Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Entering USA with criminal conviction
Hi I know this question has been asked a million times before but.........My b/f has a conviction for robbery and was sentenced to five years about 15 years ago. We are hoping to go to the US and he wants to just tick no on the Visa Waiver....I'm not so sure. Any advice greatly appreciated!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Shazabela. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.He would be best to go to the embassey in London for a interview. We went but got turned down but it only took half hour but they told us if we had got found out that we had lied on the forms there could have been a 5 to 15 year jail sentence. The charge was robbery with a fire arm though so your best just goings to see, once you know you know! Good luck.
The worst thing to do is go via the Embassy
Shazabela - search in this section or the law section for answers to your question. Look for replies by Beunchico and dzug
I think if you fill out the ESTA online, and tick the relevant boxe/s 'No' you will be ok - but as I say, read replies here first
When using the old VWP, the US had no access to criminal records here and as far as I can make out from reading this section, they still don't
Shazabela - search in this section or the law section for answers to your question. Look for replies by Beunchico and dzug
I think if you fill out the ESTA online, and tick the relevant boxe/s 'No' you will be ok - but as I say, read replies here first
When using the old VWP, the US had no access to criminal records here and as far as I can make out from reading this section, they still don't
(2-part post):
I've no idea why Modeste refers to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, since it doesn't apply to matters covered by the laws of other countries (e.g. visa applications). The USA doesn't recognise the concept of offences becoming 'spent'.
EU privacy laws prevent the UK authorities from making UK criminal records generally available to overseas governments. They're only permitted to pass on specific information about particular individuals who might be involved in cross-border crime (e.g. drug-trafficking, child sex tourism, terrorism, etc). However the normal rules are overridden by anti-terrorism legislation. The problem for many travellers is that a great number of things are done in the name of 'counter-terrorism' which actually have nothing to do with terror threats. So it's possible that the UK is passing on far more information, about criminal convictions, than they'd otherwise be permitted to do so.
I've no idea why Modeste refers to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, since it doesn't apply to matters covered by the laws of other countries (e.g. visa applications). The USA doesn't recognise the concept of offences becoming 'spent'.
EU privacy laws prevent the UK authorities from making UK criminal records generally available to overseas governments. They're only permitted to pass on specific information about particular individuals who might be involved in cross-border crime (e.g. drug-trafficking, child sex tourism, terrorism, etc). However the normal rules are overridden by anti-terrorism legislation. The problem for many travellers is that a great number of things are done in the name of 'counter-terrorism' which actually have nothing to do with terror threats. So it's possible that the UK is passing on far more information, about criminal convictions, than they'd otherwise be permitted to do so.
So the chances are that the US authorities would not know about your b/f's conviction but, because of the secrecy which shrouds the passing of information between the two governments, nobody can be certain. Your b/f might well get in by 'taking a chance' but there can be no guarantees.
If you can convince your b/f to do things 'by the book', he should allow plenty of time for his visa application to be processed before booking a holiday to the USA. Robbery is a crime of moral turpitude which places an automatic bar upon him entering the USA. (Even nicking a Mars bar falls into that category). The staff of the US embassy would have no alternative other than to refuse his visa application. However, that's not the end of the matter because (unless he withdrew his application) his case would be referred to Washington for consideration by the Department of Homeland Security. The total process often takes at least 6 months. The longest time I've seen reported here on AB was someone who waited for 10 months before having their application refused.
Chris
Chris
Regarding the EU privacy laws. Do you know where I can read about these laws?
I'm intrigued.
By the way. In a recent agreement between the US and the UK they increased the flow of information about criminals and former criminals. As Chris mentions to what extend remains a mystery. I'd hate to speculate but a quick tap tap on the PNC can reveal a lot. How they tie a single John Smiths up with a passport number can't be an easy task. Fingerprints maybe?
Regarding the EU privacy laws. Do you know where I can read about these laws?
I'm intrigued.
