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.

I recently applied/interviewed for Global Entry and just got denied. Apparently the cause for denial was that customs had found some (undeclared) cuban cigars in my luggage 15 years ago (when I was a young college student) and confiscated it.

Does anyone know if I have any likelihood of success if I appeal to the CBP Ombudsman? I have no criminal record, and have had no issues with customs since that incident 15 years ago.

If do appeal, is there any good explanation I could offer for having been carrying cuban cigars?

thank you

Anecdotally, appeals to the Ombudsman which do anything other than correct a factual error, e.g., it was your brother, not you, who smuggled in the cigars, tend to fail. But, there is no harm in trying. The worst that can happen is that the denial is upheld and you still don't have GE.

Unfortunately, because GE is all about a less rigorous entry process, people who have had Customs violations in the past tend to be pretty quickly denied under the theory that they filled out a Customs declaration stating under the federal equivalent of an oath that they were not carrying contraband, when they were.

If you do appeal, there is no such thing as a good reason for smuggling. It was an is a violation of law. Trying to justify what you did -- harmless as it may seem to you -- infuriates law enforcement officers who enforce those laws. Be factual, be apologetic, state that you learned a hard lesson and will never do it again (presuming that you are comfortable saying that).

I can't think of any 'good' explanation; what explanation could you possibly give other than that you were intentionally smuggling them into the US?

Since the appeal is free, the downside is only the time you spend on it. I would emphasize your relative youth at the time of the violation if you appeal. But your chances are very slim. Many things can change in 15 years; bureaucratic memory is not one of them. Asking CBP to approve an applicant with an apparent willful customs violation for a trusted traveler program is asking a lot, even if it was a youthful indiscretion.

Well, there's always claiming ignorance.

Could stress that I bought them for my own use. (Would that be better or worse?) Or as a gift "for my dad who loves cigars"

I suppose it would not be good to say that I bought them to resell.

Mistakes can happen. When I was an Army officer, I had a subordinant request a security clearance. It was denied. Upon checking, he had been "arrested" by the Savak in Iran (before the revolution) for having a painted sign, in Farci, on his car, saying "Death to the Shah!". He knew someone had spray painted his car, but thought there were just squiggy lines. This somehow got into his arrest record in the U.S. We finally got it worked out, but mistakes and strange things can happen in legal records.

- Cuban airport

BIENVENIDOS A CUBA


- Paper to sign at Cuban Airport

PURPOSE OF VISIT

A) Business/Pleasure []

B) Smuggle Cigars []

C) Assassinate Castro []

(Homer ticks all three.)

Claiming ignorance and the fact that your dad loves cigars is probably not worth the stamp to send in the appeal or the time it will take to say that.

A CBP Officer acting as the "Ombudsman" sees that and he chuckles to himself noting that the earlier Officer made the right decision as he denies your appeal.

Your chances are slim to nil as it is. Keep it simple, short and apologetic and you might hit the "slim". Do anything else and you hit the "nil".

I think CBP would generally be uninterested in minimization of the violation (i.e. "it wasn't that bad because . . ." is not what they want to hear). What the cigars were for 15 years ago isn't really their concern today. I would stress your youth at the time if you bother with the appeal. It is a long shot. A really long shot.

It kind of surprises me how often people get the idea to lie to CBP. I don't think the reason why you bought them is important, and keep in mind they may have made a note of the reason that you offered at the time.

No, they didn't ask for an explanation at the time.

The irony is I went in for the Global Entry interview together with my wife and kids, and they all got approved and received their cards already.

Is it better or worse for me to mention in my appeal that my wife an kids were already approved?

Better because it's a little strange that they would approve them when they're concerned about me?
Or worse, because they may just revoke my wife and kids when they realize?

Not that ironic; I presume none of them have ever been busted for not declaring contraband when entering the US.

While I can't say for sure, I think your odds of getting GE are extremely low; the key word in "trusted traveler programs" is "trusted" and with a customs violation like that, even though it's 15 years old, it's an obvious reason that CBP might be unwilling to trust you to properly declare items in the future.

(The fact that you had conditional approval under the circumstances seems weird to me, though, so you may still have a chance; I just wouldn't count on it. Doesn't hurt to appeal.)

That's one of the scariest things I've heard on this topic.
OK, that's even scarier. Child support arrears?

Perhaps they were some samples of counterfeit goods that you intended to sell for profit in the USA? :D

Seriously, I would think that the one valid reason for denying global entry would be a customs violation for smuggling something prohibited into the country. I don't know how an appeal would help unless you were underage and somehow your father told you what to buy but you weren't aware it was illegal. Even that is a huge stretch.

CBP knows all that stuff. Shorter is better. If you can say what you have to say in three declarative sentences, don't use four. You are advocating to CBP that it ought to trust you. Why is that? The answer to that question is all that you need.

Give them an ambiguous answer, e.g., "If our border security makes us safer, then I am all for it."

Are you not aware that your passport will be revoked if you have an outstanding child support obligation?

I had a client who went into a consulate to have pages added to his passport. They seized his passport and would only give him a one-way travel document back to the U.S. because he was in arrears on his child support obligation. He was paying, but he was about $6,000 behind.

Since you're not allowed to have a passport and that's been the case for years, it would hardly be surprising that GE would be revoked for child support arrearages. People pay up in one hell of a hurry.

While I am against too much government interference in one's personal life in general, I don't see a problem here. Why would this be scary in your opinion?

