theForum » Travel » Travelling to the USA » Travelling on an ESTA » ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Cookie — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:56:34 GMT

Why is this question so subjective to who answers it? It would be so much easier if it was like the AUS method of "have you been to prison for more than 12 months".

So the new question for criminal records is has now changed to:
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?

i have a common assault charge from 10 years ago so I'm pretty sure this is going to be a NO. At the same time what are the chances of the immigration guy thinking otherwise in terms of seriousness/classification of the crime?

What do you think is the best plan for USA entry - i think i should be fine for a ESTA - do you agree?

Thank you

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

J23 — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:56:34 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 26 Nov 19 9:04 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM[/b]

[/quote]

Well, if you answer the ESTA questions truthfully and honestly, wouldn't that be enough for you. If you're thinking of disclosing to the border control agent on arrival then you may as well apply for a visa. The ESTAs and visas are issued by the State Department, who revised the questions a few years ago. The border control is staffed by Homeland Security, who have a zero-tolerance approach to undisclosed cautions and convictions, so you would probably be sent back on the next flight, and that could well affect your ability to travel in the future. Common assault is not an offence that would stop you getting a visa, as it is the equivalent of their simple assault and is not a crime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, if you don't disclose on arrival, there is no other way for the border control agent to know that you have a criminal record, as there is no routine sharing of criminal record information.

If you believe that your offence did not result in serious harm to a person, then you have the right to answer no and apply for an ESTA. If you do that, and you happen to be spot-checked on arrival for any reason then don't disclose anything you haven't already disclosed. Unless you're secretly involved in international organised crime, they won't know anything you don't tell them.

[/quote]

In 2014 I travelled to the US on a non-immigrant holiday visa - I was granted a 10 year VISA, which is technically still in date but on a passport that has expired and I no longer have.

I believe that I never really needed a VISA, so I applied for an ESTA for my forthcoming trip, which I have been granted.

I was cautioned for criminal damage (under £500 - private property) in 2006.

I am now concerned that when I go through US Border Patrol and get fingerprinted, it is going to alert staff of my previous trip to the US on the VISA (technically still in date)

If Border Patrol ask me about why I had a VISA (and now don't have one) what do I say? I am worried about your comment of 'Homeland Security having a zero tolerance policy to undisclosed cautions and convictions'

I am very anxious about the situation, but genuinely believe I can honestly say that I have not been convicted of a crime that would rule me out of an ESTA. Looking at the list of crimes of moral turpitude I don't believe this fits the bill

Your advice and thoughts are extremely welcome. Should I apply for a VISA?

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

scotboy — Fri, 08 May 2020 23:10:21 GMT

I agree with Simon1983, don't go while on the SOR, wait until you are finished with it.Canada and US share information, unfortunately if you have alerted the Canadian authorities regarding your offence they might share with Homeland Security.The best advice I can give is to wait until your SOR is complete then apply for an ESTA tick no to every question you should get a reply within 24 hours. If successful fly via Dublin it's a short hop back if anything goes wrong having said if your are granted an ESTA you should be ok,I would still fly from Ireland, once through Homeland Security you can sit back relax and look forward to you holiday......good luck.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Simon1983 — Thu, 07 May 2020 16:18:03 GMT

Hi RMUK

Do not even try going to either of these countries while on the Sex offenders register.

It is first important to remember that the UK does not share information on the PNC with any country.

The trouble is while on the SOR you have to give police notice of travel over seas, i would foresee that if you told them that you were going to the USA there first question would be what a bout a visa. If you then turned round and said you had used an ESTA, i would foresee a whole can of worms opening up before your eyes.

Once you are off the register there is nothing stopping you going to the USA and using an ESTA and lying that you do not have a criminal conviction, going on holiday having a good time then coming back.

In terms of canada that is a little bit more tricky, if you went to the canada embassy to try and appeal the eTA decision i would imagine they will ask you to supply a police certificate, this will then list your sex offence and you will not stand a chance of getting in there.

If using the land boarder from USA to Canada i know that both countries share information, so would have to ask would your eTA refusal show up on there system when you tried to cross the boarder, which might then cause the US authorities to question your ESTA

In short Ii just don’t know

You might have more luck in just going to the USA and asking your friend to meet you there maybe

not sure if any one else has any advice

All the best and stay safe

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

RMUK — Thu, 07 May 2020 14:29:49 GMT

I am on the SOR for 5 years (I was told by the court it was 3, but the police have since told me there was a mistake and it is actually 5 apparently due to the fact I got a Restriction of Liberty Order (ankle tag) for 3 months as well as my 3 year community supervision order. That's a story for another day though and I am still trying to fight it with my solicitor.)

