Wife and baby stuck in Peru. Please help!

[VanessaTony 3,567]

This is totally correct. The original of the RoC extension letter is on heavy bond paper with big obvious watermarks if you hold it up to the light. I made a couple of full-size colour photocopies to carry around while I was waiting for approval, and they are obviously different from the original, wouldn't fool anybody, and could be much more easily modified to contain fraudulent information. [i'm not too worried about that since no one has ever asked me for any proof of status on a day-to-day basis, and there's nothing on the extension letter saying you even need to carry it around at all.]

I wouldn't expect any photocopy of any travel or immigration document to ever be sufficient, just on general principles. Even the paper AP documents, the least secure travel documents I've ever seen, are printed on heavy bond paper and have big watermarks on the originals.

You know mentioning AP is a perfect example I never thought of. No-one here would EVER suggest to take a photocopy of AP when they travel and leave the original at home, so why would it be okay to take a copy of the ROC extension? Same with the actual GC. No-one would take a copy and expect people to accept it as the original. I scan all my documents/cards and save the copies online as well as my computer. I'd be worried about losing it as well but then I worry about using my GC.

OP I really am sorry you're going through this but it's definitely taught all of us a lesson. I hope your have your lovely family back with you soon.

[Angela & Paul 12]

All,

Since I am the one - with Angela and baby - being affected by this whole ordeal, please let me give my two cents on the story.

First, we all share some form of responsibility for what happened.

1 - We do because we should have brought the original letter, not a copy.

Now, in our defense,:

a) - The Immigration office never said we need to travel with the original letter

b) - The letter itself does not mention anything about carrying the original with you at all times

c) - Reports from several VJ travelers show that the officers do not even ask for the letter. No surprise here since they have access to all the information they want in the computer.

d) - Since this is an immigration matter, I never thought that the airline was responsible for allowing - or not - a traveler in a country. I can understand they have responsibilities vis-a-vis the safety and security of the passengers, but this case is purely an immigration issue. It is the responsibility of the Immigration officers at the port-of-entry to decide if a traveler can or cannot enter the country.

That airlines would be substituting and doing the job of the US Immigration Office is something I can't understand. Why did they (the airlines) accept this burden in the first place?

2 - The airline does share responsibility because they should have never let Angela and the baby leave Sao Paulo in the first place.

That the airline is paying for the trip back to Sao Paulo for Lima is the least they can do.

That the airline should pay for the return of my wife and the baby to San Francisco - or part of it - is also their responsibility - and before some of you start arguing - here's why:

a) - Assuming they had told Angela she did not have proper documentation in Sao Paulo, she would have had in her hands an unused ticket that she could have changed for a new date. There is a "change fee" for rescheduling and I totally understand and we are wiling to pay that $150 change fee. The airline can argue that the new fare is higher and she should pay the difference. This is debatable, but probably not something we can negotiate much. At worst, we would be off the hook for about $700 (the original $850 fare minus the $150 change fee).

b) - When she flew to Lima, she did not use the Lima to San Francisco segment of the ticket. My argument here is that as a second option, the airline should only ask us to pay the new Sao Paulo to Lima segment, again with a change fee being OK. That flight segment with the change fee would cost us about $900.

Aside form the option where we'd pay nothing (but a change fee), we'd prefer option b) because right now prices for the whole trip is about $2,050, so we'd still have to pay the difference ($1,200) plus the change fee ($150)

So to all of you saying we should "pay" for our mistake, well we're willing to pay, but not for LAN mistake too.

And no, we won't sue the airline, it's not worth it. I always have had good results by writing a letter explaining the situation to the CEO and the Manager of the Customer Relations Dept. of the airline. They usually send a coupon for future travel, which they should do if they want us to fly LAN in the future

And the morale of the story that I want to convey to everyone for the future is: ALWAYS CARRY THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WITH YOU (and make a copy before leaving home).

Thank you.

[mr and mrs 187]

paul, im glad you are so calm and collected. im sure it helps your wife and the baby so much.

your response is thoughtful and rational.

i do think that because the airline let them board in sao paolo (with the intention of making it all the way to SFO), they essentially failed to inform your wife that she was not carrying sufficient documentation to enter the US on LAN. this caused more stress than was necessary. i agree there is no reason to sue. but if you end up paying nore than the change fee, id write that letter to the CEO.

also, i do think that the original document should have been carried. but im sure angela and paul know that now. hope others read this to avoid a similar situation, but really its hard to know where the process is gonna trip you up. theres a lot of inconsistency.

in any case, i care less about the should-haves and more about angela and the baby getting home!

