Length of stay for Canadians

[Reba 2]

the information is found on the CBP.com website

Canadian citizens generally are not required to have a visa or a passport and may visit the U.S. for up to 6 months. However, Canadians must be able to prove their identity and citizenship to enter the United States. CBP will accept either a birth certificate, citizenship certificate or passport as proof of citizenship. If the Canadian citizen does not have any of these because they were lost or stolen, we emphasize that the burden of proof is on the traveler to prove that they are Candian citizens. Copies of correspondence requesting a replacement of documents, etc. might be accepted, but it is up to the CBP officer to determine whether or not such paperwork meets that burden of proof. Canadians coming as a Treaty Trader (and family), Fiances/Fiancees (and their children)and spouses and children of legal permanent residents are required to have a visa to enter the U.S.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Reba

[zyggy 9]

Thanks, Evergreen. Would you mind posting a link to the source of the above quote.

Judging by the above, it sounds like you are allowed to spend more than 6 months in the US per year as long as your specific facts and circumstances do not cause CBP to think that you are a de facto US resident.

Extending stay requires submission of an I539, if memory serves and processing of that can take from 30-90 days. So, it'd be something that would have to be submitted well in advance of the expiry date, I'd imagine.

Agreed, but that's not the question, however (I didn't phrase it correctly). The question was whether there is a limit of 6 months per stay or per year, whichever comes first. From what I've read at this point, it appears that there is NO such 6 month limit per year.

In other words, as long as CBP is satisfied that the person is not becoming a de facto US resident and grants 6 month stays every time, there does not seem to be a problem under the law with a Canadian citizen entering the country as a visitor for 6 months, leaving for a week, then coming back as a visitor for another 6 months.

Yes, but if you did that, it would be relatively hard to prove that you didn't have a greater tie to the US wouldn't it... If you're spending more than 6 months a year in the US, it would be assumed that your greater tie was to the US than to Canada...

Edited September 25, 2006 by zyggy

[meauxna 15]

Yes, but if you did that, it would be relatively hard to prove that you didn't have a greater tie to the US wouldn't it... If you're spending more than 6 months a year in the US, it would be assumed that your greater tie was to the US than to Canada...

Doesn't Canada have a rule about residency? Like, you're not eligible for certain benefits if you are out more than 180 days per?

[am1996 0]

the information is found on the CBP.com website

Canadian citizens generally are not required to have a visa or a passport and may visit the U.S. for up to 6 months. However, Canadians must be able to prove their identity and citizenship to enter the United States. CBP will accept either a birth certificate, citizenship certificate or passport as proof of citizenship. If the Canadian citizen does not have any of these because they were lost or stolen, we emphasize that the burden of proof is on the traveler to prove that they are Candian citizens. Copies of correspondence requesting a replacement of documents, etc. might be accepted, but it is up to the CBP officer to determine whether or not such paperwork meets that burden of proof. Canadians coming as a Treaty Trader (and family), Fiances/Fiancees (and their children)and spouses and children of legal permanent residents are required to have a visa to enter the U.S.

Right, but where does it say that the aggregate length of the visits to the US cannot exceed 6 months in a given year?

Yes, but if you did that, it would be relatively hard to prove that you didn't have a greater tie to the US wouldn't it... If you're spending more than 6 months a year in the US, it would be assumed that your greater tie was to the US than to Canada...

Sure, although it would depend on the reasons that you need to be in the US for that long. In any event, that question is presumably dealt with by the CBP at the time the alien enters the country. If CBP grants a Canadian a 6 month stay, the Canadian then leaves for a few weeks, comes back and is again granted a 6 month stay, there does not seem to be a problem under the law.

In other words, there is no statute or a regulation that limits the aggregate length of stay under the tourist visa to 6 months in any calendar year, correct?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Hi all,

I'm in a bit of a bind and I was hoping someone here would be able to help me find some answers. What is the maximum amount of time that a Canadian can stay in the US? I was under the impression that it was 90 days, but I've seen 6 months mentioned on here a few times, and am having a hard time finding a straight answer. Also, my fiance and I went to Germany over the summer and when we arrived in Detroit my passport was stamped with a B2 visa; the immigration officer did not fill in the expiration date on the B2, nor did he give me a date I have to leave by, and much like the length of stay for Canadians, I haven't been able to figure out what the maximum stay for a B2 visa is. I don't want to overstay or cause any problems with our K1, and it's soon going to be 90 days since I last entered the US. I've been planning on going back to Canada, but as the date gets closer, I really don't want to go unless I have to! I'd be really grateful for any help, or if someone could point me in the direction of what agency I could call(please say it isn't USCIS!).

-April

The length of stay is determined by the I-94. What is the expiration on your I-94?

Partly true.

For "undocumented" B-2 (only available for Canucks), the max stay is SUPPOSED to be six months (this is true if USCBP stamps the passport--which they oft don't; NO I-94 issued in this case). Certain other visas/stati DO have associated I-94 (TN-1/TD, H1-b/H-4, F-1/F-2, R-1, L-1/L-2) and definite (but renewable/extendable) term.

[zyggy 9]

the information is found on the CBP.com website

Canadian citizens generally are not required to have a visa or a passport and may visit the U.S. for up to 6 months. However, Canadians must be able to prove their identity and citizenship to enter the United States. CBP will accept either a birth certificate, citizenship certificate or passport as proof of citizenship. If the Canadian citizen does not have any of these because they were lost or stolen, we emphasize that the burden of proof is on the traveler to prove that they are Candian citizens. Copies of correspondence requesting a replacement of documents, etc. might be accepted, but it is up to the CBP officer to determine whether or not such paperwork meets that burden of proof. Canadians coming as a Treaty Trader (and family), Fiances/Fiancees (and their children)and spouses and children of legal permanent residents are required to have a visa to enter the U.S.

Right, but where does it say that the aggregate length of the visits to the US cannot exceed 6 months in a given year?

Yes, but if you did that, it would be relatively hard to prove that you didn't have a greater tie to the US wouldn't it... If you're spending more than 6 months a year in the US, it would be assumed that your greater tie was to the US than to Canada...

Sure, although it would depend on the reasons that you need to be in the US for that long. In any event, that question is presumably dealt with by the CBP at the time the alien enters the country. If CBP grants a Canadian a 6 month stay, the Canadian then leaves for a few weeks, comes back and is again granted a 6 month stay, there does not seem to be a problem under the law.

In other words, there is no statute or a regulation that limits the aggregate length of stay under the tourist visa to 6 months in any calendar year, correct?

Actually the deal between the US and Canada is covered by treaty... I'll have to look it up...

[am1996 0]

Actually the deal between the US and Canada is covered by treaty... I'll have to look it up...

From what I can see, the treaty you are looking for is NAFTA. I realize that we've discussed this before and that you feel that there is a different treaty that applies, but everything that I've seen on this subject mentions NAFTA as the governing authority. I have yet to find any conclusive evidence of this, however.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Actually the deal between the US and Canada is covered by treaty... I'll have to look it up...

From what I can see, the treaty you are looking for is NAFTA. I realize that we've discussed this before and that you feel that there is a different treaty that applies, but everything that I've seen on this subject mentions NAFTA as the governing authority. I have yet to find any conclusive evidence of this, however.

No, the particular treaty for undocumented B-2 is NOT NAFTA (nor even the earlier C-US-FTA). Undocumented B-2 could visit US for max of 6 months even in 1987.

[zyggy 9]

Nope.. not NAFTA.. NAFTA deals with trade of goods and services... regulations regarding visitors are not necessarily governed under NAFTA... Business visits ARE regulated by NAFTA... Personal visits are not...

I believe that the treaty that established the initial definition of visitors having free access between the two countries (and what I believe still controls it in regards to personal visits) as visitors is Jay's Treaty..

From what I remember, there have been subsequent conventions under Jay's Treaty between Canada and the US that have set an interpretation of a visitor as a person who spends less than 6 months in the US (and consequently in Canada)... someone can spend more time in the US as a visitor if they can prove to the US Government that they are still entitled to that status by showing evidence proving their intention in the US is still as a visitor and not as an immigrant. They do this by applying for an extension...

It is one thing to do this in the US.. it is quite another to stay in the US for 6 months, go back to Canada and subsequently try to reenter the US without a significant amount of time in your home country. As you stated, this would be done on a case-by-case basis. Based on that inspection, the CBP would then decide whether to give the alien another 6 months, give a shorter authorized period of stay that better fits their intentions, or not admit them at all...

Edited September 25, 2006 by zyggy

[am1996 0]

Actually the deal between the US and Canada is covered by treaty... I'll have to look it up...

Ok, I think that I am getting to the bottom of the way it all works. I definitely can't say that it's an easy task.

Zyggy, the treaty that you are probably referring to is the United States -- Canada Free Trade Agreement, Public Law 100-449. As of January 1, 1994 that treaty was superseded by NAFTA, Public Law 103-182. I am still reviewing NAFTA to see if I can find procedures and time limitation that would help to answer this question once and for all. If anyone can shed additional light of this, please post it here.

[am1996 0]

Nope.. not NAFTA.. NAFTA deals with trade of goods and services... regulations regarding visitors are not necessarily governed under NAFTA... Business visits ARE regulated by NAFTA... Personal visits are not...

I found a NAFTA section that discusses business visits but do not see anything about personal visits. You may be right about all this, although NAFTA is not easily navigable and I am having a lot of trouble figuring out how it all works.

I believe that the treaty that established the initial definition of visitors having free access between the two countries (and what I believe still controls it in regards to personal visits) as visitors is Jay's Treaty..

From what I remember, there have been subsequent conventions under Jay's Treaty between Canada and the US that have set an interpretation of a visitor as a person who spends less than 6 months in the US (and consequently in Canada)... someone can spend more time in the US as a visitor if they can prove to the US Government that they are still entitled to that status by showing evidence proving their intention in the US is still as a visitor and not as an immigrant. They do this by applying for an extension...

You mean Jay's Treaty of 1794? I wonder why I still remember it. Although that treaty may still apply, I'm sure that it's been augmented by various rules and regulations. The question is, how in the world do we find these rules and regulations that have no doubt augmented it... that is, if NAFTA does not in fact apply to visitors. Shouldn't the FAM cover this at least briefly? I don't see anything in it on this subject.

Edited September 25, 2006 by am1996

[zyggy 9]

Nope.. not NAFTA.. NAFTA deals with trade of goods and services... regulations regarding visitors are not necessarily governed under NAFTA... Business visits ARE regulated by NAFTA... Personal visits are not...

I found a NAFTA section that discusses business visits but do not see anything about personal visits. You may be right about all this, although NAFTA is not easily navigable and I am having a lot of trouble figuring out how it all works.

I believe that the treaty that established the initial definition of visitors having free access between the two countries (and what I believe still controls it in regards to personal visits) as visitors is Jay's Treaty..

From what I remember, there have been subsequent conventions under Jay's Treaty between Canada and the US that have set an interpretation of a visitor as a person who spends less than 6 months in the US (and consequently in Canada)... someone can spend more time in the US as a visitor if they can prove to the US Government that they are still entitled to that status by showing evidence proving their intention in the US is still as a visitor and not as an immigrant. They do this by applying for an extension...

You mean Jay's Treaty of 1794? I wonder why I still remember it. Although that treaty may still apply, I'm sure that it's been augmented by various rules and regulations. The question is, how in the world do we find these rules and regulations that have no doubt augmented it... that is, if NAFTA does not in fact apply to visitors. Shouldn't the FAM cover this at least briefly? I don't see anything in it on this subject.

Chuckle...

