THE IMMIGRATION FRAUD CON

[Traci - Andrew 14]

The Immigration Fraud Con for not knowing to tick a VW "Yes" box !!

I'm sure that I am just one of many thousands of people on this website that has been denied a visa due to a CIMT (Crime(s) Involving Moral Turpitude) and also now charged with the offense of Immigration Fraud !!

The main reason behind many applicants having to apply for an I-601 (Extreme Hardship or Criminal Waiver) is because they are being denied due to their past criminal history & the ambiguous "question B" on the old Visa Waiver form, which USCIS will convict you of committing "Immigration Fraud" for entering the USA on the Visa Waiver Program and not declaring your Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, in question B on the VW form (SEE ABOVE PICTURE)

The confusion seems to be the terminology USCIS have used for question B... "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for 2 or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was 5 years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities"

OK so in my opinion and that of many others that I have also read about, this has got to be the most awful question ever devised as it can be interpreted in many different ways, however the USCIS state that everyone knows what "Moral Turpitude" is, I beg to differ, I have not come across one person who can tell me the definition of this phrase, even looking it up on the Internet will give you differing meanings, but USCIS reply with "Well why did you not ask the Immigration officer at your point of entry, if you had no idea if this pertained to your situation", my answer was very straight forward, I said "Why did I not ask anyone for directions around the airport, the reason is because I thought I knew the way, now the same goes for this term Moral Turpitude, so why ask someone like an Immigration Officer at the port of entry when I thought I knew the term was used for serious crimes involving prison sentences, which I have never received as my offenses were just minor ones involving fines".

Also if you look at question B it places Crimes Involving Moral turpitude, in the same question talking about Drug taking or trafficking, Pimping & Prison Sentences of 5 years or more... ALL very serious crimes, so why would anyone think that a minor arrest would be in that category?

To prove my point further, now that USCIS have changed the system and introduced the Visa Waiver Program replacement in the form of ESTA, an electronic system that asks you lots of questions prior to you leaving the UK, and gives you an immediate answer and authorization to travel to the USA, however it does mention that to use the ESTA system you must be eligible under the Visa Waiver rules, the Wizard that they now have for checking if you pass the Visa Waiver rules now is now written in plain English... and is very understandable.. I tried it and was denied access to apply via ESTA, which was expected as they have now removed the ambiguous Moral Turpitude question.

This is the text from the on line Wizard:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any reason in any country, even if the arrest did not lead to a conviction, or do you have a criminal record? Please note: the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law. If you are unsure, press YES. (I PRESSED YES AS I HAD BEEN ARRESTED MANY YEARS AGO & IT STATED THAT THE Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply)

Is the full extent of your history of legal violations limited solely to minor traffic offenses that did not result in your arrest and/or conviction? (I PRESSED NO AS IT WAS NOT JUST A TRAFFIC OFFENSE)

You are not eligible to travel on the Visa Waiver Program, and must possess a valid visa for entry into the United States. (I NOW KNOW WHERE I STAND AND I WOULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT IF THIS WAS A GENUINE INQUIRY)

Please note that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law. If you attempt to travel without a visa, you may be refused entry into the United States at your personal expense.

Applicants who have been arrested or convicted are also subject to additional documentation and processing time.

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, and those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), are required to apply for visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States.

I feel that if USCIS had made this clear on the original Green Visa Waiver form many thousands of people would have obtained a visa prior to entering the USA and the number of accidental Immigration Fraud cases would be a fraction of what they are today... It is only Immigration fraud if you knowingly commit fraud (like saying NO to question B) with the intent to deceive or mislead an Immigration Officer.. which was not the the case for me and I am sure not the case for many others.

Obviously USCIS have seen the problems this must have caused for them to change the format of the question to something in more plain English.

