I have a criminal conviction that was expunged from 9 years ago. How should I proceed at the interview? Is honestly really the best policy. I've had a recent background check with my new employer and nothing showed up on it. So will it for the interview?

If it was properly expunged, it shouldn't show up. If it was not properly expunged, it should show up. It is unlikely (but possible) that it was properly expunged.

Honesty is the best policy, but that doesn't mean the outcome will be the one you want. If you don't disclose a conviction that they have a record of, you hurt your application. If you let them know about a conviction that they didn't previously know about, you might hurt your application. What to do? One thing you can do is check your record with the FBI.

One more note-- if the conviction was for drugs, they will probably reject you if they find out about it. If it is something minor, you will probably be OK.

In ALL cases, your conviction, even if expunged, will show up in a law enforcement background check. You will doom yourself to rejection if you fail to report this record. Sorry.

Is the fact that I had some salami confiscated coming from Italy a customs violation? I had said "yes, I am bringing food" on the form...

thanks

If you declared the item then it should not be a violation.

you were not given a fine, warning, or other paperwork were you?

CBP can find out things that happened decades ago. The New York Times reported that CBP asked a Global Entry applicant about an interview he had with a police detective about a theft from a school in 1974 when he was 17. Not an arrest, not a conviction, just an interview that was moved to Georgia's "dead docket". CBP denied his application.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/bu...seid=auto&_r=0

Disclose everything. It's not a question if CBP will find out, it's when they'll find out.

It seems he was arrested per the article:

As others have noted just disclose and discuss in the interview. If they do find it after you did not disclose you will most likely be denied on the spot.

I've been in positions with both the US gov't, foreign gov'ts, int'l orgs, and private companies to oversee background check departments and agencies. Plenty of people think things are expunged, or dropped, or "will no longer show up" but most of the time they are wrong.

They are always told up front, disclose everything because honesty is what the agencies are looking for not perfect pasts. Sadly the instant undisclosed record hit always causes them to get denied. CBP has access to similar databases...

Assuming you declared the food verbally to a USCBP person you will not be in violation if it is illegal and confiscated.

Anyone know how long a reply from the Ombudsman can take? I've read posts of applicants who've been denied waiting six months or more for a decision on their appeal. Some folks say they never hear back, period. Can this be true?

Yes, it can even take many months only to be denied it still.

In my case I had a youthful offender conviction which was suppose to be cleared from my record when I turned 18. I think I can even legally say NO when asked if I was ever convicted since part of the program was that it was to be as it never happened.

It was nothing too serious, larceny. I did it. Was stupid for doing it. I was 16 but that is no excuse as I naturally knew better.

Anyways, I've always answered NO to the question as I've had no other issues 30+ years.

The only ones who ever questioned it was many years ago when apply for a NY pistol permit and last year for global entry. At this point in my life I actually did not know what the interviewer was talking about when she asked, I guess mainly because she was asking about a arrest in the different state then it happened. Once it occurred to me what she must be referring to I corrected the state and then told her that as part of the program I was legally allowed to answer NO.

I guess it was good enough as I was approved. And years ago I too was approved in NY for the permit.

You did the right thing. The reason is that you only "think" that you can say "no". If it's anything other than a legal certainty, the answer is "yes, but...." Saying "no" when it's "yes" becomes a disqualifier even if the underlying issue is unimportant because people who lie about one thing will lie about others.

The FTer was approved after saying "no" when you think they should have said "yes". Go figure. This was a situation of "no, but" more than "yes, but". Go figure.

No. the FT'er makes clear that he at first said "no" and then corrected his statement, presumably during the interview. At least by implication, the issue raised by the CBP Officer was the youthful offender matter.

At an absolute minimum, if the proper answer is "no" as a legal matter, I would nonetheless raise the non-conviction and provide the basis for the "no".

Yes, actually -- the FTer did a "no" which turned out to be a "no, but/because....". Read the post again.