VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO USA
Page 2.
Discuss VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO USA, on the Immigration & Customs forum of FrequentFlyer.com.au, the home of frequent flyers.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyers resource! We hope you find the information useful and decide to join our online community. Its free to join, simply click on the register link. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
TSA Approved Locks
Flight Centre leads charge against fuel surcharges
And I have always forgotten to tick yes to the question "are you a terrorist" which from memory appears on the form LOL, seriously I would love to know if anyone has ticked yes!
Surprisingly the answer is yes... This is a 'friend of a friend' type story but apparently he did it as a joke... As you might imagine US immi did not see the humor. He is apparently not welcome back for at least the next five years.
Thanks for you comments. With this being the first time I have heard of this problem I can only imagine the many number of people who have been charged with shoplifting or other minor crimes, and who wish to enter the USA. I doubt whether they would tick YES on the I94W form. Maybe it would have been better if he had killed someone as the yanks tend to tollerate those actions better. However, back to the subject and as mentioned in the previous post he lodged the application for a visa on advice from his TA simply because he was "charged". He was of the view that as there was no conviction recorded it would be okay, and I thought there would be no problem also.
The are so many confusing aspects with various information contained in different sites.
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/consular/visawaiver.html states: Some travelers are not eligible by law to enter the United States. These include people with certain serious communicable illnesses, criminal records (particularly those involved with drugs), previous deportations from the U.S., certain visa refusals and other problems with U.S. immigration laws or visas. Such travelers may apply for specially annotated visas; but they may not use the visa waiver program. If they attempt to travel visa-free, they will be refused entry into the United States.
As you can see the above information for people "not elibiible" by law to enter the USA include people with CRIMINAL RECORDS, but this kid does NOT have a criminal record because there was no conviction recorded, and he was placed on a 6 month bond under (I believe) Section 10 of the Crimes Act.
Q: I WAS ARRESTED/CONVICTED YEARS AGO, DO I NEED A VISA?
A: Anyone convicted of or punished for a crime involving moral turpitude (regardless of how long ago or if the conviction was not recorded) is ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program and must apply for a visa. If there is any doubt regarding the nature of the offense, it is advisable to apply for a visa. The applicant submits details as to the court date, the type of offense, and the outcome, usually with a police certificate or court documents. If the police certificate says "no recordable convictions" but the person has committed a crime he or she must seek out court documents. He or she must also include the port of entry and exit to/from the US and the expected dates of travel. This information is in addition to the usual requirements for the type of visa being applied for.
At interview, he provided the US Consulate in Sydney with a copy of his bond notice which stipulated that "no criminal conviction was recorded".
He saw a Lawyer yesterday so we will see what happens, but he is that pissed off at the visa system for such a minor incident he is considering going from Frankfurt to Toronto, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Sydney and bypassing USA completely. Problem solved, so will wait and see.
He saw a Lawyer yesterday so we will see what happens, but he is that pissed off at the visa system for such a minor incident he is considering going from Frankfurt to Toronto, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Sydney and bypassing USA completely. Problem solved, so will wait and see.
It will be of no consolation to your friend, but it is equally difficult for foreigners with convictions to enter Australia. Strange really, seeing that it used to be a prerequisite.
At interview, he provided the US Consulate in Sydney with a copy of his bond notice which stipulated that "no criminal conviction was recorded".
.
I've also had the pleasure of spending 5 hours at the consulate in Sydney. Lets just say, it was a taste how incompetent the whole INS department is. But at least its 10x better than the offices here in the States. (My dealings with them, anyway)
I could say, similar to most US departments and govt personal, they are run by people who's whole 'power trip' is to make your life miserable as hell.
Member of: QF WP Hilton Honors Gold Marriot Silver and others
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD
It will be of no consolation to your friend, but it is equally difficult for foreigners with convictions to enter Australia. Strange really, seeing that it used to be a prerequisite.
MD
Classic :P
Sponsored Links
Registered Users have the option of
removing this and all other advertisements.
More
Except that he was charged and, effectively convicted, with stealing a motor vehicle which is a different offence. Stealing is a moral turpitude offense
Except that he wasn't actually convicted. There is a big difference between being convicted and having a charge proved without a conviction being recorded. Convictions follow you around for a loooong time, but a fine (and/or community service or whatever) without a conviction should be no more serious than a speeding fine.
That's the point of a judge being able to find the charges proven, but deciding not to enter a conviction. The person in this case is not a criminal; if a conviction is recorded he is.
If I had more confidence in the fairness of US bureaucrats I would say that it should be fairly easy for a lawyer to get this decision overturned. Unfortunately I have no such faith.
If the police certificate says "no recordable convictions" but the person has committed a crime he or she must seek out court documents.
See, this just annoys me. If the judge reviews the facts and decides not to convict you, by definition you haven't "committed a crime"! (Clearly I mean that in a legal sense, in the same way that you are "innocent until proved guilty" even if I saw you shoot the guy. Legally I don't get to decide your guilt; only a court can do that.)
See, this just annoys me. If the judge reviews the facts and decides not to convict you, by definition you haven't "committed a crime"! (Clearly I mean that in a legal sense, in the same way that you are "innocent until proved guilty" even if I saw you shoot the guy. Legally I don't get to decide your guilt; only a court can do that.)
The way the LOTFAP apparently sees is is that want to see if you would have got off the same way if the offence had been committed on their turf - and base their decision accordingly.
I try and steer clear of the LOTFAP for this very reason, namely their claim to be the bastion of freedom yet practising the exact opposite, I go there only when I absolutely have to (like in early May, I trip I can't avoid).
Except that he was charged and, effectively convicted, with stealing a motor vehicle which is a different offence. Stealing is a moral turpitude offense
Except that he wasn't actually convicted. There is a big difference between being convicted and having a charge proved without a conviction being recorded. Convictions follow you around for a loooong time, but a fine (and/or community service or whatever) without a conviction should be no more serious than a speeding fine.
Only under the peculiarity of Australian courts. In this case, the charge was made and the person was guilty , legally, of the crime. The Australian court hiding it under the carpet doesn't mean that any other country will not treat it in the way that they would. The US ( and most countries I posit) do not have this concept.
In this case, I don't see anything wrong with the US approach
Linear Mode
