theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/


ESTA - New wording from Moral turpitude to serious damage/

Author
Message
Cookie
Cookie
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)Supreme Being (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1, Visits: 1
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
Edited
2 Years Ago by Cookie
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 687, Visits: 4.3K
Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM
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

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.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 302, Visits: 2.9K
I fully agree with AB2014.

Regardless of whether your offence fits their criteria, there is absolutely no point going the ESTA route if you are going to disclose.

Go the ESTA route, tick no, and you will almost certainly get through no problem.

Go the visa route, then you will definitely have to make known your conviction, and you will probably be rejected.

The only caveat is that visa decisions can be appealed, while ESTA decisions are the final decision of the individual border officer and cannot be appealed. Also, a visa is guaranteed entry into the US, and cannot be overruled by a border officer, while "ESTA approved" status on your computer is not; the border officer can overrule the decision. That being said, I would go for an ESTA.
scotboy
scotboy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21, Visits: 76

Esta is the best way, say no to all questions.... if your esta is approved go via Dublin if any thing goes wrong which is unlikely it's a short flight back.
The Uk does not normally share information with the US.sitting on a plane for seven anxious hours will be no fun and queing up at Homeland Security can take for ever.
,

Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)Supreme Being (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110, Visits: 381
Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM
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

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.


Edited
2 Years Ago by Harmless
BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 302, Visits: 2.9K
Harmless - 29 Dec 19 10:40 PM
Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM
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

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.


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.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 687, Visits: 4.3K
BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM
Harmless - 29 Dec 19 10:40 PM
Cookie - 24 Nov 19 7:32 PM
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

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.


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.

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.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)Supreme Being (51K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 302, Visits: 2.9K
AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM
BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM

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.

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.

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.
Edited
Last Year by BenS
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)Supreme Being (69K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 687, Visits: 4.3K
BenS - 7 Jan 20 11:31 AM
AB2014 - 7 Jan 20 10:26 AM
BenS - 2 Jan 20 10:37 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

scotboy
scotboy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21, Visits: 76
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.
GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search