Getting a USA visa (travelling to america with a drink driving conviction)

Convicted Driver Insurance
Hello Everyone,

Finally, I received my visa this time after 2 rejections because of drink driving. I am not a British citizen so, had to tick yes for the conviction question. However, I now feel that I shouldnt have ticked yes because UK police dont share DD conviction information to the US embassy. The only thing one should keep in mind is, if you tick yes and you apply for a visa within a year of conviction, you wont get visa by any means. I dint know this before and I applied twice within a year and I was rejected both of the times. So, my visa story is as follows. For the first 2 times, I applied for a business visa for a conference and I was rejected both the times, as mentioned above. So, this time I applied for a tourist visa and it was more than a year after my conviction. I had my visa interview in the first week of March and after general questions, they asked me about DD conviction, as expected. She clearly said that visa applied within a year of conviction is strict no and now that I crossed a year, I would be sent to medical and I was sent there. The medical appointment I got was after 5 days of my visa appointment. The doctor was polite and made me feel comfortable and he also said that now that I crossed a year, I have high probablity of getting the visa. I received an email from embassy in the fourth week of March that I needed to send my passport to them. That was a sigh of relief for me but I had a fear about the time they would need for processing that and send it back. After 10 days or so, I received an email saying that passport sent to the courier service and ready to collect. Thats it, I was on cloud nine after reading that email and the next day went there to collect and got my visa. But sadly they only gave me 1 year of visa. Nevertheless, something is better than nothing. And I am going to US this August. Yahooooo
 
Hi

My son in law went to US embassy for interview and medical yesterday. He has a drinking conviction after he reversed a car into a lampost over 2 and half years ago. The doctor at the medical said it would be unlikey that he would get a visa as he had answered yes to drinking a little a week! Did you answer Yes to the drinking question? And do you know what the tests are for? Surely there are no point in doing the tests if they just take into account the questionnaire answers?!
My son in law and daughter were so looking forward to coming away with us to the Us in July and now it is looking really unlikely!! Any feedback from you would be much appreciated.

Thanks
 
Hi

Yes, I ticked yes and thats the reason I was sent to medical and the whole point of doing medical is to make sure the person is alright, not suffering from any sort of disease, but it is quite expensive. Now that the DD conviction is 2.5 years old, you should get visa ideally. I dont know why doctor said no to the visa. May be some form of miscommunication. Any more queries feel free to ask.
 
Hi

Yes, I ticked yes and thats the reason I was sent to medical and the whole point of doing medical is to make sure the person is alright, not suffering from any sort of disease, but it is quite expensive. Now that the DD conviction is 2.5 years old, you should get visa ideally. I dont know why doctor said no to the visa. May be some form of miscommunication. Any more queries feel free to ask.

Hi

Many thanks for your prompt response. My son in law was asked how much he drank per week by the doctor at the medical, and apparently it is best to say that you do not drink at all when asked by the doctor. This doctor said to him that if he is refused visa he would probably have to go to his doctor once a week for a year before he could apply for a visa again. My son in law does not have a drink problem and only drinks a few units a week!! Seems ludicrous! What were you asked by the doctor about your drinking habits ( if that is ok to ask you?!). We are all feeling so anxious about the outcome now. Wish he had just gone to US on Esta now, sounds like he would have been fine.

Thanks so much for your advice.
 
Hi all,

It would be good to understand what type of visa is everyone asking for and if it's the first visa or if other US entries were granted in the past.

I've always gone through the ESTA route in the past 15+ years and that amounts to a B1/B2 type of visa each time, which was also always the case for me as I've always extended business trips with some proper holidays, so it was either a B2 + B1 type of trip or a B1 + B2 one.

This year, actually as early as by the end of 2015, I had planned a summer holiday unrelated to business but due to recent US laws regarding people who visited certain countries since 2011 I had anyway to go through a standard visa application even for a mere tourist trip. I waited, without worrying that much, for the application assuming it would have been nearly a formality and then the arrest and conviction put my plans at risk. I submitted my application between arrest and conviction, so I have just reported my arrest while I'll take an ACRO with me for the interview.

