VISA Waiver Program to USA

[JohnK]

AFAIK, you need to have been such a bad person that you have had two or more offences for which spent more than five years in confinement/jail before you would need to answer to the affirmative.

Could you enter under the visa waiver program for offences like drink driving or use of recreational drugs? No jail time, but more than likely involve arrest and/or conviction.

Reminds me of the times when stealing a loaf of bread was considered as serious as killing someone.

 

[Dave Noble]

Could you enter under the visa waiver program for offences like drink driving or use of recreational drugs? No jail time, but more than likely involve arrest and/or conviction.

Reminds me of the times when stealing a loaf of bread was considered as serious as killing someone.

Any drugs offence makes one ineligable for visa waiver

Dave

 

[serfty]

Could you enter under the visa waiver program for offences like drink driving or use of recreational drugs? No jail time, but more than likely involve arrest and/or conviction.

Reminds me of the times when stealing a loaf of bread was considered as serious as killing someone.

Aside from "controlled substance" offences (and "Moral Turpitude") you would need two or more offences for which you have been "confined" for a total of 5 years or more.

Offences like .05 (or stealing a loaf of bread) for which one would be unlikely to have been incarcerated for 5 years means you can safely respond NO to the question.

 

[Mal]

I had a friend arrive into LAX on aug 31st to find because he had appeared in court and there was no conviction recorded 3 years ago, he assumed he could enter the USA under the visa waiver program. He was soooo wrong. !

I'm curious about this. In which state or territory was the offence committed? What sort of offence?

I'm just wondering how the offence information was passed on. Does the U.S scour court records worldwide? Or did someone tip them off etc.

 

[serfty]

I'm curious about this. In which state or territory was the offence committed? What sort of offence?

I'm just wondering how the offence information was passed on. Does the U.S scour court records worldwide? Or did someone tip them off etc.

Methinks thatwouldbher's friend probably was tripped up by the complexity of the question and answered to the positive. :-|

 

[thatwouldbher]

I'm curious about this. In which state or territory was the offence committed? What sort of offence?

I'm just wondering how the offence information was passed on. Does the U.S scour court records worldwide? Or did someone tip them off etc.

The offence was shoplifting! What actually happened was as she was going through a checkout in a supermarket her then 30 month old son picked up a chocolate bar (without her knowledge) while she was unloading her cart. Hence store detective noticed and was picked up.. She had to appear in court as she was the legal parent of the child and thats how this whole thing happened. The store in question is a Target store at Perth in WA.

 

[thatwouldbher]

I'm curious about this. In which state or territory was the offence committed? What sort of offence?

I'm just wondering how the offence information was passed on. Does the U.S scour court records worldwide? Or did someone tip them off etc.

Because of the new terror laws into USA your records for the last 5 years apparently now get into the USA before your plane lands. Apparently this is a new law to come into USA, and also you supply your current address and also where you are staying in USA as well. I actually checked this out with a congressman and he replied this info was correct.

 

[thatwouldbher]

Methinks thatwouldbher's friend probably was tripped up by the complexity of the question and answered to the positive. :-|

I just rang my friend in Perth and she said said she answered "no" to the questions, and thats why she got the turn around as they were aware of charge against her. I myself think it is a pretty ridiculous charge in the first place. I wonder how many of our kids have done this and we havent noticed till we got home, or not at all.

 

[Mal]

I just rang my friend in Perth and she said said she answered "no" to the questions, and thats why she got the turn around as they were aware of charge against her. I myself think it is a pretty ridiculous charge in the first place. I wonder how many of our kids have done this and we havent noticed till we got home, or not at all.

Very strange! (I could understand the U.S knowing for example that a person was on theft charges and made the headlines day in and day out. However a "simple" theft charge such as shoplifting would barely make the paper. So yes it's interesting. Who's co-operating with who, and what information is being transferred ... )

 

[simongr]

Not sure what is better or worse. If we assume that we cant get round the sharing of criminal history and thus that information has to be shared. is it better that we share the minimum amount of information - i.e. John Smith has a conviction for theft and the level of crime is irrelevant. Thus people are tarred with the same brush irrespective of crime - but less personal information is being shared. Or is it better that more information is shared so people can travel even though they have minor criminal convictions.

Its a tough one...

 

[Dave Noble]

Not sure what is better or worse. If we assume that we cant get round the sharing of criminal history and thus that information has to be shared. is it better that we share the minimum amount of information - i.e. John Smith has a conviction for theft and the level of crime is irrelevant. Thus people are tarred with the same brush irrespective of crime - but less personal information is being shared. Or is it better that more information is shared so people can travel even though they have minor criminal convictions.

Its a tough one...

Seems to me that the level of the crime is not irrelevent other than , if you have any issues, that it is advised to apply for a visa rather than attempt to enter under the Visa Waiver Programme

If applying for a visa, then the immigration officials can take into account the nature of the crime in determining whether to alllow the person a visa to enter the country

Dave

 

[Skyring]

The offence was shoplifting! What actually happened was as she was going through a checkout in a supermarket her then 30 month old son picked up a chocolate bar (without her knowledge) while she was unloading her cart. Hence store detective noticed and was picked up.. She had to appear in court as she was the legal parent of the child and thats how this whole thing happened. The store in question is a Target store at Perth in WA.

There's got to be more to it than that. If a store detective saw the incident and the mother didn't, then he has a responsibility to make her aware of the "theft", not to press charges, which wouldn't hold up in court, and would be a waste of everyone's time. All she has to do is say, "I didn't see it happen," and it is her word against his without some further evidence from (say) a shop assistant or a security camera. Parental responsibility only goes so far, and no magistrate is going to record a conviction for something that wasn't her fault.

