Posession of cannabis on police record

[HuffyTheSlayer 22]

My advice would be: 1) Hire an immigration attorney and 2) Seriously consider moving your fiancee over to live with you in the UK.

[arwensun1965 0]

Quite a tricky one, is that not the reason Tom did not get a visa (Mary&Tom).

[Fandango 1,439]

Quite a tricky one, is that not the reason Tom did not get a visa (Mary&Tom).

I didn't wanna say, but I believe so.

[TracyTN 237]

I was thinking of mary&tom, too. I believe this will, at the very least, need a waiver.

It may not hurt your fiancee to consult with an immigration attorney.

[munchkins 0]

Quite a tricky one, is that not the reason Tom did not get a visa (Mary&Tom).

I didn't wanna say, but I believe so.

that is why tom did not get his visa,( even though it was ultimately a foul up on the part of the police I believe) there was not a darn thing they could do about it Anything at all to do with drugs does require the 601, as has been advised to you, check out immigrate2us, it should give you lots of insight into the 601 waiver and how to go about it ect, good luck to you

Edited January 21, 2007 by munchkins

[Fandango 1,439]

if I'm not mistaken, they filed for a waiver, but the fact that it is 'drug' related meant that it's a denial.

Check out the waiver section!!

[rebeccajo 14]

Quite a tricky one, is that not the reason Tom did not get a visa (Mary&Tom).

I didn't wanna say, but I believe so.

that is why tom did not get his visa,( even though it was ultimately a foul up on the part of the police I believe) there was not a darn thing they could do about it Anything at all to do with drugs does require the 601, as has been advised to you, check out immigrate2us, it should give you lots of insight into the 601 waiver and how to go about it ect, good luck to you

More to it than that. Tom was not charged with possession. His charge was 'exporting' because Customs was involved. He was in a vehicle crossing from the mainland over to Ireland and there was cannabis in the vehicle. He was also advised by counsel to plead guilty.

Court records are needed when filing waivers partly to show the amount of the drug in question. Certain amounts are waiverable - others are not.

From what I understand - the length of time since the conviction, the charge, and the amount of 'product' all play into the granting of the waiver.

[munchkins 0]

that is what I meant Becca, badly put from my part as Tom did not know about it did he?? and there was a mess up re the police report and what it stated I think.

It appears that the waivers basically work the same re the offences in relation to how long ago, age at the time, age now and proof that you have been "totally rehabilitated" just another way to put you through the ringer for another few months Althought there must be some offences that even a waiver would not get them through.

If I am not mistaken there was a couple on here not too long ago, lovely looking couple, and when he attended the interview in London, he was just told No and do not even file a waiver, so goodness knows what his offences were. His wife (US) was just totally devastated which is understandable.

Edited January 21, 2007 by munchkins

[The Vikings 0]

Thankyou to everyone for your input so far - this seems like a great community.

It seems that the general consensus of opinion is that the K-1 will be denied outright at interview because I tick the box for 'druggie felon'. Is there any way to file for a waiver in advance of an interview? I suspect not as one must first be turned down before appealing the refusal!

Many thanks and kind regards,

Carl

[DelcoCouple 1]

The madness of this situation is that had the OP entered under the VWP without intent to marry, subsequently married and applied for AOS then he would not even have been required to produce a copy of his police record.

[rebeccajo 14]

The madness of this situation is that had the OP entered under the VWP without intent to marry, subsequently married and applied for AOS then he would not even have been required to produce a copy of his police record.

And this point remains an unanswered question, at least in conversations I've been involved in around here.

There is an international check of records for Adjustment of Status. But how deep does it go?

I haven't been able to get a straight answer on that.

Edited January 23, 2007 by rebeccajo

[DelcoCouple 1]

The madness of this situation is that had the OP entered under the VWP without intent to marry, subsequently married and applied for AOS then he would not even have been required to produce a copy of his police record.

And this point remains an unanswered question, at least in conversations I've been involved in around here.

There is an international check of records for Adjustment of Status. But how deep does it go?

I haven't been able to get a straight answer on that.