However, as per one of my recent posts, when applying for my B2 (neither a B1 nor a B1/B2, which were alternative options) appointment online I was asked a question regarding arrests or convictions which were not alcohol-related. I still don't know what that implies, but it looks as if such arrests would be regarded as less serious than others for the purposes of my visa application. I still don't have any document resulting from my application and appointment booking that points to the requirement of bringing any criminal record document to the interview, but I will bring my ACRO with me as indeed lots of sources, including official US websites, suggest it might/should be asked.

As you can tell by my other recent posts I've been already lucky enough (lenient sentence, EU driving licence still in my wallet to be used anywhere except UK and Ireland, and insurance policy just updated by adding my wife and her uncle for a £12 fee) that I can't complain too much if I'll waste the money already spent on arranging these holidays for me and my wife (mainly the flight tickets as I can only hope to get back the airport taxes).

Still, Rahul was applying for a B1 visa and I don't know what Alison's son applied for. It's not clear either if the appointment was booked with the online process, which asks the weird question about non-alcohol related arrests, or by talking to a phone operator.

I've read of all sorts of outcomes and therefore I tend to believe that the devil, or the miracle, must be in the details. It might be up to the individual interviewer/officer in the embassy, but I'm more incline to believe that there should be procedural rules that shape the process required for each individual case on the basis of its specific context/background.

I will share my experience here once I will know the verdict of the US embassy.

Thanks and best regards,
Z
 
Hi everyone.

I am still awaiting court and have a trip to the US booked for June. I already have an ESTA. Am I right that I should go with the general consensus of this thread and travel on that?

We are visiting friends over there and my friend rand up the embassy on her end in the US. They advised her that it was not a crime of 'moral turpitude' and that they have 'bigger fish to fry' and that I 'should' be just fine on my ESTA. He said in the unlikely event I get asked if I have been convicted I should not lie. He could not clarify what border control would do in that circumstance.

I am still in two minds but at this point its too late to apply for visa (which I likely wouldn't get)
 
I already have an ESTA. Am I right that I should go with the general consensus of this thread and travel on that?
Hi there,

You're right, if you don't have other reasons why you wouldn't meet the VWP requirements, the ESTA is perfectly fine.

My personal sequence of unfortunate events starts with a law passed by US Congress at the end of last year, after I had already started planning my trip expecting the usual ESTA click-through like in my past 15 years of recurring trips to the US. That law excludes from the VWP any person who travelled to a few countries since 2011. Since my wife happens to be born in one of those countries and most of her family, parents included, still live there, we have clearly been there multiple time since 2011. It's a beautiful country and I'm happy I could visit many wonderful sites there, plus meeting my lovely extended family. Interestingly, my wife also travelled with me to the US on her "native" passport multiple times in the past, starting from a transit in LA on our honeymoon trip to French Polynesia, and therefore she has always had to get a full visa plus additional checks upon arrival the first times we travelled together to the US. Now she has a EU passport like me and we were looking forward to our very first "full ESTA" holiday in the US.

After the law at the end of last year, we knew that we were both going through a standard visa request but we were not much concerned with timing as it would be anyway easier than when my wife had to get her visa on her previous passport. Even for her, the time between appointment and passport with visa delivered at home was never over a month. In one instance, since she was getting 3-month visas, we applied even too early and we had to send the passport back to the embassy once more to make sure she was covered during our stay in the US.

Therefore I've ended up starting my visa application right after my arrest and prior to my conviction. I have now the ACRO certificate and an appointment in London next week, we'll see if this unique series of misadventures will take an additional toll on us or not.

Thanks and best regards,
Z
 
Hi everyone.

I am still awaiting court and have a trip to the US booked for June. I already have an ESTA. Am I right that I should go with the general consensus of this thread and travel on that?

We are visiting friends over there and my friend rand up the embassy on her end in the US. They advised her that it was not a crime of 'moral turpitude' and that they have 'bigger fish to fry' and that I 'should' be just fine on my ESTA. He said in the unlikely event I get asked if I have been convicted I should not lie. He could not clarify what border control would do in that circumstance.

I am still in two minds but at this point its too late to apply for visa (which I likely wouldn't get)

As long as you still meet all the criteria for the Visa Waiver Program, implemented through ESTA, you will be fine. You can still answer 'NO' to the question, 'Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a crime causing serious harm to property,persons or government entities'.

I was very nervous before my first US trip, post ban, despite all the research that I had done.
If you visit the Customs and Border Protection website and their Q&A section. Put in the question 'Travel to the USA with a drink driving conviction'. The following is returned
'A single DUI conviction is not grounds to deny entry into the US. However, multiple convictions or a DUI conviction in combination with any other misdemeanor offenses can make a person inadmissible and require a waiver prior to entering the United States. A crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may be grounds to deny entry to the US'. There is a link as to what is considered a CIMT, DUI isn't included.
I even printed this out to take with me with my other travel documents. You might want to do this to ease your anxiety a little. Obviously, as the man your friend spoke to said, do not lie if they ask but having their own guidelines printed out and tucked away with your flight confirmation email, can be some comfort.

I have pointed out before and will repeat it here. Neither an ESTA or a valid non-immigration visa from the embassy is a guarantee of admission to the US. The final decision is up to the immigration officer who 'processes' you on arrival. Having said that, I travel frequently and do not encounter any problems.

Try not to worry (easier said than done, I know). Get through the court appearance and try to look forward to a lovely trip to the USA after the ordeal.
 
If you visit the Customs and Border Protection website and their Q&A section. Put in the question 'Travel to the USA with a drink driving conviction'. The following is returned
'A single DUI conviction is not grounds to deny entry into the US. However, multiple convictions or a DUI conviction in combination with any other misdemeanor offenses can make a person inadmissible and require a waiver prior to entering the United States. A crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may be grounds to deny entry to the US'. There is a link as to what is considered a CIMT, DUI isn't included.

Hi guys, I'm in a slightly similar circumstance in that I am planning to go to the USA (New York) at the end of the year, and had a DUI conviction back in 2015 (ban now over, but obviously still on my record for another 5 years).

I have already sorted my ESTA and plan to travel with this but of course it's always a bit nervy when something says you "SHOULD" be fine, rather than you "WILL" be fine.

Shouldaknownbetter, do you have a link at all to the question that you asked the CBP website and the link to what is considered a CIMT? I'd definitely have a peace of mind travelling with that in my back pocket, just in case. Thanks in advance!
 
Hi guys, I'm in a slightly similar circumstance in that I am planning to go to the USA (New York) at the end of the year, and had a DUI conviction back in 2015 (ban now over, but obviously still on my record for another 5 years).

I have already sorted my ESTA and plan to travel with this but of course it's always a bit nervy when something says you "SHOULD" be fine, rather than you "WILL" be fine.

Shouldaknownbetter, do you have a link at all to the question that you asked the CBP website and the link to what is considered a CIMT? I'd definitely have a peace of mind travelling with that in my back pocket, just in case. Thanks in advance!

'Should' rather than 'will' be ok because there is never a guarantee of admission, even without a criminal conviction.

https://help.cbp.gov

Search for 'entering the US with DUI offences'. (Ignore the Canadian advice, they won't have you!)
The second half of this page has the information you need (print this) including the link for the very long list of what is and isn't a CIMT, taken from the

"US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9, Visas"

Subtitle for the section you need is

"9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-2 Crimes Committed Against Governmental Authority".
Look at section (b) there.

I have a copy of pages 4&5 of 26, which is what I take with me along with the first item I mentioned on the DHS US CBP website.
I hope that's helpful, get in touch if you need any other information. Again, my conviction is a single DUI, now spent. I have an electronic passport and have never been refused entry to the USA or anywhere else.
 
Hi all,

I do understand the widespread intention on this forum to avoid setting high expectations by preparing for the worse, but I must say that I have read reports of people with a DR-10 or similar convictions that were granted a US visa straight away even in the "pre-CIMT" days of the ESTA questionnaire, i.e. when the question on the ESTA was pretty much the same as the one on the DS-160 and therefore DD convictions led necessarily to applying for a standard B2 visa.

