A DUI by itself will not necessarily make a person inadmissible if it is for alcohol. It is a different story if it is for marijuana since D.U.I stands for Driving Under Influence...So someone could be driving under the influence for alcohol and they are fine. A 2nd Dui does "not necessarily" make a person inadmissible as there are steps that can be taken if CBP pulls this card. The DUI could be for driving under the influence of weed and the person can still get cleared if it is approached the proper way.

None of my DUI people have ever needed a waiver.

www.usentrywaiverservices.com

This was announced on Friday, Dec. 13, 2019.. I could not find anything specific in the policy..but I believe that individuals with 2 or more DUI will most likely be denied and advised to do I-192 Travel Waivers in the near future. I think that one DUI will not be a problem. John, your thoughts?

Copied and pasted the following email I received:

WASHINGTON— Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services expanded its policy guidance regarding unlawful acts that may prevent an applicant from meeting the good moral character (GMC) requirement for naturalization. The commission of, or conviction or imprisonment for, an unlawful act, during the statutory period for naturalization, may render an applicant ineligible for naturalization should the act be found to adversely reflect on moral character.

Previously, the USCIS Policy Manual did not include extensive information on unlawful acts. This update to the Policy Manual provides additional examples of unlawful acts and instructions to ensure USCIS adjudicators make uniform and fair determinations, and further identifies unlawful acts that may affect GMC based on judicial precedent. This update does not change the impact of an unlawful act on USCIS’ analysis of whether an applicant can demonstrate GMC. Adjudicators in the field receive extensive training to apply the law on GMC and unlawful acts regulation. They are aware of which unlawful acts could bar an applicant from naturalization and are not limited by the examples listed in the Policy Manual.

On Dec. 10, USCIS issued separate policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual about how two or more convictions for driving under the influence or post-sentencing changes to criminal sentencing might affect GMC determinations.

“In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress determined that good moral character is a requirement for naturalization,” said USCIS Deputy Director Mark Koumans. “USCIS is committed to faithfully administering our nation’s lawful immigration system, and this update helps to ensure that our agency’s adjudicators make uniform and fair decisions concerning the consideration of unlawful acts on good moral character when determining eligibility for U.S. citizenship.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an applicant for naturalization must establish GMC. Although the INA does not directly define GMC, it does describe certain acts that bar establishing GMC of an applicant. Examples of unlawful acts recognized by case law as barring GMC include, but are not limited to, the following:

bail jumping;
bank fraud;
conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance;
failure to file or pay taxes;
false claim to U.S. citizenship;
falsification of records;
forgery uttering;
insurance fraud;
obstruction of justice;
sexual assault;
Social Security fraud;
unlawful harassment;
unlawful registration to vote;
unlawful voting; and
violation of a U.S. embargo.
In general, applicants must show they have been, and continue to be, people of GMC during the statutory period before filing for naturalization and up until they take the Oath of Allegiance. The statutory period is generally five years for permanent residents of the United States, three years for applicants married to a U.S. citizen, and one year for certain applicants applying on the basis of qualifying U.S. military service.

USCIS officers must continue to perform a case-by-case analysis to determine whether an act is unlawful and adversely reflects on an applicant's good moral character. They must also determine whether there are extenuating circumstances. An extenuating circumstance must pertain to the unlawful act and must precede or be contemporaneous with the commission of the unlawful act. Training for adjudicators will be updated to reflect this expanded guidance.

@J Rogers #2 I would guess. I had no idea what I was doing for my first waiver application. Actually had a CPB guard tell me a few months ago that based on what did (DUI) I shouldn’t need a waiver but since I applied for one I’ll likely need it forever. They rarely reverse their decisions. Waiver ball and chain forever for me now.

DUI in Canada does not make you inadmissible. (I believe that will change in the future) I have heard of DUI in certain US States requiring a waiver. If you applied for a waiver and it was given to you, there are 2 explanations.

1.) The waiver was needed. You circumstances dictated that you need a waiver.
2.) Your application was poorly done or vague. So not enough evidence to tell if you are inadmissible or not.

I know Canadians like to scream "cash grab" and assume Homeland Security is like a shady time share company, wanting to take your money no matter what. Its absolutely not true. They tell people verbally or in writing all the time that they do not need waivers. They also boosted the price of waivers up to $930 on December 23 2016 form $585 but when it came to time increase those prices (they increased all other fees as well) they EXEMPTED Canadian Citizens from the increase.

The fee increase they are proposing is STRICTLY due to Trump siphoning off their funding to ICE. Homeland Security is increasing fees across the board so they;
1.) don't make a profit
2.) don't have a loss and are self funding

I have a DUI conviction from the early 90s in Florida. No criminal record in Canada but was told by US border guard that I need a waiver. This seems to suggest otherwise. I'm on my second waiver and now wondering if I ever needed it.

@Michelle

Technically, having one DUI will still make one admissible. They will likely fall under the petty offence rule.

It was something to be expected with the current administration that wants to exclude anyone that had past troubles with the law.

@Michelle

I was about to cut and paste the same thing. LOL