U.S ESTA and a section 10

[ronan]

hi guys, im a new member. recently i was caught with one pill (prohibited drug) at a music festival, i pleaded guilty and have received a section 10, which means no conviction, in 2 months im going to Canada for a working holiday but my flight goes through L.A.X. do i need to say yes on the moral turpitude question, if so what are my chances of being able to get a visa ? i am desperate for some Good advice, .

thanks
Ronan

 

[Anna]

i am desperate for some Good advice

Don't carry or take prohibited drugs.

You're welcome.

 

[ronan]

yes thanks Anna for the life advice, obviously i am aware of the blatant stupidity of my actions, im more looking as to how they will affect my travel options.

 

[Ausbt]

You're welcome.

Yeah right, one lousy pill. Meanwhile, corporate greed allows tens of thousands are suckered into abusing legal drugs (alcohol, tabacco) and legal scams (gambling) every day.

It's 2013 and most of us have adult minds - you're welcome.

 

[Anna]

I think you might be in more strife with your working holiday than just at LAX.

"What are the common convictions that will make a person inadmissible to Canada?

Drink driving or impaired driving convictions (even if they are recorded as a traffic offence) where the blood alcohol reading is 0.081% or above – or a breath reading of 0401mgms/L or above, will make you inadmissible to Canada. Other common convictions that may make a person inadmissible to Canada are: reckless or dangerous driving, common assault, street racing, hinder or resist a police officer in the execution of duty, possession, supply, trafficking of drugs (including cannabis) and shoplifting (theft), fraud or criminal damage, to name a few."


See Welcome Page | Page d'accueil or australia.gc.ca

 

[anat0l]

I believe the full question on the ESTA is:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been controled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

With no legal or personal experience I can relate (clean record here), from reading around you'll have* to answer 'yes', as presumably you were arrested. I've also read that even though no conviction was recorded against you, since you were found/plead guilty to the charge, it has been said that the US pretty much considers that equivalent to a 'conviction' (i.e. you did the crime, you just didn't have a formal conviction against you). I have no idea about Canada, but the term 'conviction' can be interpreted at differing levels by different countries, and you'll need to check this.

If you then need to apply for a visa, you might be straining at the time limits as some people have reported it taking months (indeed, more than 2 months) to obtain a visa, if one is successfully granted.

If you're truly in doubt, consider finding someone who can offer legal services in this area.

* Of course, you could lie, but that is entirely at your own risk and none of us here would recommend doing that.

 

[ronan]

i was worried about that as well, however upon studying the working holiday application ( and having had 1 for 2 years before) it only asks what convictions (if any) that you have. since a section 10 is not a conviction, and will not show up on a police check for the purpose of a visa application. whilst i need to proceed cautiously with my visa, its still the esta that has me worried. loads of people are arrested and not convicted for minor things, it sucks that that should screw your travel plans for the foreseeable future !

 

[anat0l]

i was worried about that as well, however upon studying the working holiday application ( and having had 1 for 2 years before) it only asks what convictions (if any) that you have. since a section 10 is not a conviction, and will not show up on a police check for the purpose of a visa application.

You need to check carefully what is meant by a 'conviction' in each target country you are applying for a visa (or visa waiver) for. Again, not too sure myself, but being arrested and found guilty (or admitting guilt) may be considered being 'convicted' of a crime for the purposes of the US ESTA programme, even if you didn't have a formal conviction recorded against you.

loads of people are arrested and not convicted for minor things, it sucks that that should screw your travel plans for the foreseeable future !

Sucks as it may be, but of course it goes without saying it would've been a lot easier not to have the incident on the record in the first place.

We've seen time and time again on this forum people ask about US ESTA and visas for anything from "minor" offences (of different types) to spent convictions, which all have different (or the same) hurdles with the US ESTA and visa programmes.

 

[Pushka]

I guess the authorities figure that 1 pill isn't the real extent of a persons drug usage, just what they are found with at the time.

Just looking at this site, not sure how accurate it is, but a Section 10 does come with a conviction by default.