You probably still remember it because the US got screwed in terms of trade and free movement of shipping in the West Indes and gave into the British in regards to trading with enemies of Great Britain even if the US was a neutral. A point that the Jeffersonian faction took exception with being that they were allied with France...

It only passed because Washington forced it through due to his assessment on the realpolitik in regards how the US could survive the retribution from Great Britain if it rejected the treaty...

Even though Jay was weak in regards to trade (which he probably had to be... it's not like the US was in a great position of strength at the time), he won in regards to the free movement of people between British North America and property rights for US Citizens and British Subjects in both jurisdictions although at the time this provision probably favored the British as well...

I agree that this area is quite nebulous and getting the cites are hard to come by due to various buried agreements and conventions that are but a footnote to history...

The FAM doesn't cover it because the State Department aren't concerned with giving visas to Canadians because they are the only class of people that are permitted to visit the US without a visa due to Jay's Treaty.

The AFM doesn't cover it because it doesn't deal with adjudication of petitions. They only people who really have to deal with it is CBP... and I don't think the CBP Immigration Inspector Field Manual (It's probably something different now) has been released to the public...

I'll keep looking, but it'll be a long, hard slog...

Edited September 25, 2006 by zyggy

[am1996 0]

No, the particular treaty for undocumented B-2 is NOT NAFTA (nor even the earlier C-US-FTA). Undocumented B-2 could visit US for max of 6 months even in 1987.

All the secondary sources I am finding so far say that it is in fact NAFTA. The fact that a B2 could visit the US even in '87 doesn't resolve this debate since most provisions of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement were incorporated into NAFTA. As such, if Canadians were eligible to receive the B2 status under the FTA, it is quite possible that those rights were also incorporated into NAFTA.

If Zyggy is correct and we are in fact talking about some convention enacted pursuant to Jay's Treaty, however, I really don't know how in the world we are supposed to find it. What appears to be almost certain so far, however, is the fact that Canadians do not have any sort of an aggregate limit on the amount of time that they are allowed to spend in the US as tourists (which is the question I am most interested in at the moment).

Edited September 25, 2006 by am1996

[Saddle Bronc 124]

No, the particular treaty for undocumented B-2 is NOT NAFTA (nor even the earlier C-US-FTA). Undocumented B-2 could visit US for max of 6 months even in 1987.

All the secondary sources I am finding so far say that it is in fact NAFTA. The fact that a B2 could visit the US even in '87 doesn't resolve this debate since most provisions of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement were incorporated into NAFTA. As such, if Canadians were eligible to receive the B2 status under the FTA, it is quite possible that those rights were also incorporated into NAFTA.

You apparently forgot that the precursor treaty to NAFTA was only signed in 1988--which was why I mentioned 1987.

If Zyggy is correct and we are in fact talking about some convention enacted pursuant to Jay's Treaty, however, I really don't know how in the world we are supposed to find it. What appears to be almost certain so far, however, is the fact that Canadians do not have any sort of an aggregate limit on the amount of time that they are allowed to spend in the US as tourists (which is the question I am most interested in at the moment).

Again, it's technically supposed to be six months at a stretch. But since many Canadians don't get stamps in passport (and for B-2, no I-94 is issued), it's extremely hard to enforce.

[Reba 2]

exactly.

The CBP website that I posted earlier says 6 months. And I know that zyggy is a former CBP, but whenever I've gone over and whenever Snowbird relatives have gone over, if anyone asks, they've been told, its either 6 months per year, say if you go from February to July. Or 6 months per visit, if like Snowbirds you go from November to April.

Usually attempts to cross again, if they know you somehow and your passport was scanned on last entry, you'll be grilled. I used to get it all the time when I travelled for work and for vacations to visit my husband.

They may let you in for 6 months, or they may restrict you to 2 weeks. Its the individual's discretion pretty much. Just the same as it is for Americans visiting Canada.

And for a Canadian to legally retain their provincial benefits, they must be in the country more than 5 months per year I believe it is. If you take up residence in another country, you are no longer eligible for Canadian healthcare benefits.