Australian criminal record and entering the US

HELP ANYONE PLEASE

I was arrested last year for shop lifting a small amount. This is the biggest regret of my life and I feel so so incredibly stupid for what's happened. I'm not sure if i have a criminal record.

I think I have a criminal record, I paid a fine but never went to court because i just sent via mail a guilt submission. I'm going to be traveling into New York for a couple of days and then driving into Canada. Does the US government check EVERY Australian passengers criminal records when you enter? Or is it just up to you to declare and they'll only check if they are suspicious? Should i put 'no' on my waiver? Will the US government/customs be able to find out? Is this crime seen as Moral Turpitude?

I haven't seen my partner for 1 yrs so i want to make sure that everything goes well. Please kindly offer your advice... I'm so so stressed out and don't know what to do.

Yes it's moral turpitude and you have in US eyes a criminal record. If you applied for a visa (far too late) it might be dismissed as a trivial instance.

The US check every passport against what might be called a wanted list. What you have to do to get on that list I don't know, but I really doubt it includes every trivial offence that is of no significance to the US geovernment.

BTW if you are going in a few days you should have done your online ESTA by now.

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html

where you will face the moral turpitude question. If you answer yes you won't get the ESTA

and BTW Canada has similar rules - it's just that they don't ask the average tourist the question

Do you have a reciept or can you get one. Tell the clerk your problem. Take your paperwork to the appropraite office.

good luck.

Does the US government check EVERY Australian passengers criminal records when you enter?

Yes, to various degrees, as they do with all other passengers.

Or is it just up to you to declare and they'll only check if they are suspicious?

Depends on who you get.

Should i put 'no' on my waiver?

Being caught in a lie is automatic denial, and an expensive trip back to where you flew from at your own cost.

Will the US government/customs be able to find out?

Depends. If Australia and the UK share records, it is very possible, now that the US and the UK share records. If not, it depends on what they have in their computers from elsewhere, which no one here (AFAIK) is privy to.

Is this crime seen as Moral Turpitude?

See FAQ 252. Two lists to judge for yourself.

I haven't seen my partner for 1 yrs

This in itself may cause your denial.

If you were arrested or convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, you have a good chance of being denied, and it's too late for a visa if you need one.
Doesn't look good, but that's the way it is. Next time, don't wwait until a few days before you leave to figure all this out (and that goes for ALL countries).

Thanks so much guys for your help.

I have applied for the online ESTA...I should know with a few days hopefully. Do you think I should've answer no to the moral turptiude question? I honestly don't know of o do have a criminal record. I didn't think about it until i looked into getting visa. I've applied for my criminal record check and waiting for it to come back.

I very much doubt that I'm on a wanted list. Would you think they'll do a criminal record check on all passengers?

Thanks again.

It's not a 'wanted' list in the sense of wanted dead or alive on the old posters

It's a list of passports/people who may be of interest - terrorist suspects, paedophiles, drug dealers, obviously. People who have overstayed in the past. How far down the list of minor criminals from countries where records are shared it goes I don't know. It MIGHT not include those who are not regarded as criminal at home. If you get the answer yes then they have dug up no easily accessible dirt on you.

If you had answered YES to the moral turpitude question you would have been declined an ESTA - the system would have refused to process your application.

You DO have a criminal record in US eyes, even if at home it may or may not fall within the definition of one.

The folks above may, or may not, be entirely correct. I do not know about Australian criminal law; however, in the US we define crimes within certain catagories. Felonies are the most severe, misdemeanors the least. In most (if not all) US states shoplifting below a certain value is considered a petty misdemeanor and carries the same legal weight as a traffic citation. If this is the case (and I'm not saying it is) then you would not have a criminal record as petty (or class C as they're sometimes called) misdomeanors are not considered criminal matters. What indicates to me that this might be the case is your statement that you just sent in a fine. In the US this is the case for a petty misdomeanor. The police officer issues a citation, just like a speeding ticket, and one either pays it or requests a court hearing.

My suggestion is to find out from the court exactly what your situation is.

#6, the legal requirements for entry under the VWP are not classed under the traditional severity-type system. Certain felonies do not necessarily prevent entry, and certain misdemeanors (including shoplifting) can make one ineligible.
See the FAQ I noted above for the requirements

OP, please ignore #6. They mean well, but are wrong.

Edited by: Noah Webster

"I'm going to be traveling into New York for a couple of days and then driving into Canada."

