Jump to content
All posts are moderated, so it will take time for your post to appear!
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

natan111

Members
  • Content count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About natan111

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You should report it. It should have no adverse consequences unless it was alcohol-related (e.g. if the original charge was DUI).
  2. natan111

    Secondary inspection

    Petty offense exception applies only to CIMT. You were convicted of CIMT (for immigration purposes) and seem to meet the 2 conditions, so you should qualify for petty offense exception. (I'm not a lawyer. Hire one.)
  3. natan111

    Public Intoxication

    I'm not an attorney. It's a very minor charge. It's more than a parking ticket but much less than a DUI. If you did community service you must have been convicted or placed into alternative sentencing (that's the same for immigration purposes). Public intoxication is NOT a CIMT and will probably have no impact on your immigration benefits. However, there are two concerns you should note: (1) You must disclose it on any future forms or interviews if asked about any criminal history (visa stamping, GC, citizenship, etc). I don't think that you have to do so for H1B process within the US, but probably you'll get this question when applying for a visa at a consulate (the stamping). Disclose the case and provide any documents that you have. For OPT extension I think (not 100% sure) you don't have to disclose it. But, again, use common sense. If asked, by all means, you must disclose it. (2) While public intoxication (PI) is a very minor offence, it is still considered an alcohol-related charge. So your medical status may be affected if you have more than one of these. A single PI will have no consequences, neither criminal nor medical. However, make very sure you don't get another alcohol-related charge (PI or DUI) because that could potentially make you inadmissible on medical grounds (alcohol abuse). Overall, this single charge is nothing to worry about as long as you disclose it when asked. Again, I'm not a lawyer.
  4. natan111

    My rights at Port entry with arrest record

    I'm not a lawyer - just a random person on the internet. That said: 1. Yes, you do. But that may result in detention and refusal of admission. You should fully disclose your confessions if asked. 2. Yes. But, again, if you don't cooperate they may not allow you to enter the US. 3. Any document from the court or arresting agency that shows the resolution of the case will do. You confessed, so you are convicted for immigration purposes. If it's a felony you are most likely already inadmissible (if you confessed to a lesser offence, maybe not). You should fully disclose your criminal history if CBP asks you about it. 4. CBP most likely won't inform your employer unless you work in certain sensitive areas where such an arrest may present a security risk. Get a good immigration attorney with experience in criminal history cases. If you are inadmissible/removable you may have an option to apply for a waver.
  5. natan111

    travel to UK with dismissed case in USA

    You should assume that they do share such details and then act accordingly. While this is US immigration forum, I would presume that UK authorities, similarly to their US colleges, expect honest answers when/if they ask you about any criminal history. If your case was not serious (e.g. less than DUI or DV) you should have no issues entering other western countries. Canada won't let you enter with a single DUI. I don't know about UK.
  6. This sounds serious so let me make sure that you understand that I'm a random person on the internet and not an attorney. It depends on the facts of the offence. For immigration purposes it is the actual criminal act that matters. Certainly, a conviction of a felony is pretty much the end of your US immigration path, so a very minor misdemeanor like "disturbing the peace" sounds like a very good deal to me - on a SURFACE. But, again, what really matters is the actual facts behind the charges. So what actually happened? Without describing the offence, it is very hard to tell what the immigration consequences might be. Insurance fraud is, as you acknowledge, an extremely serious charge. (I'm not a lawyer.)
  7. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    Yes, but only if those year-old dismissed charges would make you inadmissible/removable (i.e. convictions for immigration purposes - mostly aggravated felonies) AND if you committed ANOTHER crime while inadmissible/removable (even if that other crime was ultimately dismissed).
  8. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    No, DUI does not make you inadmissible (a simple one and the first one, that is). It can affect your visa but that's unrelated issue. Crimes that make you inadmissible are more serious, usually CIMT. If your I-94 is valid you've nothing to worry about re this memo.
  9. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    Are you a removable alien? If not, stop panicking. DUI is not going to help you but it's not a deportable offence nor can it make you inadmissible.
  10. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    If you are removable alien, a simple charge with a crime is enough to receive the NTA. If you're in good legal standing, a charge with an offence can make you removable/inadmissible if you are convicted for immigration purposes only. REMOVABLE ALIENS should avoid getting arrested for anything or abuse any benefits if they don't want to receive NTA - that's basically all this memo says.
  11. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    Yes, USCIS has not been typically issuing NTAs to removable aliens. Even after this memo, removable aliens who do not belong into one of the listed groups will NOT receive NTAs. If you're not a deportable (or inadmissible in some cases) alien, this memo does not affect you.
  12. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    This memo only applies to aliens who are removable or inadmissible. Nothing has changed in terms of your status as a result of this memo. It only deals with ENFORCEMENT (deportation). Yes, so far, many (most?) aliens who have been removable have NOT been placed in deportation proceedings (no NTA was issued). This memo will expend the prioritization to many of these aliens. If you are in valid status and have not committed a crime that would ever make you deportable or a crime that would make you inadmissible before AOS, this memo has ZERO consequences for you. A single DUI (a simple one, no one got hurt, etc) is NOT making an alien inadmissible nor deportable. But if an alien is already deportable, a single DUI charge (even with no conviction) will result in NTA being issued. (I'm not a lawyer but I did read the memo and that much is clear.)
  13. natan111

    DWI/DUI and new USCIS Memo and consequences

    The unlawful presence would start after I-94 expiration. You have 240 days to get back in status without immigration consequences. But during the period of unlawful presence you would be removable.
  14. natan111

    selective Service Q Online Form N400

    Maybe I didn't get enough sleep today, but I don't 100% understand the "This..." part. So what if "this" doesn't include living in the US as a nonimmigrant? The question only asks: "Are you a male who lived in the United States at any time between your 18th and 26th birthdays?" So shouldn't the answer be "Yes" and then the fine-print addressed by tones of evidence to prove a continuous nonimmigrant status? In my case that would mean going 25 years back in my records to retrieve old I-20s, etc. So I hope you are right, but the wording of the question still makes me super nervous.
  15. natan111

    selective Service Q Online Form N400

    This N-400 question could have read more clearly. Has anyone faced issues like misrepresentation for answering "No" in similar circumstances as the OP? The Avvo attorneys favor answering "Yes". The question does NOT specify the status one had to be in.
×