elenanik

I need help
I will be travelling to the US in a few weeks and I have to complete the ESTA. Now it should be a pretty straight forward process ..
Few years ago while a student in London I applied for a visa for the US on my passport from country that doesn't have the visa waiver. I was 19 and clueless of the fact that as I didn't have any family ties in the UK they would think I wanted to immigrate there so they rejected my visa.

Fast forward 6 years I have a British passport, married and a job so I really 'want to live in the US.

My question is as my passport for the ESTA is different and I am a UK citizen, it should be OK but they have a question of being rejected on the ESTA. Would this flag me as a non ESTA eligible and can I apply for a visa if needed?

Thanks

Airbridge

Why would you make travel plans without having the correct travel documentation first if there is any possibility that you may be denied the documentation? Where do you get the idea that you must apply for ESTA? chances are you WILL be denied.

For most people that qualify to travel under VWP yes it should. For you - not so much. "If you were previously denied a visa, or previously refused entry to the United States, or previously removed from the U.S., your ESTA application will most likely be denied,"

Umm that is the law it is called presumed immigrant intent

That would be called immigrant intent (see above) which is not covered under VWP and ESTA plays no part. It seems from the statement you made above they made the correct decision in refusing you.

It may be YOUR question but US Immigration doesn't care they only care about their question. And their question is have YOU EVER.... Thy do not ask has your other passport ever or any variation thereof. It is not OK to rewrite the question to suit your specific needs. Answering it untruthfully as it is written is called immigration fraud the penalties for which are severe.

Your question as posed does not really make sense as it is unclear if you intend to travel for tourism, or work, or to live and in any event on what basis for whichever of the three you intend. No do we know your citizenship status past and present, or your place of residence.

Given your colorful history with US immigration a consultation with a very experienced US immigration attorney is likely to be of much more help to you than a question to random strangers in a forum who can not give you legal advice.

Airbridge

HOW you are entering is kind of relevant here. Are you entering by air or land? ESTA is currently required for air and cruise ship travel only. So are you driving from Canada to the USA or are you simply changing to a connecting flight in Canada that originated in the UK, or are you spending time there then following on to the USA some time later and if so how long later?

Often1

Good advice above. Make sure that you have the proper "papers" before you book anything non-refundable. Understand that the fact that you do want to emigrate is a negative from CBP's perspective.

The advice to use a good immigration lawyer to sort this out is good. If you are denied a second time, you are done for.

SJOGuy

I'm reading the OP much differently than both of you are. I don't see any intent to immigrate to the U.S., then or now. The first time it seemed to be simple ignorance of the fact that the US Embassy looks at ties that will cause you to want to return from where you came. This second time, I think there's some missing punctuation:

OP, do you need another quotation mark at the end of that sentence? I read it as: I'm established. I live here in Britain. I'm married. I have a job. So, like, yeah, I'm really going to try and move to the U.S. and leave this behind.

But given that there was a visa rejection in the past, you do need to sort this out.

nacho

Airbridge is right:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...ada-or-mexico,

If it's the case for you, then you only need to pay a fee to cross a bridge from Canada into the US.

GUWonder

Which fee, just a bridge toll? There are ways to cross from Canada to the US which may not involve a visitor (from a VWP country) paying any bridge tolls on trips from Canada or Mexico into the US.

Which country or countries issue any young children regular ordinary passports with just a maximum validity period of two years? Most of the OECD country passports which I've seen for infants are good for five years. Denmark seems to be an exception in what it does to passports for infants/toddlers aged 0-2 years old. Neighboring countries passports' for infants and toddlers are more commonly valid for 5 years.

nacho

I remember seeing a charge of $3 or something like that at Niagara Falls. According to this thread, all the bridges from ON to NY (where op is going to) are toll bridges:

http://www.ezbordercrossing.com/trav.../#.U_safstBvbU

My kids only have Danish passports so I thought it's the norm since it makes perfect sense in terms of security. The appearance is so different between a baby and a 5 years old.

GUWonder

Those are bridge tolls charged to a vehicle operator (or in some cases as self-vehicle aka pedestrian ). I don't recall those tolls having anything to do with how each individual in a vehicle meets US admissibility criteria for immigration purposes.

About the Danish passports for infants/toddlers only being valid for two years due to "security", "security" of this nature is mainly just a rip-off that: (a) unnecessarily increases the direct and indirect costs for family travel; and (b) breeds -- or otherwise coddles -- a mass culture of state-sponsored/state-driven paranoia.

