Canadian Citizen removed with 5 year ban - unique situation

[Lights 56]

Not necessarily. If the business owner doesn't have the money, then he can't pay anybody to do it. Money doesn't just spit out from heaven because you're starting a business! Sometimes owners of startups simply don't have the money to pay people to help them in the beginning. If they can get a little free help from a friend, then that can be the difference between the business succeeding or never getting off the ground. If it never gets off the ground then no USC will ever be paid by it. If it does get off the ground however, then probably many USCs will earn a wage from it.

I know that's not what the CBP looks at or is even capable of determining. But I'm just commenting on the realities of starting a business. You say it's a job that would have "normally" been paid. Well normally maybe if it was an already-existing business. But in a startup, a lot of things go normally unpaid.

I know that money just doesn't spit out from heaven. Just like how it doesn't get delivered by the fedex bird...

However, CBP agents don't care if it's a start-up or not. At the end of the day, OP was working. Whether it was paid or not, he was working. Whether it was a start-up or not, there are people getting paid to do this work. Maybe not by OP's friend, but other businesses would pay someone to do that job. By him bringing his credentials, only made it seem as though he was more involved then he was.

The law isn't only for one company or one start-up or one person who has the means or doesn't have the means to start a business. If you enter the US to work without proper documentation, you're subjecting yourself to being banned whether you're doing it on a large scale or for a start-up. The struggles of opening a business is irrelevant.

I've worked in start-up environments a lot. I've consulted for start-ups many times. I completely understand what it means to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try and get things done. However, that's not the issue. Being a start-up and not being able to afford to pay someone isn't the issue. The issue is that the volunteer work or the work that was done was by a non-USC, COULD HAVE gone to a paid worker who is a USC. The CBP agent doesn't care if you're a trust-fund baby and have all the money in the world to open the cute cookie shop you've always wanted or if you're grinding it out 20 hours a day to get a start-up up and running. The reality is, CBP agents don't know whether or not he could've afford to pay someone or not and whether he could or couldn't, isn't relevant to them. Just because a start-up is struggling and can't pay someone to do the work, doesn't mean that the laws don't apply to them.

The CBP agent see's a Canadian entering the US multiple times with their credentials to help a friend. He was compensated with beer and pizza. He was working. The CBP agent determined that the business owner couldn't do this job himself and unless he knows someone else who can do it (another USC) he would have to pay someone to do it. And if he didn't pay someone to do it, then he couldn't open his business. Thus the fact that even though this new business owner struggled financially to get his business off the ground that the OP still unfortunately worked.

There are many things I've learned through my personal immigration process and talking with others who are going through theirs. Some I agree with and others I don't. However, what my opinion is doesn't really matter because the law is the law. Justification doesn't mean they won't hold you to what's written in the law. It's like how someone can be denied a visa and banned for a year by admitting to smoking pot ONE time as a teenager during their medical. You see these threads come up here when people are doing their K1 or whatnot. Do I agree that they should be punished for something they did was a young teen and that they could never change? No. But unfortunately, you're entering the US and they set the rules.

[Jon York 156]

So can anyone post a link to some official government web page that says your mother in law will be in trouble for working if she helps you clean the dishes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And so ridiculous in fact, I'm having a hard time believing it. Links would be appreciated!

[loladolly 51]

All I've got to say to that is I truly hope you never have to deal with law enforcement with an issue where your idea of what the law is conflicts with what they've been trained to know as the law. It will get ugly. There's nothing inherently right or wrong in any law, laws are what they are, words on paper. Law Enforcement enforces the law to the word, Judges decide if the law is being applied per its intended purpose. If you want to see enforcement, flaunt something that law enforcement views as illegal. If you want fairness, go on to the courts and plead your case with the judge. You might be advised to double check if it has not ever been tried before, as that case law will play a major part of any attempt the prove the law was applied incorrectly. BTW I'm in total agreement we should not need to worry about family breaking the law if they come to the country to help out after a birth. I just know its been interpreted and enforced that way, and nothing I'm going to do will change that.

Well i would fight it because i am feeling so strongly about my convictions... however it would require a lawyer, court costs etc... You know all these expensive things that screw up the middle class just like the regular john doe who prefers pleading guilty to a speeding ticket in court or negotiate a plea rather than pleading not guilty because the system is made so it is very inconvenient and costly and time consuming to plead not guilty... sad truth about this country.

[loladolly 51]

So can anyone post a link to some official government web page that says your mother in law will be in trouble for working if she helps you clean the dishes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And so ridiculous in fact, I'm having a hard time believing it. Links would be appreciated!

there is no link... this is just CBP's extreme interpretation of the law which is completely absurd. Just an excuse to deny entry to some people.

I am also having a very hard time believing it's true... I may be able to understand how in the OP's case it makes a lot more sense even though i find it exaggerated but the babysitting/helping on simple everyday task thing makes me "lmao"

[loladolly 51]

That's not true. It appears that being a new business his friend couldn't afford to pay anybody. Webman said he had two other people, US Citizens, doing the work for free too. So apparently Webman's doing this free work would have only taken work away from people who were willing to work for free. And that's not taking work away from people.

