To Derek: how about some corroboration? Some facts or at least rumors? These one word replies are pointless and waste our time.

I am not the person who is making a false statement, so I don't think I am the one to justify my response. Making things up or assuming something then posting them as facts I think are more of a waste of folks' time.

I will say I know for a fact that this is untrue. A felony will get you rejected, obviously, as felons cannot normally enter the US or Canada. I would expect lying about a misdemeanour would be grounds for refusal, but when disclosed, it is just another factor amongst many.

Perhaps Derek or someone close to Derek has received GE notwithstanding the fact that they have a misdemeanor conviction, but Derek doesn't feel it reasonable, necessary or appropriate to disclose the facts and circumstances of the conviction on a public Frequent Flyer board?

We're all grown-ups here (most of us, anyway ;)) and can make our own assessments of the credibility of statements made on FT.

It may be that Derek (or Derek's friend) is an exceptional case, but why would he bother lying about it repeatedly here?

Greg

Thanks, that's about the gist of it.

I think it comes down to the definition of "criminal conviction" and determining if that means misdemeanour offences, felonies, administrative offences and so on. I can say that at least in one case, a misdemeanour conviction was disclosed on two occasions, and Nexus and Global Entry (pre-2011) were approved.

YMMV, but I would not avoid applying solely on a misdemeanour offence. Unless it were customs or immigration related, I suppose.

Greg, my friend thanks you for your discretion.

You are somewhat correct in the conclusions that you have drawn. It matters if the criminal conviction was a felony, or a misdemeanor. In the case of the misdemeanor conviction, more information will be required to determine if the misdemeanor was a crime of moral turpitude. It does not have to be customs or immigration related to be a disqualifier in most cases the determining factor for convictions will be if it was a crime of moral turpitude.

FB

Not a false statement nor an assumption, but based on actual direct and current experience with the CBP. They will reject GE applicants with a misdemeanor conviction and the Ombudsman will reject the appeal. Per the CBP and their Ombudsman, a misdemeanor conviction is a disqualifier; no mitigating factors will be considered. Even a Top Secret security clearance will not mitigate it.

I do not encourage anyone with such a conviction to apply, as your $100 fee will not be refunded. If one chooses to roll the dice, so be it, you might slip through the bureaucracy, but I would advise contacting the CBP first.

The type of conviction is irrelevant to the CBP. Whether a crime of moral turpitude or even a Class C misdemeanor of the vehicle code, the CBP does not distinguish and rejects the application.

Unfortunately, they do not solicit or accept additional information that would mitigate the conviction. As I mentioned, even a TS clearance is irrelevant to them, which is an exhaustive and comprehensive background check.

It has been suggested earlier in the thread that the CBP will consider applicants with misdemeanors over 10 years old. While I can't discount that as false, I have seen no mention of this in their official correspondence, publications, or the Federal Register. I would once again suggest potential applicants with misdemeanor convictions to contact the CBP or the Ombudsman for any questions or clarifications.

Now I have not seen it mentioned on FT, but expungements are another matter, but I have no personal knowledge with respect to their applicability to Global Entry and it's application procedures. The CBP was unresponsive to my query regarding this.

Ummm OK, I kinda thought I had a pretty good idea what is relevant and what is irrelevant to CBP. However, I am sure you know better than I do. I am sure my information is incorrect.:confused:

FB

What you suggest is a perfectly reasonable course of action. But in practice based on my direct experiences with CBP, they are not operating that way. Not casting judgement on their procedures; it is a trust based program and they have to draw the line somewhere given their resource limitations.

And given the new Federal Register, they may start giving more scrutiny to arrests as well. So if you ever got busted smoking a joint in college or having an open container of beer in the backseat on the way home from the game, or walking home from the bar (public intoxication), or driving 80mph anywhere in Hawaii (misdemeanor I kid you not), expect some additional scrutiny.

Instead of you two arguing about it (which none of the rest of us are particularly enjoying), why don't you simply apply and report back?

Several reasons, first, I don't have any convictions for anything so that applying and reporting back would not help. Second, I am not arguing I was providing what I believe to be correct information as was obtained through my employment with US CBP several years spent working at a port that included a NEXUS enrollment center.

FB

Edited to be clear: What I experienced in conducting the interviews to obtain the cards, including the recommendations made to issue the cards are not consistent with the statements dodger 1k is making. I guess there are quite a few cards we have to go get back.

Umm, am reporting back.

At my interview in BOS, I specifically asked the agent what the criteria for acceptance was with regard to past convictions... he stated that a misdemeanor within the past 10 years or a felony at any time in the past would disqualify an applicant.

Firebug is an officer in the CBP, maybe one should go with what he says on how the system works, since he has handled the process personally...

Similar information was posted earlier in this thread, and I thought it was from the regulations (or some official statement) about the program.