Is DD moral turpitude for the USA?
Discussion
We went to Las Vegas last February. It was surprising how many passengers on our flight had not been aware of the ESTA visa requirements. I don't think that they were sent home. But, the Americans were not impressed. One group of about nine or ten were led away to fill in their forms.
They were never seen again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, not by me and the Mrs. Vegas is a big town.
They were never seen again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, not by me and the Mrs. Vegas is a big town.
krunchkin said:
Another one that nearly caught me out is that the ESTA expires after 2 years, and of course they dont send you an email or anything to remind you. Had quick panic of redoing one 24 hours before flying to Nashville last month when, luckily, it just crossed my mind.
They do send reminders:no-reply@cbp.dhs.gov said:
ATTENTION! The travel authorization submitted on May 4, 2011 via ESTA will expire within the next 30 days. It is not possible to extend or renew a current ESTA. You will need to apply for a new ESTA. Please reapply at https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov if travel to the United States is intended in the near future. If there are 30 or more days left on the old authorization you will receive a warning message during the application and be asked if you wish to proceed.
Here's their guide
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.... from the link half way down this page https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1074/...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.... from the link half way down this page https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1074/...
Edited by ViperDave on Sunday 20th October 14:18
B2 waivers are currently taking 6 months +, and that was before the govt shutdown, so if he does go for a visa, he wont be going this xmas.
DD is not moral turpitude, nor is driving without insurance. The problem in this case isnt moral turpitude (which neither of them are) - moral turpitude is not automatic inadmisability - it is the multiple offences.
Speak to Steven D Heller - www.us-visa.co.uk/The-Firm/Steven-D-Heller and he will tell you the score.
Oh, and with a DD, he cant go to canada either!
DD is not moral turpitude, nor is driving without insurance. The problem in this case isnt moral turpitude (which neither of them are) - moral turpitude is not automatic inadmisability - it is the multiple offences.
Speak to Steven D Heller - www.us-visa.co.uk/The-Firm/Steven-D-Heller and he will tell you the score.
Oh, and with a DD, he cant go to canada either!
Don't bother with the embassy - their advice will usually be to apply for a visa, regardless of whether thats accurate/necessary or not.
The embassy website until recently incorrectly stated that any arrest (even not resulting in a conviction) required a visa ffs - their view is that if in doubt, apply for one and let them determine it.
The embassy website until recently incorrectly stated that any arrest (even not resulting in a conviction) required a visa ffs - their view is that if in doubt, apply for one and let them determine it.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Turns out the silly bugger was charged with no insurance at the same time, so a VISA might be necessary. Phone call to the embassy tomorrow. He lives in E. Yorks so its a fair old trip if he needs the stamp in his passport!
SERIOUSLY - you do not need to even alert an embassy to an issue if you are travelling as a quick in/out tourist. Doing so will create a world of s
t.The online ESTA is an electronic version of that silly card they used to make you fill out to declare you are not a Nazi or a terrorist or have committed genocide. The only difference is that they check your passport against a no fly list or other records logged by security agencies so you can be spotted for that before boarding.
It does not require a full disclosure of driving offences.
I agree with what others have posted. Do not get the embassy involved. I know of a couple of people who've spent time inside and travel to the US regularly without a VISA (just the online ETSA) and they have had no issues.
Sure, if you've been arrested for anything you will run a risk of not being allowed in, but the chances of that happening are very, very slim.
If you alert the embassy you will end up paying a lot of money and could still get the VISA application rejected. It's also a long process from what I gather.
Tell him not to worry.
Sure, if you've been arrested for anything you will run a risk of not being allowed in, but the chances of that happening are very, very slim.
If you alert the embassy you will end up paying a lot of money and could still get the VISA application rejected. It's also a long process from what I gather.
Tell him not to worry.
krunchkin said:
SERIOUSLY - you do not need to even alert an embassy to an issue if you are travelling as a quick in/out tourist. Doing so will create a world of st.
