Quick question on the VWP and warnings

[Michael2017 368]

50 minutes ago, Boiler said:

90 days or nothing, look it up.

 

May have been paroled.

Well there are may many people reporting this, CBP just adds the date at the admission stamp which is less than 90 days. Common practice.

If this means paroled and not admitted, I dont know, but it has the same effect, people must leave before the time on the stamp of the VW which often is only 30 days.

 

 

[JFH 12,190]

2 hours ago, Michael2017 said:

Well there are may many people reporting this, CBP just adds the date at the admission stamp which is less than 90 days. Common practice.

If this means paroled and not admitted, I dont know, but it has the same effect, people must leave before the time on the stamp of the VW which often is only 30 days.

 

 

The only time I have had this happen to me was when I spent a week here arriving by air, went back to the U.K., returned 6 weeks later by land from Canada (I had been in Vancouver for work and then took the bus to Seattle for the weekend). When the bus arrived at the border in Blaine, CBP officer only allowed me up to the date on the original stamp from 7 weeks earlier, not a new 90 days. Going to Canada does not re-set the clock and despite the fact I had proof by way of my London to Vancouver boarding pass that I had been back to the U.K. in between, he treated my case as if I had been in Canada all along. I was only coming for the weekend so I didn't need a whole 90 days but still... it was weird. 

[Boiler 45,575]

12 hours ago, Michael2017 said:

Well there are may many people reporting this, CBP just adds the date at the admission stamp which is less than 90 days. Common practice.

If this means paroled and not admitted, I dont know, but it has the same effect, people must leave before the time on the stamp of the VW which often is only 30 days.

 

 

Parole is not a VWP entry.

[grumpybrit 22]

On 8/18/2017 at 9:52 PM, JFH said:

The typing may have been done after they left the desk and before the next person was called forward. CBP have every right to "warn" people about various things (although why your in-laws were so focused on other people's discussions with the desk agents is another matter) relating to immigration. Only USCs have the right to enter the country. Everyone else, your in-laws included,  must request permission and understand that the permission can be denied at any time. Are they retired? A B-2 for longer stays might be more appropriate. Many retirees from VWP countries have had success with B-2 applications. 

Best advice in the thread. B-2 should be your next move.

[Michael2017 368]

4 hours ago, grumpybrit said:

Best advice in the thread. B-2 should be your next move.

Well I would disagree. If the B visa is not approved they also lose their ESTA rights. So this is highly risky and I would never advice this to a ESTA national as they could lose their visa waiver VERY EASILY.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Michael2017

[Boiler 45,575]

Being refused VWP does not automatically result in lost VWP option, you do need to update ESTA.

[Michael2017 368]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Being refused VWP does not automatically result in lost VWP option, you do need to update ESTA.

Look, we all know this being from a visa waiver country, still updating ESTA with a visa refusal will in 99% cases lead to a refusal of the new Visa Waiver,

so it is the same thing. Telling people to go to apply for B2 visas while being from a VW country is just suicide and can be a very harmful advice. We have to help people here not sending them into a trap.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Michael2017

[Boiler 45,575]

Just correcting your misinformation.

[geowrian 22,337]

A tourist visa is a valid option, but I concur that it's quite risky since a denial would very likely result in losing VWP privileges.

Edit: But if somebody needed 91+ days of stay (not the case here), obviously it's the way to go.

Edited August 20, 2017 by geowrian

[f f 725]

as long as you can justify why you need to come to the us for more than 90 days you have a valid reason to apply for a b1 visa. just bring proof as to why you need to remain in the us longer and that you have the funds to do so.

[Boiler 45,575]

For the sake of clarity assuming they are OAP's then a B may be a good choice if they are looking for single long visits, an exception to the rule.

 

B1 is for Business, I assume a B2.

 

The issue seems to be over visiting and a B will not help that.

[8bit_Theatre 64]

They own their company, so they can take time off here and there. They could never stay longer than 40 days or so though because they have to get back to work, so B-2 isn't really an option. I also don't think they will be visiting as much next year. Probably 60 - 90 days for the year. Thanks for all the advice in this thread.

 

They are going to see how the Global Entry goes and then base their decision about Christmas off of that it sounds like.