British citizen denied entry into the USA

[bcking 3,157]

27 minutes ago, Boiler said:

ROFL

 

All US government web sites are .com.

Good point. See I need other people to point things out . I was highly skeptical, it seemed a little too convenient. 

 

Wonder who runs that thing and how it has ended up as the number one item on google.

 

I still think it is reasonable to presume that when you electronically apply for an ESTA your name is compared to the no-fly list and you wouldn't be granted an ESTA if it matched. Of course whoever matched the guy who was on the no-fly list could have been added after his ESTA was approved, but even then I feel like it shouldn't be difficult to scan the list of people with ESTA's when you add someone to the no-fly list and then revoke the ESTA. If that had happened again I don't see how he could have gotten all the way to boarding the plane before being flagged. 

 

Even he was a terrorist, you'd like to think that they don't end up sitting on the plane before they are identified. Seems like a little bit of a close call to me.

Edited February 24, 2017 by bcking

[CaliCat 3,957]

37 minutes ago, bcking said:

Well no he didn't have a visa. He had an ESTA. Yes some people refer to it as a visa, but it isn't even though it works like one.

 

He was travelling like any other British citizen. He went online, applied for the ESTA, got approved and then showed up at the airport. Like my wife travels.

 

When you apply for the ESTA I guess we really don't know what they check or what they do. Presumably it would be reasonable to assume that if your name matched someone on a "No Fly List" at the time of electronically applying for the ESTA, it would automatically flag? BUt maybe that is too complicated for US Immigration.

 

EDIT:
 

http://www.no-fly-list.com/ - Anyone know if this is actually a real thing/official list? Did a search for his last name and nothing comes up, but I'm not sure if this list is legit.

 

It's a matter of semantics. He did what he was supposed to do, and his ESTA was approved, so in his mind, his "visa" was OK. I think we can all agree that he did what everyone coming under the VWP does. It seems very strange that they decided to deny him boarding, but the CBP are given the power to do so, summarily and with no need for an explanation. It sucks 

 

The checks done for ESTA applicants are a subset of the checks done for the regular visas. The steps ESTA applications go through are similar to the initial checks any other visa application would. If his name was on the no-fly list, his ESTA would have been denied and he would have been instructed to apply for a b1/b2 non-immigrant visa.

 

The list in the link you posted is not official. The actual no-fly-list is not in the public domain. 

 

[Teddy B 17,252]

17 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

It's a matter of semantics. He did what he was supposed to do, and his ESTA was approved, so in his mind, his "visa" was OK. I think we can all agree that he did what everyone coming under the VWP does. It seems very strange that they decided to deny him boarding, but the CBP are given the power to do so, summarily and with no need for an explanation. It sucks 

 

The checks done for ESTA applicants are a subset of the checks done for the regular visas. The steps ESTA applications go through are similar to the initial checks any other visa application would. If his name was on the no-fly list, his ESTA would have been denied and he would have been instructed to apply for a b1/b2 non-immigrant visa.

 

The list in the link you posted is not official. The actual no-fly-list is not in the public domain. 

 

The reasoning behind his denial aside. I'd say he was rather fortunate to have been pulled off the plane before take off rather than him arriving in the US, being detained and then sent home.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The reasoning behind his denial aside. I'd say he was rather fortunate to have been pulled off the plane before take off rather than him arriving in the US, being detained and then sent home.

Yes I guess if the "outcome" (Being detained and sent home) was always going to happen, it is nice that he didn't have to fly all the way here. That is the major reason my wife doesn't visit me because she can't stomach the idea of having to get right back on a plane.

 

I still think that while no one is under any obligation to provide more details about why he was removed, with the information we have available it unfortunately doesn't paint our immigration services in a very positive light. Unless they provided clarification (which I realize they don't have to), as it stands now it seems like discrimination is a reasonable assumption. I would hope the British government would push for more information to help one of their citizens, but I doubt they will. They seem a little "whipped" right now.

[Boiler 45,525]

Just now, bcking said:

Yes I guess if the "outcome" (Being detained and sent home) was always going to happen, it is nice that he didn't have to fly all the way here. That is the major reason my wife doesn't visit me because she can't stomach the idea of having to get right back on a plane.

 

I still think that while no one is under any obligation to provide more details about why he was removed, with the information we have available it unfortunately doesn't paint our immigration services in a very positive light. Unless they provided clarification (which I realize they don't have to), as it stands now it seems like discrimination is a reasonable assumption. I would hope the British government would push for more information to help one of their citizens, but I doubt they will. They seem a little "whipped" right now.

It would just prolong the issue whatever was said, more clarification would be demanded,

 

Not sure what it has to do with the UK Gov, they may well know.

[CaliCat 3,957]

12 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The reasoning behind his denial aside. I'd say he was rather fortunate to have been pulled off the plane before take off rather than him arriving in the US, being detained and then sent home.

 

 

It saved him a lot of additional aggravation, that's for sure. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes I guess if the "outcome" (Being detained and sent home) was always going to happen, it is nice that he didn't have to fly all the way here. That is the major reason my wife doesn't visit me because she can't stomach the idea of having to get right back on a plane.