The online ESTA is an electronic version of that silly card they used to make you fill out to declare you are not a Nazi or a terrorist or have committed genocide. The only difference is that they check your passport against a no fly list or other records logged by security agencies so you can be spotted for that before boarding.
It does not require a full disclosure of driving offences.
I wonder if anyone ever ticked the 'yes, I'm a terrorist' box. t.The online ESTA is an electronic version of that silly card they used to make you fill out to declare you are not a Nazi or a terrorist or have committed genocide. The only difference is that they check your passport against a no fly list or other records logged by security agencies so you can be spotted for that before boarding.
It does not require a full disclosure of driving offences.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
They called the immigration lawyer suggested above, and they confirmed that he DOES need a VISA, as he was chraged with two offences at the same time.
I know that 99.9% chance is that he would slip through unnoticed if he didnt decalre, but he doesnt want to take the risk, which is fair enough.
They have an embassy appointment for the 2nd December.
Don't they wish they'd booked a week in Skegness instead?I know that 99.9% chance is that he would slip through unnoticed if he didnt decalre, but he doesnt want to take the risk, which is fair enough.
They have an embassy appointment for the 2nd December.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
They called the immigration lawyer suggested above, and they confirmed that he DOES need a VISA, as he was chraged with two offences at the same time.
I know that 99.9% chance is that he would slip through unnoticed if he didnt decalre, but he doesnt want to take the risk, which is fair enough.
They have an embassy appointment for the 2nd December.
You aren't (well he isn't) going to the USA for NYE unfortunately. I know that 99.9% chance is that he would slip through unnoticed if he didnt decalre, but he doesnt want to take the risk, which is fair enough.
They have an embassy appointment for the 2nd December.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Individually not.
However the advice the lawyer gave (and from what I have interpreted from the internets) is that being convicted of two things at the same time, a composite conviction if you like = visa.
A caution in the UK isn't a conviction though, but I guess the US could see it as that?However the advice the lawyer gave (and from what I have interpreted from the internets) is that being convicted of two things at the same time, a composite conviction if you like = visa.
I see he was erring on the side of caution (no pun intended) but I really don't think he'd have had any issues.
mu0n said:
A caution in the UK isn't a conviction though, but I guess the US could see it as that?
I see he was erring on the side of caution (no pun intended) but I really don't think he'd have had any issues.
A caution is an admission of the offence - it is treated the same under immigration law as a conviction and shows up the same on the uk police certificate as 'no live trace'. Criminal offences are also never regarded as spent either.I see he was erring on the side of caution (no pun intended) but I really don't think he'd have had any issues.
I went through all this during my green card process - lots of fine print in INA 212!
kapiteinlangzaam said:
mu0n said:
According to the US, drunk driving doesn't constitute to Mortal Turpitude. I wouldn't have thought the driving without insurance would either.
Individually not.However the advice the lawyer gave (and from what I have interpreted from the internets) is that being convicted of two things at the same time, a composite conviction if you like = visa.
If you have an appointment on dec 2nd, then it will be denied, a criminal waiver recommended, and then it is a case of waiting for the waiver to be approved - this is currently around 6 months. Only then the visa will be issued.
Annoyingly it may well be issued as a single entry/6 month visa, meaning having to go through the whole process every time a visit to the US is planned. Maybe he will get lucky and issued a ten year/multi entry visa! Either way, he isnt going to be going anytime near NYE
Edited by GCH on Tuesday 22 October 09:30
GCH said:
Correct. Even a crime involving moral turpitude is fine if the max possible sentence is under 1 year- classed as a petty offence exception- but 2 offences and it is visa time.
I'm not so sure. Here's the relevant bit (I think) about multiple offences.http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86947....
Personally, I think he's been done up like a kipper. But as the lawyer no doubt said, the only way to be sure is to get a visa.
AIUI driving without insurance is not a crime involving moral turpitude. For it to be a CIMT there has to be criminal intent, and driving without insurance is absolute - no intent is needed to prove the charge.
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff