Court & Prison Records?!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

OK Here's the deal..I talked to my husband to get the exact story and this is what happened..

Ya'll are always so helpful and nonjudgmental so i'll share with you..

Please keep in mind he was 20 when all of this happened 1999. It was definitely a rough year for him. His licensed were suspended due to excessive 24 hour suspensions (alcohol related). He was caught driving with a suspended license at a road check and had to go to court for that. He was sentenced to 10 days of electronic monitoring at home but only had to serve 7 days (?!). Later in the year, he got a DUI and stayed overnight in the "drunk tank" to "sober up" and his licensed were suspended for a year. That is his criminal record. It was definitely just an experimental stage in his life, he doesn't even drink anymore, at all. Anyway, he is going to check on court records tomorrow but I am still unsure what to do about prison records.

Thanks everyone for your help.

Thank you for sharing this information with us. You're among friends here. Multiple DUI convictions are not crimes of moral turpitude unless (here's the bad news) one gets caught driving on a license that he or she knows is suspended or revoked at the time of the offence. You don't need prison records but only the court records since DH didn't go to prison and the court records should show the sentencing. I assume that you've already got the dates of the offences, if not get the police clearance letter that uses the name check. The name check letter will outline the exact charges but it sounds like you have a pretty good idea of them now. While you might not wish to go with the pardon (it looks better to the USCIS) you will almost certainly need to go with the waiver (*hoping I'm wrong*). The I-601 waiver I believe is what you need. First things first, get the court records and go from there.

BTW, don't worry about losing your mind, just look at me, I'm as sane as I ever was.

[kcmetzy 0]

What does he need the waiver for?? Driving with suspended license or the DUI? The DUI and the suspended license were two separate incidents..

This stinks..

OK Here's the deal..I talked to my husband to get the exact story and this is what happened..

Ya'll are always so helpful and nonjudgmental so i'll share with you..

Please keep in mind he was 20 when all of this happened 1999. It was definitely a rough year for him. His licensed were suspended due to excessive 24 hour suspensions (alcohol related). He was caught driving with a suspended license at a road check and had to go to court for that. He was sentenced to 10 days of electronic monitoring at home but only had to serve 7 days (?!). Later in the year, he got a DUI and stayed overnight in the "drunk tank" to "sober up" and his licensed were suspended for a year. That is his criminal record. It was definitely just an experimental stage in his life, he doesn't even drink anymore, at all. Anyway, he is going to check on court records tomorrow but I am still unsure what to do about prison records.

Thanks everyone for your help.

Thank you for sharing this information with us. You're among friends here. Multiple DUI convictions are not crimes of moral turpitude unless (here's the bad news) one gets caught driving on a license that he or she knows is suspended or revoked at the time of the offence. You don't need prison records but only the court records since DH didn't go to prison and the court records should show the sentencing. I assume that you've already got the dates of the offences, if not get the police clearance letter that uses the name check. The name check letter will outline the exact charges but it sounds like you have a pretty good idea of them now. While you might not wish to go with the pardon (it looks better to the USCIS) you will almost certainly need to go with the waiver (*hoping I'm wrong*). The I-601 waiver I believe is what you need. First things first, get the court records and go from there.

BTW, don't worry about losing your mind, just look at me, I'm as sane as I ever was.

[Carlawarla 1]

Your best bet would be firstly to get all the court records. Secondly, he's going to need a fingerprint check (maybe you're ordered it)?

Just wanted to comment on the Pardon and Prison things. He's from Canada is he not? A Canadian pardon will be of no use during the immigration process. A Canadian pardon is not recognized in the US. Prison, jail, whatever the terminology is not used in Canada either. Jail is jail. If you're sentenced to any period of incarceration, the only difference is whether it is under 2 years, or 2 years and over. Then you either enter a "provincial" facility, or a "federal" facility.

