Thanks for the clarification FB

Might not have to, but certainly wouldn't harm when being grilled in secondary.

I will assume possibly to my detriment that you are talking about me. I have not been active in quite some time due to work requirements. However, it would be quite difficult to single out a user on FT to the extent that would be required to intercept them on a trip to the United States unless they are posting their name and DOB. That being said the OP while he does have some issues that may bring an Officer to question his intentions during a secondary interview he also has facts that work in his benefit.

His biggest issue that I see is that the program he is using to enter the United States requires an unrelinquished abode outside of the United States. This may be difficult to prove when he has not returned to his country of citizenship for a significant period of time. This is further complicated by the fact that the countries that he is actually living in, he is doing so on temporary tourist type visa entries. While I indicated earlier that residency in such as landed status in Canada, or permanent residency in Mexico is NOT a program requirement (and it is not), the unrelinquished abode outside of the United States is. That is hard to prove when you are living in a country on what is essentially a tourist visa which you would not be allowed to do in the United States.

The other issue the OP doesn't seem to be aware of based upon his statements in this thread is US Immigration Law is written in such a way that the actual burden of proof lies on him to prove that he is admissible to the United States. He states that the officer assumes guilt and lets the burden of proof fall to the visitor. It is not that the officer is trained that way; it is the way congress wrote and passed the Immigration Laws.

You state that additional details may increase his chance of an unpleasant encounter. This is not really the case. What increases his chance of an unpleasant encounter is many times the responses that he receives from many online forums, not just this one either. This is simply because some of the information he will receive is incorrect. Such as the information in this thread concerning return trip tickers etc is not correct when crossing a land border. This creates a situation that the OP or any person in a similar situation that has come to the internet to get "information" starts thinking about all that "information" both correct and incorrect with no real way to tell the difference while talking to the Officer. This many times will manifest itself in nervous mannerisms and answers that come across as guarded or worst yet deceptive. The truth is really the best way to prove that you are admissible.

I can't remember the number of times that I have had long interviews with a person who would not tell the truth concerning their trip because they thought or a friend told them that they would not be allowed in when in fact what they wanted to do was perfectly ok and had they just told the truth in the first ten minutes they would have been on their way. It also doesn't have to be outright lying either. Many of the things that get suggested on this forum are not outright lies but they also don't come across as the truth either. Couple that with a person who is nervous (as many are because they know they are not really being forthright) you have the recipe for a secondary inspection that many times was not necessary.

FB

Thank you FB for your comprehensive reply.

I take everything I read online with a pinch of salt. I know that the purpose of my visit is innocent and for that reason I see no point in lying to any CBP officer. I just have to convince the officer that I am only on holiday and have no intention of staying.

I think for future visits, the safest thing to do would be to apply for residency in Mexico and then apply for a B visa for the embassy in Mexico City.

Tell the truth to the officers both on primary and if necessary in secondary. He does have issues that could warrant a secondary interview. He is coming to visit his girlfriend’s family for Christmas. This is not an unusual activity. His girlfriend doesn't live in the United States. She is lives and is employed in another country and can prove that. This will work in his favor. He should have evidence that he has an income that comes from someplace other than the United States. I believe that he can do that. His biggest issue is being able to prove where HE is actually living legally.

Things that will complicate the situation should be avoided. By this I mean some of the "advise" that he will receive in this forum such as telling the officer he is visiting friends and leave out the material fact that one of the friends is his girlfriend or girlfriends family. This very often doesn't ring true and the fact comes out later in the interview. Buying tickets that the traveller has no intention of using, these kinds of things will destroy the traveler’s credibility and it will be very difficult if not impossible for the traveller to get it back. It will call into question everything else the traveller has said and many times leaves the officer unable to believe the traveller. This is not a good position for the traveller to be in.

FB

The B Visa is probably overkill. You should still be able to use the VWP. Your biggest problem is proving where you are living. The residency in Mexico will go a long way into solving your issues.

FB

You know what they say about "assume".:)

So it turns out you all DON'T all know each other! No, I mean another poster, who has not been upfront as you have been, and whose identity came to me thru the backdoor after his run in with personnel from my former employer.

I haven't seen you here for months, and even though we sometimes disagree, you appear to be an honorable man (though to my mind, like many law enforcement officers, somewhat deficient in your understanding of Bayes' theorem and the concept of confirmation bias), and we have missed you.

Besides discussing his case with a good lawyer, do you have any additional information our OP can use? Is there any immigration lawyer so infamous from whom you would steer him away?

I see you have already provided some additional info.