I am preparing for the worse indeed, especially as all the rest is proving better than expected so far, including my 2 ACRO certificates delivered today when requested online only 3 days ago, but I still retain a remote hint of optimism based on my past travel history to the US, my low reading and my single conviction. At the end of the day, if someone with my criminal record would have been accepted via ESTA, why would I be refused? (I know that the devil is in the details of the different procedures to be followed by the consular officers when going the "full visa" route, but I hope people here can see my point).

It is definitely true that you can theoretically expect to be sent back to the UK after you land with any type of visa, but considering that such expectation would not help you take any specific additional action or precaution, such a thought would just be a deliberate and fruitless source of anxiety that should just sit in an edition of a Murphy's Laws book. :)

Thanks and best regards,
Z
 
Hi all,

I do understand the widespread intention on this forum to avoid setting high expectations by preparing for the worse, but I must say that I have read reports of people with a DR-10 or similar convictions that were granted a US visa straight away even in the "pre-CIMT" days of the ESTA questionnaire, i.e. when the question on the ESTA was pretty much the same as the one on the DS-160 and therefore DD convictions led necessarily to applying for a standard B2 visa.

I am preparing for the worse indeed, especially as all the rest is proving better than expected so far, including my 2 ACRO certificates delivered today when requested online only 3 days ago, but I still retain a remote hint of optimism based on my past travel history to the US, my low reading and my single conviction. At the end of the day, if someone with my criminal record would have been accepted via ESTA, why would I be refused? (I know that the devil is in the details of the different procedures to be followed by the consular officers when going the "full visa" route, but I hope people here can see my point).

It is definitely true that you can theoretically expect to be sent back to the UK after you land with any type of visa, but considering that such expectation would not help you take any specific additional action or precaution, such a thought would just be a deliberate and fruitless source of anxiety that should just sit in an edition of a Murphy's Laws book. :)

Thanks and best regards,
Z

Hi Z

I have followed your journey so far, as related by yourself. I don't think I have been in the least bit negative. On the contrary, I have encouraged people with a similar situation to my own to not be too anxious and have provided guidance based on my experience of many unhindered trips to the US.

You will be the first to admit that your situation is different to the ones I have described and/or commented upon. Even without your DUI/DR10, you would still need to apply for a US visa because of your recent travel history.

I have tempered my comments with the caveat of "entry to the US is not guaranteed" to paint a realistic picture of the situation, indeed, I would be foolhardy to state something as an absolute when there are no guarantees. If anyone, conviction or not, is travelling anywhere, they need to keep up-to-date with that country's advisories with regard to their admission policies. I would have thought that would be a given but I have stated it here.

The information that I have passed on is purely from my own experience in the hope that those wanting to travel to the US, with a single drink driving conviction, will be encouraged to do so, contrary to some erroneous information posted on this forum.

I hope my posts have been supportive and helpful as that has only ever been my intention.
 
I hope my posts have been supportive and helpful as that has only ever been my intention.
Thanks, your posts here are definitely supportive and that's also the case for your other replies to my posts in other threads.

I have also truly benefited from other users here who, again with a clear supportive intent, mentioned worst case scenarios.

However, in regard to the visa/ESTA questions, I see essentially two main patterns/lines of thought among those who ask questions:

  • The "ESTA or DS-160" doubts, where many tend to lean towards the assumption that a full visa application would be "safer" than an ESTA for the purpose of entering the US even when they are entirely compliant with the VWP requirements
    • This, as you correctly point out, is false because the "should" applies anyway regardless of how spotless is your record/questionnaire when you are granted the ESTA or visa. If someone can apply for an ESTA, getting a B2 visa does not add anything to the certainty of entering the US, because such certainty does not exist anyway.
  • The "can I get away with a false statement?" brigade, which is the only case where reinforcing the concept of additional checks at the port of entry in the US is valuable and actionable advice.
    • Stemming from this topic I have seen all sorts of discussions on whether the criminal information is shared or not among countries, but both from a moral and a practical perspective I totally agree that it's worth getting such people scared about lying for the purposes of entering any country with less hassles. In the long run such an attitude might backfire big time, and even when it doesn't it's plainly wrong.
Basically, in case 1 I think that it should be emphasized that, assuming that an ESTA is applicable, visa and ESTA have equal "power". Focusing on the unavoidable uncertainty about entering the US might reinforce the false belief that there is a safer visa process that will remove the "should" and turn it into a "will". On the other hand, I've seen many absolutely valuable replies to questions of type 2, where highlighting the additional checks once landed in the US is absolutely useful to help those people be honest and play by the rules, first and foremost for their own benefit.

