LeisureFirst

I'm pleased the OP's friend got his visa, but this is one area where I really wouldn't recommend coming to Flyertalk for definitive advice. It's a much more serious matter than, say, lounge access, and if admission is important to you I would strongly recommend seeking professional advice.

There are good immigration advisors who will have a very good knowledge of the procedures the US embassy and the Immigration service follow. They would be much better at giving individual professional advice, which is what the OP needs, than a bunch of people on here trying to interpret incomplete information from the US Embassy website or wherever.

T8191

I would need to see the definitions ... I spent my entire teenage years [and a good few after that] being "morally turpidudinous"

I was never arrested for any of it, though.

phillipas

Pretty much by definition that type of legislation can only apply in the country that enacts it. Throw in international travel and things get complex - the UK's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means you can decide not to declare all sorts of stuff when in the UK - but it's no defence at all when standing in line at JFK. The only real hope it offers is that any offence may not be revealed if checks are declared - such that there is a definite way to 'get away with it'.

I think the real question that this thread raises is whether the various legislation such as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act applies with regards to visa aplications.

In fairness the advice has been pretty straight - i.e. be honest.

thadocta

I quite agree, but the point I raised was that the jurisdiction imposing the conviction only intended that the consequences of the conviction last for a certain period (if certain other criteria was satisfied). So if that additional criteria was satisfied (no further conviction is a specified timeframe) then, as far as the jurisdiction imposing the conviction is concerned, the offender is conviction free.

In other words, if someone in the UK is convicted, does their time, and under the appropriate legislation, the conviction is spent. Under UK law (the law under which the conviction was imposed) there is no need to declare the conviction. In other words, there is no declareable (is that a word???) conviction.

Does it therefore need to be declared to US authorities?

Dave

IAMORGAN

I agree that it is often best to approach lawyers etc if in doubt, but I don't think this is a complex issue -you just have to use your judgement as to what adivce on here to accept/reject.

I'm not going to advise the OP, because my advice would have been in the minority.

IAMORGAN

I get your point, but completely speculating here, the use of the phrase "have you ever suggests that the fact a conviction has been overturned or is no longer declarable is immaterial. Spent convictions still need to be declared in the UK for some purposes in any event.

thadocta

I agree with you - another thing to consider is that some things are illegal in some countries but not in others. Cannabis use in Australia vs cannabis use in The Netherlands. Gay male sex in the UK vs gay male sex in Iran. And so on.

There are so many shades of grey here, I agree that in some circumstances, it would probably be best to apply for a visa, as what is considered criminal in one jurisdiction would probably be laughed off by US officials.

But at the same time, I would uphold the right of EVERY jurisdiction to say "After a certain period, we no longer count your convictions under our laws against you, PROVIDED you have adhered to certain criteria". If the jurisdiction imposing the conviction thereby ignores it, why shouldn't everyone else?

Dave

Silver Fox

Yes, but it makes you blind

Dave Noble

Because it is up to the country deciding whether to grant the visa to decide what to ignore and not to ignore.

If the country where the person resides wants to ignore it after a time , then fair enough for them, but no reason why anyone else should.

Not only that it would provide for an unfair system where some would have to decalre crimes and others wouldnt. Luckily for the fairness side, they do ask the question "arrested or convicted" which avoids most cases where the bizarre situation occurs in Australia, for example, where someone can be found guilty of a crime in court yet not receive a conviction.

jerry a. laska

For example, see the following from the website for the US Diplomatic Mission to New Zealand:
http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/non-...ant_visas.html

And from the US Embassy - London website:
http://london.usembassy.gov/add_crime.html

Globaliser

I only have (a little) knowledge of how the UK legislation works, but here the offender is not "conviction free" even if he is entitled to the benefit of the Rehabiliation of Offenders Act in relation to a particular conviction. All that the Act does is to exempt you from having to answer certain questions (or to answer them truthfully) in some circumstances. There are some situations in which your "spent" convictions are still relevant and disclosable.

With the limited protection afforded by the Act even domestically, I would personally be surprised if the Act afforded any protection against an untrue answer given to a foreign country for the purposes of the foreign country's border control. But, I hasten to add, that is just a personal impression.

pinkcat

one of the pastoral heads at my school asked me for an I94W , she uses it to threaten naughty kiddies that if they dont behave, they will never get to go to Florida

wouldnt have made me any better behaved when I was at school, I dont like Florida much!

my brush with the law was at Stonehenge where there was a great deal of "morally Turpiduinous" behaviour going on, mercifully they accepted my reason for crossing the police horse line was to get my son who was asleep in his pushchair and nothing came of it! I have a clear CRB to prove it

baggageinhall

Spot on. Though it may come as no surprise to hear a lawyer recommending that you consult a lawyer, this isn't an area where you want to get things wrong. The net effect of having entry clearance refused or being sent to secondary inspection, be it in the US or elsewhere, is that it could lead to extended verification on future visits and at worst, a temporary or permanent ban from entering a country.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
Donning my wig for a moment, if you are convicted of an offence (by your own plea, a Magistrates' Court or a jury), you have a conviction and will continue to do so for the rest of your life. No magic in that, it's a simple statement of fact.

When the Police print out your entry on the Police National Computer, it will contain the details of your conviction.

The 1974 act allows you to not disclose a conviction that is considered spent as defined by the act. You still have that conviction, but the act in essence, allows you to lie about its existence.

The act however, is not all encompassing. It doesn't apply outside of the UK and that means an application for a visa (or waiver) to any other nation is not covered by the act, even where that application takes place in the UK. On arrival at a foreign port where you present yourself to an Immigration Officer, you are again, not covered by the act.

There are certain organisations who have been allowed to opt out of the legislation. Apply for a job that concerns national security, the administration of justice, working with the young or the elderly and you will be asked for details of previous convictions and reminded that the 1974 does not apply.

It is important however, that you ask the right question and do so in the right way. I prosecuted someone who had a civilian role with the Police. She had a previous conviction for theft many years ago and had not disclosed it. Despite being advised that their form was deficient in the way it asked a particular question where a person had received a particular disposal for an offence, the Police had continued to use the duff question. Net result, she hadn't lied on the form and the prosecution failed.

rofly

From experience I can say that if you are caught lying on an immigration form you will be denied a Green Card years later. In this situation, the case was supposed to be closed (in the U.S.) and the person was even advised by his defense lawyer to answer "No" to the question of "have you ever been arrested". He was denied the GC as a result.

gumbleby

Which raises the question what is an arrest, what is a conviction? Legal systems can be very different.
In Belgium constitutionally the police can't usually make an arrest, only a judge can ; police can however hold anyone for 24 hours (it's called an administrative detention). Even after that point no charges need to be laid, i.e. you may be detained as a suspect for months without a formal charge being laid, this comes later in the procedure.
Apart for criminal matters, administrative detention is also used to detain rowdy protesters for a few hours until things have calmed down etc... Most people are released without further consequences.
Even in cases of say minor theft, things might be handled on an administrative level, where a fine is proposed, but if paid no arrest or convictions are ever involved (theoretically you also have to admit guilt, but usually payment is accepted even if you maintain your innocence).