For most of the history of the modern Danish state, Danish infants/toddlers have been able to travel into or out of Denmark without the infants/toddlers having their own passports. [Nazi-occupied Denmark may have been a different story in some ways, but fortunately some people then too opposed that "security"-driven, "papiere, bitte" cradle-to-grave "security" culture too.]

I'm glad that most OECD countries don't seem to have copied Denmark in this regard for infant/toddler passports. Five years of passport validity for pre-teenage children passports is the more general norm, even for passports of those who are under 2 year of age at the time of passport application. I've asked contacts who've dealt with visa issuances at major regional hub embassies for the US in various parts or the world and so far Denmark seems to be at a sort of extreme in this regard.

I'm curious -- even as I have some suspicions -- about when Denmark first started issuing ordinary Danish passports with only a standard two-year validity period for infants/toddlers under two years of age. Do you happen to know when that started?

elenanik

Hi guys,

SJOGuy is actually right, when I typed this up I was in much of a hurry. I never tried to play up the system or anything. Back then it was mostly ignorance that I should have prepared more for the interview questions. It was the first time I went for a visa and didn't know people actually wanted to immigrate to other countries unlawfully. I totally understood their point of view anyways, I would have denied myself as well.

SJOGuy read it correctly and I apologies for the confusion. I am indeed happy where I am and just planning a holiday for few days. I have sorted it out now and it is ok.

It was actually on the US embassy site -Being rejected for a doesn't mean you cannot re apply when your circumstances change.

Thank you for your help anyways. ^

nacho

I mentioned the toll because op was trying to see if she could save $14, I was trying to mention costs associated with crossing the US/CA border. Not exactly surprised, the Rainbow bridge does charge for pedestrians:

Infant passports are only valid for 2 years in Austria, Norway (3 years validity after they turn 2 and until they turn 10, more info from politi.no).

About the infant passport: parents were no longer allowed to add their kids into their passports after Oct. 1, 2004 due to an amendment in the Danish passport law. So I guess that the 2 years validity must have been introduced around that time.

The fee is not so rip off , I paid DKK 130/child passport (cheaper than a single entry Chinese visa), which is very reasonable (an adult 10yrs passport costs around DKK600). The other cost you have is taking a picture, and the time to hand in the form. Also I am totally in for this because you can't tell if that 4 yrs old kid is the real passport holder, based on the baby picture on the passport (The picture on the passport is black and white). No fingerptint was taken from my kids when they apply/renew passports when they were infant/2 yrs old, so I have no idea if the biometric data will help.

If you live here you will need a passport if you want to take a daytrip to Germany or Sweden (not sure how Schengen override the Nordic passport union).

From 2005 all passports and id cards in Sweden are valid only for 5 years.

GUWonder

Photos are biometric data too -- not that it necessarily makes much difference (as indicated in a following paragraph).

The cost to get a child passport every two years for a passport is substantially more than 130DKK once all the costs involved are put together. Time-related and transport costs are substantial financial factors in the true cost of this kind of stuff.

I don't buy into the wishful thinking that changing to a de facto requirement of passports dated two-years or less is an effective measure for any real physical security purpose. Even with adult passport photos less than a year old, the fail rate for proper person-to-photo matching by supposedly "trained" "professionals"* using just their own eyes is high enough that driving up passport churn frequency rates this (2-years/3-years/5-years or less) way increases risks of effective-yet-improper use of issued passports as there then tend to be way more passports to be misused than would otherwise be the case if having longer expiration periods. Keep in mind that some countries expect some or many foreign ordinary passports to have something like 3-6 months of remaining validity in order for the visiting tourist or business traveler to be considered admissible. That means even more "useless" passports being out there for misuse. This is the "security" version of "penny/ore-wise-and-pound/kronor-foolish".

That is not true for Danish children. Nor is it true for Swedish children. Nor is it true for Norwegian children. Nor even for the adults who are citizens of the NPU and/or Schengen area countries. Danish kids with no Danish passport history cross the bridge to Sweden quite regularly and it's legally permissible under the applicable NPU and Schengen rules.