In 2017 (before I was even convicted of sexual offences) I had applied for an eTA to visit Canada (stupidly after paying for the non-cancellable flight) and was rejected due to having a pending common assault charge (I was not clued up and at the time thought it was sensible to tell the truth on the form, on which I now deeply regret).

We have good friends in Canada who we are trying to visit but I unfortunately am unable. I know that if I reapply for the eTA in years to come, they will link it to my old application and reject me again.

I know another way without requiring an eTA is to go via a land border (ie the US). I have never applied for a US Esta so if I apply now I'd probably be accepted, but I don't know if I should risk going while on the SOR and f**king it up for future. My SOR ends in 2023 (was meant to be 2021)..

Anyone have experience of going to US while on the SOR, or more interestingly, has anyone ever applied for overcoming criminal admissibility to obtain Canada eTA?

Apologies for long post!

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

JASB — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 13:26:11 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 3:08 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 28 Jan 20 2:10 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 1:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

No, I never went to the US, just Canada. Sorry if I was unclear. I duly notified my travel to Canada, and did not visit any other countries on that trip. I flew directly from the UK (and returned directly to the UK).

[/quote]

I think there might be some confusion over who actually crossed the land border. Didn't you say your brother crossed the land border, which was quicker than it might have been because he already had an ESTA?

[/quote]

Yes, I mentioned that in a completely separate thread.

As for this thread, in response to Harmless, I have notified a trip to Canada and got in no problems. Nothing whatsoever to do with the US.

I can't comment on travelling to the US on the SOR as I have not done this. But it's nice to see Scotboy's account that he got in on an ESTA after the end of his time on the SOR.

[/quote]

Hi

I am searching the site plus "The Record" as I am sure a person on the SOR obtained entry as they provided a detailed plan - points of stay etc- .
I cannot remember their actual sex offence details but I will keep searching.
Hopefully not confused with something else.

[/quote]

The Record does have a couple of stories about getting a US visa with a criminal record, but neither involves being on the SOR.

[/quote]

Hi AB2014, many thanks for clarifying for me.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:10:11 GMT

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 28 Jan 20 9:19 PM[/b]

That is still very interesting, thanks. What conditions \ convictions did you have when you entered Canada, if you don't mind me asking (e.g. sentence length, spent\unspent, length on the SOR)? And what about the ESTA (you need one for Canada right)? And did PPU say in advance whether you were likely to get in? IOW was your entry possible because PPU didn't bother putting up a notice?

Was there any friction at all? Also I'm interested in whether Canada does pre-clearance in Ireland as does the US?

[/quote]

I was (am) 10 years on the SOR for an online image viewing offence, for which I got a suspended sentence. Would be spent now, but for the remaining SOPO which coincides with the SOR.

The PPU didn't offer any comments about my chances of getting into Canada. He didn't seem to react any differently from when I have previously notified to go to France, Germany etc. Tbh I was a bit scared to ask him. I just hoped for the best. There wasn't any friction with the PPU, not from what I could tell anyway.

No pre-clearance system exists for Canada. You just have to sit on the plane for many hours and hope for the best. But when you arrive, human contact is minimal to nonexistent. For eTA nationalities, you no longer have to go to a human agent. You scan your passport at a machine, it prints a ticket, which you hand to an official on your way out but they don't actually check your passport. As for the online eTA, which is just like the American ESTA in that you have to do it online in advance, I ticked no to the question about convictions.

I guess the fact that I got in shows that the PPU did not put a green notice on me.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Harmless — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:19:53 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 1:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

As for this thread, in response to Harmless, I have notified a trip to Canada and got in no problems. Nothing whatsoever to do with the US.

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

AB2014 — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 15:08:27 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 28 Jan 20 2:10 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 1:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

[/quote]

The Record does have a couple of stories about getting a US visa with a criminal record, but neither involves being on the SOR.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

JASB — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:10:07 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 1:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:54:01 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 28 Jan 20 11:02 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

AB2014 — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:02:47 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 28 Jan 20 10:47 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 26 Jan 20 5:22 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

I have disclosed travel to Canada and got in under the eTA no problem. The PPO ought to have deduced that I was being economical with the truth on the Canadian immigration form but apparently didn't care, or it wasn't their paygrade to know.

[/quote]

That's pretty interesting, because Canada-US is a lot of domestic flights.

Can you expand, confirm , reiterate? You're on the SOR and you declared Canada as your first port of call, ticked "no" to the ESTA stuff and walked right in?

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:47:14 GMT

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 26 Jan 20 5:22 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Harmless — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:22:28 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

scotboy — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:54:29 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 9 Jan 20 11:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]scotboy - 7 Jan 20 9:46 PM[/b]

I had plans to travel to US a few years ago but the police suggested that it might not be a good idea,I waited until my Sor was up and went via Dublin.

[/quote]

Hi, so you're confirming that you successfully entered the US as a former SOR registrant by ticking no on the ESTA?