If she had a history of such incidents or had been warned or something, that would be different.

Having said that, then if she had been arrested and/or the charge of theft was proven or admitted, then she must have filled out the U.S. entry form untruthfully, which is grounds for the U.S. to refuse admission.

 

[simongr]

Seems to me that the level of the crime is not irrelevent other than , if you have any issues, that it is advised to apply for a visa rather than attempt to enter under the Visa Waiver Programme

If applying for a visa, then the immigration officials can take into account the nature of the crime in determining whether to alllow the person a visa to enter the country

Dave

Apologies yeah my mind was elsewhere - I was thinking generally rather than in relation to the visa waiver. It's one of the basic rules of travelling (for me) that you have to answer honestly to all questions - if you dont then expect the worst. I even declare tea bags - prepacked standard tea bags that I bring back from the UK.

 

[Skyring]

Very strange! (I could understand the U.S knowing for example that a person was on theft charges and made the headlines day in and day out. However a "simple" theft charge such as shoplifting would barely make the paper. So yes it's interesting. Who's co-operating with who, and what information is being transferred ... )

Presumably one condition for participating in the VWP is that Australia sends details of criminal records. This in itself is OK, but I wonder how many "false positives" are generated, and why Australia doesn't warn people before they leave the country. You display your passport to get airside, why not use the same records we've just sent to the U.S. to see if there's going to be a problem at the other end?

 

[NM]

I even declare tea bags - prepacked standard tea bags that I bring back from the UK.

As you are required to do. Just because we may know the product is not a quarantine risk does not exempt us from answering truthfully the question asked on the form. The word "any" appears a lot of times on the in-bound quarantine form.

 

[NM]

Presumably one condition for participating in the VWP is that Australia sends details of criminal records. This in itself is OK, but I wonder how many "false positives" are generated, and why Australia doesn't warn people before they leave the country. You display your passport to get airside, why not use the same records we've just sent to the U.S. to see if there's going to be a problem at the other end?

Indeed, perhaps it would be prudent for the passenger to be shown their personal information that will be sent to the USA before they board the aircraft. Expose the skeletons before they cause surprises.

However, that would likely cause much argument at times with people wanting to question the accuracy etc of the info. So such a process is probably not practical. Perhaps an on-line view should be available to people to check before they head to the airport?

 

[Skyring]

Apologies yeah my mind was elsewhere - I was thinking generally rather than in relation to the visa waiver. It's one of the basic rules of travelling (for me) that you have to answer honestly to all questions - if you dont then expect the worst. I even declare tea bags - prepacked standard tea bags that I bring back from the UK.

I declare anything foodlike, and I usually travel with teabags, lollies for the kids, Tim Tams for friends, and dried apricots for me (they keep me regular on long trips when normal eating patterns get out of whack). I take the view that it's better to be safe than sorry, and if I run into some cough of a customs official who has had a long and stressful shift, it's one less chance for him to give me a hard time.

When you get down to it, it's like giving way to a semi trailer at an intersection, even if you are in the right. Minor officials have a lot of power, and where's the benefit if I get pulled out for questioning, strip searched, delayed until I miss my next flight, and thoroughly ruffled, if the payoff is having some minor official I'll never see again admit that he was wrong in his interpretation of a regulation?

Smile, be honest, comply with directions and save the arguments for things that really matter. If I declare my apricots and teabags and they get chucked in the bin, it's a minor inconvenience, and I can be philosophical over a soothing drink in the lounge.

 

[serfty]

I just rang my friend in Perth and she said said she answered "no" to the questions, and thats why she got the turn around as they were aware of charge against her. I myself think it is a pretty ridiculous charge in the first place. I wonder how many of our kids have done this and we havent noticed till we got home, or not at all.

Fair enough ...

However, I do know of one person who went to the LOTFAP last year who had a slightly worse issue in 2000 (no imprisonment nor confinement) who answered no to the question and had no problems. This was in Victoria.

 

[Skyring]

Indeed, perhaps it would be prudent for the passenger to be shown their personal information that will be sent to the USA before they board the aircraft. Expose the skeletons before they cause surprises.

However, that would likely cause much argument at times with people wanting to question the accuracy etc of the info. So such a process is probably not practical. Perhaps an on-line view should be available to people to check before they head to the airport?

Privacy problems there. If all you need is a passport number to see someone's criminal record, then it's a worry.

 

[LondonGenie]

Now the problem starts. As he was arrested, (not convicted), he did the right thing as per the Visa Waiver procedures and applied for a visa to enter USA. However, when he went to the Sydney office of the American Consulate today they refused him a visa citing that he had been charged with an offense of "Moral Turpitude", which I thought only involved someone throwing a phone in a hotel, anyway..

The VWP is something that currently interests me. After writing the mother of all 1st posts on this subject, the BB said I was not logged in and lost it! :shock:

I know the situation has moved on and that the subject person is now in a different situation. But I would say the original situation was not moral turpitude.

Look here... http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940021aN.pdf

Joyriding is specifically excluded, where there is no intent to permanently deny the owner of the vehicle. And damage to property is excluded, where it was not done with malicious intent. He would appear to have been clear on both issues.

Even if he had committed moral turpitude it does not automatically mean he is ineligible for a visa.

I know someone who has a charge, who was told by the US embassy that it constituted moral turpitude and made him ineligible for the VWP, even though in the linked file this charge is specifically listed as being an exclusion.

I wonder if the US embassies have a habit of concluding something is moral turpitude when their own rule book states that it is not?