By the way. In a recent agreement between the US and the UK they increased the flow of information about criminals and former criminals. As Chris mentions to what extend remains a mystery. I'd hate to speculate but a quick tap tap on the PNC can reveal a lot. How they tie a single John Smiths up with a passport number can't be an easy task. Fingerprints maybe?
Also bear in mind, if you get there, and your fella gets deported, you may well be charged the cost of the seat on the plane (regardless of the fact you have a ticket for another flight). And if you havve ever tried to buy a ticket very soon before departure, you will know that ticket prices on the day can be huge.. i'm talking a grand per person.
Do you want to risk that cost?
Do you want to risk that cost?
All airlines flying into the US are responsible for returning a traveler to the country of origin if they do not pass immigration. It would be the airline who would seeking any costs from the traveler. Therefore the airline cannot demand payment before being sent back. For the record - it would not be a deportation. It would be a refusal of entry. Consequences of both are very different.
For Bobs1975:
I hope that you've got plenty of time to do some reading ;-)
Start here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc? smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdo c=31995L0046&model=guichett
Then read the 'Background Information' section here:
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.ht ml
Then click on some of the 'Latest News' links to read about the row between the USA who were demanding that airlines forwarded data which EU laws would make it unlawful for them to disclose.
For more, check out the relevant links here:
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/
Chris
I hope that you've got plenty of time to do some reading ;-)
Start here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc? smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdo c=31995L0046&model=guichett
Then read the 'Background Information' section here:
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.ht ml
Then click on some of the 'Latest News' links to read about the row between the USA who were demanding that airlines forwarded data which EU laws would make it unlawful for them to disclose.
For more, check out the relevant links here:
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/
Chris
Bobs1975:
I read it the same way as you but, as originally stated, nobody knows exactly what information is passed on in the name of counter-terrorism.
As analogy, Essex police recently conducted an anti-knife crime initiative where they stopped and searched loads of people at railway stations. They can't stop people in the street and search them without without good grounds, but they used anti-terror legislation to enable them to do exactly that at railway stations. Other police forces, and government bodies, frequently use anti-terror laws to get round both UK and EU legislation, so nobody knows how much they 'stretch' the laws on privacy when it comes to passing information to the USA.
Chris
I read it the same way as you but, as originally stated, nobody knows exactly what information is passed on in the name of counter-terrorism.
As analogy, Essex police recently conducted an anti-knife crime initiative where they stopped and searched loads of people at railway stations. They can't stop people in the street and search them without without good grounds, but they used anti-terror legislation to enable them to do exactly that at railway stations. Other police forces, and government bodies, frequently use anti-terror laws to get round both UK and EU legislation, so nobody knows how much they 'stretch' the laws on privacy when it comes to passing information to the USA.
Chris
I know it has all changed now and everyone has to fill in the online application for a visitors visa before booking their USA holiday. I think it is as much to stop people booking and then using the financial argument when they are turned down later. noone can just travel now and risk it as far as i understand the new procedure
If you get a visa it's no guarantee of entry either - people with visas can be and are turned down on arrival. Usual reason is that they are suspected of being going to work or overstay or the like. Or arrive drunk and abusive.
My own take on the situation is that if you apply for an ESTA and get it straightaway then you are not in their database.
If you get it after the 72 hours wait then there is a 'fuzzy match' to you in their database which they have managed to resolve in your favour. Someone with a similar name maybe, that sort of thing
If you are refused after 72 hours then they either have something definite on you or have been unable to resolve the fuzzy match.
But all that's just an opinion - I have no inside knowledge and could be way wrong.
My own take on the situation is that if you apply for an ESTA and get it straightaway then you are not in their database.
If you get it after the 72 hours wait then there is a 'fuzzy match' to you in their database which they have managed to resolve in your favour. Someone with a similar name maybe, that sort of thing
If you are refused after 72 hours then they either have something definite on you or have been unable to resolve the fuzzy match.
But all that's just an opinion - I have no inside knowledge and could be way wrong.