greenery-travel

Thank you for all of the replies! It sounds like we will not be able to do a simple land crossing to reset the visa.

By the way, the person in question is my mother, not my grandmother (and the two are not the same person - we are not from West Virginia).

hfly

Savage, maybe I didn't understand because you obviously added/edited between when I opened the thread and responded to it. Also from MY PERSONAL experience, with a former girlfriend she IN FACT WAS able to "reset" her trip after a one week trip to the "islands".

alanh

There is, unfortunately, effectively no "transit" in the United States any more. If you land in the US, you're admitted to the US (or sent home), even if it's just an hour or two.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the exclusion of adjoining countries from resetting the clock is exactly intended to prevent the "day trip to Tijuana" method of getting around the six month limit.

hfly

Alanh, you are quite correct.

YVR Cockroach

Exactly. The OP's mother may find herself in the same situation if she tried a border jaunt to reset the visa clock. FWIW, this is what the U.S. embassy in Australia has to say (at least with regard to VWP):

I imagine the same would apply to visa holders.

OP should really have his mother apply to extend her stay as outlined here:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0045f3d6a1RCRD

Bob'sYourUncle

That's not right. Mexico has its own immigration laws, and any US regulations have absolutely no validity there. If you travel to Mexico on day 89 of your US trip, you can stay in Mexico for up to 90 days (and longer if needed).

lin821

??

How does staying in Mexico (for however long) have anything to do with OP's question? It's about how to extend the stay in the States beyond 6 months. The mother doesn't plan to stay in Mexico. The inquiry is on US Visa.

As for the post that you had quoted, it's about 90-day VWP. The inquiry is about the possibility of overstay. If visiting Mexico won't reset the US Visa (or VWP) time clock, what's the point for them to even go to Mexico?

You do have a point. Mexico has it's own immigration laws. If one (non-US citizen) so chooses to visit Mexico, one will have to go by the agreement/regulations/laws between the country and Mexico. However, this thread is about US Visa, not Mexico.

Bob'sYourUncle

Nothing. I wasn't answering the OP's question.
No kidding. What I'm saying is that the language is misleading. You must NOT leave Mexico within any US established time frame. Again, if you go to Mexico on day 89, and stay there for however long Mexican authorities let you, you HAVE complied with US regs. You don't HAVE to leave Mexico, as is suggested. What you probably can't do is go back to the US, you'd have to leave Mexico directly.

alex0683de

The only surefire way to reset the clock on a VWP stay is to leave the US and travel to a country outside North America and the Caribbean. The only way to do this without crossing any oceans is to go south of Mexico - all countries in Central and South America, from Guatemala on down, are not listed on the CBP website as countries which do not reset the clock on a VWP entry.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id...re/vwp/vwp.xml

I would suggest a long weekend in Costa Rica or something along those lines.

lin821

Well, the language is not as misleading as you had implied, if you would re-read the questions in the quoted Q&A.

First of all, the whole section YVR Cockroach quoted in his post is meant for those international visitors to the States, who also want to extend their stay in the U.S. under VWP.

Secondly, even when, like you say, Mexico allows them to be in Mexico beyond the original 90 days, their very intention is to re-enter the States with a new 90-day admission. Not only this hypothetical Mexico stay won't help them with a new 90-day clock, but also US considers those visitors over-stay (adding both US days and Mexico days). Upon re-entering the US, they can be locked up (such as what happened to this poor Aussie girl). Why would anyone want to risk it? You got it right. They would have to leave Mexico directly.

Thirdly, then what's the point for them to go to Mexico to start with, when all they want is stay in the States for another 90 days (or 6 months, like OP's mom)?

As a non-native English speaker, I think I understand the quoted language correctly. I guess I just don't understand how your replies fit with the extending-US-visa scenario.

Bob'sYourUncle

I wasn't going to reply, as it seems we're talking past each other, but the above statement is one of those I just can't leave be. Mexico allows you admission on its own terms, there is no "original 90 days" - US law has no validity south of the border.

They don't. I'm trying, apparently futilely, to explain that Mexico won't come after you for some sort of US immigration time violation, which is as I read the statements in one of the above posts.

However, after a 30 day stay in Mexico, the clock is indeed re-set. I know many EU-nationals who are permanent residents of Mexico, and travel to the US without a visa.

alex0683de

Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but I would love to have this in writing from CBP. Do you have an online source for it? It may become very useful for me in a year or two.

