Visa refused. TIC/Petty offense exception confusion.

[xgabrielx 0]

So, I had my visa interview at the London embassy on December 10th. At the interview I was told I was refused. Here's what the letter said:
 

We are unable to issue you a visa because you have been found inelligible for admission to the United States under the following section(s) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The item(s) 

marked with "X" pertain to your case. Please diisregard the unmarked items.

212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II): crime)s) involving moral turpitude

Except as denoted by an asterisk,these are Permanent inelligibiliities; as a result of your inelligibility/inelligibilities, you cannot travel to the United States on the Visa Waiver Program at any time.
In addition to your permanent ineligibility/inelligibilities, you have been denied a visa under section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A denial under 214(b) means this office has determined that you did not meet the legal requirements of the classification of the nonimmigrant visa for which you applied. You will not be receiving a visa and will not be able to travel to the United States on this application.
 The decision on this application is final,following a mandatory supervisor review. This decision isnot subject to appeal. Your case can only be reconsidered in the context of a new application. It is highly unlikely, however, that a reapplication in the near future would result in a different outcome.

 

 

The thing is: The "Crime of moral turpitude" in question - burglary and theft (non-dwelling) qualifies under the petty offense exception, as the maximum possible sentence was under 12 months, and the sentence received, was under 6 months. In fact there was no custodial sentence. When the agent at the embassy asked about it, they seemed confused as to why there were two offenses listed on my court disposition, and asked what TIC was. I explained as best I could, but made somewhat of a hash of it, though I did clarify at the end by saying it's one conviction, not two.
 Since then I have heard conflicting things from people. for example: One said the "mandatory supervisor review" would have occured BEFORE my interview at the embassy. The language used certainly suggests this, but that's just how legalese is.
I've also heard that the supervisor review would happen 6 to 8 weeks after the interview, but to allow 2 extra weeks for the Xmas holidays slowdown, and that I will be notified by email whether the supervisor overturned the decision or not.
I've also heard that I will be notified if they overturn it, but hear nothing at all if they do not.
 I've heard that they will also overturn the 214(b) as that is usually added as insurance. And, I wasn't asked much about ties at all, only my source of income. I explained I am a full-time carer for my mother. Which is not only a source of income, but a pretty damn solid tie if you ask anyone who ever had a mother.
 I've also heard that the supervisor might have overturned the 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) but they won't overturn the 214(b) and that agents just use the 214(b) to prevent their refusals being overturned. (Which I'm not sure I buy. I think that came from people who were posting angry forum rants.)

So...right now, I don't know IF there will be a supervisor review, and I don't know whether I will know if there is one, IF there is one. According to the CEAC page, my case has not been accessed by anyone since the day of the interview - which either supports what I heard from one source about the review having already been conducted by the time I had the interview. or supports what I heard from another source about the supervisor not using the same system to access the case, so it doesn't trigger an update, OR what I heard from another source: that a supervisor accessing the case WOULD trigger an update, but the CEAC page updates extremely infrequently and/or unreliably.
 So all-in-all, I'm somewhat frustrated and confused by the whole process. Largely due to the process being frustrating and confusing.
 If anyone can help me out with any gaps in my knowledge or false assumptions made by myself or other sources to whom I've spoken, which are made evident by what I've written here, I'd much appreciate it. Especially: DO these reviews actually happen? Do the supervisors even know what a TIC is, and that it is not a separate conviction? Does anyone have personal experience with this exact issue? And what was your outcome?

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by xgabrielx

[appleblossom 5,830]

 

33 minutes ago, xgabrielx said:

The thing is: The "Crime of moral turpitude" in question - burglary and theft (non-dwelling) qualifies under the petty offense exception, as the maximum possible sentence was under 12 months, and the sentence received, was under 6 months. In fact there was no custodial sentence. When the agent at the embassy asked about it, they seemed confused as to why there were two offenses listed on my court disposition, and asked what TIC was. I explained as best I could, but made somewhat of a hash of it, though I did clarify at the end by saying it's one conviction, not two.

 

I'm not that familiar with a TIC but doesn't that mean you admitted to another uncharged offence? So that may mean you don't qualify for the petty offence exemption, as admissions count as well, not just convictions.

 

Was a waiver of ineligibility mentioned at any point? I assume not but just checking. Although anybody being referred for a waiver these days then has a 15 month ish wait for that decision, and they're being refused under 214(b) as well more and more anyway.

[JeanneAdil 7,476]

212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II): crime)s) involving moral turpitude

 

is not for petty theft but as defined below

 

Any individual convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits having committed acts which constitute the essential elements of, a violation of ( or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Act. Individuals found inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A) of the Act for a controlled substance violation related to a single offense of simple possession of30 grams or less of marijuana may seek a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act.

 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/H2 - Waiver of Inadmissibility - Criminal - 212 (h)/Decisions_Issued_in_2022/MAY262022_01H2212.pdf

 

[xgabrielx 0]

That was a typo on my part. I meant 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)

 

[Boiler 48,706]

214 b is the only one that matters assuming you are not looking at other options.