Don't assume getting into the US means Canada is automatic. They take arrest records pretty seriously there. I don't know about this particular offence but I know they routinely refuse people for criminal records in Canada.

There's 2 issues here.

As pointed out above, the honest answer to the moral turpitude question, in your case, is YES, and if you do honestly answer this question with a yes, then the system automatically denies you an ESTA and you will need to go the long route to get another visa (which will probably be fine, it's unlikely you'll be refused just for shoplifting, but it does deny you, ever again, the right to an ESTA and means you will always have to go through a longer more complicated route to get there.)

You then have the option of lying, and hoping there is no record of your offence. I personally think it very, very unlikely Australia will share with the US a minor conviction for shoplifting, which, if it was a first offence, would not leave you with a criminal record. We almost certainly do tell America about criminal convictions, but if even we don't record it, I don't see how the US would know about it.

BUT, and this is a very big but, you would then be lying to US Immigration which is not something I would ever risk, if only because, if caught, you would be sent straight back, and disqualified from ever being allowed back there again.

Hi Everyone,

You all make some very interesting points. I do really appreciate everyone's input to my questions. I'm still waiting for my criminal record to come back...once I see it, I'll know which way to go abouts doing it.

Thank you very very much again!

Iven

OP, FWIW (and I hesitate to offer this comment), I know several Australians who have convictions for drunk-driving and other minor offenses years ago who have successfully entered the USA in recent years under the VWP. So I assume they just ticked 'no' on the visa waiver form. Also we have a system in Australia of 'spent convictions', meaning that if you commit a minor offense and then have a clean record for 10 years (5 years if it was a juvenile offense), that minor offense is considered 'spent' and does not need to be declared if you apply for a government job etc. There are of course exceptions for some offenses and for certain occupations such as school teachers.

Many Aussies would have old, 'spent' convictions from their youth which are considered expunged here, but which officially must be declared to the US authorities. As far as I know, many of these peope feel justified in ticking 'no' on the US immigration form as under their own law they do not have a conviction that must be disclosed. I do not believe the Australian giovernment routinely shares minor offenses with US authorities. Certainly the Australian government participates in intelligence sharing arangements with the US and other countries, but I understand these focus on serious criminals and terrorists. All of that said, it's up to you. As others have said, you really don't want to be refused entry and added to some list of people who are prohibited from entering the USA.

Dominic - great to hear from you again.

And I'd agree with everything you said. As far as I'm aware Australia DOES share information with the US.

But there is no way we are sharing information with them that even we don't keep, such as offences where no conviction is recorded or spent convictions.

I would agree with #8, Canada could be a problem for you. Since you will be using a passport for entry they may find you problem and not let you in. In the past US citizens going to Canada almost needed nothing, but if they did a compresensive search and got your drivers license and could find that you were arrested they will deny entry. I would recommend that you talk to the official people who know for an opinion.

Hi there,

I was very apprehensive about going to the USA about 2 months ago.
I have a criminal record and served a year in jail about 7 years ago. It was also a federal offence.
I read all the forums and stuff...unless someone has actually done it, i wouldn't really listen to them...it just makes you go crazy.

Here is what I did:
* Wait until 48 hours before flight and fill in the visa waiver thing at ESTA.
* Answer no to all of them. if you answer truthfully, you will not get in.
* Don't worry about any visas. People say you "should" get one...but once again, unless they haven't actually done it themselves, they're just guessing.
* Before landing in Los Angeles, they gave me the usual forms. One of them asks similar questions to the Visa Waiver questions.
* They take fingerprints and eye scans of everyone, but that is more for their own records, not to check if you are a criminal.
* I assume that they don't check criminal records with australia because i got in totally fine.
* They scan your bags etc to make sure you don't have drugs and guns on you etc.

I was anxious all the way until i got out of the airport, but there was nothing to worry about.
I don't want people not being able to enjoy their holiday because of something they did years ago...that's why i'm posting this.

Thank you for getting back to us on this.

When do you have to renew your passport. Here in the states I think they ask if you have any felonies and if you do I think you could have a problem either getting a new passport or maybe at that time that information gets put with your passport information. Would you get back to us after you renew your passport to let us know if you have any new problems.

I am from the US and I have a friend who was denied entry to Canada a few years ago. When he went through customs they ran a check on his liscense and found he had been arrested over 20 years ago for stealing some gas out of a car when he was a teenager. I also understand that when you are waiting in line in your car to enter Canada they have cameras viewing you car license plate and check through their computer to see if there are any problems mentioned related to that car. Things have changed a lot here since 911.

