September Letter

Well #58 only thing that I can do is if you are serious, I can show you the one that we have already obtained for an Edmonton client with your actual offence. Again, I am only going by what you are writing in the forum here....I would still need to see your actual court file and see how it is listed on the RCMP report. The wording of the Edmonton client case will explain why she does not need a waiver. Again, it will depend on what is in your court file. Hats Boots is close but you can still get one if you have more than one offence listed in the RCMP. He is not necessarily right when he mentioned the drug offences and the solicitation since we have actually gotten them for those offences but under very specific circumstances. Hats Boots is often right on the money but in this case, respectfully he is off on some of the details.

Also, yes if it is Indictable then it is difficult to get one...Again, there are exceptions based on the actual offence and case specifics. Also notes that we ourselves specialise in this area. Others may not be aware of certain things since this may not be their area of focus. Definitely, an Indictable Theft conviction for Theft would be a no-go unless you qualify for relief under other areas such as Derivative Citizenship or more.

Anyway, bottom line let us know if you want to see it or not and you will read it for yourself.

usentrywaiverservices.com

#58 Becca, sorry I cannot comment, as September letters are not provided by my company. Ken Scott and John Rogers know more about these and can provide expert advise. Thanks!

Becca, its my opinion that you apply for a waiver. If they want to give you a September Letter they can, but in truth I have many clients with summary convictions who are simply on the waiver program for life.

A September Letter is granted when a person is deemed to "not be inadmissible".

Examples.

- Impaired driving
-admitting you used drugs but no conviction
-some conditional discharges
-if you are charged but not convicted

In my opinion and experience, you can focus your waiver application towards getting a September Letter, but logically I do not believe Homeland Security is granting September Letters because of some magical "September Letter package" that gets submitted.

My 2 cents.

Becca...September Letters are for offences/events where CBP has determined that the offence does not need a waiver based on case-specific circumstances. There is nothing magical about them. The way to get them is to prepare the packet and add specian info that indicates why we believe in our opinion that the crime does not need a waiver. CBP makes the final decision in the end. We have had cases where we felt that they should have been approved for September Letters and they only got waivers.

However, we have also had cases where we were sure they would only get waivers but we added in info about why we think they qualified for a September Letter...and they agreed to our surprise. I will give you some brief history. We once worked(and mentored under) an individual that had 40 years of experience in training USA immigration lawyers in all aspects of immigration. Specifically, his specialty was crafting defences against deportation from the USA aka immigration court. This individual first trained me in regards to September Letters and other things. Specifically, he would tell the lawyers what relief that an individual would qualify for and even wrote the briefs. Btw this has nothing to do with September Letters. This individual gave me numerous tools to use in regards to this and complex areas of USA immigration complex. Unfortunately, this person drowned in a scuba diving accident. So if he were still around, he could tell me within 2 minutes if a person qualified or not based on numerous case specific things. Now we just use the material and techniques that he gave us.

Now fast forward, we are using the tools that he taught me and we have built a list of offences/circumstances that we know work using his techniques. This is not only for September Letters but also how to get an approval on extremely complex waiver cases. Ways to get the material, analyse it and apply the basic principals. Obviously, if he were around then it would be even easier. So now we have built up this info from over the past 8 years from his expertise. An example is that we have tried it with Poss of Stolen Property offences but they keep coming back as waivers. Same goes for B & E. Note that this applies to people that are traditional Canadian and that don't qualify for Derivative USA citizenship or other forms of relief. We also have a number of clients that formerly made the news in the 1990's and 2000's in the BC lower mainland. These individuals have been cleared by us and send us referrals. We also have a Location in London England with our affiliate on our site that does USA work and investor visas.

Anyway, it is much more complex than what I am writing here. This is why we specialise in resolving USA border crossing issues as well as complex waiver cases. I will be the first to admit that we are expensive. The reasons are numerous and that our access to certain material/techniques that Discount Waiver Companies cannot get nor would know what they are reading.

We also did not purposely post copies of certain September Letters because Discount Waiver Companies could read them and maybe reverse engineer how to obtain them on certain complex crimes. We only posted the ones that we knew that they could not figure out how to obtain. We feel that it does not make sense to have to continually get waivers if a person qualifies for this type of relief. This will save the person money and a lifetime of headache.

Furthermore, if you think about it...It goes against our best interest to get September Letters for people since we could make money on repeat business from renewals. In Business 101, you have to have a niche that makes you stand out from competitors..Well, this is ours....

Again, the choice is yours to choose to do as you see fit.

usentrywaiverservices.com
.

I have another client who just got a September Letter. I will try hard to post it next week.

Here is the wording and its one page. September Letters are NOT 2 pages. It does not show the prior offences.

