I'm travelling to Florida Disneyland in May '12.

[Trooper69]

Do I need to declare my one conviction of carrying an offensive weapon in December 2008 on my ESTA form ? (Electronic System for Travel Authorization). They stipulate to state TWO convictions or one involving moral turpitude. Not sure whether my offense falls into this category.

[Buenchico]

Given that actually assaulting someone with a weapon doesn't (under most circumstances) constitute 'moral turpitude', it's extremely unlikely that simply carrying that weapon would do so!

The official definition of moral turpitude is in this document
http://www.state.gov/...rganization/86942.pdf
but Wikipedia provides a simpler summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

However it's worth noting that the US Embassy website states that anyone who has ever been arrested (irrespective of the nature of the offence or even whether they were actually guilty of it) is ineligible to enter the USA under the Visa Waiver Program (i.e. with an ESTA):
http://london.usembassy.gov/vwp3.html

Chris

[dzug2]

If you declare it on your ESTA form you will be refused an ESTA and told to apply for a visa instead.

If you are not sure if it's moral turpitude or not the Embassy will decide for you. Their procedure for deciding is for you to apply for a visa.

[Trooper69]

Is it true that if I apply for a visa and it is refused, I won't be allowed to enter the USA ever again ?

[EDDIE51]

I think you can appeal but they very rarely succeed . So basically Yes .

[MarkRae]

In addition to what the others have said, recent federal laws in the US now consider any sort of knowing deception by omission on the entry documents as a felony. Previously, if they'd caught you at customs, they'd probably have done nothing more than detain you in the airport security until the next available flight home whereupon they'd have deported you. Now, you may very find yourself in a US courtroom.

Don't do it...

[MASS1961]

Wish Britain had the same rules?

[MarkRae]

It's a continuation of the tightening up of what they call "homeland security" in the wake of the World Trade Center atrocities.

[dzug2]

<<Is it true that if I apply for a visa and it is refused, I won't be allowed to enter the USA ever again ? >>

No that's not true.

If you try to use the ESTA/VWP route and get turned away on arrival (no appeal) in the US then you can never use the ESTA/VWP route again

If you apply for a visa and are refused then you can appeal (OK not much chance of success) or apply again later when the issues that led to refusal of a visa are no longer of importance. After 15 years there is a guideline (though not an absolute rule) in favour of granting the visa

[NOX]

Just cancel it mate and go to Euro Disney- not worth getting the Yanks backs up as Mark Rae said, they now take a very dim view.

[Trooper69]

Thanks guys. I'm going to 'fess up and let the chips fall where they may

[MarkRae]

That's certainly the sensible approach. To be clear, this is what is (almost) certainly guaranteed to happen:

1) you submit the ESTA form on line, declaring your conviction in the appropriate section.

2) the ESTA will be automatically rejected, and you will be advised to contact the US Embassy to try to obtain a Visa.

3) The US Embassy will reject your application for a Visa.

You may try again in ten years or so, but even then the chances of your ever being able to enter the US legally for the rest of your life are next to zero. They don't operate any sort of rehabilitation policy, and that's unlikely to change any time soon.

[dzug2]

<<They don't operate any sort of rehabilitation policy>>

But they do. Not in terms of being able to not declare the offence, which is forever, but in terms of being prepared to disregard it after a lengthy period of time:

An immigrant alien who is inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is eligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h) (see also 9 FAM 40.21(a) PN2) if it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) that:
(1) The activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien‟s application for a visa for admission, or adjustment of status; the alien‟s admission to the United States would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security, and the alien has been rehabilitated

[MarkRae]

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that, unlike our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which says that crimes don't need to be declared on official documents (apart from situations involving children or vulnerable adults etc) after they are deemed to have expunged, no such rehabilitation period exists on ESTA / Visa application.

[Trooper69]

The thing is, my behaviour upon conviction was medically related. The ESTA online form arrived at through a link from the reputable 'Martin Lewis Money Expert' website mentions only declaration of TWO convictions which result in a prison sentence of 5 years or more in total OR one involving the mysterious moral turpitude which, it has been determined, does not fall under this category. (I did 60 hours community service and fined £60. I am a professional man.) When I clicked on the 'yes' option to having a criminal record, it flagged up a dialogue box asking "do you really want to answer YES to this question", so prompting my posting on to Answerbank. I left the form incomplete and did not submit it. It seems cruel to be banned from a country I want to go back to. Visited New York twice pre-9/11. Visited Hawaii twice, and in fact got married there, again, pre-9/11.

[MarkRae]

The whole concept of what constitutes moral turpitude can certainly appear bizarre in the extreme. Even more bizarre, though, is the list of crimes which don't! E.g. there's no mention of possession of indecent images of under-age children so, on face value at least, Gary Glitter's original UK conviction would not have automatically barred him from future travel to the USA.

[Monkey669]

Hi Guys

I was denied a non-immigration. USA to the US under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for crime involving moral turpitude. What I don't understand is that this happened 10 years ago and was at the small end of the scale for which I was fined only. I have also found literature stating:
" exception - Maximum
Penalty for crime doesn't exceed one year and sentence was not more that 6 months"
I still therefore don't understand why? Is it worth reapplying?
Mike