Hi,

My brother got into some trouble in Australia and needed to find if he had a criminal record or a public court record and I went to this website to do some research for his Australian criminal records criminalrecordsau.com I did find the violation he was worried about and worked with a lawyer here in the US to find one in Australia to help with the case. Best of luck!

Dglobetrotter.

Sorry, dglobetrotter again - I think you do need to type in www before the address so it is www.criminalrecordsau.com if you are looking to search or check Australian criminal records or public court records.

DG

Hi all i have been reading all replies quite a few different answers but in general i gather

arrest only, NO conviction that we should just say no on the form?

I have this problem currently, i already have my VWP but have to go to court, which my solicitor says no conviction will be recorded

am i right in saying that arressts won't come up on the screen of the officer at immigration?? only convictions??

please help if you have any advice or knowledge on the procedure of the immigration ppl

I dont think i will change my VWP application and take the chance? opinions people?

The US form covers not just convictions, but arrests, so legally, you should be disclosing this.
BUT, as many have mentioned before, if even we don't have a record of what you did (by not recording a conviction) there is no way the US will know this.

arrest only, NO conviction that we should just say no on the form?

You should say "yes." The question on the form says "arrested or convicted."

am i right in saying that arressts won't come up on the screen of the officer at immigration?? only convictions??

It depends on the level of data sharing the US has with Australia, which is something I do not know. I do know that the US shares data with the UK, and if Australia and the UK share data, it is possible it could show up.

Of course, this all assumes the arrest was of a "crime of moral turpitude." If there was no "moral turpitude," then you check "no." See the FAQ above for a list.

We do share data, which is why you'd be mad to lie about a conviction.

But if we don't record a conviction, we have no data to share.

But if we don't record a conviction, we have no data to share.

But are arrests recorded? If they are, then the data may still find its way to the US authorities.

The question AFAI remember is arrested or convicted for a crime of over 5 years imprisonment OR a crime of moral turpitude.

The definition of moral turpitude is up for debate, however it is unlikey that petty shoplifting would be moral turpitude. Having sex with a sheep in a school playground probably would be moral turpitude. Therefore, OP can truthfully answer "NO" to the criminal arrests/convictions question since petty shoplifting is not moral turpitude and the penalty certainly was not 5 years in prison.

Additionally the extent of US-Australian data sharing is very limited - the chance of petty convictions for shoplifting being shared are very, very low.

Also if OP is still following this thread:

Walk into a police station in Australia with ID and ask if you have a criminal record. The magistrate would have a number of options when he fined you including recording a conviction or not recording a conviction, despite a finding of guilt. In hindsight it would have been better if you fronted up to court in person, shown remorse and asked for a conviction not to be recorded.

The question AFAI remember is arrested or convicted for a crime of over 5 years imprisonment OR a crime of moral turpitude.

The questions is
>Have you ever been arrested or convicted of an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

That's a direct quote from the form.
Meeting any one of these invalidates you; it's not a matter of meeting all.

The definition of moral turpitude is up for debate

No, it's not. The State Department maintains an explicit list. See the FAQ.

OK I have now looked at the State Dept doc and theft is listed as a crime of moral turpitude. However:

9 FAM 40.21(a) N7.1 Provisions of INA
212(a)(2)(A)(ii)
(CT:VISA-1318; 09-24-2009)
As amended, a conviction or admission of the commission of a crime of
moral turpitude will not serve as the basis of ineligibility under INA
212(a)(2)(A)(i), if the following conditions have been met:

(1) The applicant has been convicted of or has admitted to the
commission of only one crime;

(2) The maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was
convicted or for which the alien legally admitted to did not exceed
imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted and the
alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of six
months; or

(remainder deleted)

here http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

You are misapplying that document. That is for all visas+. While you must be eligible for a visa to be eligible for the VWP, the VWP has +stricter guidelines than those for visas.
In other words, citing a document on eligiblity for visas does not indicate all the requirements for the VWP.
For the VWP, there is the extra requirement that you have not been arrested or convicted of moral turpitude, as noted before.

