Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:57 pm
Hi all;
I'd like clear up a couple of things based on my real life circumstance.
I am born Canadian and was arrested and charged with Assault and Uttering threats (2 separate charges). I was finger printed and photographed at the local police station as a result. This happened approximately 4 years ago.
The charges were later withdrawn by the crown (court) by way of a peace bond which was negotiated by my lawyer. Peace bond is just a promise to be of good behavior and keep the peace for a year and then the charges disappear. There was no admission of guilt and I was ready to plead not guilty and have a trial if it went that far.
This does go on some kind of record and doesn't go away.
Anyways,
Just recently I needed to get over to the US and was anxious due to the wording of their questioning. On their questioning they join the word Arrested and Convicted with Or. The question asks: "Have you ever been arrested and/or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or arrested and/or convicted of a crime? ... or something similar.
I have to answer yes because I was indeed arrested, and this leaves me with a feeling that I'm inadmissible and makes me feel that the U.S. doesn't understand that conviction and arrest are separate leaving me very frustrated. But of course the U.S. knows that they aren't the same thing.
When I called them the agent on the phone knew quite well that an arrest doesn't equal conviction. They say: "Just bring your withdrawal documents to the border just in case, they might want to know your side of the story of what happened and why it was withdrawn."
I do so and I did get pulled aside and asked: "Have you ever been arrested?" I answered honestly: "Yes I have been for Assault and uttering threats and it was withdrawn by the court". They ask for more information and I say that it was a false charge against me that I didn't commit. I then show them my papers and all was fine.
The officer did mutter that even if I was convicted, my crimes aren't considered moral turpitude and I'd probably still be admissible.
The following is what I think:
The U.S. border does not care what the records say, If you did the moral turpitude crime, your not getting over. For example, if you were found guilty but given an absolute discharge (no conviction registered), you still did the crime, and that's what the border officer uses to determine your admissibility. Another example is withdrawn charges, You are charged for possession, but the police let you off in lieu of testimony to convict a big fish drug dealer instead. You were still in possession and that's what the officer is going to use to determine admissibility. Also there's the pardon. The border officer doesn't care if you have a pardon or not, you still did the crime and that's all they care about. They are bound by their legislation. Just like a Canadian employer can't turn you away from a job if you were pardoned, yet knows via the local paper etc.. that you committed crime.
Anyways, JUST A THEORY!!
So be careful.
PS: For information about moral turpitude crimes, i used Wikipedia, but the US border site does have a law code, but it's hard to read.