That was my point all day and I couldn't agree more. This extreme interpretation of the law is doing nothing good since at the end of the day it won't take anyone out of unemployment... Anyway...

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Under this http://moldova.usemb...sitor-visa.html website:

"In the United States Foreign nationals in the United States on B-2 status are allowed to visit family and friends and travel throughout the United States. However, as tourists, they are not allowed to engage in any skilled or unskilled labor. This means that they may not perform any sort of activity for which an American resident would be paid. This could include working at a construction site, helping out at a friend or relative's place of business, or even babysitting a relative's children. A foreign national on B-2 classification who engages in any of these activities may have a difficult time qualifying for a tourist (or any other type of visa) in the future."

[webman 5]

Here's what I've learned after doing some research. CBP officers are prosecutors, judge, jury and executioner. They have the final say on what they will do with you. They don't answer to anyone else and there's no process. If they decide that you aren't getting into the country then that's it for you. If they had a bad day or the previous person they dealt with was uncooperative there's a good chance that you are going to take the heat.

New or rookie officers have something to prove and will do anything to try and find something out of place. After all, by catching and convicting people is how they get promoted and rewarded.

That's a lot of power for 1 person to have. Knowing they have that power you better cross your T's and dot your I's before going to the border or customs. I also learned that the nicer you are to them, the more suspicious they become of you.

The laws are all hypothetical. I "could" of taken away a job from a USC by helping my friend for free. That's BS. I was helping him because he didn't have the money to hire someone. Heck I bought $2000.00 of materials at Lowes last time I was down a few months ago for him to help out (I bet I broke some other law by doing that too). Once the doors of the business open there will be potential to hire employees. Until then, there isn't.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Here's what I've learned after doing some research. CBP officers are prosecutors, judge, jury and executioner. They have the final say on what they will do with you. They don't answer to anyone else and there's no process. If they decide that you aren't getting into the country then that's it for you. If they had a bad day or the previous person they dealt with was uncooperative there's a good chance that you are going to take the heat.

New or rookie officers have something to prove and will do anything to try and find something out of place. After all, by catching and convicting people is how they get promoted and rewarded.

That's a lot of power for 1 person to have. Knowing they have that power you better cross your T's and dot your I's before going to the border or customs. I also learned that the nicer you are to them, the more suspicious they become of you.

The laws are all hypothetical. I "could" of taken away a job from a USC by helping my friend for free. That's BS. I was helping him because he didn't have the money to hire someone. Heck I bought $2000.00 of materials at Lowes last time I was down a few months ago for him to help out (I bet I broke some other law by doing that too). Once the doors of the business open there will be potential to hire employees. Until then, there isn't.

The part in bold is not true. It is in a persons best interest to be cordial to border patrol officers. Being nice does not raise suspicion, lying to them and acting suspiciously is what raises suspicion. They are trained to read body language and spot liars. I have had a few good conversations with border patrol officers on both sides. I had a conversation about American football with a Canadian Border Patrol officer just last year on American Thanksgiving and when he found out I had a bottle of Crown Royal in the car, he jokingly said he wanted to meet up for a drink later. Another time a Canadian officer started joking with my wife about marrying an American, it was all good fun. One other time a US officer made a joke about us living in Mass because he had spent some time there.

Border Patrol Officers are people too, just like you and me.

[Caryh 5,206]

So can anyone post a link to some official government web page that says your mother in law will be in trouble for working if she helps you clean the dishes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And so ridiculous in fact, I'm having a hard time believing it. Links would be appreciated!

People are getting carried away when they say helping to do the dishes or clearing the table will get them in trouble. Domestic work on a casual irregular basis is not cause to be deemed employment. But if a person was cooking and cleaning, or taking care of a child daily, such as a maid or nanny might do, then it is going to meet the standard of employment.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-28757.html

(h) The term employment means any service or labor performed by an employee for an employer within the United States, including service or labor performed on a vessel or aircraft that has arrived in the United States and has been inspected, or otherwise included within the provisions of the Anti-Reflagging Act codified at 46 U.S.C. 8704, but not including duties performed by nonimmigrant crewmen defined in sections 101(a)(10) and (a)(15)(D) of the Act. However, employment does not include casual employment by individuals who provide domestic service in a private home that is sporadic, irregular or intermittent;

[Caryh 5,206]

Here's what I've learned after doing some research. CBP officers are prosecutors, judge, jury and executioner. They have the final say on what they will do with you. They don't answer to anyone else and there's no process. If they decide that you aren't getting into the country then that's it for you. If they had a bad day or the previous person they dealt with was uncooperative there's a good chance that you are going to take the heat.

New or rookie officers have something to prove and will do anything to try and find something out of place. After all, by catching and convicting people is how they get promoted and rewarded.

That's a lot of power for 1 person to have. Knowing they have that power you better cross your T's and dot your I's before going to the border or customs. I also learned that the nicer you are to them, the more suspicious they become of you.

The laws are all hypothetical. I "could" of taken away a job from a USC by helping my friend for free. That's BS. I was helping him because he didn't have the money to hire someone. Heck I bought $2000.00 of materials at Lowes last time I was down a few months ago for him to help out (I bet I broke some other law by doing that too). Once the doors of the business open there will be potential to hire employees. Until then, there isn't.

