LOL Michelle gotta love your #4.

@31, I would need to know more details of the circumstances of why you were charged with harrassement and why you want to travel to the USA now. Yes, I agree with John that it has not been very long since your conviction, however, it is not that serious of an offense. If you would like to call me at 306.205.2532 or email me at info@fingerprintpardon.com, I will advise more after I know those details.

#33, Adelaide, and all who are wondering about this. I have not seen an increase in people being denied because of new drug laws. I really think that the news is making a bigger deal about this then it really it. The woman in this article should have been denied. First, she should have checked into all laws of another country before traveling there. This is common sense for anyone. Second, she lied to Customs. She also stated that she is taking CBD for medical issues, then apply for the proper medical licence, and traveling would not be an issue. Another thing, she has not been banned, she needs to apply for a regular waiver, which she will get. When people call me to ask about traveling to the USA now, I ask them to think about a few things.

1. Drinking is legal, however, you do not show up at US Customs with open beer cans or have beer packed in your purse, suitcase, ect. Why would you not use the same common sense with CBD.

2. Know and respect an other countries laws. Period.

3. If you are using CBD for any type of medical reasons, whether prescribed or not, get a medical license. This would save a lot of head ace in the future.

4. If you are just a "60's child" who loves to smoke marijuana everyday, well don't travel to the USA. Go to Jamaica..and have a great time..Just saying..

People don't realize that you can't get on a plane with over the counter drugs that are not in their original bottles. I travel with Ativan as I am terrified of planes, and I must have a doctor's prescription with it, otherwise I could be charged with possession of a controlled substance.

John, are you noticing an increase of people being denied?

Just a FYI:

Seems this is still an issue that is greater than most know.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5252479

Michelle, condition break is that i didnt respect one condition when i was supposed to( have communication with my ex when i was not supposed)...its related to the harrament case...for the 5000$ i was 18....now im 35, i have been fine 200$ for that with no jail..i already tried to cross the border and been deny because of the 5000$ thieft....its been a while, now im paramedic, kid, wife.....exept this harrasment case make me nervous because its happened in 2016 and been charged in october 2017...im worried its too soon...

@Nastybobby #28, what is a conditional break? and no, harassing communication is not a reason to deny a waiver. The theft over $5000 is more of a concern..depending on circumstances and if restitution was involved and did you pay it..

@Nastybobby

I would say wait longer. Your most recent conviction is too recent.

The circumstances matter in your case.

Hi there....need some advice....im starting my waiver application. Hère is my condamnations: 2003-thieft over 5000$
2017- harrasing communication(on the Phone)
2017- condition break

Is my change for getting waiver is good since last case is 2 years old?? Dont know if usa cares about phone harrasing.... ??

@jazzsax1 well conditional sentences are almost always shorter. No one is getting a 5 year conditional sentence. So it is seen as "better" but if they want to say "no" they will tack it on anyways.

@John are you seeing actual jail time vs conditional (ie, house arrest) making a difference in waivers or is CBP treating them all the same?

@Adelaide

It is hard to say how much of a factor race is and quantify it. Also because black waiver clients are only the third largest group I see, I have a hard time comparing them to white clients (my largest group). A lot of my south asian clients are not criminal record based, so again its not always an apples to apples comparison.

In terms of severity of punishment the Canadian justice system shows CLEAR bias when sentencing. That is clear and very easy to compare. Waivers are different because severity of offence, how old is the offence, and even sentence length all play a part in waivers.

#20 - John Rogers

BTW - I always enjoy reading your input here.

As per you comment:

“And yes, I think race is a factor, although I have no proof. I will say that the vast majority of my waiver clients tend to be white. Because I do business in Brampton, South Asian is probably second.”

It is America after all and anyone who has their wits about them and has spent any significant amount of time in America will understand how acute the racist pathology of America is. Canada has her issues but America and "race" is off-the-charts exponentially more pathological.

At any rate would you discern, in your estimation (sample size being your clientele), that waivers are more often denied to those who are NOT white regardless of offense?

@John That's what I'm saying though... you hit it on the nail... he didn't articulate key points..... (ie, enough remorse, dangers on society of the actions, noticed change, etc)

To be fair, both you and Ken have told me the exact same thing about my circumstances (wait to 5 years and then should be granted). No promises or weird shenanigans. :)

@jazzsax1

Part of the myth I also want to lay to rest is people who think "yes I have major convictions, and yes they are recent, but if I pay just the right guy a lot of money...I will magically get the waiver."

It doesn't work that way. Its clear they can be convinced if the right circumstances are in place. But we need the tools. If everyone is telling you its unlikely to get a waiver, and someone says "don't worry, I have a special package" they are ripping you off.

Trafficking is a BIG no no right now. I just got an email from a friend of a waiver client who did his own waiver, and actually did a pretty good job but had trafficking from 2003 (3 years in jail) and was denied. In his case he did not articulate:

-enough remorse (although he did take responsibility)
-he did not articulate awareness of "the dangers of drugs on society and our communities"
-reference letters (he had 8) did not mention people noticing how much he had "changed"
-they even attacked his drug test because it had the following on it "specimen collection and testing not completed using chain of custody processes. Results must be used for medical purposes only".

Again, his waiver was not bad, but it was for Trafficking. Same waiver 3 years ago? Granted.

