Lifetime Minor Form Waiver: Fill & Download for Free

Inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(1) is inadmissibility on the grounds of having committed a “crime involving moral turpitude”. US law bars anyone who has ever committed a crime involving moral turpitude from being admitted to the United States. This applies even if the offense was never prosecuted, the offender entered into a plea agreement, or the offender has been pardoned. It even applies even if all record of the offense has been expunged in the country where the offense took place. To avoid the ban, in the absence of an actual finding of “not guilty” from a court of competent jurisdiction, the applicant must prove, to a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is innocent of the alleged crime (or that the crime was a “purely political prosecution”). For the purpose of immigration law in this area, the rules are “guilty until proven innocent”, “one strike and you’re out” and “the burden of proof is on you”. Is this harsh? Yes. But “friendly” has never been a term commonly used to describe US immigration law.This form of inadmissibility can be waived for an immigrant only when waiver is necessary to avoid “extreme hardship” to a US citizen or US lawful permanent resident. For a nonimmigrant, waivers are available more broadly under INA § 212(d)(3), using what is commonly known as a “Hranka waiver”, from the 1978 Board of Immigration Appeals case known as Matter of Hranka. Section 212(d)(3) waivers are available according to a three-factor analysis that considers:the risk of harm to American society if the applicant is admitted;the seriousness of the applicant’s prior criminal offenses; andthe reason why the applicant wishes to enter the United States.A person prosecuted years ago for a fairly minor offense who has remediated that offense and lived a forthright life since and who wishes to enter the United States for a short visit with a clearly defined purpose will probably be able to obtain a Hranka waiver. But be warned that the process of getting a Hranka waiver is tedious and expensive.In your specific case, because the United States knows about your criminal history, you will never be able to escape it even if you convince your home country to completely expunge your record. The United States never purges its files on visa applicants; all information acquired about a visa applicant in the course of evaluating that application is kept by the Bureau of Consular Affairs forever, and can be retrieved by any consular official anywhere in the world at any time through BCA’s computerized filing system. If you do get your home country record expunged and then apply for a US visa without declaring the past offense, the United States will determine that you have committed immigration fraud, because it knows about your criminal history, and will determine that your failure to disclose it is a material and intentional misstatement of fact with the intention to obtain an immigration benefit. This would erect another permanent, lifetime ban, the main effect of which would be to make it that much harder (basically, impossible) to get a Hranka waiver.Also, since the US shares information about US visa applicants with a large number of other countries, it is now likely that Canada, the UK, Australia, and all the Schengen Area countries—among many others—now know about your criminal history. Basically, every country with which the US has a visa waiver agreement (because those agreements include data sharing agreements) likely now knows about your past, most likely permanently. The impact of your past offense on your ability to travel to these countries will vary depending on that country’s law, but you can reasonably expect that there will be some impact.

You want to talk about reciprocity?The US CBP and INS can and will permanently bar Canadians (and other foreigners, of course) from entering the US for a wide variety of reasons. Often at the sole discretion of the examining officer and their supervisor. Such bans can be appealed, but if the reason for the ban is valid (admitting to having ever smoked marijuana could be enough), the ban is permanent and can only be remedied by applying for a waiver of inadmissibility. Applying for such a waiver costs ~USD$600 if done at a port of entry (border crossing) or ~USD$1000 if done from outside the country. If granted they are good for a period of up to 5 years. Typically it takes receiving multiple waivers before a 5 year one will be granted. The process of gathering the info required for an application is somewhat time consuming and requires a criminal record check in Canada (more time and money), and the processing can take over a year the first time. One can easily spend many thousands of dollars in a lifetime getting and maintaining such a waiver, even for a minor crime (or even no arrest or conviction). One used to be able to get a waiver and then a permanent border crossing card, but that went away some time after 9/11. Arguably this is also a waste of CBP/INS/FBI resources (despite the high fees) as they waste their time on people who have already previously been well-vetted on their previous applications.The equivalent Canadian process is cheaper for minor crimes (and still only about USD$750 for a major crime), and is permanently valid (unless more crimes are committed).The irony is that the same doesn’t apply to citizens of most other nations, because the CBP doesn’t have access to the police information system for those countries. Major criminals may be detected on an Interpol search, but the type of minor crimes that result in inadmissibility for Canadians probably wouldn’t be discovered by the CBP for citizens of most other countries.I have limited sympathy for Americans barred at the Canadian border, given the poor treatment their government gives to Canadians.Edit:And to say a little more about the specific subject of DUIs….It’s not true that a simple DUI conviction necessarily bars you from entering Canada - you still might be able to get a temporary resident permit if you have good reason to travel to Canada (travelling with family, possibly if you have already booked and paid for a vacation, that sort of thing - You can apply for such a thing ahead of time, or file the application at the border. Approval is not guaranteed). Otherwise if the conviction is over 5 years old, or 10 for indictable offenses (which DUI is generally considered to be in Canada), you can be deemed rehabilitated and allowed to enter. I’m seeing a lot more flexibility here than the US approach to those with any sort of criminal conviction. The US does not have this concept of rehabilitation, and does not recognize pardons granted in other jurisdictions (although they may be taken into account if applying for a waiver of inadmissibility).Fortunately for Americans travelling to Canada, Canada has not imposed restrictions in a tit-for-tat manner to respond to US immigration regulations, or it would be a lot more difficult for Americans with criminal histories. Probably as much for our own benefit so as not to turn away too many possible tourists, business people, etc.Info on what can be done to get around inadmissibility to Canada: Overcome criminal convictions

I very much wish it was feasible, but as I read through the content on the Mars One site, I see statement after statement that, in my personal opinion, bear little resemblance to engineering reality. The page appears to dwell on minor details (like the crew will eat canned food) and ignore significant details (like how the hell will the crew get to Mars in 7 months).Who is going to build the module the crew will live in during their transit? It doesn't exist.It talks about using existing technology and then says it will use a larger variant of SpaceX's Dragon, although SpaceX haven't announced any intention of building a larger Dragon, that I know of. Upscaling or downscaling space equipment is not that simple. Engineering is damn tough work. Even the simplest piece of hardware can require thousands of hours of calculations and testing.Oh, and Dragon parachutes to Earth. Do they think that same parachute will work in the thin Martian atmosphere?They intend to use the Dragons as living modules on the surface of Mars (with attached inflatables that also don't exist yet). The Dragon (nor any other spacecraft) was not designed to sit on the surface, in a dusty environment, and continuously be powered - for the lifetime of the crew. It's actually an engineering challenge to design vehicles like Dragon and Soyuz to stay fully functional after six months in space.The ISS, for a crew of 6 (that doesn't have to drill the Martian soil) needs 8 solar arrays that are 35m x 12m. Solar power at Mars is about 1/3 as effective, so they will need at least 3x as much. The video shows their solar arrays set on the ground. Have they developed technology to clean those fragile solar arrays every time there is a dust storm?They talk about extracting all the oxygen and water the crew needs from the Martian soil, when no-one has demonstrated that can be done. That would be a hell of a thing to find out didn't work when you have no return ride home. Curiosity finding traces of water doesn't necessarily equate to aquifers underground. Each person needs about 0.85 kg of oxygen and 30 kg of water, a day, for drinking and hygiene.That sentiment could be conveyed to almost every facet. This is really a zero fault mission. The crew can't come home. Something significant fails and they die on the internet. This is not 1947, when we could kill test pilots in the desert and no one noticed. The public is very risk averse. They might get the crew to sign waivers and take great risks, but will the sponsors that are paying the bills? If I'm a sponsor that is depending on mission success to see a profit, I'm going to insist on verifications that things will work. I'm going to want test flights.They say the crew will launch in 2022. They also say it is a 10 year training program. So, have they named the crew yet? They should already be in training. And I can tell you from personal experience, that training a crew before the vehicle is designed and procedures are written is a pain in the rear.And $6 billion to cover all hardware, all operations, and margin. Wow!I know little to nothing about advertising, but funding the mission by selling it as a reality television show with 24/7/365 view of the development, training, and operations sounds a bit incredible. $6 billion is about equal to all the advertising in 4 Superbowls. Other than a few key events, like the landing, would it really engender that much continuous interest? We have almost 24/7 footage of ISS on NASA TV, and I think 9 people watch it.I wish them luck. It would truly be amazing. My biggest fear is that if they screwed it up and killed their crew, it might deter others from trying, for decades. If they take their time and do it safely, that's one giant leap for mankind.