entering on VWP but scared of being denied....

[Luke and Deanna 0]

I flew to Minnesota in July of 2007 for a month, then in October 2007 for 3 months, then June 2008 for 3 months, then June 2009 for 3 months.

I always stayed for around 85 days and I had no job to return to as I could not get that long off work. I am 24 (25 tomorrow) but was 22 when I started travelling to the US.

In February 2008 I applied for a B2 tourist visa so I could stay for up to 6 months and was denied because of lack of ties to the UK. I was still allowed to travel on the VWP but had to put on the green slip that I had been denied a visa so the last two times I travelled to the US I got taken for further questioning. Still was allowed to enter though.

I was always 100% honest for the reason of my visit.

1st. To meet a girl I met on the internet.

2nd, 3rd. To visit my girlfriend

4th. To visit my fiancee.

Then my last time entering in October was with my K1 and it was so nice not having to worry about immigration like I had done the last visits.

You have plenty of money, stuff planned and a return ticket. You will be fine.

Luke and Deanna

[Kittykisses73 1]

My now husband arrived here on the VWP in Aug 2008 & was staying for 10 weeks on his first trip to the US. When they ask him why he was coming he td them to visit friends& to stop smoking. That was the only question asked

[Lorenzoid 12]

Back before we were married and before we had even applied for a K-1, my then-girlfriend was denied entry to the US. Well, sort of. She was sent to secondary inspection and, after 45 minutes of questioning, was allowed to stay in the US only a meager 10 days. It seems the problem was not how many times she had visited me in the preceding couple of years (she had visited four or five times) but rather the total number of days she had been in the US each year. Specifically, the CBP agent advised her that because she had spent more than six of the preceding 12 months in the US, that gives rise to a presumption that she was "living in the US." The agent requested documentation of the types that others here have pointed out, showing ties to her home country, that might help rebut the presumption that she was living in the US. Her protests that she owned two houses in her home country, received a doctorate degree from a US university, had no permanent job because she worked freelance, and had enough money saved that she could make such trips were met with deadpan responses such as, "Well, show me the deeds to your houses." She thought the agent was crazy--I mean, who carries a copy of the deed to their house?! She really didn't have much in the way of documentation of ties to her home country, as she had lived in various countries and had worked hard to achieve enough flexibility that she was proudly NOT tied to her home country or any other country!

At the time, we were just dating and were completely oblivious to the potential for problems. We hadn't even begun to think about immigration issues. We figured that, as European, she could come and go as she pleased, using the VWP, as she had done for years. Before she met me, she spent 5-1/2 years as a student in the US, and later made trips to the US to visit the friends she had made in school and to do tourist things. She used the VWP for these visits. We had no idea that there could be any cause for her to be denied the ability to come and go as she had before. We learned the lesson that the VWP is not an entitlement, and one CAN be denied entry. We learned that anyone using the VWP might be well advised to carry documentation showing ties to their home country.

It was that incident that spurred us to do some reasearch on the Internet (including finding VJ) and ultimately to get engaged and apply for a K-1. Had it not been for that incident, we might still be "just dating." Unfortunately, unless one is indeed tied to their home country and has documentation to prove it, the immigration issue can put a damper on international dating. A US resident can't easily just date someone in another country for years, the way he might date someone who lives locally. We basically felt that we would have difficulty continuing to just date like a normal couple. We felt pressure to get engaged and marry so that we wouldn't have these travel problems.

In fact, the incident so pissed us off that we actually considered just getting married during the 10 days she was given. She certainly did NOT enter the country with the intent of getting married--we were just dating and not really ready to get engaged--but the assinine treatment from CBP provided plenty of motivation for us to consider doing so. However, ironically, she did have freelance engagements and other things back in her country that she needed to attend to in the coming months, so we opted to get engaged, apply for a K-1, and sit back and wait. Thanks for pushing us, CBP.

Anyway, lesson learned: As others have said, ANYONE arriving on the VWP should consider carrying documentation of ties to their home country.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I would tell you how many times within a given year I traveled to the US and brag to you how many entry stamps I had in my passport, but that was a long time ago.

In your case I'm almost certain that you won't be denied entry; what can happen to you is what happened to me back in 1994: the I.O. will question you more thoroughly about your motives and how long you intend to stay and will look at your return ticket, and if he doesn't like your answer or gets suspicious, he will most likely give you a rather limit time allowance but not the full 3 months.