[mr and mrs 187]

paul, im glad you are so calm and collected. im sure it helps your wife and the baby so much.

your response is thoughtful and rational.

i do think that because the airline let them board in sao paolo (with the intention of making it all the way to SFO), they essentially failed to inform your wife that she was not carrying sufficient documentation to enter the US on LAN. this caused more stress than was necessary. i agree there is no reason to sue. but if you end up paying nore than the change fee, id write that letter to the CEO.

also, i do think that the original document should have been carried. but im sure angela and paul know that now. hope others read this to avoid a similar situation, but really its hard to know where the process is gonna trip you up. theres a lot of inconsistency.

in any case, i care less about the should-haves and more about angela and the baby getting home!

[mr and mrs 187]

oof. sorry.

[Boiler 45,541]

You seem to think the Airlines had a choice in this......

I suppose they did, they could have ceased flying into the US.

[AmberOctober 25]

Paul,

even though I worked as an ATCo at the airport, not in an airline, I still had to deal with almost every service there and, I believe, have a pretty good knowledge of what I'm saying.

An airline has prerogative of letting you on board based on your documents. It's got nothing to do with immigration and boarder control.

However, seems like they did make a mistake letting your wife on the first flight. Based on this, you may try to argue with them, write letters, ect. and get your voucher. Would be a nice new years gift

[Corinthians 7]

You seem to think the Airlines had a choice in this......

I suppose they did, they could have ceased flying into the US.

Like most times when things go wrong, several people share the blame in this situation. No reason to make it worse for someone who is separated from family during the holidays...

[mr and mrs 187]

nothing was done intentionally, or maliciously, of course. just a bit of bad luck and a touch of underpreparedness.

[fairandfoul 7]

All,

Since I am the one - with Angela and baby - being affected by this whole ordeal, please let me give my two cents on the story.

First, we all share some form of responsibility for what happened.

1 - We do because we should have brought the original letter, not a copy.

Now, in our defense,:

a) - The Immigration office never said we need to travel with the original letter

b) - The letter itself does not mention anything about carrying the original with you at all times

c) - Reports from several VJ travelers show that the officers do not even ask for the letter. No surprise here since they have access to all the information they want in the computer.

d) - Since this is an immigration matter, I never thought that the airline was responsible for allowing - or not - a traveler in a country. I can understand they have responsibilities vis-a-vis the safety and security of the passengers, but this case is purely an immigration issue. It is the responsibility of the Immigration officers at the port-of-entry to decide if a traveler can or cannot enter the country.

That airlines would be substituting and doing the job of the US Immigration Office is something I can't understand. Why did they (the airlines) accept this burden in the first place?

2 - The airline does share responsibility because they should have never let Angela and the baby leave Sao Paulo in the first place.

That the airline is paying for the trip back to Sao Paulo for Lima is the least they can do.

That the airline should pay for the return of my wife and the baby to San Francisco - or part of it - is also their responsibility - and before some of you start arguing - here's why:

a) - Assuming they had told Angela she did not have proper documentation in Sao Paulo, she would have had in her hands an unused ticket that she could have changed for a new date. There is a "change fee" for rescheduling and I totally understand and we are wiling to pay that $150 change fee. The airline can argue that the new fare is higher and she should pay the difference. This is debatable, but probably not something we can negotiate much. At worst, we would be off the hook for about $700 (the original $850 fare minus the $150 change fee).

b) - When she flew to Lima, she did not use the Lima to San Francisco segment of the ticket. My argument here is that as a second option, the airline should only ask us to pay the new Sao Paulo to Lima segment, again with a change fee being OK. That flight segment with the change fee would cost us about $900.

Aside form the option where we'd pay nothing (but a change fee), we'd prefer option b) because right now prices for the whole trip is about $2,050, so we'd still have to pay the difference ($1,200) plus the change fee ($150)

So to all of you saying we should "pay" for our mistake, well we're willing to pay, but not for LAN mistake too.

And no, we won't sue the airline, it's not worth it. I always have had good results by writing a letter explaining the situation to the CEO and the Manager of the Customer Relations Dept. of the airline. They usually send a coupon for future travel, which they should do if they want us to fly LAN in the future

And the morale of the story that I want to convey to everyone for the future is: ALWAYS CARRY THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WITH YOU (and make a copy before leaving home).

Thank you.

