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 Wednesday at 05:36 PM by xgabrielx

[appleblossom 5,849]

 

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 7,480]

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 48,711]

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

[xgabrielx 0]

I'm told that's usually added to any refusal based on 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
I'm not sure why that would be the case. I'm getting conflicting info from all over the place at the moment.

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

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

 

[Boiler 48,711]

1 hour ago, xgabrielx said:

I'm told that's usually added to any refusal based on 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
I'm not sure why that would be the case. I'm getting conflicting info from all over the place at the moment.

 

Not in my experience, 214 b is quicker and easier it seems.

[JeanneAdil 7,480]

• Did not establish eligibility for the visa category being applied for or overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant - INA section 214(b)

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visa-denials.html

 

Basically what we see is embasssy will deny if the person has no income,  does not own property to tie the person to the home country.   Having family there is not a  strong tie as we all have family in our home country and have left

also,  ties to a USC friend or family here makes stronger ties to remain in the USA.

 

I, myself, have family in Morocco that i support / my wife is there now to find a live- in care giver for mom and new apartment as mom is loosing eyesite and needs ground level or elevator .   this being said many of us take care of parents while in the US so being mom's caregiver is not going to "cut the mustard"     It actually works against u if u need to be in UK to care for her

 

As far as supervisor review it means a supervisor will check documents and all notes made by the CO making sure the CO has doted all the i's and crossed all the t's / the review will not be to check to overcome the CO decision.   it is to confirm the CO decision 

[jan22 3,192]

On 2/18/2026 at 11:33 AM, xgabrielx said:

The supervisor review did not occur prior to your interview. There would be nothing for a supervisor to review until a decision was reached. It is clear that the supervisor reviewed it prior to the refusal statement being given to you.  The supervisor has reviewed the decision and has agreed with it, so there really is nothing that remains possible for a visa from this application.  

 

You will need to apply again to have any possibility of getting a visa.  The 214b cuts off any waiver application, so to get any visa you will need to not be refused 214b on any visa application and then —assuming you still have a 212a2A — you can apply for a waiver.  (I can’t believe that a burglary charge has a maximum sentence of less than 12 months, but if so, you might convince them that the 212a2 finding should be dropped).

 

[xgabrielx 0]

10 hours ago, jan22 said:

The supervisor review did not occur prior to your interview. There would be nothing for a supervisor to review until a decision was reached. It is clear that the supervisor reviewed it prior to the refusal statement being given to you.  The supervisor has reviewed the decision and has agreed with it, so there really is nothing that remains possible for a visa from this application.  

 

You will need to apply again to have any possibility of getting a visa.  The 214b cuts off any waiver application, so to get any visa you will need to not be refused 214b on any visa application and then —assuming you still have a 212a2A — you can apply for a waiver.  (I can’t believe that a burglary charge has a maximum sentence of less than 12 months, but if so, you might convince them that the 212a2 finding should be dropped).

 

I was handed the statement 5 minutes into the interview. That's why I don't think it would have been reviewed by then. IIRC, the max sentence would have been 6 months. The interviewer barely looked at anything, and barely asked any questions regarding ties, so it's possible, I guess, that this supervisor review happened before the interview. The wording is so poor, though, it could mean anything. I decided to give it 8 weeks, and allow 2 extra weeks for a Christmas slowdown, and that time is up now, so now I gotta apply again and make my ties more obvious...though...I've lived in the same house for 40 years and it has my name on it, and has since it was built. I'm just going to have to make the application better, and hope the interviewer is having a better day next time. 
 I suppose I can't even argue that a TIC is not an admission of a further CIMT under the FAM definition of "admission", and would have to rely on the officer or later supervisor, already knowing it. I don't see arguing helping, even when I'm right.
 I guess the best chance I have is to do a better job of explaining my ties, and hope the interviewer offers to put me in for an inadmissability waiver, due to the conviction being 30 years old, and the offense being comitted when I was a teenager. In fact, I may have even been a minor when the TIC offense was committed, but I don't suppose there's any paperwork to show that. And what paperwork there would have been, would have only contained my own statement, and my own estimate of when the TIC offense was comitted.

 

 

[Boiler 48,711]

Probably held in the Magistrates Court. now in Crown Court it is very different. Perhaps they use what it could have been if it had gone to Crown Court?

 

I assume your answers on the DS 160 will not change?

 

 

[xgabrielx 0]

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Probably held in the Magistrates Court. now in Crown Court it is very different. Perhaps they use what it could have been if it had gone to Crown Court?

 

I assume your answers on the DS 160 will not change?

 

 

Yeah, and a magistrate's court that no longer exists. I kinda have to keep the same answers on my application. Well, I mean, I can add info, I suppose, but I'm locked in on stuff I've already said. I'm sure they keep it on record.
 Which is a shame, cus I also disclosed an offense - not a CIMT - that didn't show up on my ACRO and the court had no record of it. At least, I think I did. I may have removed it once I saw the ACRO and court disposition. There wouldn't be much point admitting to an offense I literally can't prove I committed, and that isn't recorded anywhere. So I do need to check my previous application, to ensure consistency. I need to anyway to get the dates of previous jobs and such. It's all estimates as so many comapnies I worked for, no longer exist. (Not my fault!)

[Boiler 48,711]

No live trace means there is something else.

[xgabrielx 0]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

No live trace means there is something else.

That's not on my ACRO. It was on the one I got for an Australian visa, years back, but this one has the convictions on it. The other never. I'll need to check my previous DS-160. Also: last time, I didn't fill out a VCU01. I don't think I even saw the option.

[Boiler 48,711]

I might think of going somewhere else on my hols, is there a specific reason you want to follow through with this?