United Kingdom Police Warnings and Warnings and United States Immigration Act

It is complicated the way the United States immigration law treats criminal cases to determine the admissibility of non-US citizens. In particular, travelers from the United Kingdom are often surprised that the United States Police Inspection or Official Warning, which does not have judicial or judicial involvement, and the submission of official criminal reports, may be declared "unacceptable" to the United States . For whatever reason they come from not only the complicated intersection of the Criminal and American Immigration Act, but also from the fact that the US Department of State did not comply with UK warnings, as the United Kingdom warnings also respected. / Adopting warnings and new approaches recently, 2014. The past 2014 policy, as described below, may mean that citizens in the United States who have not been alerted to the United Kingdom who have previously traveled to the United States can now be denied access to the United States except for the waiver of the waiver or waiver of inadmissibility.

Below is a brief summary of the current state of British police alerts and warnings and US immigration law. This article demonstrates that a prudent approach would be to treat all formal British police warnings and warnings as "receiving" for the purpose of establishing the unacceptable nature of the offense unless there is evidence that reception was not obtained on the basis of a United States legitimate precedent

I. In the United States, a foreigner can not be accepted as a "criminal offense involving moral chaos" (CIMT)

I. An inadmissible criminal inadmissibility under section 212 (a) Or offenses involving a regulated substance An attempt or conspiracy shall be required if (1) the individual has been convicted for such offense; Or (2) a person recognized as recognized or relevant to the perpetration of such a criminal offense. Furthermore, (3) if the United States Immigration Officer is merely a ground for assuming that foreign trade in regulated substances (eg Intentional Selling) is in accordance with INA ยง 212 (a) (2) (C) (i) ), Even if the alien has not been convicted (eg the offense and has not accepted his mandate or relevant factual elements).

Determining a criminal inadmissibility is not the end of the road. A person is considered inadmissible, he must, by legal counsel, accept all admissible waivers or waivers inadmissible for obtaining the type of American visa.

UK II Warnings / Alerts

The following three non-UK provisions , Which are particularly important for US immigration law (19459005)

(i) Simple Police Warning. A simple warning is a police officer's official report that a person has committed a criminal offense. According to current policy, an individual will usually be fingerprinted and photographed. The police are likely to be cautious if it is a minor offense and usually when there is no other criminal history. The police can only give simple caution if the person recognizes the crime and agrees to be warned. If a person rejects caution (for example, denying the offense), then he or she commits an official criminal indictment against the individual.

ii. Conditional Police Warning. Conditional police vigilance is the same as with any caution in all respects, including in the case of a criminal offense, unless the individual is subject to certain conditions. Failure to comply with the terms implies an official criminal procedure against the individual

iii. Cannabis warnings. Cannabis warning is not a caution, but a verbal warning for a first-time police officer who has a small amount of cannabis for personal use. The police can not give an oral verbal warning unless the person recognizes cannabis ownership. The policeman notes that the individual has admitted that the cannabis is owned and will be asked to sign this record. Alerts appear on the ACRO report and deal with US immigration.

A consistent element of each of the conventions outside the UK is that an individual must "recognize" the offense. As discussed below, whether inclusion under United Kingdom legislation qualifies as a United States Immigration Act requires an ad hoc analysis

III. UK warnings / warnings are not "persuasive"

"Confidence" for American immigration (i) is the official judgment of guilt by a court; (Ii) or, if the conviction is refused: the conviction of guilty by the judge or the jury by the alien guilty or nolo contendere or the recognition of the facts by the foreign person required to establish guilty; Or iii. Some form of punishment is a punishment.

Based on this definition, the UK police warnings or warnings are not considered to be United States convictions for immigration. On April 9, 2014, the US Visa Department's Visa Agency has agreed. This is the argument that there is no official court or court proceedings. However, as outlined below, the absence of "condemnation" does not preclude the criminal inadmissibility of US immigration.

IV. UK police warnings / alerts may be "shots"

If you are not convinced of the applicant's record, the immigration officer may declare the applicant inadmissible to the US if the applicant has "admitted" the offense or relevant factual elements. Such entry may be submitted to a police officer, federal law enforcement agency, a judge, a doctor or an immigration officer in the United States. I) "Inclusion" in accordance with United States Immigration Act

The "admission" criteria in Section 212 (a) (2) of INA are defined in K-case: abroad before admission (1) An appropriate definition of the offense, including all relevant elements, should be provided; (2) keeping the behavior that constitutes the essential elements of the offense; And (3) provide reception that is clear, unqualified, voluntary and unambiguous. There is no need for a stranger to accept the legal conclusion or non-factual elements of the offense.

Official Criminal Charges are not required to be a valid entry. For example, in 2013, the United Kingdom celebrity chef Nigella Lawson's former admirers in a major public fraud trial, Lawson admitted that he used cocaine seven times and "smoke [ing] in the weird joe". He declined to ever be a normal drug user or drug addict.