I think the document I referred to is applicable and the treatment of minor offenses is deliberately left vague. The ineligibility or otherwise of people with arrests or convictions and what is moral turpitude, has been defined by case law and is not written into the act. Even the State Dept docs refered to by both me and you are State Dept interpretations of immigration law. Now obviously a State Dept interpretation of immigration law carries weight, yet still many people with minor convictions and many more with arrest records but no convictions regularly enter the United States under the VWP.

Further examples on the State Dept's own website, despite the arrivals form given to travellers at the airport or inflight asking about arrests, only refers to convictions: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html#national
When does a national of a VWP country need to apply for a visa instead of using the VWP?
(deleted)
Has a criminal record or other condition making them ineligible for a visa State Dept link follows, which includes the same information I described in my link in post #25. Note absense of reference to arrests.

On various US Embassy websites (eg here: http://curacao.usconsulate.gov/visa_waiver_program.html) it does not refer to arrests, only convictions.

It seems the guidelines of declaration of arrests and minor convictions are deliberately obtuse or deliberately unenforced. For simple arrests not resulting in convictions, the US government has no facility to check if a person were to simply answer "no" to the entry form question. Similarly for minor charges which do result in a conviction or for spent convictions, it is unlikely that the US government would have access to this information... the governments of most countries around the world are certainly not going to hand out minor conviction information to foreign goverments.

Leaving aside argumetnts of what someone is obliged to put down on the entry form and if they are eligible for the VWP or not, a course of action for someone with an arrest or minor conviction could be:

• Apply online for the eVisitor permit
• Do not mention the arrest or single minor conviction
• Do not declare it on the entry form
• Accept that you will probably be able to enter the US, but there is a possibility that you may be refused entry.

As I noted, any requirement or otherwise to declare minor convictions is routinely ignored and the ethics and legality of this approach are a different topic.

If the applicant were to apply in advance for a visa and declare the conviction, then that would mean that the US govt then had the arrest/conviction information and every future entry into the US would require a visa.

I think the document I referred to is applicable

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's only part of the requirements.
Once again, you must be eligible for a visa in order to be eligible for the VWP, then you must follow the VWP specific requirements in addition.

and the treatment of minor offenses is deliberately left vague.

That's because you cited the law.
Laws are the basis. They are further defined by rules. Those, in turn, are further defined by departmental procedures.
Just because it is not in the law, doesn't necessarily mean you are ok or not. You must read the further limitations of the rules and procedures. Those further limitations include "arrested," as explicitly noted on the form.
Also, from the Tokyo embassy:
>Who is not eligible to use VWP:
>Some travelers may not be eligible to enter the U.S. visa free under the VWP. These include people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records (even if subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other act of clemency), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the U.S., or have previously overstayed on the visa waiver program. Such travelers must apply for a visa. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the U.S.

(underlining added)
And from the CBP:
>Q: What information is needed in order to complete the ESTA application?
>A: The traveler must provide, in English, biographical data including name, birth date and passport information. The traveler also must answer VWP eligibility questions regarding communicable diseases, arrests and convictions for certain crimes, past history of visa revocation or deportation and other questions. The traveler will also need their credit card information to pay the associated fees in order to complete the ESTA application.

(underlining added)

It seems the guidelines of declaration of arrests and minor convictions are deliberately obtuse or deliberately unenforced.
any requirement or otherwise to declare minor convictions is routinely ignored and the ethics and legality of this approach are a different topic.

No. All entry is at the discretion of the official you receive, and the stipulations of the VWP expressly state this. If you meet all the requirements for the VWP, or even have a visa, they are well within their right to deny you regardless. Conversely, they also have the right to waive aspects of the requirements if they deem fit, including the crimes.
It's not that these are "unenforced," but rather official discretion being used at the border.

If the applicant were to apply in advance for a visa and declare the conviction, then that would mean that the US govt then had the arrest/conviction information and every future entry into the US would require a visa.

Only if it was a crime of moral turpitude, as noted on the official list.

Btw, please do not advocate breaking the law, as you do in #28 when telling people to lie on their forms. That is against the rules of the forum.

If Australian authorities won't even share with an Australian employer that no conviction was recorded, then they are not going to share that with another country.

In any case, there are plenty of first hand stories (including here, quite recently) from people who DID have convictions (for assault, shoplifting, to name 2, both had convictions recorded but did not serve jail time), who lied, and had no hassles getting through US immigration. It appears we may share major convictions, and tyell you about really bad people you shouldn't let in, but we do not appear to tell the overly-anal US immigration service about the minor stuff even we don't care about.

