VWP

[DaveNot 55]

I'm posting this on behalf of somebody else.

First facts: The esta questions have changed since originally issued. They originally concerned anybody with arrest record for which if admitted too, you aren't eligible.

The questions have changed and don't focus on this anymore, they focus on damage to property and drug use and abuse.

Okay, so given the recent changes the person in question has an extensive criminal record, but nothing related to the above questions concerning drugs and property damage.

So, my question: can the person still travel under the VWP considering they can techniqually answer NO to all questions? I read the questions over and they can answer NO, but given previous history could this potentially raise flags?

Edited February 6, 2015 by DaveNot

[Boiler 43,485]

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#vwp3

Did you read the above?

The questions before were different but not as you stated

[DaveNot 55]

The old questions:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime
involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or
have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the
aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a
controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in
criminal or immoral activities?

The new questions:

2) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority? *

The new questions regarding arrests are more specific and don't mention moral turpitude. I have read the document in full and the only part that stands out to me is the following.

When must I obtain a visa to travel to the United States?

• If you intend to arrive in the United States aboard a non-signatory air carrier.
• If you intend to visit the United States for more than 90 days.
• If you believe any grounds of inadmissibility of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a) apply to you, you should apply for a nonimmigrant visa before traveling to the United States. Although you may be inadmissible to the United States, you may qualify for a non-immigrant visa and waiver, which may allow you to travel to the United States.
• If you are traveling to the United States for a purpose other than short-term tourism or business.

Whatever is underlined there is what sticks out. Technically the person I'm enquiring about can answer no to each question on the VWP list. However, this section copied here is only under the heading of HELP and doesn't get forced into your face.

The previous "old questions", he'd have to answer yes, but the new I believe is NO. So, I'm asking is there potential to cause any red flags here? Or should this individual just straight out apply for a visa and not even bother applying for an ESTA? Basically, I believe more complications can occur having faced a potential ESTA denial.

Edited February 6, 2015 by DaveNot

[Boiler 43,485]

Most people do not have a criminal past, if you do then you need to look further.

Might be able to cut to the chase, what is your history?

[DaveNot 55]

Most people do not have a criminal past, if you do then you need to look further.

Might be able to cut to the chase, what is your history?

I understand most people don't. It is not my history.

You're talking counterfeiting (insurance), dui, insurance fraud and possession of an offensive weapon.

[Boiler 43,485]

Definitely into lawyer territory.

I would say yes, no, yes and maybe.

[DaveNot 55]

That's exactly my assumption too. Given a couple of things. The help section isn't Mandatory and he would not technically be a liar answering those current questions.

Given the information in the HELP section, I question this "If you believe any grounds of inadmissibility of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a) apply to you,". I haven't read it and personally wouldn't understand it.

I'm not trying to create loopholes here, because the end result is obviously a bad one, but given what I've stated, I'm reluctant to advise this person, give the nature of travel would be for a wedding invitation.

[Boiler 43,485]

My assumption is that many/most people with interesting pasts ignored it an will continue to do so.

What they have access to I do not know.

Why they changed the wording I do not know.

[DaveNot 55]

My assumption is that many/most people with interesting pasts ignored it an will continue to do so.

What they have access to I do not know.

Why they changed the wording I do not know.

Couldn't agree more with you. I don't know either.

I'll just wait and see if anybody is more aware of such circumstances and see if there's something more in detail then I guess. Otherwise, I'll just advise them to make calls and wish them luck... I'm no expert.