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/drugs/possession

 

[RooFlyer]

A comment not actually pursuant to your questions, but travelling to Canada in general.

As a regular business (mostly) or tourist (lesser) traveler to Canada, I've never gone through immigration there where it seems routine (ie blah, blah, stamp passport, NEXT! ) They ask questions, consider your answer, then ask follow-up questions at least considering your answer to the previous one.

What I'm getting at, don't consider relying on being able to 'squeeze through', hoping that something or other won't be noticed (not that you've indicated that you would be). They are thorough.

You say 'working holiday' - if not visa-ed as such (I don't know what's required) be especially careful!

Good luck

 

[Hvr]

I reckon RooFlyer has hit the nail on the head. The requirements of a working visa in Canada are going to be very strict.

I suggest you see an immigration lawyer to discuss the matter before you travel.

 

[dfcatch]

I reckon RooFlyer has hit the nail on the head. The requirements of a working visa in Canada are going to be very strict.

I suggest you see an immigration lawyer to discuss the matter before you travel.

I agree as well.

The only thing 'routine' about entry questioning into Canada is that they are thorough.

LAX may be more intimidating to most people - but Canadian officers are genuinely more thorough IME.

 

[flymetothemoon]

I agree as well.

The only thing 'routine' about entry questioning into Canada is that they are thorough.

LAX may be more intimidating to most people - but Canadian officers are genuinely more thorough IME.

What happens if you have a visa to the U.S stamped in your passport when entering Canada. Will all the information as to why you got the visa show up on their end? Canadian immigration law states that you do not need to contact the embassy for any NON-DISCLOSED criminal convictions whereas the US states that EVERYTHING has to be disclosed (hence the reason for a visa). Do I just tell immigration the reason I got a visa for the U.S and then let them no that no conviction was recorded hence they reason why no visa for Canada was necessary?

 

[dfcatch]

What happens if you have a visa to the U.S stamped in your passport when entering Canada. Will all the information as to why you got the visa show up on their end? Canadian immigration law states that you do not need to contact the embassy for any NON-DISCLOSED criminal convictions whereas the US states that EVERYTHING has to be disclosed (hence the reason for a visa). Do I just tell immigration the reason I got a visa for the U.S and then let them no that no conviction was recorded hence they reason why no visa for Canada was necessary?

IME - Canadian officials don't care what other visas you have in your passport.

They are (IME) concerned with your purpose and intentions in Canada, whether you are admissible, whether you are likely to abide by your conditions of entry (not overstay, not work etc) and no doubt on the lookout in case you show signs of being a terrorist, drug runner or most-wanted-international-dictator

 

[Pushka]

IME - Canadian officials don't care what other visas you have in your passport.

They are (IME) concerned with your purpose and intentions in Canada, whether you are admissible, whether you are likely to abide by your conditions of entry (not overstay, not work etc) and no doubt on the lookout in case you show signs of being a terrorist, drug runner or most-wanted-international-dictator

I'd agree. Each country wants to establish their own sense of identity in who they do and don't allow in their country.

 

[RooFlyer]

IME - Canadian officials don't care what other visas you have in your passport.

They are (IME) concerned with your purpose and intentions in Canada, whether you are admissible, whether you are likely to abide by your conditions of entry (not overstay, not work etc) and no doubt on the lookout in case you show signs of being a terrorist, drug runner or most-wanted-international-dictator

And while we are on the subject of 'working' in Canada.

I had cause to clarify this with the Canadian authorities after one close call with NOT being admitted at the airport on a business visit :shock:.

You don't necessarily have to be paid in Canada for doing a job there to be 'working' in Canada.

You are also 'working' in Canada if you are doing a job that could be done by a Canadian, not withstanding that you are being employed and paid in Australia and merely visiting Canada to carry out some function in Canada.

I now carry a carefully worded letter showing that what I do can't be done by a Canadian (to do with qualifications to report to the Stock Exchange here).

I don't mind the Canadian's attitude as the Aussie border authorities are doing just the same thing.

Aren't they?