 

I still think that while no one is under any obligation to provide more details about why he was removed, with the information we have available it unfortunately doesn't paint our immigration services in a very positive light. Unless they provided clarification (which I realize they don't have to), as it stands now it seems like discrimination is a reasonable assumption. I would hope the British government would push for more information to help one of their citizens, but I doubt they will. They seem a little "whipped" right now.

My wife and I had the displeasure of being separated at the US/Canadian border at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel crossing, about 7 years ago when we were first dating. She was denied entry to the US because I had only purchased her a one way ticket. She was to come and stay with me for at least a month, probably longer so long as things were going okay between us. I was completely unaware of how CBP operated back then and that without a return flight she was not getting in the US. I simply though she would be allowed the 6 months as a Canadian with no questions asked, completely naive on my part. I offered to purchase one on my laptop right there but they said it was too late. So I flew home next to an empty seat and out the $500 for the ticket. We eventually arranged her entry to the US two weeks later and another $500 plane ticket.

 

As for immigration giving the details behind the denial, you know as well as I do that more than likely will not happen. CBP/USCIS are probably the only branch of US law enforcement that is allowed to operate unfettered.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Teddy B said:

My wife and I had the displeasure of being separated at the US/Canadian border at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel crossing, about 7 years ago when we were first dating. She was denied entry to the US because I had only purchased her a one way ticket. She was to come and stay with me for at least a month, probably longer so long as things were going okay between us. I was completely unaware of how CBP operated back then and that without a return flight she was not getting in the US. I simply though she would be allowed the 6 months as a Canadian with no questions asked, completely naive on my part. I offered to purchase one on my laptop right there but they said it was too late. So I flew home next to an empty seat and out the $500 for the ticket. We eventually arranged her entry to the US two weeks later and another $500 plane ticket.

 

As for immigration giving the details behind the denial, you know as well as I do that more than likely will not happen. CBP/USCIS are probably the only branch of US law enforcement that is allowed to operate unfettered.

Last time my wife tried to join me on a plane to the US we were questioned for 2-3 hours DESPITE having a return ticket. She was eventually allowed to go through, but in the immigration officer's own words (paraphrasing slightly) "How does having a return ticket even prove that you are going to take that flight back? It doesn't prove anything. You need to prove to me that you aren't going to overstay". I was dumbfounded and really struggled to not talk back to the man for fear of "offending" him and then having her denied entry just because I made the man feel inferior. I knew he could pick any reason he wanted to not let her in and wouldn't need to explain himself. He kept calling us both "stupid" and I was practically pinching myself thinking "Don't say anything". 

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Last time my wife tried to join me on a plane to the US we were questioned for 2-3 hours DESPITE having a return ticket. She was eventually allowed to go through, but in the immigration officer's own words (paraphrasing slightly) "How does having a return ticket even prove that you are going to take that flight back? It doesn't prove anything. You need to prove to me that you aren't going to overstay". I was dumbfounded and really struggled to not talk back to the man for fear of "offending" him and then having her denied entry just because I made the man feel inferior. I knew he could pick any reason he wanted to not let her in and wouldn't need to explain himself. He kept calling us both "stupid" and I was practically pinching myself thinking "Don't say anything". 

You're right that having a return ticket does not prove anything, but it is an essential piece of the puzzle, without it you're not getting very far. Funny thing is that once my wife was allowed entry two weeks later, we never used the return ticket. We decided after a few months that we were in the relationship for the long haul and we did not want to be apart any longer. She stayed for 6 months, we got married and then filed for her AOS. She was able to make the necessary arrangements from the US regarding her job and living situation. The separation that we experienced at the border was the last one either of us ever wanted to experience.

 

I don't think I would have been able to handle being called stupid by the officer without saying something, that's just not right. As it was when my wife was denied entry I was very close to having the cuffs put on me because of the hard time I gave the officers and they weren't insulting me in any way.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Teddy B said:

You're right that having a return ticket does not prove anything, but it is an essential piece of the puzzle, without it you're not getting very far. Funny thing is that once my wife was allowed entry two weeks later, we never used the return ticket. We decided after a few months that we were in the relationship for the long haul and we did not want to be apart any longer. She stayed for 6 months, we got married and then filed for her AOS. She was able to make the necessary arrangements from the US regarding her job and living situation. The separation that we experienced at the border was the last one either of us ever wanted to experience.

 

I don't think I would have been able to handle being called stupid by the officer without saying something, that's just not right. As it was when my wife was denied entry I was very close to having the cuffs put on me because of the hard time I gave the officers and they weren't insulting me in any way.

I was too upset at the time, but I should have gotten his name and badge number/ID/whatever they use. However even asking for that I would worry he would then ask "Why do you want to know?" get angry and then deny her. 

 

We still don't really understand why they let her in after the whole ordeal. The way he was talking it seemed like it was a no brainer she was back on a plane to England. Then suddenly he stepped away for 10-15 minutes and came back and said "You are so lucky right now" or something. I think a supervisor overruled him. This was AFTER the USCIS approved her CR-1 (during the period between USCIS and NVC). It was a strange experience. We'll never fly through Dublin again.