“This correspondence is in reference to your form I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant, submitted by you, on or about _____________2018

We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding your request for admission on or about __________2018, at the Niagara Falls-Rainbow Bridge port of entry in Buffalo, New York. It is the determination of this office that you do not require discretionary relief under INA 212(d)(3)(A) to seek entry into the United States.

Your future inspections, upon applying for admission to the United States, will be conducted in the normal process accorded an applicant seeking admission into this country.”

SIncerely,

Keri Brady
Director
Admissibility Review Office

#66, John Rogers...nice, great news for your client...

I tried to post the September Letter, but no luck. If anyone wants to see it, I can email it to you upon request or text it.

416-843-1371
pardon.experts@rogers.com

@Louise

If you have a Pardon, and have never been denied entry into the United States, then you do not need anything, including a waiver.

You need to forget you were ever arrested, and if asked, say "no".

Homeland Security does WANT you to do a waiver, but unless you tell them, they will never know your record ever existed.

@WaiveMeIn yes technically that would be lying to a border agent.

But lets look at a real world example.

Steve has a criminal record, never been denied entry, gets a pardon.

He tries to cross, they ask him "ever been arrested", he says no. There is no record to see, he is allowed in. Rinse, repeat.

10 years later he applies for a green card. Now some fingerprints are being done under the privacy act so lets assume now there is no way to hide it.

Unless Homeland Security keeps meticulous records of checking for a record and what he said (don't forget he was let through without incident) they would never know he lied.

Anyone else want to weigh in? Its a great question.

I'm not a lawyer, but technically it would be misrepresentation. Remember, the US does not recognize canadian pardons, and so if you answer "no" to have you ever been arrested, you are in effect lying, and "misrepresenting" yourself.

If you'll notice in Canada many applications for jobs / etc ask the question "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?" If you answer no after having a pardon, you're clear. Essentially allows you to "Start Over" without the stain of a record....

@jazzsax1 nothing you are saying is "wrong". Technically you are right. And when we find $100 on the street, we add it to our taxable income and pay taxes right?

Here is the other side. Canada gave someone a criminal record. Canada took it away. Americans then tell us we are smart enough to give a criminal record to people, but not qualified to take them away? Its a fundamental lack of respect.

If the United States was a beacon of honesty and integrity and treated everyone fairly, I might tell clients to ALWAYS tell them the truth. This would also make me more money.

As a Canadian, I worry about my fellow Canadians first. I also treat consumers the way I want to be treated. I would want the truth. I would want to be smart at the border.

Donald Trump is the American President. Think of that when you have a flash of "conscience" and want to tell the truth at the border.

@JohnRogers - yes, I hear you, but that's not what you asked. LOL

Whether we agree with their position or not, doesn't mean we have a say in how they enforce it. Their country, their rules. If we want to visit we play by their rules.

By definition --- according to *our* government:
A record suspension allows people who were convicted of a criminal offence, but have completed their sentence and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens, to have their criminal record kept separate and apart from other criminal records.

Source - https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/corporate/publications-and-forms/fact-sheets/record-suspensions-fact-sheet.html

So "technically" if you are asked whether you have ever been arrest or had a criminal record, your answer should be "yes" as the record is still in existence, it's just kept separate and apart from other records. It doesn't dissapear, it can reappear if you reoffend, etc. It's simply a mechanism our government chose to put in place to help people start over.

We're arguing semantics here. People make their own choices on what to say and what not at the border, but you simply asked the question of whether it was misrepresentation or not, and I bet if you asked 50 lawyers, the majority of them would answer yes. The ones who answered no would charge you a bigass retainer and fight for you until your bank is drained.

:)

@jazzsax Lying at the border is misrepresentation absolutely. Technically you are right.

Technically Donald Trump is President of the United States and everything he does is for the good of the nation. 50 lawyers would agree.

:: @John Rogers added on 01 Nov ’18 · 13:11

I am just being sarcastic, not snarky. LOL

LOL I know you aren't.

FYI - you might find this interesting. My wife went down for the patriots game via a bus tour on Monday. She said that one of the guys on the bus wasn't allowed across the border. Reason given --- he had 1 DUI on his record.

I told her that wasn't a reason for inadmissibility, and she said the guy knew that as well, but the border officer on the bus was a jerk when they took everyone's passports and refused the guy anyway knowing he basically was going to get left there by the bus and forced to uber back.

According to the officer they were exercising their discretion to let people in for whatever reason they felt like...

:: @jazzsax1 added on 01 Nov ’18 · 17:10

And that is what I call a D*ck move. :)

@jazzsax

There are certainly no shortages of "dick moves" from American CBP officers. Whatever they want their "discretion" to be is whatever they want it to be.