I would think that's exactly why Michelle. They've talked quite a bit in the last year about the fact they aren't recovering enough revenue based on the fees. It's obvious they're using the revenue to invest in things like e-safe.

@John, honestly, the first waiver should not have been a 5 year. Record was quite extensive, although not too serious, I was very surprised that it was a 5 year first time. Now, it seems pointless to penalize the person, but that seems to be what they have done. I was wondering if they might start cutting back on 5 years waivers, to make up for loss revenue???

@Michelle

That is a very strange occurrence. Since I know you always do a "good" waiver, my only comment is
-its a mistake
or
-was the 5 year waiver a bit too generous? Could someone now have said "you shouldn't have gotten 5 years right away?"

The only times I have seen this, is when people reapply and do a really crappy job. For example, the personal letter sucks or they omit things like a drug test despite having narcotics conviction.

In the personal letter I always put "I appreciate the last 5 year waiver you gave me" mainly to remind them that "hey....this is a reapplication".

All that being said, it could simply be a mistake. An annoying one.

@Michelle

This doesn't surprise me. Once you get labelled a criminal, you are always branded as such. It re-inforces and validates the idea of re-introducing visas for every traveler. Those with records, pay a little more. But after a certain time has elapsed, even those with records with no negative police involvement will get the extra fees reduced or waived. It's the same logic as holding a driver's license minus the demerit points. Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Hopefully, the process gets streamlined and people with light charges manage to get September Letters with limited life long hassles.