I'm sure everything sounds very confusing. If he's in Canada, his best bet, is to do all this running around himself. Driving while suspended is considered a more onerous crime here in Canada, particularly if it's as a result of a alcohol related offences.

Carla

[Autumnchik 6]

One thing that may be helpful to show is if he ever went to counseling for the DUIs/alcohol use .... if so, I would suggest getting records of the dates and place. That would help show the consulate that he has actively addressed his past problem.

[misa 2]

You may want to inquire about waivers in the waiver forum and whether he needs one. Look for kitkat there (not sure if she's around much anymore) or ask around here: http://tinyurl.com/2zru6b

Good luck!

Edited October 10, 2007 by misa

[*JG* 2]

My husband had to send off his fingerprints because of a DUI that happened a when he was younger and stupid. Anyway, I just realized that he also needs Court & Prison records because of that incident..

PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE tell me you can just walk in to the courthouse and get a certified copy of his court records. Also, where do you go to get a copy of the prison record? I guess I assumed everything would come back on the police certificate..obviously not.

Thanks! )

Here, where I live, you can just walk in, pay your money, supply some info., and get the report back in about 20 minutes or so.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What does he need the waiver for?? Driving with suspended license or the DUI? The DUI and the suspended license were two separate incidents..

This stinks..

Just to follow up the advice that cartoboy123, misa, autumnchik, jomo's girl have given, anything that shows rehabilitation looks good. "Moral turpitude" offences really stink. The DUI isn't one but the driving with the suspended license is. If you get caught ripping off a gumball then it is a crime of moral turpitude but on the other hand, there are some more serious crimes that aren't. Go figure. The waiver, from what I recall is to remove grounds of inadmissibility. It is up to the USCIS whether or not he will need the waiver but he might still qualify for the petty offence exception for the driving while suspended. If he does, then the DUIs are irrelevant as they are not crimes of moral turpitude.

[kcmetzy 0]

What does he need the waiver for?? Driving with suspended license or the DUI? The DUI and the suspended license were two separate incidents..

This stinks..

Just to follow up the advice that cartoboy123, misa, autumnchik, jomo's girl have given, anything that shows rehabilitation looks good. "Moral turpitude" offences really stink. The DUI isn't one but the driving with the suspended license is. If you get caught ripping off a gumball then it is a crime of moral turpitude but on the other hand, there are some more serious crimes that aren't. Go figure. The waiver, from what I recall is to remove grounds of inadmissibility. It is up to the USCIS whether or not he will need the waiver but he might still qualify for the petty offence exception for the driving while suspended. If he does, then the DUIs are irrelevant as they are not crimes of moral turpitude.

He did not go to rehabilitation, he just matured/met me (hehe). I am going to be SUPER ticked if he is "admissible" to play hockey and "not admissible" to live with his wife here. He started playing hockey in the states one year after all of that happened.

Do we have to wait for the interview to submit a waiver? I hope that they take into account the circumstances when he was caught driving with a suspended license. He was not pulled over for any other violation, it was a road check.

I guess I am still not fully clear on what the crimes involving moral turpitude are. I have been looking into like crazy and have not found a definite answer as to what is considered a crime of moral turpitude. If anyone has a good reference, please let me know.

Edited October 10, 2007 by kcmetzy

[trailmix 77]

Here is the Dept of State foreign affairs manual reference: Link

Daisylynn was asking about waivers in the waiver forum and she was given a good answer from blueblue about how it all plays out at the consulate (submitting the waiver at the time of the interview). The thread is here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91154

[trailmix 77]

Here is the Dept of State foreign affairs manual reference: Link

Daisylynn was asking about waivers in the waiver forum and she was given a good answer from blueblue about how it all plays out at the consulate (submitting the waiver at the time of the interview). The thread is here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91154

Oh and I couldn't find anything on the Driving with a suspended license - maybe IR5 can point you in the right direction for information on that?

[Carlawarla 1]

I just read another thread you started in regards to the same issues here?

There has been lots of advise and strategies to check out.