Despite the fact that Scotland Yard has never prosecuted Missson Lawson for alleged drug use and does not intend to do so; On March 30, 2014, British Airways refused to allow Ms. Lawson an airplane to celebrate the United States.

The United States Government did not explicitly state the exact cause of its refusal; However, a rational analysis of the United States Immigration Act's approach to verified financial violations shows that the recognition of a violation of a law on regulated substances in court proceedings is consistent with the finding of inadmissibility, provided other elements of Question K are fulfilled

Although Ms. Lawson's potential admission to criminal proceedings against her former anti-fraud girls, such recordings have the potential to make the person unacceptable, despite being dependent on her.

Furthermore, recording does not have to be a swear. For example, involving an immigration official would be eligible for a visa interview or a border crossing. Namely, federal law enforcement officers in the United States have been trained in the K-question criteria to get an appropriate "entry" to foreigners seeking entry to the United States, excluding them.

Whether an American green card is needed in a medical examination against a foreign doctor that the applicant has smoked marijuana for several years can serve as a basis for strangers to be unacceptable to the United States after they have admitted to having controlled a substance if the doctor He was given the recording according to Matter of K.

Interestingly, accepting (i) the criminal exemption / dismissal or (ii) conviction, subsequent recruitment alone does not usually render the person inadmissible. However, if the criminal charges are related to the trade in a regulated substance (eg Selling Intent), the reception on the release / dismissal of the indictment nevertheless "gives a reasonable presumption" to the American immigration officer that the offense has been committed And declares the applicant to be inadmissible despite the court order

ii. UK police warnings / warnings as "host"

For an individual to have an official United Kingdom alert or cannabis warning under current policy, An individual must report the crime to the police officer. In order to establish inadmissibility based on reception: (1) the offense must be a CIMT or a regulated material infringement, as defined in United States legislation, and (2) compliance with the UK Police Officer must comply with the requirements set out in Case K.

The US foreign ministry's policy on UK police warnings is inconsistent. On September 23, 1997, the Secretary of State had an advisory opinion that the UK police warnings were not "declarations" under US immigration laws.

At the end of 2013, the United States Embassy in London requested New Guidelines from the US Secretary of State and started filing visa applications, under which the applicant under "police administration" under the police supervision of the UK until the issuance of a new advisory opinion.

In February 2014, the Embassy began the Permanent "United Kingdom Precautionary Matters" consistent with convictions and confessions. Although this meant that the US Department of State issued a new official advisory opinion to the United States Embassy in London, the opinion was not made public. In April 2014, the US Department of State clarified the United States Immigration Attorney's Association that, although UK warnings are not convincing, they may be "receptive" to inadmissibility and appear to differ from their previous 1997 statement. The state secretary stated that he should be "on a case-by-case basis", probably because the UK police officers are not trained to replace the K-passes or US immigration law.

The US Dept. of the State assumed that a "case-based" analysis would be needed to determine whether, for example, UK police policy was prudent at the time of prudence when prudence Release, an appropriate definition of the offense was provided to the individual Or was the recording voluntary.

The current USSR policy seems to treat United Kingdom warnings as reception unless there is such evidence that K.

Current policy also means that individuals , Who are the United States Police Officers who have traveled to the United States under the 1997 Secretary of State should now be granted immunity or surrender from inadmissibility.

It is important to note that even if the UK's attention or warning was "spent under United Kingdom law," according to US immigration law, the individual remains a record: the mere departure of time The time does not remove it from formal criminal justice considerations Resulting from official police warning or warning

. Exemptions and Exemptions from Inadmissible Criminal Law

Determining the inadmissibility of a criminal law is not the possible way to travel to the United States. Depending on the visa applied for and the offense (s) involved, the applicant is entitled to the inadmissibility of an exemption or immunity. The applicant must be fully prepared for his / her interview with the US Embassy / Consulate, short legal arguments and supporting documentation in order to exempt such an exemption or requests for inadmissibility.

VI. Taking into account the way in which the United States Embassy in London now handles United Kingdom warnings, a prudent approach would expect the embassy to handle a British public's warning as an "admission" unless there is evidence that Compliance with the K case was incomplete. As British immigration laws in the United Kingdom are never "spent", this new policy could have the effect of making the previously authorized passengers unacceptable to the United States and there was no exemption or exemption request for which no previous Was needed

Criminal cases should be carefully considered and analyzed before attempting to travel to the United States. The crossing of criminal law and US immigration law is complicated and it is first necessary to analyze whether the offense in question constitutes a violation of the "CIMT" or "regulated substance"; Is there any "conviction", "reception" or – where appropriate – "reason to believe"? If so, can any exemption or exemption from inadmissibility be considered. It is advisable to seek legal advice to properly evaluate and, where necessary, facilitate the release of such complex criminal inadmissibility.

Source by Orlando Ortega-Medina

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *