Mr Tai Fu...stop pissing and moaning. This is the United States
> > of
> > America, and if you don't like the laws of the United States of
> > America, then go elsewhere, simple as that. BTW your tea bags are
> > inferior to Tetley's.
> >
> > --
>
>
> unfair
> laws or bad/poorly written laws is what makes America America. You
> also
> admit this is the US of A and in the US of A it is everyone's right to
> piss
> and moan about bad laws so that steps can be taken to repeal them. Of
> course
> I guess USA isnt the same USA of the late 1700's...
>
> In the wise words of Mr. Ben Franklin... "Whoever gives up liberty for
> safety deserves neither safety nor liberty"
The laws aren't "bad" or "poorly written", they just don't suit your
circumstances. I figure you weren't born in downtown Bumf**k, USA; I
would do a compare and contrast exercise between the US laws and the
laws of your home country before quoting Mr. Franklin.
tai fu
little about illegal immigration seems to encourage illegal immigration. Why
dont they do like Canada and have skilled worker immigration if they have a
need for immigrant workers?
--
You
Your issues are more on the political side of immigration. This newsgroup is
not about politics. I suggest you should go to alt.politics.immigration.
Anyway, it is not impossible for qualified people to immigrate to the US.
Millions from all over the world have already done so.
Only unqualified people think it is impossible and it should be that way!
crg14624
They do not have a one strike policy. They have exceptions for a single
petty offense. The OP should probably get a visa, but most likely would
not require a criminal waiver as long as the theft could not have been
punished by more than 12 months in jail (worse case scenario) and they
didn't get more than 6 months sentence served or suspended.
crg14624
> crg14624 wrote:
>
> > They do not have a one strike policy. They have exceptions for a
> > single
> > petty offense. The OP should probably get a visa, but most likely
> > would
> > not require a criminal waiver as long as the theft could not have
> > been
> > punished by more than 12 months in jail (worse case scenario) and
> > they
> > didn't get more than 6 months sentence served or suspended.
>
> move to the US), but I was trying to help someone on a message board
> who wants to emigrate to the US but has a 17 year old conviction for
> assault. See here
>
> http://immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t 788
>
> I thought an additional difficulty in his case might be the fact that
> he used the VWP twice, in spite of his conviction.
He misrepresented a fact on the visa waiver form when he denied a CIMT
conviction, but it probably wasn't a material fact. That means he would
have been admissible anyway because of the single petty offense
exception to 2A1. It sounds like splitting hairs, but it means
everything when it comes to immigration law.
Sapphyre
On Jan 24, 4:50 pm, crg14624 <member20...@nomx.britishexpats.com>
wrote:
> He misrepresented a fact on the visa waiver form when he denied a CIMT
> conviction, but it probably wasn't a material fact. That means he would
> have been admissible anyway because of the single petty offense
> exception to 2A1. It sounds like splitting hairs, but it means
> everything when it comes to immigration law.
Can I ask how the offence was a CIMT? The original offence as mentioned
by Marco was a "simple assault". My sources (at Immigration POE) have
indicated that simple assault (among a few other offences) are not CIMT
generally speaking... although the circumstances surrounding the
assault offence may determine whether or not the crime itself as a
CIMT.
>From what I've read in this group, one of the factors in determining a
CIMT was intent, and in the case of assault, the person committing the
offence may not have intended to assault the other party. (like a
drunken bar fight where no bodily harm was sustained). I can probably
think of a dozen examples that are technically considered assault...
heck, I'm sure I was assaulted on my job under a technicality, or
deliberately. But the police don't prosecute every incident, some work
is just dangerous.
S.