@John You aren't the first person to assume my heart was covered in Ice. I'm actually a social conservative though, but I'm constantly misinterpreted because I'm a blunt ass bitch and tell it like it is. I expect the same back. LOL

That to me screams why the personal letter, references, and rehabilitation (ie what you are doing) probably also plays a big part in things (more than we think) if they are border line cases.

@jazzsax1 I could sense seeing I was an english major warming the cockles of your ice covered conservative heart.

In many cases they seem to be "tacking on the sentence".

But the main point of my long essay was that I am sensing "no waiver for you" decisions followed by justifications AFTER the decision is made.

So theft under in 2014 with a 2 year probation will probably GET a waiver.

Robbing a bank in 2004 with 3 years in jail and 10 year probation, they decide "no waiver" then use the long sentence to argue the "recency" is the issue when in fact they just don't like the fact its a black male who used a disguise to rob a bank.

And yes, I think race is a factor, although I have no proof. I will say that the vast majority of my waiver clients tend to be white. Because I do business in Brampton, South Asian is probably second.

@John LOL gonna leave that one alone... don't want to hurt your feelings. (oooo, university leftwing snowflake burn??)

On a serious note though, are you now seeing that they are taking probation as an argument for too soon?

Not sure how that could apply -- especially if your probation term had zero supervision tied to it, or as in my case had the supervision component completely removed at the P.O discretion).

For me the only reason I was given probation was because the judge wanted to make sure I was paying a minimal amount of monthly restitution while I was working out my employment status, and that was the only way he felt he could monitor that. I've been paying *way more* than the court has been expecting / requiring. I could hopefully argue I have been going above and beyond what's expected and hopefully have that count in my favour.

I just wrote a couple of answers in other topics, but this is a general observation about the waivers that are NOT approved.

One of the results of seeing a lot of waivers at the airport that I did NOT apply for, but still able to stay in contact with the applicant is that I have seen a LOT of waivers rejected in the past 3 years. The people will come and see me to ask if an Appeal is warranted.

In some cases, I strongly advised them not to hand the waivers in, because of shoddy work or other factors that I thought would lead to the waiver being rejected, but they handed it in anyways.

My background is actually in English. I was an English major in University. (Jazzsax1 has just confirmed every stereotype of my left wing existence in his own mind. But no I did not wear a beret.)

The reason I mention this is because I have always had a background in using words, interpreting words, and coupled with a lifetime of doing pardons and waivers and pardon appeals and waiver appeals, I can "see" what a rejection letter is "telling me".

The general perception is that Homeland Security weighs all these factors and comes to some logical conclusion and then explains it in its rejection letter. In the past couple of years this has changed in a number of cases.

Its become clear that Homeland Security in many case decides "no", and THEN justifies why. And I mean in the majority of cases now.

I have done a couple of appeals recently where the people actually were GRANTED a waiver, for a year, then re-applied, and THEN were turned down. In both cases the client basically repeated what got them the first waiver and both clients were very articulate and the waivers were decent. But in both cases the offences were non-violent but serious, and the letters claimed they should have never been granted the earlier waivers.

They then went on to build the case using arguments about rehabilitation, but these were weak because in fact both occurrences were one time unique events.

How they MADE their case was by jacking up the argument that even probation and things like "weapons bans" had to be added on to the time served and therefore the offences were too "recent".

To anyone who uses words and language as tools, its a desperate attempt to justify a "I don't think this guy should have been given a waiver".

If you have an offence that looks "icky". Or seems like a big deal. Don't depend on common sense to prevail, or that a long period of time elapsing will mean you get a waiver. Sometimes someone decides "no" and then makes their case around that decision. Its clear it happens in many of the rejections.

I want to emphasize this is some insight I have based on reading over 100 rejections in the last 2 years, and not some connection I have with Homeland Security. I also don't want this to seem like a sales pitch. Many of these waivers I would have discouraged even doing in the first place. In one of the cases I did the appeal, but not the waiver, but the client is a former US Attorney, so very articulate and the waiver was pretty decent. He even got help on it.

I bring this up partially because when I saw the debate on "voyeurism" people are talking as if "technically" he should get a waiver. Guaranteed he would NOT. He plead GUILTY (that's the only way to get a conditional discharge) and no matter how we "massage" the facts, the offence is going to sound a bit 'icky'. That's not a shot at the person who did the offence. But I think I can accurately look at something and KNOW what they are going to say "yes" to, and what they are going to probably say "no" to.

If @Javier applies for a waiver BEFORE 5 years, I give him little chance of success. Worse, he has now handed this record to Homeland Security on a platter. Wait three years, destroy the records, and then move on.

#15 - @SkiingBUmm

In all likelihood it wouldn't be your fault... really how could it be? If you were to land in America they most likely would feel (one would hope) the prudent thing was to sequester you somewhere in the airport given your non-waiver and inadmissible status. Given the aggressive and ignorant propensities of some CBH officers you never know however.

:: @Samuel added on 06 Nov ’18 · 15:20

CBP officers (NOT "CBH" officers as per my typo in my original comment).

@skiingBUmm if you have to emergency land in the States and are already inadmissible, just a) be happy your alive and the plane didn't crash and b) I am sure they would just ask you to leave asap.