Thanks again, I truly appreciate your feedback and I hope I can contribute as well helping others here even when I'll be past all my woes.

Best regards,
Z
 
Thanks, your posts here are definitely supportive and that's also the case for your other replies to my posts in other threads.

I have also truly benefited from other users here who, again with a clear supportive intent, mentioned worst case scenarios.

However, in regard to the visa/ESTA questions, I see essentially two main patterns/lines of thought among those who ask questions:

  • The "ESTA or DS-160" doubts, where many tend to lean towards the assumption that a full visa application would be "safer" than an ESTA for the purpose of entering the US even when they are entirely compliant with the VWP requirements
    • This, as you correctly point out, is false because the "should" applies anyway regardless of how spotless is your record/questionnaire when you are granted the ESTA or visa. If someone can apply for an ESTA, getting a B2 visa does not add anything to the certainty of entering the US, because such certainty does not exist anyway.
  • The "can I get away with a false statement?" brigade, which is the only case where reinforcing the concept of additional checks at the port of entry in the US is valuable and actionable advice.
    • Stemming from this topic I have seen all sorts of discussions on whether the criminal information is shared or not among countries, but both from a moral and a practical perspective I totally agree that it's worth getting such people scared about lying for the purposes of entering any country with less hassles. In the long run such an attitude might backfire big time, and even when it doesn't it's plainly wrong.
Basically, in case 1 I think that it should be emphasized that, assuming that an ESTA is applicable, visa and ESTA have equal "power". Focusing on the unavoidable uncertainty about entering the US might reinforce the false belief that there is a safer visa process that will remove the "should" and turn it into a "will". On the other hand, I've seen many absolutely valuable replies to questions of type 2, where highlighting the additional checks once landed in the US is absolutely useful to help those people be honest and play by the rules, first and foremost for their own benefit.

Thanks again, I truly appreciate your feedback and I hope I can contribute as well helping others here even when I'll be past all my woes.

Best regards,
Z

Your posts have been very informative and I look forward to hearing about your experience of the VISA interview and medical.
I have never suggested that anyone lie or provide false statements. I have never suggested that there is a way to change a "should" into a "will", in fact, quite the opposite. I have stated that visas and ESTAs are "equal" in their "admission power". I have only suggested that the ESTA route should be the first option because it's simpler, cheaper and quicker. I have made no mention of the level to which different countries share information about DUI convictions and have only suggested that people answer truthfully, as I only ever have. As such I can only think, or hope, that your comments are directed at others who have maybe provided less than prudent or sensible "advice".
 
As such I can only think, or hope, that your comments are directed at others who have maybe provided less than prudent or sensible "advice".
Correct, my comments were related to patterns I have identified across multiple other posts, including other web pages beyond this forum.
I have referred to you as "definitely supportive", stating "as you correctly point out" and that "I truly appreciate your feedback", so please believe that I do regard your posts as valuable.
Thanks again and all the best,
Z
 
Hi all,

While continuing my research to prepare for my visa appointment in 2 days, I've found a few key documents that I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet in this forum:

Both documents above are referenced in an interesting article by a US immigration lawyer, "Substance Use, Health-Related Inadmissibility, And Waivers", at http://www.lanepowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/26Stevenson-health-related-waivers-reprint.pdf.

The bottom line is that drunk driving alone falls into the category of harmful behaviour, which should not lead to inadmissibility unless tied to alcohol abuse. The same applies to alcohol abuse, which should be leading to inadmissibility only when linked to harmful behaviour.

Basically even these detailed documents do not provide any ground to the commonly reported rule of thumb according to which a recent DD conviction will always lead to a denied visa. If there is no alcohol abuse and there is no suspicion that the harmful behaviour would reoccur, a visa should be granted.

However, it's quite clear that a medical examination is required. The only miracle preventing the medical step would be an officer not implementing the rules by the book.

I will update everyone after my appointment.

Best regards,
Z
 
Hi all again,

A small update to my previous post. The instructions in the PDF I have mentioned are also in HTML at http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/panel/mental-panel-technical-instructions.html.

The key point is below http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...technical-instructions.html#screening-results, in the following three paragraphs:

  • Applicants with a history of alcohol-related arrests or convictions (e.g., driving under the influence [DUI]) who currently continues to drink alcohol and who meets DSM criteria for alcohol abuse are not cleared for travel to the United States (Class A).
  • Applicants with single alcohol related arrest or conviction within the last five years, or two or more arrests or convictions within the last ten years should be evaluated for alcohol abuse (mental health classification pending).
  • Applicants with history of alcohol related arrests or convictions that currently meets DSM criteria for full, sustained remission, may be cleared for travel and assigned a Class B Mental Health classification.
Again, the above shows that alcohol abuse should be proven with any recent DUI history, not just the fact that alcohol is being still consumed ("who currently continues to drink alcohol and who meets DSM criteria for alcohol abuse"). Also, proving full remission might help but via multiple sources I've understood that it's where the time elapsed since the last conviction can help, albeit I'm sure I have already fully remitted as a result of the arrest alone, even before my conviction.

We'll see, thanks and best regards,
Z
 
Last edited:
Hello again,

Today I've been to the embassy and I've managed to get the appointment for the medical just an hour after getting out of the embassy.

As expected, and as documented in the procedural regulations I quoted in my previous posts, the DD conviction triggers the requirement of a further test to assess how dangerous and/or addicted I might be.

The whole visa process is indeed pretty much "automated" and there's not much leeway to say anything else beyond answering what's being asked and nothing was asked there about my conviction. Unfortunately also my wife has to wait some time due to "administrative processing" related to her second, and native, nationality. This was unexpected as she already had multiple US visas even on her previous, non-EU, passport, but probably this is due to the fact that it was our first visit to a US embassy in the UK.

The consular officer was quite nice and mentioned the requirement of the medical as the standard procedure with my type of conviction, so I've been given back my passport with instructions on how to book an appointment.

I could go to the doctor's just an hour later and I've been through the whole set of tests for immigrant visas, plus a series of questionnaires around alcohol consumption and abuse. I had with me also the document covering the arrest where my reading was mentioned, because as I reported elsewhere the ACRO certificate does not mention it, and the doctor asked for that document when I mentioned it. The questionnaires were at least four, covering alcohol-related behaviour from all angles, and I cannot possibly believe that my answers conveyed a worrying picture. The doctor also filled in some free text fields of those questionnaires where I was given the opportunity to report my reaction to the events leading to the conviction, and the result was close to a portion of my plea of mitigation during the court hearing.

The doctor seemed to be quite sympathetic, but didn't really say anything regarding how likely or not I am to get the visa in the end.

Currently I believe that if I won't get the visa after my experience, probably it's true that no one with a recent conviction can get one (unless you can apply for an ESTA, obviously, see note below). On the other hand, however, I'm glad I didn't surrender earlier on because I truly believe that I'm still within the boundaries that, according to official US documents, would allow me to get a B2 visa. As I stated before, if I didn't even ask I would never know the answer.

At least, I didn't get the visa refused even before the medical and I didn't get any negative feedback from the doctor. Both misadventures happened to other people, according to other posts online.

I will update this thread once I'll be contacted again by the embassy.

(A note for everyone reading just this post, maybe jumping here from a Google search: I am going through a full visa process because of a country I visited multiple times after 2011 and which happens to be in a list included in a law approved by the US Congress at the end of 2015; that country is where my wife was born and where most part of my extended family still lives happily; anyone who meets the VWP requirements can safely submit an ESTA application online even if she/he had multiple, or even a dozen, DD convictions, provided that your actions didn't result in serious damage to property or to another person).

Best regards,
Z
 
Thanks for the update.
Some people take weeks to get through the medical stage. I hear of them receiving a letter a week after the Visa interview asking them to attend a medical, so you were well prepared expecting the medical at interview and could respond accordingly.
For a person not native to the UK, you have really got to grips with how things work here!
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top