|
A conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) causes a person to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(a)(i) of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). There are petty offense exceptions to this rule, but these exceptions do not change the meaning of the question on the Visa Waiver Program or on the visa application form, and cannot be self-certified. A controlled substance violation causes the alien to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(i)(II) of the INA. They are two different sections of the law. A controlled substance violation is a CIMT. The immigration administrative proceeding does not use a controlled substance violation as a CIMT. A visa waiver program applicant admissibility is determined at the port of entry and they are subject to section 212(a) and 217 of the INA
Visa Waiver Program
The first question on document I-94W for those visiting the U.S. on the Visa Waiver Program asks:
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been controled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?
Little guidance is provided to the traveler as to which offenses are included in the definition; however the Web site of the U.S. embassy in London states that a visa is required for anyone who has ever been arrested or convicted for any offense.[8] This appears to be at variance with the question on form I-94W and information supplied by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as there are many offenses that are not considered to involve moral turpitude
U.S. government guidance on determining moral turpitude
A definition of moral turpitude is available for immigration purposes on the United States Department of State website.
For offenses (or arrests on suspicion of such offenses) occurring outside the U.S., the locally defined offense must be considered against the U.S. definitions, and in such cases it is the definition of the offense (as defined in the appropriate country) which is considered for immigration purposes, and not the circumstances of the individual's actual case.
Whether a state law offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude for federal immigration purposes is decided on a statute by statute basis, because each state statute might cover a different range behaviors, some of which may not necessarily involve moral turpitude under the Federal definition. For a good example of a criminal statute that seems like it would categorically involve moral turpitude, but actually does not because the statute covers some behavior that does not involve moral turpitude, see the Ninth Circuit case Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, No. 09-73756 (9th Cir. 2013) (simple kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a) is not a categorical crime involving moral turpitude).
There are no mistakes in life, only lessons.Post Edited (Spiritus) : 27/06/2013 18:23:24 (GMT+1)
|