Here are other penalties (not including criminal and capias warrants that would be issued)

• Driver's license suspension, revocation of driving privileges
• Denial of government benefits
• Denial of tax refund
• Revocation of passport - or change to immigration status
• Garnishment of wages (this includes unemployment)
• Liens on real property
• Denial or revocation of boating or hunting licenses
• Adverse impact on credit score

It's not scary since the government is always right.
It's not scary since the government should be able to deny free people the right to travel.
It's not scary since people never have family or work obligations outside of the US.
It's not scary since people in debt can always easily afford to pay off their debts and always have their contributions tracked properly.
It's not scary since there is never a slippery slope with the government actions that involve frustrating the rights of a disliked minority.

My philosophy on this is that if a person isn't currently locked up and hasn't been locked up and isn't currently on trial for a criminal offense, then their freedom of movement should not be curtailed by passport denial/revocation. Unfortunately, the government sees it differently than I do on this matter and has since the POTUS was a former Arkansas governor whose biological father ditched him and his mother as he saw it -- that is when this HHS-State passport denial/revocation started and the numbers of denials and revocations started to skyrocket for free US persons.

The amusing thing is that citizens of the US who are denied a US passport or have a valid US one revoked can travel internationally still if they have a non-US passport but that increases the expenses for such persons and probably somewhat undermines their ability or willingness to pay.

I have no doubt that some of the US child support debtors with the largest unpaid debts in TX, NY, FL and CA include some US dual-citizens reported up to HHS and State via HHS.

What is interesting to note is that a few thousand dollars in child support debt results in passport denial/revocation while even millions in civil debts subject to collections processes by the IRS does not ordinarily result in US passport denial/revocation -- the attempt (a handful of years back) to make IRS debts a general basis for US passport revocation/denial got defeated in creative ways.

No, that's terrible. It's like debtors' prison. How can the US deny you a citizenship document or the right to travel simply because you have a civil debt?
Because it's using CBP to enforce some sort of civil, moral dragnet that is 100% none of their purview and has no bearing on the safety/integrity of the US border.

Because Congress passed a law that says they can, the moron in office at the time it passed signed it into law, and because the Supremes have not ruled it unconstitutional.

Maybe because its got to be court-ordered child support where the individual has to be found to: 1) owe the money; and 2) have the ability to pay it; and 3) hasn't paid. In short, is a deadbeat.

Since they've got the ability to pay, it's just a matter of collecting. Suspending/seizing passports, licenses and the like makes for this sort of thing to happen quickly.

And, since it's the taxpayers -- that's us -- fronting the bills when child support isn't paid, it's our money coming back in.

This has been going on since Clinton wanted this and signed it into law. It made his critic Gingrich happy too.

It doesn't have to be that for the passport to be denied or revoked, often as it may be, and often as it is not. ;)

Not generally true.

That is anything but generally true.

1) Owe what amount of money? You mean an arbitrarily assigned amount ignoring realistic criteria?

2) No such determination is ever made.

3) And assumes the parent was ever informed of what they owed and had the opportunity to contest the assessment.

By taking passports/licenses, they are generally denying the parent the means to make the money to pay/

Taxpayers making up the shortfall? That's funny.

You are buying into the fallacy that the system has any degree of fairness or justice to it. It doesn't.

State this ?
 

I was convicted of trespass in a park, a low-level charge, 30 years ago, and I went through the process of expunging it, though I was told that this did not expunge it from all records. Two major criminal record servers showed me without any record. But I sense it would be wise to declare the conviction and mention that it was supposedly expunged. To say nothing is probably unwise. Any opinions on this?

CBP can find criminal records going back to the 70s, so it would be wise to declare it. If you are conditionally approved, bring the documentation that it was expunged.

How about Juvenal records in the 50's or early 60's?

As others have noted time and again in this and other GE threads:

1. There is any easy way to find out whether CBP has a record. Just don't declare the matter and see if you are denied for having made false statements.
2. It is a felony violation of federal law to make a false statement on the application or to the Officer during an interview. Will it be prosecuted? Not likely. But, nobody can say for sure.

This is a longer way of saying that it is short-sighted and reckless to fail to disclose any matter, no matter how dated and how minor.

Thinking of a curfew and a driving without a license violations that occurred when I was 13-15 years old and got me into the police station. Being 50+ years ago I can't even recall if they were classified as arrests and I have no clue on the exact dates. So on the appplication I stated no arrest.
I have no problem discussing this in an interview.

And that's what you should do. You smile and say exactly what you have in your post. You draw a smile back. If by some bizarre chance there is a record in front of the Officer, you've covered it. If it isn't and he denied you because you misbehaved when you were 13, there are bigger issues.

The applicant may have it "covered" if they disclose the incident early enough (like when walking into the interview room). Otherwise, the applicant risks already being labeled as a liar/cheat due to the "sin" of omission. YMMV.

would it be too late to try and appeal a denial from 2013? also all my denial letter said was that i did not meet the eligibility requirements. i have no idea what that could be. i tried emailing the ombudsman, who kindly referred me to the original denial letter.

See, the thing is..you don't have a right to be in the Global Entry program. Therefore, they can make any reason to say that your risk level is high and not grant you access. It's like when you apply for a job. I can avoid hiring you because of your arrest record, too.

If one answers the question: "have you been arrested", truthfully it is a plus on his side.
Why should being arrested (NOT CONVICTED) make one ineligible for GE? There are many instances of false arrest.

Yes. I would suggest filing a new application instead.

Because there could be a statistical correlation with inability to guarantee that this passenger is "known" enough. The point is that he has the right to travel. He does NOT have the right to be in the Global Entry program--that is a privilege. If you cannot meet certain thresholds of confidence in your "known" status as a "good" traveler, then you don't get in. The GE program is about getting the creme of the crop. Being arrested--even if not convicted--could mean that the government cannot be fully confident in you and will not grant you security waivers.