[Teddy B 17,252]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

I was too upset at the time, but I should have gotten his name and badge number/ID/whatever they use. However even asking for that I would worry he would then ask "Why do you want to know?" get angry and then deny her. 

 

We still don't really understand why they let her in after the whole ordeal. The way he was talking it seemed like it was a no brainer she was back on a plane to England. Then suddenly he stepped away for 10-15 minutes and came back and said "You are so lucky right now" or something. I think a supervisor overruled him. This was AFTER the USCIS approved her CR-1 (during the period between USCIS and NVC). It was a strange experience. We'll never fly through Dublin again.

Even though your wife was eventually allowed entry, it's a terrible ordeal for anyone to go through. There is absolutely nothing nice about it.

 

When my wife was denied entry, they didn't just deny her and send her back, they actually detained her for about an hour. They took her downstairs, had a female officer search her thoroughly and questioned her before letting her go. The whole time I was waiting upstairs not knowing what was going on. I really laid into one of the supervisors once I knew she was okay. He gave me two warnings to knock it off, then one of the other officers stepped between us and ushered me away. But the damage was done, my wife was pretty traumatized by it all and wasn't sure she wanted to attempt another try two weeks later. without a lot of coaxing by me, she may not have tried.

[Dashinka 24,512]

5 hours ago, Teddy B said:

My wife and I had the displeasure of being separated at the US/Canadian border at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel crossing, about 7 years ago when we were first dating. She was denied entry to the US because I had only purchased her a one way ticket. She was to come and stay with me for at least a month, probably longer so long as things were going okay between us. I was completely unaware of how CBP operated back then and that without a return flight she was not getting in the US. I simply though she would be allowed the 6 months as a Canadian with no questions asked, completely naive on my part. I offered to purchase one on my laptop right there but they said it was too late. So I flew home next to an empty seat and out the $500 for the ticket. We eventually arranged her entry to the US two weeks later and another $500 plane ticket.

 

As for immigration giving the details behind the denial, you know as well as I do that more than likely will not happen. CBP/USCIS are probably the only branch of US law enforcement that is allowed to operate unfettered.

Not disparaging your story, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.  You were crossing overland at the Detroit/Windsor tunnel?  Why did entry denial have anything to do with airline tickets?  Maybe there is some additional context.

 

As to the discussion, I agree that when entering at any port of entry, the person is at the mercy of the CBP officers.  There are several stories all throughout VJ and other immigration sites telling pretty much the same story.  Person attempting to enter the US on a temporary visa (B1, VWP, etc.) CBP officer not believing they have enough proof of strong ties that would ensure their lawful return, and being denied entry.  My now wife was denied a B1 twice because single Russian women are/were not considered truthful with their proof of strong ties, and they only have one thing in mind, coming to the US, getting married, and staying.  At the time she had a strong job, much family, and a home she owned.  We did not have airline tickets yet, but she was denied at the consulate both times.  A little better than getting a visa and being denied entry at a POE, but still left her frustrated and depressed as to what she could have added to get a visa.

[eieio 1,594]

10 hours ago, bcking said:

Last time my wife tried to join me on a plane to the US we were questioned for 2-3 hours DESPITE having a return ticket. She was eventually allowed to go through, but in the immigration officer's own words (paraphrasing slightly) "How does having a return ticket even prove that you are going to take that flight back? It doesn't prove anything. You need to prove to me that you aren't going to overstay". I was dumbfounded and really struggled to not talk back to the man for fear of "offending" him and then having her denied entry just because I made the man feel inferior. I knew he could pick any reason he wanted to not let her in and wouldn't need to explain himself. He kept calling us both "stupid" and I was practically pinching myself thinking "Don't say anything". 

In many cases it is cheaper to buy a round trip airfare than a one way ticket.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

In many cases it is cheaper to buy a round trip airfare than a one way ticket.

Well aware. I travel quite a lot so I know most of the tricks.

 

My point was more that he was asking for "proof" that she wouldn't stay in the USA, but given the burden of proof he wanted it would have been impossible to provide evidence. There is nothing that would provide the proof he wanted. A job, a house, a family can all be left and dealt with while in the US.  No one can provide proof. What you provide is evidence that you will return, but it will never be proof. He asked for proof, and if he really required proof he would be refusing every single visitor regardless of circumstance.

 

As I said though at the time I stayed quiet. Didn't want to confuse the poor guy and make him feel immasculinated.

[Dashinka 24,512]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

Well aware. I travel quite a lot so I know most of the tricks.

 

My point was more that he was asking for "proof" that she wouldn't stay in the USA, but given the burden of proof he wanted it would have been impossible to provide evidence. There is nothing that would provide the proof he wanted. A job, a house, a family can all be left and dealt with while in the US.  No one can provide proof. What you provide is evidence that you will return, but it will never be proof. He asked for proof, and if he really required proof he would be refusing every single visitor regardless of circumstance.

 

As I said though at the time I stayed quiet. Didn't want to confuse the poor guy and make him feel immasculinated.

Absolutely, depending on the officer, it may be impossible for anyone to provide enough proof.