Sometimes it's not the answer you're looking for, but sometimes action equates with less frustration.

Wishing you some concrete answers soon.

Carla

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Here is the Dept of State foreign affairs manual reference: Link

Daisylynn was asking about waivers in the waiver forum and she was given a good answer from blueblue about how it all plays out at the consulate (submitting the waiver at the time of the interview). The thread is here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91154

Oh and I couldn't find anything on the Driving with a suspended license - maybe IR5 can point you in the right direction for information on that?

I second Carla's wishes. I'm just waiting to see what the court records will reveal.

Trailmix, I hesitate to dump even more legalese on poor kc but for your edification here's the 411. The term "moral turpitude" is a nebulous concept that no one can really define but nevertheless the USCIS in s. 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act tries to. The problem with this is that your average USCIS officer has no clue what this really means. That of course has never stopped the individual officers from imposing their idea of what is and what is not morally corrupt. The applicant (victim) appeals to an immigration judge (presumably from New York) who says, "yous USCIS rat-bastards are out of your f***in' gourds." USCIS appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and so it goes to higher and higher courts (the appeal from a federal regulatory body is to the Circuit Court of Appeals for whatever area the matter arises in and then the Supreme Court). That's how things generally unfold. I am posting a brief and analysis of one of the decisions (MATTER OF LOPEZ-MEZA, Respondent File A 92 026 109 12/21/99 BIA) concerning DUI and moral turpitude below. There are a few more cases out there including the US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in the matter of Campos.

BIA: ARIZONA AGGRAVATED DUI CONVICTION IS A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE (MATTER OF LOPEZ-MEZA)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a precedent decision finding that a conviction in Arizona for the offense of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) is a crime of moral turpitude. The BIA concluded that since conviction under the statute requires that the driver have knowledge that he or she is prohibited from driving, violation of the statute is "such a deviance from the accepted rules of contemporary morality that it amounts to a crime of moral turpitude." Although the BIA has previously held that an aggravated DUI conviction is a "crime of violence" under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of an "aggravated felony" (Matter of Magallanes-Garcia, Int. Dec. 3341 (BIA 1998); see "BIA Finds Conviction for Aggravated DUI Is ‘Aggravated Felony,’" Immigrants’ Rights Update, Apr. 30, 1998, p. 3), this is the first time that the appeals board has found that such an offense constitutes a crime of moral turpitude.

The respondent in this case, a Mr. Lopez-Meza, is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since shortly after his birth 24 years ago. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1989 through the legalization provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). On June 19, 1998, he was convicted of two aggravated DUI offenses under Arizona law. The two convictions were based on separate incidents that occurred on Jan. 24, 1997, and Mar. 1, 1998. He received a sentence of four months’ incarceration for each offense, to be served concurrently, followed by five years’ probation. The INS then initiated removal proceedings.

Since Lopez-Meza was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more, the Immigration and Naturalization Service could not charge him with being removable as an aggravated felon. Instead, the INS charged that he was removable for having been convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude not arising from the same scheme of misconduct. No record or other documents regarding the conviction were submitted at the removal hearing, but the respondent admitted the convictions, while disputing that they constituted crimes of moral turpitude. The immigration judge agreed, ruling that the convictions do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude, and concluded that the INS failed to establish that "driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is, in fact, a crime involving base or vile conduct or moral turpitude as classically defined." The INS appealed this decision to the BIA.

On appeal, the BIA concluded that simple DUI is not a crime of moral turpitude, since it is a regulatory offense that does not require a showing of intent.(emphasis added by IR5) However, the BIA pointed out, the Arizona offense of aggravated DUI does require evidence of specific intent. A conviction requires a showing that the defendant drove while under the influence at a time when the defendant knew that he or she was either prohibited from driving or was on a restricted license due to a prior DUI offense. Citing "accepted rules of contemporary morality," the BIA concluded that when an individual in such circumstances commits a DUI, the offense amounts to a crime of moral turpitude. Accordingly, the BIA remanded the case to the IJ to determine whether Lopez-Meza qualifies for any relief from removal.

