Quoting Larrycrowne
I am a little bit annoyed by the scaremongering from people who don’t know how to read or think
I'm sure you guys can discuss your differences in interpretation in less inflammatory language. Please.
Travelling to US with a criminal record in the UK
Quoting Larrycrowne
Quoting greatgrandmaR
There are no strange men here. Almost all the people posting advice are female.
You need to understand that when some authority says "we do not recomment" - they mean "Don't Do This". It isn't an option to ignore the recommendation. You do so at your own peril. Just because someone has not been caught does not mean that it is OK.
And what you need to understand is that you are not a spokesperson for the US embassy. That’s your interpretation of what they mean, nothing more. So you have no business telling people with certainty that they need to go down the visa route. Perhaps instead you could recommend it.
My interpretation is that the US embassy do not recommend you try to enter using an ESTA if you are unsure if you meet the criteria outlined in the ESTA. In other words, to be safe rather than sorry if you are in doubt.
I am a little bit annoyed by the scaremongering from people who don’t know how to read or think going on in this thread, which is why I chose to provide an update contradicting their claims.
Beforer I retired I was a compliance officer for OSHA. So I am qualified to interpret officialize. There is a difference between saying someone should not do something where it is optional to take that risk. And saying that they don't recomend it. Which means that you shouldn't do it.
Also it would be irresponsible for someone writing advice on such subjects to leave any doubt in the recommendation. This is not the kind of thing where someone says that you shoudn't go Cozumel because a tourist has been raped in Mexico City. If I or anyone here actually said that we thought someone could get away with using the ESta when they had a criminal record and they took that 'advice' and got caught it would be very unfortunate not only for the person who was caught but also for travellerspoint.
Quoting greatgrandmaR
Quoting Larrycrowne
Quoting greatgrandmaR
There are no strange men here. Almost all the people posting advice are female.
You need to understand that when some authority says "we do not recomment" - they mean "Don't Do This". It isn't an option to ignore the recommendation. You do so at your own peril. Just because someone has not been caught does not mean that it is OK.
And what you need to understand is that you are not a spokesperson for the US embassy. That’s your interpretation of what they mean, nothing more. So you have no business telling people with certainty that they need to go down the visa route. Perhaps instead you could recommend it.
My interpretation is that the US embassy do not recommend you try to enter using an ESTA if you are unsure if you meet the criteria outlined in the ESTA. In other words, to be safe rather than sorry if you are in doubt.
I am a little bit annoyed by the scaremongering from people who don’t know how to read or think going on in this thread, which is why I chose to provide an update contradicting their claims.
Beforer I retired I was a compliance officer for OSHA. So I am qualified to interpret officialize. There is a difference between saying someone should not do something where it is optional to take that risk. And saying that they don't recomend it. Which means that you shouldn't do it.
Also it would be irresponsible for someone writing advice on such subjects to leave any doubt in the recommendation. This is not the kind of thing where someone says that you shoudn't go Cozumel because a tourist has been raped in Mexico City. If I or anyone here actually said that we thought someone could get away with using the ESta when they had a criminal record and they took that 'advice' and got caught it would be very unfortunate not only for the person who was caught but also for travellerspoint.
Again, you are not a spokesperson for the US embassy. You are not qualified to say that anyone who has been arrested for any reason needs a visa. You are choosing to interpret the advice that way, and you are completely ignoring the ESTA questions which would contradict your point of view.
If your point of view was correct, the ESTA would not ask about the circumstances of any arrest you might have had. It would simply state that anyone who has been arrested for any reason does not qualify.
Larrycrowne
You asked for advice on this forum. The fact that you did so indicates not only that you were seeking the opinion of others but also that you lack the experience to make a decision in this matter.
It is entirely your choice whether you choose to follow the advice given just as it is up to you whether you agree with it or not. That is your right.
It is not your right to make personal criticisms of people who replied to you. It is not your right to pass judgement on their 'qualification' to reply.
You cannot stop others expessing their opinions on this forum (within forum guidelines), whether you agree with them or not and your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's.
Your question has been answered and further discussion is pointless.
[ Edit: Edited on 26 Jul 2024, 20:22 GMT by leics2 ]
If your point of view was correct, the ESTA would not ask about the circumstances of any arrest you might have had. It would simply state that anyone who has been arrested for any reason does not qualify.
You are obviously unacquainted with government speak. (joke)
And you have somewhat confused the people giving advice on this forum. I have not been giving advice here up until just now. I have followed this question for some time but since I am a citizen of the USA and therefore have no need of a visa or anything else to visit here, I have just been on the sidelines. The fact that you think I am the one giving advice probably means that you haven't read everything carefully.
[ Edit: Edited on 26 Jul 2024, 21:36 GMT by greatgrandmaR ]
Quoting leics2
Larrycrowne
You asked for advice on this forum. The fact that you did so indicates not only that you were seeking the opinion of others but also that you lack the experience to make a decision in this matter.
It is entirely your choice whether you choose to follow the advice given just as it is up to you whether you agree with it or not. That is your right.
It is not your right to make personal criticisms of people who replied to you. It is not your right to pass judgement on their 'qualification' to reply.
You cannot stop others expessing their opinions on this forum (within forum guidelines), whether you agree with them or not and your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's.
Your question has been answered and further discussion is pointless.
Yes, those are my rights actually. Users here are spreading misinformation by asserting the US embassy are clear that anyone who has ever been arrested requires a visa for entry, and is therefore disqualified from entry via ESTA.