Awfully sorry for your holiday inconvenience! It's not a pleasant experience to be sure and could happen more frequently than one would think. However, in the interest of providing sensible information:

1

a) No one has to tell you to travel with the original letter. This is common sense. You don't travel with a photocopy of your passport and no one reminds you to take the original for obvious reasons

b) You are right that the letter never mentions carrying it at all times. I certainly don't. But I DO when I travel since it is now a bonafide part of my expired Green Card

c) Reports from several VJ posters are correct. However, just because they are never ASKED for it does not mean they don't HAVE it in their possession. Also, the entry process is a 2-step game. You must satisfy BOTH the port of departure AND the port of entry. Ports of departure are generally not manned by United States immigration and DO NOT have access to extension facilities provided to holders of expired Green Cards

d) You are so wrong about an airline's responsibility in immigration affairs. On all international routes, airlines must ensure that all passengers meet the minimum entry requirements for the destination country. This was not enforced in Sao Paulo, unfortnately (which is the only blame the airline has in your case). Lima was still obliged to enforce this, but sympathised with Sao Paulo's error by providing generous (by airline standards!) concessions.

You should be able to understand this function of the airline as it's really quite simple. They have accepted this "burden," as you describe it, as the cost of doing business on international routes as required by certain international law. Even Greyhound applies the same principles so this honestly cannot be so mysterious

2)

You're well within reason to seek further compensation from the airline; although, I believe it won't be much. While I agree that they could owe for items such as the unused leg of the trip from Lima to San Francisco, I would also point out that this could be neutralized since they have already paid for a return flight to Lima and made other concessions. A diplomatic approach would yield the best, if any, results. Suing them might work, but would be awfully silly. It would show you up as ignorant of basic immigration procedure which you are assumed to know. Also, terms of the ticket might have offered the Sao Paulo - Lima leg as a separate trip with Lima - San Francisco being designated as the actual U.S.-bound trip which would mitigate any liability on Sao Paulo's part.

The airline may not care about your business, and if I know any of the LANs, they probably don't, so don't count on that coupon. It would be quite nice if you did get it though.

Again, I feel dreadful for your inconvenience, but it is not helpful to make indignant claims that are uninformed and could lead others to similar mistakes in the future.

[Angela & Paul 12]

Awfully sorry for your holiday inconvenience! It's not a pleasant experience to be sure and could happen more frequently than one would think. However, in the interest of providing sensible information:

...

I am not arguing that we don't share responsibility, actually that's what my most recent post says.

The issue is that the airline had ample time to tell Angela that her document was not valid for travel, including when she left from San Francisco airport. I could have gone back home, get the letter and brought it back to the airport before she was to leave (we arrived over 2 hours before departure, the airport is 30 mn from home). Incidentally, the agent who helped us was a very new employee and constantly had to ask for help from a more senior employee.

They should definitely have told her in Sao Paulo on the 23rd, at which point her ticket would have been unused and changeable. Again, probably a new employee who did not do the job right.

The aggravating part for us is that this happened on the morning of the 24th when all Consular offices and FedEx offices were closed, until tomorrow the 27th. And then after Jan. 1st, it will be close to impossible for her to come back because all flights will be full for a couple weeks. Her last chance is probably a flight from Dec. 31 arriving Jan 1st.

I will FedEx the letter tomorrow morning as soon as the offices reopen and will use whatever service is best. I now realizes that FedEx advertises" deliveries every day, 365 days a year", but the same is not true for "drop-off". There are several days of the year when you can't drop off packages

Will keep you posted...

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I am not arguing that we don't share responsibility, actually that's what my most recent post says.

The issue is that the airline had ample time to tell Angela that her document was not valid for travel, including when she left from San Francisco airport. I could have gone back home, get the letter and brought it back to the airport before she was to leave (we arrived over 2 hours before departure, the airport is 30 mn from home). Incidentally, the agent who helped us was a very new employee and constantly had to ask for help from a more senior employee.

Are you saying you showed the photocopy of the letter while at the airport in the US prior to her leaving? Why would she show it? Regardless, you have no way (unfortunately) to prove they looked at it. If you did they would most certainly owe you a return flight because they SHOULD have told her at that time a copy wouldn't get her back in the country.

[Boiler 45,541]

I have never been asked for information about coming back on a return ticket, I can not think why they would ask or care.

And how would the US based Airline staff know anything about re entry anyway? There only concern is that you have the correct documents to enter your destination.

[rafka23 0]

I think entire process of roc is a waste of our time and our money in first place... Many of immigation laws are either not understanded or different interpreted even by immigration officers... Before I left for vaccation I scheduled infopass to get my passport stamped. My request was refused I was told that extension letter would be just enough to travel abroad and back. Officer also recommend taking photocopies of the letter in case it was lost during traveling so I would be able to get back to states...

[jhonscotland 2]

Hi Paul

I run a Freight Forwarding company in Tampa, FL and have a highly discounted FedEx account. PM me your telephone number and I might be able to save you $20 or so on the shipping. Not much, but I find every bit helps.