Board member Lory Rosenberg filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which she agreed that simple DUI cannot constitute a crime of moral turpitude, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion regarding aggravated DUI. She argued that the majority’s opinion in effect combines two regulatory offenses—simple DUI and driving while one’s license is under a restriction—to create a crime of moral turpitude, although neither offense by itself could be considered to constitute such a crime.

Now my take on kc's situation is as follows, all DUIs in DH’s case are not crimes of moral turpitude and hence do not require anything. The driving with the suspended license may fall under the petty offences exception (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) since it only occurred once and I don't believe it was prosecuted as an indictable offence (check the court record). This should (I hope) mean that there is no need for the waiver. What distinguishes it from Lopez is the fact that DH was not drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time of the stop for driving w/o license (“drive disqualified” in ON). I don’t remember what the law in 1999 was but once you see the charges from the police letter and the court records you’ll know exact how the Crown proceeded. If the Crown prosecuted summarily then you’ve got it made!!! The maximum penalty currently for a summary conviction for drive disqualified in ON is a maximum jail time of six months and/or $2000. Since the maximum time for the offence is less than a year, the petty offence exception applies and you don’t need to file anything. If the Crown prosecuted via indictment then you will almost certainly need the waiver. I am, of course, assuming that DH was convicted in ON.

This is just my analysis of the situation but keep in mind that I am a simple man who never made it past the second grade.

[kcmetzy 0]

Here is the Dept of State foreign affairs manual reference: Link

Daisylynn was asking about waivers in the waiver forum and she was given a good answer from blueblue about how it all plays out at the consulate (submitting the waiver at the time of the interview). The thread is here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91154

Oh and I couldn't find anything on the Driving with a suspended license - maybe IR5 can point you in the right direction for information on that?

I second Carla's wishes. I'm just waiting to see what the court records will reveal.

Trailmix, I hesitate to dump even more legalese on poor kc but for your edification here's the 411. The term "moral turpitude" is a nebulous concept that no one can really define but nevertheless the USCIS in s. 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act tries to. The problem with this is that your average USCIS officer has no clue what this really means. That of course has never stopped the individual officers from imposing their idea of what is and what is not morally corrupt. The applicant (victim) appeals to an immigration judge (presumably from New York) who says, "yous USCIS rat-bastards are out of your f***in' gourds." USCIS appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and so it goes to higher and higher courts (the appeal from a federal regulatory body is to the Circuit Court of Appeals for whatever area the matter arises in and then the Supreme Court). That's how things generally unfold. I am posting a brief and analysis of one of the decisions (MATTER OF LOPEZ-MEZA, Respondent File A 92 026 109 12/21/99 BIA) concerning DUI and moral turpitude below. There are a few more cases out there including the US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in the matter of Campos.

BIA: ARIZONA AGGRAVATED DUI CONVICTION IS A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE (MATTER OF LOPEZ-MEZA)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a precedent decision finding that a conviction in Arizona for the offense of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) is a crime of moral turpitude. The BIA concluded that since conviction under the statute requires that the driver have knowledge that he or she is prohibited from driving, violation of the statute is "such a deviance from the accepted rules of contemporary morality that it amounts to a crime of moral turpitude." Although the BIA has previously held that an aggravated DUI conviction is a "crime of violence" under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of an "aggravated felony" (Matter of Magallanes-Garcia, Int. Dec. 3341 (BIA 1998); see "BIA Finds Conviction for Aggravated DUI Is ‘Aggravated Felony,’" Immigrants’ Rights Update, Apr. 30, 1998, p. 3), this is the first time that the appeals board has found that such an offense constitutes a crime of moral turpitude.