FYI, by way of comparison, Australia only requires people with MAJOR convictions (defined as a jail term of 12 months) to disclose this when applying to enter. We couldn't give a stuff about petty crap you when you were a teenager.

Btw, please do not advocate breaking the law, as you do in #28 when telling people to lie on their forms. That is against the rules of the forum.

But they would not be breaking the law, because the law is not specific about what moral turpitude is. They may be going against the current administrative interpretation of the law but this a difference of admistrative opinion and not law.

Therefore it also cannot be considered lying either if you were to answer "no" having been arrested for a minor offense because you could consider that minor offense not to be moral turpitude. The worst it could be is not following the State Department interpretation of the law which would be an administrative procedural error - it could still have you refused entry but it would not be breaking the law. Before it would become "breaking the law" there would have to be a case law precident for people in the same circumstances/arrest/conviction record being convicted for making a false declaration, with a US court - not the whim of a State Department official - deciding that the offense which was not declared was a crime of moral turipitude.

In any case, there are plenty of first hand stories (including here, quite recently) from people who DID have convictions (for assault, shoplifting, to name 2, both had convictions recorded but did not serve jail time), who lied, and had no hassles getting through US immigration.

Harry, read my third section in post 29. The one talking about official discretion. The VWP explicitly gives immigration officials the final say, and these are instances are anecdotal evidence of officials using such discretion.
As another posters sig line states, however, "the plural of anecdote is not data."

But they would not be breaking the law, because the law is not specific about what moral turpitude is.

Actually, they would be breaking the law, the one that requires them to answer the questions truthfully. Making knowingly false statements on official documents, such as that form, is illegal. Hence, you are advocating people break the law by telling people to knowlingly say "no."
(A side note, to avoid a bit of confusion: "break the law" is an idiomatic term that does not necessarily indicate a specific law being broken, but that a (or more) law(s) is (are) being broken.)

Therefore it also cannot be considered lying either if you were to answer "no" having been arrested for a minor offense because you could consider that minor offense not to be moral turpitude.

It does not matter what you think "moral turpitude" is or not, only what the State Department thinks. They have a specific list. Since you are telling people to ignore that list in favor of your own interpretation, you are telling people to knowlingly lie on their forms.
Now once again, please stop advocating people break the law.

I'm more interested in the actual experiences of people who went through US Immigration than bush lawyers with a passion for travel websites myself...

Were are getting into an academic argument but anyway: they are not breaking the law if they write NO on the form. They may be going against some State Dept list, but that list is not law. It is a current State Dept interpretation of a vague law. This interpretation for minor offenses has not been tested in case law and until it is both of us are not qualified to say what the actual result would be.

I'm more interested in the actual experiences of people who went through US Immigration than bush lawyers with a passion for travel websites myself...

Yet so many come here looking for just that: free legal advice.
They get what they get. And the standard answer:
The official discretion caveat means that everyone's experiences differs, regardless of real or perceived similarities or differences. After all, the plural of anecdote is not data.
If they don't like it, they can always pay for legal advice from a lawyer.

They may be going against some State Dept list, but that list is not law. It is a current State Dept interpretation of a vague law.

The law states [1187(a)(6)]:
>Not a safety threat
>The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.

The State Department defines this through their rulemaking powers to be the crimes on the list, as evidenced by their website (via embassy as quote previously) and the website of the CBP (also previously quoted).
If someone checks "no" when they should be checking "yes," there are in violation.
If you tell people to check "no" when they should be checking "yes," you are telling them to knowingly violate the law by violating the rules and regulations that officially define it.
Once again, please stop advocating people break the law.

You are very keen to throw away freedom from arbitary government intervention which is one of the hallmarks of US democracy. A vague law has been drafted. The State Department has produced a document interpreting that same vague law which they themselves don't follow in practice. Theirs is an interpretation only. It is not the law. But the State Dept producing a document doesn't mean anything.

If at some time in the future someone with a minor arrest record is charged and convicted by a US court for making a false declaration on the basis of a NO answer then at that time, it will be law.

An example would be legal disputes with the IRS. Tax law is also sometimes not entirely clear and based on case law. People do end up in court with the IRS and win. So if the IRS - a government agency - issue someone with a direction which is subsequently challenged and defeated in court, then the IRS direction which was based on an interpretation of the applicable tax law, cannot have been correct despite it coming from a government agency, else the IRS would never lose a court case.