This is very good if so - I have never seen anyone online confirming this b

[quote]

[b]BenS - 9 Jan 20 11:27 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]scotboy - 7 Jan 20 9:46 PM[/b]

I had plans to travel to US a few years ago but the police suggested that it might not be a good idea,I waited until my Sor was up and went via Dublin.

[/quote]

Hi, so you're confirming that you successfully entered the US as a former SOR registrant by ticking no on the ESTA?

This is very good if so - I have never seen anyone online confirming this beforI

Yes! I have seen posts where people say they will let the forum know how they get on but never do.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Alberto — Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:13:08 GMT

Hello all, My situation is a little different. I was sentenced to 9 months for GBH in 2000 and shortly after getting released I applied for a visa to the us and got denied (mortal turpitude). Twenty years on and I’d like to go to the states. If I go for an ESTA what are my chances of them linking it to my old passport and visa application? If I go for a visa will it definitely get denied? Any help greatly appreciated!

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 11:27:55 GMT

[quote]

[b]scotboy - 7 Jan 20 9:46 PM[/b]

I had plans to travel to US a few years ago but the police suggested that it might not be a good idea,I waited until my Sor was up and went via Dublin.

[/quote]

Hi, so you're confirming that you successfully entered the US as a former SOR registrant by ticking no on the ESTA?

This is very good if so - I have never seen anyone online confirming this before.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

AB2014 — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:52:10 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 8 Jan 20 10:56 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 11:54 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

[/quote]

The only thing to bear in mind for anyone who is on the SOR and discloses travel to the US is that the police will work out that you haven't disclosed and might choose to issue an Interpol notice. That would almost certainly inspire the US authorities to cancel the ESTA.

[/quote]

Agreed.

For any RSO, I would say avoid the US until you no longer have any notification requirements. Once you can legally travel without need to tell anyone, go the ESTA "No" route, ideally through Ireland.

I wonder if anyone on the SOR has disclosed travel to the US and got in on an ESTA.

I have disclosed travel to Canada and got in under the eTA no problem. The PPO ought to have deduced that I was being economical with the truth on the Canadian immigration form but apparently didn't care, or it wasn't their paygrade to know.

[/quote]

Well, a certain well-known musician got a caution for possession of indecent images about 10-15 years ago, which would have got him 2 years on the SOR. I'm guessing it didn't stop him travelling, but did he disclose? Regarding the police, it seems to be yet another postcode lottery, as some forces are more reasonable in allocating their resources than others. Some do proper risk assessments, while others have a one-size-fits-all approach. We can only hope that if we behave reasonably, we'll be treated reasonably. It seems that in some cases, that actually happens.

[/quote]

A caution is not a conviction though is it? If it's the musician I think you are talking about (PT?) he didn't have any images on his device when the police seized it, therefore he was not in possession. He did admit to having downloaded some images "for research" in the past but had since deleted them. Given that plod had no evidence to put before the court, they couldn't see any chance of a successful prosecution, so he got a caution instead. He was not convicted of anything and I don't think he was ever placed on the SOR, since there was no evidence of him ever being in possession of any image, other than his word. He would therefore be allowed to travel to the US freely.

[/quote]

Actually, if you accept a caution for a sexual offence in Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, you get 2 years on the SOR. That is prescribed by law, so the police don't have the authority to let you off. After that, it's all about whether you have a good enough lawyer to get you accepted by the US. In this case, I'd imagine he might qualify for a business visa.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

punter99 — Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:56:24 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 11:54 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

scotboy — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 21:46:36 GMT

I had plans to travel to US a few years ago but the police suggested that it might not be a good idea,I waited until my Sor was up and went via Dublin.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

AB2014 — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:54:50 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:31:00 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

AB2014 — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:26:03 GMT

[quote]

[b]BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 29 Dec 19 10:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM[/b]

[/quote]

I have an underage image possession charge.

Under the old wording, if I wanted to be honest, I'd have to say yes, "moral turpitude".

Under the new wording, I'd have to say that economically speaking the images were "off the back of a truck", so I am legally obliged to say that no harm was inflicted or else risk lying on the form. Oh noes.

I have no idea what I would put if, e.g. I was done for speeding at 200 miles per hour with no casualties. No harm inflicted but it's the sort of thing that might inflict harm and the sort of past action to watch out for if you think someone might be a dangerous nutter.

[/quote]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

[/quote]

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

BenS — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:37:02 GMT

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 29 Dec 19 10:40 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM[/b]

[/quote]

For any kind of online sex offence I would tick no through the ESTA route. You will never get a visa if they see this kind of conviction, even if you have never been a threat to anyone.

RE: ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Harmless — Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:40:37 GMT

[quote]

[b]Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM[/b]

[/quote]