Anyway the biggest flaw of all in this Green Visa Waiver form was the warning... "IMPORTANT if you have answered "YES" to any of the above, please contact the American Embassy BEFORE you travel to the US. Since you may be refused admission to the United States"

This is because you used to be given this form to complete when you were about 1 hour away from landing in the aircraft normally whilst over the Atlantic.. how easy would it be to contact the Embassy before you travel

Regards

Andrew

[Minya's wife 25]

What exactly are you ranting about, your preclusion from use of the the VWP, or is this more of a rant against unclear verbiage on a piece of paper?

[JustJ 0]

Believe me, I understand your frustration. I am glad they changed to the electronic method.

I guess the big problem is that it is signed right below where it says you have read and understand the form. In my husband's case, that was true - he read it and thought he understood it, but his interpretation of that language was wrong.

I have to laugh about asking an immigration officer. I have yet to encounter anyone at border control who looks as though they'd welcome a question. Most look like if you bother them, they'll bring out a big hammer and knock you senseless.

[Traci - Andrew 14]

What exactly are you ranting about, your preclusion from use of the the VWP, or is this more of a rant against unclear verbiage on a piece of paper?

At least my post on this Forum is informational to others and tells people about the prospects of what to expect, as and when they have the interview at the embassy and if they have a CIMT against them, because I know we were not ready for this particular offence being pinned on us...

So if you have something relevant to say about this topic or you have been through the same thing, then I and others will welcome your comments, however if you just want to make unclear and unwelcome remarks then please do as your offensive member photo states.

[carlhales 0]

At least my post on this Forum is informational to others and tells people about the prospects of what to expect, as and when they have the interview at the embassy and if they have a CIMT against them, because I know we were not ready for this particular offence being pinned on us...

So if you have something relevant to say about this topic or you have been through the same thing, then I and others will welcome your comments, however if you just want to make unclear and unwelcome remarks then please do as your offensive member photo states.

i was denied a visa for exactly the same thing. i was also denied for misrep which successfully overturned and now have refiled just waiting for dhs to make a decision. my wife even asked 3 and 4 star admirals and they had never heard the stupid phrase before

[Bobby+Umit 161]

OK so in my opinion and that of many others that I have also read about, this has got to be the most awful question ever devised as it can be interpreted in many different ways, however the USCIS state that everyone knows what "Moral Turpitude" is, I beg to differ, I have not come across one person who can tell me the definition of this phrase, even looking it up on the Internet will give you differing meanings,

That is a mistake, if you seek a definition, you should go to the source that is issuing the visa/permission to visit the US:

USCIS:

A crime of “moral turpitude,” which in general is a crime with an intent to steal or defraud; a crime where physical harm is done or threatened; a crime where serious physical harm is caused by reckless behavior; or a crime of sexual misconduct.

Source

And here:

As defined in case law, moral turpitude generally refers to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or society in general. See Matter of Flores , 17 I&N, Dec. 225 (BIA 1980), and cases cited therein. It is defined as conduct which is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is an evil or malicious intent.

Source (bolding my own)

From State

9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.2 Defining “Moral Turpitude”

(CT:VISA-753; 06-29-2005)

Statutory definitions of crimes in the United States consist of various elements, which must be met before a conviction can be supported. Some of these elements have been determined in judicial or administrative decisions to involve moral turpitude. A conviction for a statutory offense will involve moral turpitude if one or more of the elements of that offense have been determined to involve moral turpitude. The most common elements involving moral turpitude are:

(1) Fraud;

(2) Larceny; and

(3) Intent to harm persons or thing.

Source (if you read this FAM article, it lists crimes that fall under, and do not fall under moral turpitude)

I do not believe it's ambiguous at all.

I also believe it's prudent on the traveller to know all the rules/regulations of a country prior to travelling there, including any forms you may have to fill out, but I was trained to think this way in the military, so you may not think this.

Do you have a link to the ESTA wizard you used? CBP ESTA still asks the question as on the form.

[Traci - Andrew 14]

That is a mistake, if you seek a definition, you should go to the source that is issuing the visa/permission to visit the US:

USCIS:

Source

And here:

Source (bolding my own)

From State

Source (if you read this FAM article, it lists crimes that fall under, and do not fall under moral turpitude)

I do not believe it's ambiguous at all.

