Tweet
Hi all. Overview of criminal offences committed in the UK:
1x Common Assault, Caution
Then a year later
2x Battery (same arrest), 2x concurrent 6 months 'referral order' sentence
Both arrests were for scraps with my stepfather which he would end by having me arrested. But that's probably not an important detail. I was under 18 for both, but that probably also doesn't matter.
Okay, to begin with: These aren't moral turpitude offenses and the aggregate max sentence is less than 5 years, so I was eligible under visa waiver, correct?
I used visa waiver earlier this year, but for a trip I want to take again this year I thought I'd better apply for a B2 visa to be on the safe side; mainly because on the consulate website it tells you that (I didn't know this before the trip, because I thought that the words printed on the visa waiver form and ESTA actually meant something and weren't just a horrible trap). I was denied because of the usual 214(b) ties thing, but also given a lecture about how bad it was for me to have used visa waiver with any conviction.
Is this just the consulate employee towing the line and giving me an excuse, or did I really do something wrong? If the visa waiver doesn't want you to travel with any sort of conviction at all, why doesn't it say that instead?
1x Common Assault, Caution
Then a year later
2x Battery (same arrest), 2x concurrent 6 months 'referral order' sentence
Both arrests were for scraps with my stepfather which he would end by having me arrested. But that's probably not an important detail. I was under 18 for both, but that probably also doesn't matter.
Okay, to begin with: These aren't moral turpitude offenses and the aggregate max sentence is less than 5 years, so I was eligible under visa waiver, correct?
I used visa waiver earlier this year, but for a trip I want to take again this year I thought I'd better apply for a B2 visa to be on the safe side; mainly because on the consulate website it tells you that (I didn't know this before the trip, because I thought that the words printed on the visa waiver form and ESTA actually meant something and weren't just a horrible trap). I was denied because of the usual 214(b) ties thing, but also given a lecture about how bad it was for me to have used visa waiver with any conviction.
Is this just the consulate employee towing the line and giving me an excuse, or did I really do something wrong? If the visa waiver doesn't want you to travel with any sort of conviction at all, why doesn't it say that instead?
