No Live Trace/Subject Acccess/I-601

[ECWilloughbys 7]

A few months ago I was reading this post: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/263834-help-with-bad-past/

As I mentioned there, several years ago my fiance was arrested for petty larceny (very petty -- under £10), taken in to the police office, but no charges were filed, and he was let go with a caution. We sent away for the , and it came back No Live Trace. We've also sent away for a Subject Access Form so he can show the embassy exactly what happened and hopefully put the matter to rest in their eyes.

My question is, Is this enough? Should we be prepared in some other way? He has entered the U.S. since then via the VWP and checked the box on the landing card for NO to the question regarding "Have you ever committed a crime involving moral turpitude?" This wasn't out of duplicity; he didn't think it applied to his situation since it was pretty minor, way in the past, and charges had never been pressed, no convictions. (And also probably because he thought "moral turpitude" was a more serious and nasty offense, like human trafficking, etc.)

Is this going to hurt us? Do we need to file for the I-601 like people are mentioning in the thread linked above? That thread broke down into heated arguments so I'm asking again here in case anyone has ever had anything similar and can give advice specific to London. We're really worried about how to handle this correctly. Thanks in advance.

[ECWilloughbys 7]

Sorry, that should read "we sent away for the police certificate" not "the ,"

[Rob and Jill 82]

charges had never been pressed, no convictions

What you said there versus what the other post you linked said are two different things. One person was repeatedly arrested, and your fiance was picked up, but never charged or convicted. Since his police report came back clear, I would not let this weigh down my thoughts in the least. You have enough to worry about without that on your plate.

No charges, no conviction = not a crime.

[Lansbury 19]

If they were really arrested for larceny it must be a very old offense because the Larceny Act was replaced by the Theft Act in 1968. Is it a CIMT probably not but there is something on is CRO file which might be more than being arrested and cautioned, I would think, because I only started seeing cautions given after about 2004 being left permanently on a persons CRO file.

They tend not to look to hard at one old caution for a minor offense so don't worry too much, just do what you are to show the details.

Since his police report came back clear,

It didn't come back clear it came back no live trace. There is a spent conviction on his file.

[Dodi 69]

No live trace can also allude to the Caution he was given. The Subject Access report should be plenty. If you'd rather be prepared just in case, fill out the forms for the waiver, but you shouldn't need them for something so minor.

Good luck!

Edited September 15, 2010 by Dodi

[Rob and Jill 82]

It didn't come back clear it came back no live trace. There is a spent conviction on his file.

There is a discrepency between what you're stating and what the OP stated. The OP said there was no conviction.

Can we have clarification?

I would have to assume that Dodi is right...if he was given a Caution, it is the caution on there?

[Lansbury 19]

There is a discrepency between what you're stating and what the OP stated. The OP said there was no conviction.

Can we have clarification?

I would have to assume that Dodi is right...if he was given a Caution, it is the caution on there?

For the purposes of PNC records a caution is a conviction which used to come off the record when it expired and then the PNC check would show no trace. As I said in post #4 about 2004 I started to see cautions not being deleted from the PNC when they expired but remaining on the record. The OP says it was way in the past so either it is the caution which the system failed to erase (the PNC is set up with automatic weed dates on certain entries) or there is something else.

[ECWilloughbys 7]

There is a discrepency between what you're stating and what the OP stated. The OP said there was no conviction.

Can we have clarification?

I would have to assume that Dodi is right...if he was given a Caution, it is the caution on there?

There was no conviction, no charges pressed, never went to court. They released him with a caution. I think it was 2004 or 2005? (I realize that isn't technically "way in the past," but in terms of my fiance's life, it seems like it, so that's how I was thinking of it -- sorry if that made things unclear). This is the only thing that's ever been on his record, he's never had any other involvement with the police, so there's no chance of it being anything else causing the No Live Trace result.

We haven't got the Subject Access Form back yet.

If they were really arrested for larceny it must be a very old offense because the Larceny Act was replaced by the Theft Act in 1968. Is it a CIMT probably not but there is something on is CRO file which might be more than being arrested and cautioned, I would think, because I only started seeing cautions given after about 2004 being left permanently on a persons CRO file.

They tend not to look to hard at one old caution for a minor offense so don't worry too much, just do what you are to show the details.