I also believe it's prudent on the traveller to know all the rules/regulations of a country prior to travelling there, including any forms you may have to fill out, but I was trained to think this way in the military, so you may not think this.

Do you have a link to the ESTA wizard you used? CBP ESTA still asks the question as on the form.

First of all, I would like to compliment you on a very well put together response to my post, it is backed up by links to the information where the information was gathered from.

However I must say that I was also in the military and have a disciplined mind and am considered very logical, my argument to your reply would be this:

Any traveler visiting a country is not going to look up every single immigration law or local law of the country in question before travel, some people do not have the time whilst some do not have the ability to do such research either academically or financially. I have read some of the USCIS definitions of the CIMT and one section tells you that manslaughter is a CIMT however it may not be depending on the circumstances, now this to me as a layman who looks things up thinks that that is about as clear as mud.

How can you expect Joe public to understand exactly what a CIMT covers when even Lawyers are not 100% certain themselves and have to read up on the latest interpretation from the USCIS guide, people who are deciding to emigrate to another country I can understand them getting very involved with what is or is not required to satisfy the decision making process, but for your average tourist who works hard all year to then take off 2 weeks for a vacation is not going to be bothered looking up questions to which they have no knowledge of until they receive a piece of paper 1 hour from landing, they will have to use their own judgment as to decipher the wording on the questions and nobody on-board that aircraft will have a clue what crimes are CIMT's I assure you.

So this only leaves the possibility of the traveler to ask the border guards, whom are very busy and have very long lines of people waiting to get through the immigration section for either further travel or to get on with there holiday. The last thing that the border guards want is every plane load of passengers (about 200 - 300) asking them to define if whatever they have done when they were young 25 plus years ago, fits the CIMT question... This would make travel in to any country extremely slow and cause massive lines.

So instead most travelers use commonsense which means they look at the question and think, well I did commit a crime of theft when I was in my late teens, now does that fit a CIMT? well CIMT in bundled in with Drug traffickers (Major Offense) Drug Users (Fairly Major Offense) People that have spent 5 years in jail (Again this must be for a Major offense) so CIMT? well that must mean any other crime that was a Major Offense, not a crime of theft involving a fine? surely, so they say NO to the question... not fraudulently but in a misinformed way, which is the problem... but only when that traveler decides to emigrate, then it is a big issue !!

You can surely see from a logical point of view that this is how most people travel and they would make the same mistake every time they travel until they try and emigrate and only then does the problem occur, which I believe USCIS actually uses to their advantage to help keep down the number of approvals on immigration levels.. (That is my personal opinion)

In the UK there has been a organization in place for a number of years now, to help make any forms or important information clear to read, this means less fine print on contracts and it must be written clearly and in plain english...

Since 1979, we have been campaigning against gobbledygook, jargon and misleading public information. We have helped many government departments and other official organizations with their documents, reports and publications. We believe that everyone should have access to clear and concise information.

The campaign officially began after founder Chrissie Maher OBE publicly shredded hundreds of official documents in Parliament Square, London. Entirely independent, the campaign funds itself through its commercial services, which include editing and training. We have worked with thousands of organizations ranging from UK Government departments to World Bowls, helping them make sure their public information is as clear as possible.

We have over 12,000 members in 80 countries and our Crystal Mark is now firmly established as a guarantee that a document is written in plain English. It appears on more than 18,300 documents.

This organization needed to be used on the VWP form so that question B was broken down or made clearer so you had to answer YES to the question if you had committed any crime, then the border guard could spot the question had been ticked YES and the traveler would then be asked to detail the offense. That would be the best way of doing it, but hey this would not fit in with being able to charge misguided travelers when emigrating with Immigration Fraud now would it

Regards

Andrew

[Andrew-Traci 5]

What exactly are you ranting about, your preclusion from use of the the VWP, or is this more of a rant against unclear verbiage on a piece of paper?