Thanks!

Christopher

That's true, but the USA makes its own immigration laws for the USA (obviously), and if the USA decides that travellers must leave the USA, Canada, Mexico, and the adjacent islands within the 90-day admission period of the visa waiver program, well that is the USA's prerogative.

As noted earlier, this has caused problems for visa-waiver nationals travelling via the USA to a contiguous country (say, Canada) to spend more than 90 days there: they cannot then leave the contiguous country via the USA again with a US visa. (Ironically, if they made a "side-trip" from the contiguous country during their stay there (e.g. spent a week in London), then they could.)

And in most cases it's not possible simply to transit through a US airport; one generally has to be admitted to the USA, even if the stay is going to be only a matter of an hour or two. (I can't see the point of this arrangement, since it seems to me to have the opposite effect to the one that is presumably intended: after all, once the passenger has been admitted to the USA, then he or she can, in practice, just leave the airport and go anywhere and do anything within the country.)

Christopher

The situation is different for visa-waiver nationals who hold long-term residence of Canada or Mexico. That doesn't apply, as far as I know, to tourists and other short-term visitors.

B747-437B

The situation is very different for B1/B2 visa holders and VWP travelers.

B1/B2 visas do not have any formal restrictions regarding time spent in contiguous territory. In theory, a B1/B2 visa could do a day-trip shuffle to Mexico or Canada or wherever every 6 months and be readmitted under a new I-94 each time. HOWEVER, a B1/B2 visa holder is required to demonstrate ON EACH APPLICATION FOR ENTRY to the POE inspector that the following 3 conditions are satisfied : a) That the B1/B2 holder intends to enter the USA to engage in activity consistent with the terms of the visa; b) That the B1/B2 holder intends to enter the USA for a specific, limited period; and c) That the B1/B2 holder has ties to a permanent residence outside the USA that they have not or do not intend to abandon.

Obviously, points (b) and (c) become progressively harder to demonstrate when the traveler has been in the United States for an immediately preceding period of several months. There are circumstances that may be consistent with the above points, but in many (most) cases, this will result in a denial of admission, probable cancellation of the B1/B2 visa at the POE and in some cases a determination of "Expedited Removal" that carries with it an automatic section 212(a) entry bar for 5 years.

The VWP on the other hand has very specific terms and conditions. A traveler may only be admitted to the United States under the VWP if they satisfy the following conditions (among many others) : a) The person holds an onward or return ticket exiting the United States valid for a date no later than the 90th day following the first entry into the United States; b) Both inbound and outbound common carriers must be signatories to the VWP; c) Any onward or return ticket from the US must not terminate in "contiguous territory*"; d) If (c) is satisfied, the final exit from "contiguous territory*" must occur no later than the 90th day following the first entry into the United States; e) No part of the itinerary includes an exit from the US using a means of transport other than a common carrier if it includes an open-jaw border crossing between points in "contiguous territory*".

An exception to (c) exists if an otherwise VWP eligible person is legally resident in "contiguous territory*", in which case the person may have an onward or return ticket terminating in the country of their legal residence.

The key difference here is that in the case of B1/B2 visa holders, a SUBJECTIVE determination has to be made by the POE inspector, but in the case of VWP applicants, a STATUTORY requirement needs to be satisfied.

(* - "contiguous territory" is defined as the United States, Canada, Mexico and "adjacent islands", and "adjacent islands" is defined in turn as as "Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Barbuda, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Marie-Galante, Martinique, Miquelon, Montserrat, Saba, Saint-Barthelemy, Saint Christopher, Saint Eustatius, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Maarten, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre, Saint Vincent, Grenadines, Trinidad, Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands and Other British, French and Netherlands territory or possessions bordering on the Caribbean Sea").

There are other areas where the "contiguous territory*" rule applies to visa holders (most notably "automatic revalidation"), but in this specific case those would not be applicable.

FWIW, I am not an immigration lawyer, but I have a fair bit of experience with immigration law through personal experiences as well as serving as the immigration liaison for an international airline.

In summary, if your mother can demonstrate a legitimate reason why she should be granted B1/B2 status for an additional new period upon application at the POE, there is nothing in the law that would prevent this from taking place. However, the burden of proof lies with your mother and the assesment is a subjective one by the POE inspector and would not be subject to review or appeal.