The respondent in this case, a Mr. Lopez-Meza, is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since shortly after his birth 24 years ago. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1989 through the legalization provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). On June 19, 1998, he was convicted of two aggravated DUI offenses under Arizona law. The two convictions were based on separate incidents that occurred on Jan. 24, 1997, and Mar. 1, 1998. He received a sentence of four months’ incarceration for each offense, to be served concurrently, followed by five years’ probation. The INS then initiated removal proceedings.

Since Lopez-Meza was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or more, the Immigration and Naturalization Service could not charge him with being removable as an aggravated felon. Instead, the INS charged that he was removable for having been convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude not arising from the same scheme of misconduct. No record or other documents regarding the conviction were submitted at the removal hearing, but the respondent admitted the convictions, while disputing that they constituted crimes of moral turpitude. The immigration judge agreed, ruling that the convictions do not constitute crimes of moral turpitude, and concluded that the INS failed to establish that "driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is, in fact, a crime involving base or vile conduct or moral turpitude as classically defined." The INS appealed this decision to the BIA.

On appeal, the BIA concluded that simple DUI is not a crime of moral turpitude, since it is a regulatory offense that does not require a showing of intent.(emphasis added by IR5) However, the BIA pointed out, the Arizona offense of aggravated DUI does require evidence of specific intent. A conviction requires a showing that the defendant drove while under the influence at a time when the defendant knew that he or she was either prohibited from driving or was on a restricted license due to a prior DUI offense. Citing "accepted rules of contemporary morality," the BIA concluded that when an individual in such circumstances commits a DUI, the offense amounts to a crime of moral turpitude. Accordingly, the BIA remanded the case to the IJ to determine whether Lopez-Meza qualifies for any relief from removal.

Board member Lory Rosenberg filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which she agreed that simple DUI cannot constitute a crime of moral turpitude, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion regarding aggravated DUI. She argued that the majority’s opinion in effect combines two regulatory offenses—simple DUI and driving while one’s license is under a restriction—to create a crime of moral turpitude, although neither offense by itself could be considered to constitute such a crime.

Now my take on kc's situation is as follows, all DUIs in DH’s case are not crimes of moral turpitude and hence do not require anything. The driving with the suspended license may fall under the petty offences exception (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) since it only occurred once and I don't believe it was prosecuted as an indictable offence (check the court record). This should (I hope) mean that there is no need for the waiver. What distinguishes it from Lopez is the fact that DH was not drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time of the stop for driving w/o license (“drive disqualified” in ON). I don’t remember what the law in 1999 was but once you see the charges from the police letter and the court records you’ll know exact how the Crown proceeded. If the Crown prosecuted summarily then you’ve got it made!!! The maximum penalty currently for a summary conviction for drive disqualified in ON is a maximum jail time of six months and/or $2000. Since the maximum time for the offence is less than a year, the petty offence exception applies and you don’t need to file anything. If the Crown prosecuted via indictment then you will almost certainly need the waiver. I am, of course, assuming that DH was convicted in ON.

This is just my analysis of the situation but keep in mind that I am a simple man who never made it past the second grade.

You are brilliant, IR5, and always willing to help. I really appreciate the effort you put into helping me. As soon as we receive the info from the RCMP, I will be sure to post. Thanks again.

[trailmix 77]

I second Carla's wishes. I'm just waiting to see what the court records will reveal.

Trailmix, I hesitate to dump even more legalese on poor kc but for your edification here's the 411. This is just my analysis of the situation but keep in mind that I am a simple man who never made it past the second grade.

Well now I am edified! I actually read a few cases when I was looking for information on it it's a bit dry.

Fingers crossed that this all turns out well, looks good so far!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You are brilliant, IR5, and always willing to help. I really appreciate the effort you put into helping me. As soon as we receive the info from the RCMP, I will be sure to post. Thanks again.

KC, thank you for those kind words of praise, I just try to do my best. I think thanks are also in order to all those other helpful people in this thread. I certainly look forward to the info from the RCMP, remember we're all in this together.