Does US Immigration law legally require you to disclose even minor convictions and arrests and charges where no convictions are recorded? Yes.
If you have been arrested in Australia, but were not convicted, or had no charge recorded would US authorities know this? No.

You are very keen to throw away freedom from arbitary government intervention which is one of the hallmarks of US democracy.

You are very keen to ignore the fact that immigration laws are treated differently than other laws.
Case law has set that precedent quite conspicuously.
What you wish the freedoms to be do not exist in these circumstances.

The regulations set forth by the State Department are the "details" of the law. Congress neither has the time nor expertise to provide these details, so they delegated the responsibility.
If case law dictates a change in the regulations, the regulations change accordingly.
Since they are what they are (as I've quoted multiple times), that is the standing official ruling of the law, and thus the means by which a visitor must follow it. If they do not, they are breaking it, until a court or administration says otherwise (which they have yet to do).
On a very related side note, the likelihood of that interpretation being overruled by case law is, for all practical purposes, zero. Why? Because another one of the conditions is that the visitor waives their right to appeal (see 1187(b)), and the courts generally refuse to grant legal standing to a third party.
So summary: The State Department was granted the authority by Congress to "flesh out" the law, specifically in this case the section determining what is or is not a safety threat. Their regulations are the law until overruled by courts. The chances of that is essentially nil. The State Department says you must disclose arrests of crimes of moral turpitude, and details what those are. Not doing so willfully is thus breaking the law.

And as I had said before, the State Department grants discretion to immigration officials to waive various conditions they set forth.

If you have been arrested in Australia, but were not convicted, or had no charge recorded would US authorities know this? No.

As I had also said before, I have no idea what type of info sharing agreements exist between the US and Australia (if any).

We were wrong Josh. I only reckoned we could keep him going on this for a year.

Given that your posts started last week, I think you need to recheck how many days constitute a "year."
But I am willing if you want.* I like academic debates like this. They are a nice break from the standard "Will I get in?" posts.

(*Actually, not really. I'll probably be bored with it in a couple days.)

Firstly... thank you to: elijahonline.

For those just wanting to show their legal skills and impress us with their intelligence - you're just making basic information for travellers - over complex.

I have a criminal record (multiple offenses between 16-18 years old) which as an adult is completely embarrassing, overwhelming and regrettable.

I am well aware of the fact that I could seek legal help to apply for a visa and POSSIBLY (although probably NOT) have this granted. The issue here is that I think it's pretty clear that ANY offense (besides possibly low range drink driving etc) should be listed on the Visa Waiver Form - however by listing these offenses - you are inevitably digging your own grave.

I've spent lots of time looking at forums and there's definitely been a clear indication that Australians with criminal records travelling to the US should say that no on these VISA waiver forms and if they say yes - you just won't get in. If you say no - You will.

US customs will NOT be checking crimes in Australia UNLESS YOU LIST THEM. So don't.

Yes this is legally wrong... but morally?? That's your call. I don't think anyone without a criminal conviction are really understanding what the person who posted this thread is really wanting to know: HOW CAN THEY GET IN TO THE USA WITHOUT GOING TO JAIL. I've already paid for my crimes as a teenager - but this was many years ago and I want to see as much of this world in my lifetime as possible. It's been 10 years since my convictions so my attitude here if anything was brought up (which I highly unlikely believe to be the case) I will explain WHY i wrote this - and either be sent home or be let through. (THIS WONT EVEN HAPPEN - I've had numerous friends go through without question).

The reality is that you will not be allowed to work or stay over 90 days and if you try to apply for a VISA you will need to provide a criminal history check - so don't even go there.

I'm not planning a trip to the States anytime soon - but I'll definitely post back to let you know what happens. FOR ANYONE READING THIS - please do the same as it's very helpful to people who are stressed and find this difficult.

#37 --

When Congress authorizes an agency to write regulations, and the agency does so in the proper manner (giving the public notice, getting public comments, taking those comments into account, etc) those regulations are given a great deal of weight by the courts. It does happen from time to time that an agency is found not to have adopted the regulation properly, or to have overstepped its authority in enacting this particular regulation, but it's extremely rare. I can't imagine a court saying that the State Department overstepped its authority here, and I doubt that the regulation wasn't enacted properly.

People win in cases with the IRS where there is no regulation, or where the regulation is ambiguous as applied to the taxpayer's case, or (most often) where the court decides that the IRS applied its own regulation improperly. None of that will be the case here.