Forgive me for failing to concur with you on what you consider to be ranting. For those of us who are waiting on waiver decisions many of us can relate to the information posted. For those who may face possible visa denials due to CMIT’s and who have done any travelling to the US and failed to tick “yes” to question B, the information posted here is invaluable. I wish that we had known this site existed when we first applied for our K1 visa and someone had posted this information. It would have saved us a lot of stress and waiting. You must have a qualifying family member in order to qualify for an extreme hardship waiver – a requirement if you receive a denial for misrepresentation a required Had we known this we could have foregone the K1 Visa, gotten married sooner, applied for the K3 and submitted all required waivers at the interview. We could have saved ourselves a year of waiting for nothing, not to mention the additional costs.

You have not had to go through the waiver process in order to obtain a visa. You have no ideal of the anguish and frustration that those going through this process deal with. I don’t expect you to understand the meaning behind the post, nor the significance of how important the manner in which a “piece of paper” is worded can affect a person’s life. Had the wording on the VWP been as concise as it now is on the ESTA there would have been no way to misinterpret the question. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any reason is a very clear cut “yes” or “no” answer. On the other hand the term moral turpitude is a very grey area and quite easy to misinterpret. Apparent from the number of applicants who have CMIT’s and have also been hit with misrepresentation, an automatic denial.

If the post you are calling ranting can help even one couple make it through the visa process with less heartache than my husband & I, along with others we have met, than it has served its purpose. After all, this site is primarily used to ask "purposeful" questions, and post information to assist an support others.

[Andrew-Traci 5]

Original post updated....

Forgive me for failing to concur with you on what you consider to be ranting. For those of us who are waiting on waiver decisions many of us can relate to the information posted. For those who may face possible visa denials due to CIMT’s and who have done any travelling to the US and failed to tick “yes” to question B, the information posted here is invaluable. We wish that we had known this information when we first applied for our K1 visa as it would have saved us a lot of stress, time & money, because if we knew that we were going to get a misrep/fraud charge against us, we would have gone straight for the K3/CR1 because You must have a qualifying family member in order to qualify for an extreme hardship waiver which is a requirement if you receive a denial for misrep/fraud. You can not apply for an extreme hardship waiver to cover misrepresentation or immigration fraud under a K1 Visa. Had we known this we could have foregone the K1 Visa, gotten married sooner, applied for the K3 and submitted all required waivers at the interview. We could have saved ourselves a year of waiting for nothing (K1), not to mention the additional costs (K1 Visa + Legal).

You have not had to go through the waiver process in order to obtain a visa. You have no idea of the anguish and frustration that those going through this process deal with. I don’t expect you to understand the meaning behind the post, nor the significance of how important the manner in which a “piece of paper” is worded can affect a person’s life. Had the wording on the VWP been as concise as it now is on the ESTA there would have been no way to misinterpret the question. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any reason is a very clear cut “yes” or “no” answer. On the other hand the term moral turpitude is a very grey area and quite easy to misinterpret. Apparent from the number of applicants who have CIMT’s and have also been hit with misrepresentation/fraud, an automatic denial.

If the post you are calling ranting can help even one couple make it through the visa process with less heartache than my husband & I, along with others we have met, than it has served its purpose. After all, this site is primarily used to ask "purposeful" questions, and post information to assist and support others.

[leahandlucas 15]

Wonderful piece of information....GREAT contribution...you have definately brought up some great points of interest....

Its amazing because we as humans usually never take an interest in a particular part of something, until it happens to us personally....

[Traci - Andrew 14]

Wonderful piece of information....GREAT contribution...you have definately brought up some great points of interest....

Its amazing because we as humans usually never take an interest in a particular part of something, until it happens to us personally....

Thanks Leah & Lucas for your comment it is appreciated.

We are all on here for a reason and that reason is because we want to emigrate or bring our loved ones in to our country.. therefore we should all try and help each other where possible and try and make the process easier for others less experienced if we can, based on our own personal experiences, failures or successes.

Good luck to you and hopefully see you around VJ.

Regards

Andrew