Hi! Well thanks to some advice from VJ, I have submitted Packet 3 to the US Embassy here in London.

In Item 38 of DS-156 I have declared YES as to whether I have ever been arrested. I was arrested for 'criminal damage' in the first year at university during my first (and last) experience with super-strength lager, I basically fell against a window and broke it. I was arrested, held in custody (while sobering up) and issued a police caution having paid for the damages and made a personal apology to the property owner. As this was a one-off (and no doubt subsequently wiped off), my subject access report shows that there is no record of me on the national police data database.

I was wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation and could offer advice on visa interview questions on the following:

-What questions were asked about the arrest and what answers did you provide?

and more seriously.........

-I have ONLY JUST noticed that having been arrested I should have never previously travelled on the VWP, but I have a number of times. On the basis of the questions on I-94W, I have always (and correctly) answered NO to:
"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 two or more offenses for which the aggregage sentence to confinemnet was five years seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
There are not any further questions on I-94W on the subject of arrests and that is why I never realised that I should not have been travelling under it. Has anyone made a similar mistake and has any advice on lines of questioning during the visa interview?

This whole process is stressful enough without these worries over one silly incident when I was 19!! Any help would be greatfully received!!
Cheers, Ed.

I don't think falling drunk onto a window is a "crime of moral turpitude" or relating to a "controlled substance". Alcohol is not a controlled substance BTW.

As to whether you should answer "yes", well on one had you should not lie, on the other hand if there's no record of it happening, did it actually happen?

No, but if you read the small print you can't enter the US on the VWP if you have been arrested, you should apply for a visa. So technically I have given them a reason to refuse the K1 visa on the basis that I have entered the US improperly......... but yeah, maybe the form could have been clearer on that point.

And yep........ I had been debating the YES/NO question........

Yes, you were arrested but you were only cautioned, not convicted. Nor was your crime one of moral turpitude or to do with drugs. People are arrested and then released all the time....

You were issued a caution, which isn't the same as a dreaded conviction, for a crime that will most likely not be classified as a CiMT. I don't think you have anything to worry about. :-)

My husband, Gary is in a similar situation, except that his report does show his "criminal damage" incident as a conviction. He had to pay a 25 pound fine for kicking a traffic bollard when he was 19. Because you've checked "yes" on the DS-156, you should declare it at your interview. I'm of the opinion you should always be truthful in this process anyway, in part because lying can come back to bite you on the behind later.

I've consulted with a lawyer about Gary's criminal damage offense and about the VWP, which he's used several times. She doesn't believe my husband's crime is a CiMT, and therefore it was reasonable for him to assume he should answer "no" to that question of the VWP form. She doesn't believe this will cause any problems at his interview. I'm having her prepare an amendment just in case.

Of course, I still worry to death about it, the possibility, however small, that we'll have to file a waiver. Having a lawyer clarify things has helped ease my mind. But "criminal damage" can be considered a CiMT depending on the offense, and Gary does have a conviction for it, so my worry won't dissipate until he actually has his interview.

Okay, I've babbled on enough about Gary's life of crime.

Thanks for your input and hope all goes well in Gary's interview!!

Thanks for the input Kris. It does make me feel very bad that this one silly incident could result in the visa application being rejected, and I do hope that common sense prevails.

Was there any advice offered about how to answer any questions in the interview about (1) the crime itself or (2) why he believed that the crime was not a CiMT?

I had a minor convoction from my past as well, I got letters from the local courts explaining there were no records as the crime was so minor ( buying a round of drinks for friends who were not all 18). I also included a letter from the Procurator Fiscal stating the same.
At the interview I provided the written evidence as well as my letters asking for information and was asked about the details which I filled in easily. I assured the consular officer I no longer drink (almost true). She was very happy to hear that. I had used the visa waiver in the past many times, I wasn't asked about that at all.
If you can get written information about your caution from the local police then take it with you. I found staff in the court in the area where I was charged were very helpful when I told them what I needed and why. I think they get a bit mushy at the idea of helping a couple in love to get married

So far, our lawyer hasn't given us any specific advice about that. I think she feels that any reasonable person would not think that kicking a traffic bollard is an act that involves moral turpitude. "Moral turpitude" is an ambiguous phrase at best, a downright confusing one at worst. In your case, I can't see how anyone would think accidentally falling through a window is an act of "moral turpitude". She hasn't completed the amendment she's drafting for us yet, but I'll let you know if she gives us any advice which would be helpful to you. Also, regarding the VWP, when Gary entered the States on it, it was more than twenty years after his offense, and he honestly didn't remember he had actually been arrested for it. He didn't realize that he had an arrest/conviction until he received his subject access report.

I meant to ask you, just out of curiosity, if you paid a fine or just paid restitution to the owner of the property. In either case, if you can get proof showing you did actually pay, they will want that at the interview. And, as mmb said, any court record or a document showing that there isn't a court record, would help you at the interview as well. The only record the local court had of Gary's offense was a document showing he had paid his fine and restitution. The 25 pounds fine was more than the cost of restitution; crime just doesn't pay!

So, take mmb's advice, answer questions honestly, and try to get as much documentation as you can. If you can't get any documentation, at least you'll have proof that you tried to do so.




Thanks for posting your experience. It gives all of us whose SO's have a dreaded "criminal past" a lot of hope.

I never received any official documentation. I do have a receipt showing how much it cost the property owner to repait the damage to window. I also have a memo from a PC confirming that he understood that I had apologised to the property owner and paid for the damage I caused and was therefore going to receive a caution rather than be prosecuted.

I all ready have a subject access report showing there is nothing on me on the national police database. BUT, I obtained this report through Surrey police (where I now live). I spoke to someone at Hampshire police (where the arrest occured) and he said that if I asked for subject access form to Hampshire specifying the details they may be able to provide more in the way of detail.

What is on the Police National Computer about you is nothing, as you already know from your subject access report. Hampshire will not obtain any different information from the PNC if you apply to them. What they have or may not have is a record of your caution in their force records. The US Embassy is only interested in the PNC report.

You correctly answered you had been arrested and can produce the PNC report to show you didn't receive a conviction. Once you explain the circumstance there shouldn't be a problem.

As to the VWP, you had been arrested so shouldn't have used it. I once had a British citizen refused entry at Chicago and put on the next plane back to the UK because he had once been arrested for Breach of the Peace, something which isn't a criminal offence. All it took was a phone call to immigration at O'Hare airport, to tell them he was in breach of the VWP. He was trying to remove his daughter from the UK without the mothers consent and I circumvented a long extradition hearing to get him and the child back. But in your case it was a genuine error and I very much doubt the Embassy will even know that you had done so. They are just ordinary people at the Embassy who know people misunderstand things, especially the VWP, and your reasonable explanation should resolved that problem fairly easily.

You could probably have answered no in this case and have been fine. But if you are going to answer yes, provide all the details of the case. Show them that it has been resloved. If this is the only issue on you dont have much at all to worry about.