Quoting greatgrandmaR
If your point of view was correct, the ESTA would not ask about the circumstances of any arrest you might have had. It would simply state that anyone who has been arrested for any reason does not qualify.
You are obviously unacquainted with government speak. (joke)
And you have somewhat confused the people giving advice on this forum. I have not been giving advice here up until just now. I have followed this question for some time but since I am a citizen of the USA and therefore have no need of a visa or anything else to visit here, I have just been on the sidelines. The fact that you think I am the one giving advice probably means that you haven't read everything carefully.
You can’t defend your position with any evidence or logic. It’s just “Ah, you don’t understand government lingo” and so on.
It’s either a fact that a visa is required for lawful entry for anyone who has ever been arrested or it’s not. The answer to the question is obviously no, because the ESTA asks questions about specific types of arrests and convictions.
My point is that people should not be spreading misinformation by stating the US embassy are clear that the opposite is true.
>the ESTA asks questions about specific types of arrests and convictions.
I'm afraid you are misinformed.
The relevant Esta questions are:
>Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?
and
>Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?
Both have a simple yes/no tick box. There is no room for details. Ticking 'Yes' to either question (or several others e.g. travel to particular countries since 2011) results in an Esta denial and a recommendation to apply for a visa.
I tried to clarify the use of the word 'serious' in a previous post. I'll try again. Conviction for CIMT is an immediate bar to US entry without a waiver but it is a US-specific legal concept. Citizens of many countries are eligible for the Esta. Each country has its own legal jurisdiction, its own laws, its own criminal offences and (barring the obvious e.g. murder) its own cultural perception of what is a 'serious' crime.
In the UK, for example, many (and the law) would not regard petty shoplifting (a CIMT in the US) as a 'serious' crime whereas many (and the law) would regard driving whilst drunk (not a CIMT in the US) a very serious crime indeed. That is why only a visa interviewing officer can decide whether someone who has a criminal record from another jurisdiction would have committed a CIMT under US law and that is why the Embassy advice is that such people are not recommended to apply for an Esta.
I'd not that the relative about whom you asked for advice was not justarrested. She was arrested, charged and appeared in court, apparently receiving a 'complete discharge'. UK courts give either 'absolute' or 'conditional' discharges, not 'complete' discharges. Your relative thus has a criminal record and all the details of her offence, arrest, charge and the subsequent result remain recorded on the PNC (Police National Computer).
Whether the US Embassy advice is 'clear' now appears to be a matter of perception. I, and many others....and presumably the US Embassy itself...regard it as very clear. You do not. That does not mean misinformation is being spread: it simply means that your interpretation of the text (and perhaps your understanding of the word 'clear') differs from that of others.
Your relative is free to use an Esta if she wishes, hopefully with an understanding of potential consequences. If she does not wish to do so she can apply for a US visa. It should of course be her decision.
[ Edit: Edited on 27 Jul 2024, 06:51 GMT by leics2 ]
Hi all,
Had a read through this thread and there's alot of great help and advice!
I was wondering if you guys can give me advice on what's my best course of action?
I received a custodial sentence of 2 years and 2 months 12 years ago for fraud, conspiracy to fraud and conspiracy to convert criminal property.
Since then had no issues, have turned my life around and doing well in my career.
My employer wants me to travel to USA in the new year (early January) they are aware of my convictions
My current passport expires so I have applied online (2 days ago) and waiting for the application to be processed and new passport to arrive.
My question is, what steps should I follow?
Should I wait for my new passport to arrive?
Or fill in the DS-160 form which will then be with my old passport number?
Should I apply for my ACRO first which will have exact dates of arrest / conviction etc so they match up with the DS-160?
The ACRO submission requires a copy of my passport but with my old one sent off I don't have one now so would have to wait regardless for this to come?
And after getting my ACRO apply for SAR if there's anything stepped down?
Given the current wait of 3/4 months of an appointment at the embassy I want to try and get the ball rolling sooner rather then later.
Any help / advice would be appreciated
[ Edit: Edited on 27 Jul 2024, 12:42 GMT by Justsellingtech ]
Quoting Justsellingtech
Hi all,
Had a read through this thread and there's alot of great help and advice!
I was wondering if you guys can give me advice on what's my best course of action?
I received a custodial sentence of 2 years and 2 months 12 years ago for fraud, conspiracy to fraud and conspiracy to convert criminal property.
Since then had no issues, have turned my life around and doing well in my career.
My employer wants me to travel to USA in the new year (early January) they are aware of my convictions
My current passport expires so I have applied online (2 days ago) and waiting for the application to be processed and new passport to arrive.
My question is, what steps should I follow?
Should I wait for my new passport to arrive?
Or fill in the DS-160 form which will then be with my old passport number?
Should I apply for my ACRO first which will have exact dates of arrest / conviction etc so they match up with the DS-160?
The ACRO submission requires a copy of my passport but with my old one sent off I don't have one now so would have to wait regardless for this to come?
And after getting my ACRO apply for SAR if there's anything stepped down?
Given the current wait of 3/4 months of an appointment at the embassy I want to try and get the ball rolling sooner rather then later.
Any help / advice would be appreciated
Not to rain on your parade, but I can't see you being sorted for then
Embassy appointments are currently booking for end of October at the earliest. Acro will taken the full allowance of time to come back, as does the SAR.
The Ds-160 is what you take with you. So that can be filled in and printed when you have all your information on .