usa visa question

[steveman]

I'm travelling to U.S.A. will my fine but no conviction from 1994 affect it? I've travelled to America after the fine etc. Just abit worried about new laws etc. I've already applied and recieved visa waiver approvell, but did not tell of the non conviction as it did not affect my previous trip. Again hope it's just pretravel nerves.

 

[Dave Noble]

I'm travelling to U.S.A. will my fine but no conviction from 1994 affect it? I've travelled to America after the fine etc. Just abit worried about new laws etc. I've already applied and recieved visa waiver approvell, but did not tell of the non conviction as it did not affect my previous trip. Again hope it's just pretravel nerves.

Lying to US immigration is never a good idea and could have consequences. If you have been convicted for an offence which comes under the US description of moral turpitude then you need to disclose it and apply for a visa as necessary

Getting away with it once does not mean that you will get away with it a second time

 

[cove]

A fine without a recorded conviction would mean your moral turpitude status should not be recorded in an adverse way.Have you checked your record to see if anything is on it?Very unlikely.
Most of us have been fined for something over the years although it took Mrs Cove a lot of years to cop a parking infringement.

 

[harvyk]

I'm travelling to U.S.A. will my fine but no conviction from 1994 affect it? I've travelled to America after the fine etc. Just abit worried about new laws etc. I've already applied and recieved visa waiver approvell, but did not tell of the non conviction as it did not affect my previous trip. Again hope it's just pretravel nerves.

My take on it is - in accordance with the spent convictions scheme, it never happened...

Whilst I'm not going to get into a debate with Dave Noble on this one (he has very different views, so I'm doing a pre-emptive agree to disagree) the US is using Australian laws to determine your guilt or innocence in the matter, and under Australian laws you no longer have to disclose this information to anyone (with very limited exception when security clearances are concerned)...

Furthermore if the US CBP asked the police, or the courts if you had ever been trouble with the law, they will also say no...

So if it was me, I'd go using the VWP...

 

[NM]

The question asked by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service is "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...". The question does not ask if you have any currently recorded convictions, or any non-spent convictions. It uses the words "ever been arrested or convicted".

While you may get away with answering untruthfully, lying on an official US government immigration document can have significant and long-lasting consequences.

Entry requirements to the USA are defined by the US government and administered under US law. While the Australian legal system has a concept of spent convictions and allows a judge to find someone guilty, fine them and choose not to record a conviction, the US Government INS will use the US law interpretation of the terms "ever", "arrested or convicted" and "moral turpitude" when determining eligibility.

Which course of action a visitor to the USA takes is their own choice. But if found by the US Government INS to have answered dishonestly, understand there will likely be significant consequences.

 

[harvyk]

The question asked by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service is "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ...". The question does not ask if you have any currently recorded convictions, or any non-spent convictions. It uses the words "ever been arrested or convicted".

True, but on the other hand there are lots of documents here in Australia which use the words "ever", and yet you do not have to answer them in the affermative once the spent convictions scheme kicks in...

I also believe the spent convictions scheme removes all records, including arrests etc, as the idea behind it is someone who has truely made a mistake and has changed their ways can infact continue on with their life without the black mark holding them back.

Again I think it's an agree to disagree thing...

 

[Dave Noble]

Whilst I'm not going to get into a debate with Dave Noble on this one (he has very different views, so I'm doing a pre-emptive agree to disagree) the US is using Australian laws to determine your guilt or innocence in the matter, and under Australian laws you no longer have to disclose this information to anyone (with very limited exception when security clearances are concerned)...

The US will be assessing based on its rules and is nothing to do with Australian rules. Australian spent convictions scheme is irrelevent to them

Suggesting lying to immigration is never a good idea and being found to have lied on an immigration form could have severe consequences to ever re-enter the country and can also getting visas for other countries in the future