Not very far at all is the answer. For one there is the Data Protection Act, and subject data held on the PNC at Hendon is subject to the provisions of that act. The US authorities have no automatic right of access to that data. Of course much of the data is inaccurate and older records are pulled after a period of time and archived where there is no evidence of on going criminal behaviour. Likewise local force intelligence is not always shared, indeed there has been a recent furore with the European wide initiative collapsing into a shambolic mess, but that as they say is a whole other issue. Interpol for example only has details of people wanted (for that read under active investigation as well as subject to arrest warrants) on its database and does not hold national criminal record details. Criminal records are not always accurate in the UK either mainly because the 5 search factors used when interrogating the PNC can result in false positives. Likewise a slight change in 2 of those factors can return a false negative.

The truth is that the system relies upon the honesty of the individual making the application. There are more than one example of ways to circumnavigate the police certificate requirement. All illegal, immoral and inconsistent with the purpose of a background check but non the less available to the unscrupulous individual. Desperate people do desperate things and in all honesty the background check is pretty much a waste of time in my opinion. Hint, serious criminals have no compunction about lying to the authorities and finding ways around the system.

I am not advocating that the OP follows this path as he would be committing visa fraud x 2, the first when he lied on the I 94W and the second when he entered with intent to marry.

The thrust of my post was that this whole police record thing is by and large unnecessary. The idea that someone who had a minor conviction for a low class drug many decades ago is somehow in the same category as a major felon is laughable. Still that is the law and what we have to deal with. It is just one of the many inconsistencies in the whole immigration process that is in need of radical overhaul.

I really wish the politicians would get over the whole legal/illegal debate and set up a working party to radically overhaul the Immigration laws in full and update them to something sensible that actually bears a relationship to the reality of this century, the needs of people citizens and immigrants alike and is in the best interest of the country.

I suspect however that wish will have been inscribed upon my tombstone for many years before that ever happens

Edited January 23, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[DelcoCouple 1]

As an addendum to the above because someone is bound to raise it The intelligence services (oxymoron?) do share some but not all information. As to whether or not they respond to requests for information for immigration purposes as opposed to terrorism/organised crime activities I do not know for sure but seriously suspect they do not.

[rebeccajo 14]

I am not advocating that the OP follows this path as he would be committing visa fraud x 2, the first when he lied on the I 94W and the second when he entered with intent to marry.

Ah. That made a bell go off.

In the story I told above about the poor guy in the car with his cannabis-toting friends, I forgot the I-94 point. The would-be immigrant was roundly chastised at the consulate for not having declared a conviction on his I94W when he had previously entered the US. He didn't simply for two reasons - it wasn't a conviction (he had pled on advice of counsel) and because he knew it was a spent crime in the UK. In other words - he thought it just didn't matter anymore.

He still caught hell for it. It didn't play into his denial, because the charge was simply unwaiverable. I imagine it might play into a denial for someone with a waiverable crime.

I will also idly note that I personally know one woman whose fiance did have convictions on his record. He always traveled to her on a visitors visa - he never attempted to use the VWP. He was granted those visas despite his past crimes and ultimately a waiver for her I129F petition filed on his behalf. It should be further noted that his crimes were not drug related, and they were more than 25 years old.

[DelcoCouple 1]

.......... The would-be immigrant was roundly chastised at the consulate for not having declared a conviction on his I94W when he had previously entered the US. He didn't simply for two reasons - it wasn't a conviction (he had played on advice of counsel) and because he knew it was a spent crime in the UK. In other words - he thought it just didn't matter anymore.

He still caught hell for it. It didn't play into his denial, because the charge was simply unwaiverable. I imagine it might play into a denial for someone with a waiverable crime.

.........

If he entered a plea of guilty then it most certainly was a conviction, however that is something of a moot point as the question on the I 94 is have you ever been arrested for or convicted off ............ I suspect he did know he was arrested even if he is too dumb to understand that pleading guilty to a criminal offence results in a conviction!

The question regarding the rehabilitation of offenders act is a much more interesting legal point concerning conflict of laws. If he completed the paperwork within UK jurisdiction then he was at liberty not to declare a spent conviction, Indeed there are a number of specific criminal offences for someone else to either disclose his conviction or procure a computer record pertaining to it. Despite what the US Government claims it has no right to make UK law null and void within the UK Now that moot point may well keep lawyers gainfully employed for a significant period of time however the US Government will always respond in its charmingly undiplomatic manner by saying "tough smelly brown stuff! Denied."

As per my previous post I believe the answer is a radical and sensible update of the whole immigration process including the ludicrous questions regarding membership of the Nazi party etc. Are any of them still alive?

Edited January 23, 2007 by DelcoCouple