It didn't come back clear it came back no live trace. There is a spent conviction on his file.

I'm not sure what a spent conviction is. They cautioned and released him without pressing charges or anything going any further.

Edited September 15, 2010 by ECWilloughbys

[ECWilloughbys 7]

If they were really arrested for larceny it must be a very old offense because the Larceny Act was replaced by the Theft Act in 1968. Is it a CIMT probably not but there is something on is CRO file which might be more than being arrested and cautioned, I would think, because I only started seeing cautions given after about 2004 being left permanently on a persons CRO file.

They tend not to look to hard at one old caution for a minor offense so don't worry too much, just do what you are to show the details.

It didn't come back clear it came back no live trace. There is a spent conviction on his file.

That's probably my wording, not official wording... theft, larceny, very minor stealing (pack of cigarettes). Sorry for confusion.

[Lansbury 19]

There was no conviction, no charges pressed, never went to court. They released him with a caution. I think it was 2004 or 2005? (I realize that isn't technically "way in the past," but in terms of my fiance's life, it seems like it, so that's how I was thinking of it -- sorry if that made things unclear). This is the only thing that's ever been on his record, he's never had any other involvement with the police, so there's no chance of it being anything else causing the No Live Trace result.

We haven't got the Subject Access Form back yet.

I'm not sure what a spent conviction is. They cautioned and released him without pressing charges or anything going any further.

Sounds like he fell foul of the change where cautions were not completely deleted from the system. As you said in was theft of a packet of cigarettes and nothing more don't worry it isn't going to effect anything.

UK has a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act where depending on the offense a certain time after the sentence has been completed the offense becomes "spent" and can no longer be used against the person. The USA does not recognize the idea of "spent" convictions. Hence the no live trace his caution is on file as a "spent" conviction.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

No live trace can also allude to the Caution he was given. The Subject Access report should be plenty. If you'd rather be prepared just in case, fill out the forms for the waiver, but you shouldn't need them for something so minor.

Good luck!

Dodi, I hope you understand that there is more to filing a waiver than "filling out the forms".

There is a discrepency between what you're stating and what the OP stated. The OP said there was no conviction.

Can we have clarification?

I would have to assume that Dodi is right...if he was given a Caution, it is the caution on there?

"No Live Trace" means something is of record.

"No Trace" means the record is clear.

I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, so my apologies if you already know this.

[Dodi 69]

Yes, Johnny, I'm well aware that there is more to it than filling out forms. I'm sure if they need a waiver they'll read the guides so I didn't repeat it.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Dodi

[ECWilloughbys 7]

Sounds like he fell foul of the change where cautions were not completely deleted from the system. As you said in was theft of a packet of cigarettes and nothing more don't worry it isn't going to effect anything.

UK has a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act where depending on the offense a certain time after the sentence has been completed the offense becomes "spent" and can no longer be used against the person. The USA does not recognize the idea of "spent" convictions. Hence the no live trace his caution is on file as a "spent" conviction.

Thank you for the clarification and reassurance. One more question: do you think we should wait for the Subject Access report to send in with the police certificate and all the rest of the forms in packet 4, or just send it in and have him take the SA with him to the interview? Or do you think they're likely to not give us an interview and instead request for more information/clarification and we should just wait and send it all in together? I don't want to stall the process, but it's also taking a long time and we have everything else just waiting for it.

[Dodi 69]

You don't send the police report in with the forms, you take it to the interview, so just take both at the same time.

[Welshcookie 17]

Thank you for the clarification and reassurance. One more question: do you think we should wait for the Subject Access report to send in with the police certificate and all the rest of the forms in packet 4, or just send it in and have him take the SA with him to the interview? Or do you think they're likely to not give us an interview and instead request for more information/clarification and we should just wait and send it all in together? I don't want to stall the process, but it's also taking a long time and we have everything else just waiting for it.

You are pretty close to getting an interview date? Subject Access can take 40 days to process, if you get an interview date and it still hasn't arrived, I would personally just take along the police cert you have, if they say they want more information regarding 'No Live Trace' you will be given an RFE for the Subject Access or court records (if any) at least you already have it ordered. Quite a few people here have had 'No Live Trace' on their certificates and had no problems at interview stage.

Good luck

Edited September 16, 2010 by Welshcookie