[johnny graham 0]

Thank you everyone for the speedy replies.... It was much needed, I'm jsut going to be honest when they ask what im doing there. Ill be surfing in florida and then going up to MN to see my girlfriend. I am just thinking honesty is the best policy.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Just to add:

If he were visiting her first then I would say that he should say divulge that information, however he does not have any intent to immigrate on this visit so he can not misrepresent himself if he fails to divulge every person and place he will visit. Misrepresentation is linked to intent you know.

Of course if they are asking WHO he is visiting, then he should say.

Case in point, my wife came over on the VWP for 3 months at Easter 2008 with her family. The officer only asked her father what they were doing. He stated that they were visiting at easter on holiday as they always do and that his daughter was staying for an extra 2 months. Thats all he said, and they asked her no questions. By your logic he was misrepresenting himself and the fact is he didn't. If they don't ask you a question then you do not have to divulge information.

Back to the topic at hand - If an officer asks him WHAT he is doing there is nothing wrong with stating the first thing on his list. If they ask if he is visiting anyone, by all means divulge at that stage not before. If they ask what he is doing after the surfing, again state the truth. But to go through inspection unarmed blurting out every little detail is unnecessary and foolish.

[TBoneTX 46,125]

The question continues regarding what constitutes an "entire story." In the examples above, if CBP asks a foreign visitor why he/she is visiting, and the visitor replies truthfully "to visit Disney World," is that not adequate? Must the visitor spout "to visit Disney World with friends, including one who is special to me, and then to shop at Macy's, and then to watch the sun set behind the mountains, and to drive from Canandaigua to Irondequoit to eat at the family restaurant, and go dancing at the nightclub on Friday & Saturday nights this week" ad nauseam?

Along with this, someone mentioned something curious to me not long ago. He -- a U.S. citizen -- was re-entering from Mexico, through a land port. He was asked "why were you in Mexico," and he replied (truthfully and straightforwardly) "lawful personal business." It took some time (and the involvement of a supervisor) to establish that words mean things. If CBP indeed thrives on the truth, why would a truthful answer (in this example or the first response in the paragraph above) be insufficient?

Edited January 28, 2010 by TBoneTX

[English Muffin 59]

Obviously I cannot and will not post what is written in training manuals..

Not a training manual but the CBP Inspector's Field Manual is available online.

http://www.millerlawoffices.com/publicatio...%201%202008.pdf

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Select posts and posts quoting same have been removed at the Original Poster of the posts' request.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Kathryn41

[TBoneTX 46,125]

Select posts and posts quoting same have been removed at the Original Poster of the posts' request.

Reading between the (removed) lines, it would seem that the poster realized (or was Told) that he was Not Permitted to comment. I wonder how much more, if any, we'll see him around VJ.

[English Muffin 59]

Reading between the (removed) lines, it would seem that the poster realized (or was Told) that he was Not Permitted to comment. I wonder how much more, if any, we'll see him around VJ.

Either that, or he was lying about being a CBP officer and got called out on it. He made a couple of statements that made me question the veracity of his claim.

[TBoneTX 46,125]

Either that, or he was lying about being a CBP officer and got called out on it. He made a couple of statements that made me question the veracity of his claim.

Si, man. He also "punted" a couple of times when he could have been straightforward. Separately, it is no laughing matter to impersonate a Federal agent, no man...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Actually, I'm 88% sure that he does work for CBP, and what he stated in this thread is likely what his training says. Some of the other posts were probably just his personal feelings, and yes one or two things he said were not accurate. But my understanding is that CBP aren't versed in every aspect of immigration law.

Regarding this thread in particular, I think he is stating what all law enforcement would say - ie. please tell me everything you know so I can do my job. A lawyer would give the opposite advice - state only what is necessary to protect yourself.

If someone using VJ is a lawyer or a government official, I think they need to have a disclaimer separating what official policy is from their own opinions on a subject.

Still, I personally feel bad that my overzealous in this thread may have caused a valuable member of VJ to leave. In the future, I will only ever ask that a person, who claims to be a member of an organization, back up their official policies with public information.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm really sorry, my grammar is really bad today. I meant to say: Still, I personally feel bad that my overzealous "posts" in this thread may have caused a valuable member of VJ to leave.

[TBoneTX 46,125]

I personally feel bad that my overzealous "posts" in this thread may have caused a valuable member of VJ to leave.

Perish that thought and don't give it another one, no man. In the end, people who can't, don't, or won't back up what they claim, or who "punt" when they're challenged, are nothing but blowhards. If that guy has left VJ, it's less of a loss than if he were to stay and continue his present milquetoast behavior. People need to support what they claim, or to shut up.

By the way, happy birthday, dude, si man!