They are not judge and jury, they are enforcement. You gave up your right to a judge when you accepted and signed the confession and agreement of penalty in order not to be further inconvenience by what is considered an illegal act, an attempt to enter the USA and do work without authorization. Had you gone before the judge and plead your case, you may have gotten off with a warning. Bans for working without authorization are normally 3 or 10 years, it appears they split the difference with what they offered you. You made the choice not to go before a judge, now you're regretting that choice and claiming you had none, when your own words told us you did. Just because it was not convenient, does not mean you did not have the opportunity. Instead you come here and blame a system, which granted is certainly not perfect, but is basically the exact same system your country uses, enforcing the exact same laws your country has. You basic complaint is you repeatedly broke the law, got caught, were carrying evidence of breaking the law, admitted breaking the law, and now want to renege on the plea agreement you accepted so you could go on your merry way.

[*Snowdrop* 604]

People are getting carried away when they say helping to do the dishes or clearing the table will get them in trouble. Domestic work on a casual irregular basis is not cause to be deemed employment. But if a person was cooking and cleaning, or taking care of a child daily, such as a maid or nanny might do, then it is going to meet the standard of employment.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-28757.html

(h) The term employment means any service or labor performed by an employee for an employer within the United States, including service or labor performed on a vessel or aircraft that has arrived in the United States and has been inspected, or otherwise included within the provisions of the Anti-Reflagging Act codified at 46 U.S.C. 8704, but not including duties performed by nonimmigrant crewmen defined in sections 101(a)(10) and (a)(15)(D) of the Act. However, employment does not include casual employment by individuals who provide domestic service in a private home that is sporadic, irregular or intermittent;

Exactly. - the border officials are allowed to use their common sense. Even if it feels as though sometimes they are not.

Why this has come up on VJ is when there have been some couples who have wanted a visitor visa for the mother-in-law to come for at least six months to look after the new baby for eight hours a day while the wife goes back to work. Or a sister to come and act as an au pair or nanny. In these cases the relative is going to be doing a job which would otherwise have to go to a US resident. Full-time child care.

The people who suffer unfairly are those from cultures where it's common for the wife's mother to move in for many months and 'look after' both new Mum and baby. This isn't taking job because it's just about having your Mum there taking care of you in a vulnerable time, you're not going to get anyone else to be your Mum, but when applying for the visitor visa this scenario looks an awful lot like the one above and people get denied.

For people who have family coming to visit them for a regular vacation period, and their family as all polite visitors should do offer to help occasionally, do the dishes, take your grandchild out for the day - that's not going to be a problem. And why would that even come up in conversation with the border guard?

When my parents came to visit me as I was about to give birth they had one of the nicest conversations with the CBP they'd ever had about how excited they were to see their first grandchild and how much fun it was going to be changing diapers again. No warnings about how changing those diapers could be working illegally in the US.

[aaron2020 11,651]

People are getting carried away when they say helping to do the dishes or clearing the table will get them in trouble. Domestic work on a casual irregular basis is not cause to be deemed employment. But if a person was cooking and cleaning, or taking care of a child daily, such as a maid or nanny might do, then it is going to meet the standard of employment.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-28757.html

(h) The term employment means any service or labor performed by an employee for an employer within the United States, including service or labor performed on a vessel or aircraft that has arrived in the United States and has been inspected, or otherwise included within the provisions of the Anti-Reflagging Act codified at 46 U.S.C. 8704, but not including duties performed by nonimmigrant crewmen defined in sections 101(a)(10) and (a)(15)(D) of the Act. However, employment does not include casual employment by individuals who provide domestic service in a private home that is sporadic, irregular or intermittent;

They are not judge and jury, they are enforcement. You gave up your right to a judge when you accepted and signed the confession and agreement of penalty in order not to be further inconvenience by what is considered an illegal act, an attempt to enter the USA and do work without authorization. Had you gone before the judge and plead your case, you may have gotten off with a warning. Bans for working without authorization are normally 3 or 10 years, it appears they split the difference with what they offered you. You made the choice not to go before a judge, now you're regretting that choice and claiming you had none, when your own words told us you did. Just because it was not convenient, does not mean you did not have the opportunity. Instead you come here and blame a system, which granted is certainly not perfect, but is basically the exact same system your country uses, enforcing the exact same laws your country has. You basic complaint is you repeatedly broke the law, got caught, were carrying evidence of breaking the law, admitted breaking the law, and now want to renege on the plea agreement you accepted so you could go on your merry way.

Excellent posts.

[SBB 74]

Webman said he had two other people, US Citizens, doing the work for free too.

Wait, so Webman's friend is also violating US minimum wage laws? (Hint: The government tends to look unkindly at people "volunteering" at for-profit enterprises.)

[Jon York 156]

I don't care what the government says. That's why we're so screwed up in this country now economically. If people want to help somebody out and don't want to charge for it, who is the government to tell them they can't? Whatever happened to FREEDOM and allowing people to make their own choices in life?

[Boiler 45,908]

Disappeared decades ago?