And since the passport validity period in Sweden was reduced, the number of Swedish passports available for misuse has been higher than it would otherwise be. The black-market passport dealers and human trafficking providers should thank the Danish, Norwegian and Austrian authorities for helping to flood the market with more passports to be improperly used. Also, refugees/asylum seekers from certain MENA/HOA hotspots certainly have benefited from there being more Danish, Norwegian and Swedish passports on the black-market than would be the case if passports were valid for more than 2/3/5 years.


------
* http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-...18-104ko4.html is something that has entered the public domain but is not the only evidence of how cross-checking a person against a photo of a person is anything but highly-effective "security".

Loore1967

Great advice.. Be sure to prepare every document though..

nacho

Getting a new passport is much easier nowadays in Denmark - you only need to go to your municipal office. In Copenhagen there are tons. I always take my own passport picture so the cost is close to 0.

The total cost of 3 children passports for a child until he/she is 12 is less than DKK 600, which is what a 10 years passport costs nowadays.

Also the Danish passport picture rules have been tighten dramatically around 2006. Many pictures have been turned down because they threw in some very weird requirements - especially if you have glasses on, it becomes almost mission impossible. Fortunately if you are willing to pay DKK 100, you can get the passport office to take a digital picture of you (that I call it rip off).

You don't need a passport to go to Sweden but you need to have id with you in order to id yourself when necessary. Source: politi.dk

I don't necessary agree that just because of the validity being shorten, there are more passports on the black market. When I was getting a new passport, I had 2 choices with my old one: 1. Void immediately and the new passport will be sent to me without charge; 2. I bring my old passport and they void it when I collect the new one.

I did renew my passport recently and it seems that they are more strict about the procedure. I had to wait for them to type in a bunch of thing, verifing that I'm the person who is picking up the passport and really void my old passport (they used to only punch holes on the data page, now they punch holes in every single page).

Sometimes it's difficult to id people based on their picture on the passport - especially if they have undergone plastic surgery/change hair style. At least adult passports contain fingerprints as part of the biometric data, which they can look into if it's necessary. However there is no fingerprint data on children passport (at least in Denmark), and therefore it would be more difficult to investigate when it becomes necessary.

No matter how you twist and turn, it's very difficult to id a 4 years old using a picture taken when the child was 3 months old. I have my kids old passports and we were shocked to realise how much they have change from 0-2 years old. From 2-7, you can see more of a similarities because they have proper hair and eye brows.

Anyway, this is a bit too OT. Mods please move this to another forum if necessary! Thanks!

GUWonder

Pre-teenage Danish children certainly do not need any ID with them to go to Sweden. Nor do Swedish children of the same age need any photo ID to go to Denmark. The authorities in the NPU countries have no general legal authority to prevent their travel without ID between these countries when in the company of registered custodial guardian/parent who happens to be a citizen of an NPU country.

Apparently Danish government websites are also subject to being dumbed-down to the point of providing info that is not wholly correct.

ID of NPU citizens is not needed for "sufficient" "identification" to take place to allow NPU countries' citizens to cross national borders within the NPU. Even when Norway went into border control overdrive this summer -- in a way far more excessive than what it did when Anders Behring Breivik unleashed an actual massacre in Norway some summers earlier -- it was not lawful for Norwegian or Swedish authorities to require ID of minor-aged NPU citizen as a condition to crossing the borders within the NPU region.

And yet there are. If it weren't increased demand for such passports and their misuse, prices would be way lower.

Yes, that is indeed how it generally works.

How often at CPH are Danish nationals fingerprinted on arrival into the Schengen Zone there? Unless a subject to racist profiling, rarely if ever, IME. I am at CPH passport control very frequently, and very rarely does anyone ever get fingerprinted there -- certainly not unless sent to a secondary or escorted off a flight in some way. And when FRT has been used at CPH, most passengers and employees at CPH have had no clue it was used.

Fingerprints from young children are unreliably captured by electronic means and don't work very well for positive-matching purposes, even if it were "necessary". Even biometric photo matching using FRT is unreliable for lots of young children and not very effective. And the kind of "unaided" matching, done by "trained" "professionals", for adults or infants/toddlers is no better and probably worse than what a trained two-year-old can do when it comes to "positive-matching".

Having way more legitimately-less-"useful" infant/toddler passports for children around the age of 15-30 months old -- as is a result of the 2-year expiration rule -- is a gold mine for human trafficking families. Some may consider that a good thing given the need for refugees and others to escape from turbulent parts of Asia and Africa, but that wasn't why these passport validity periods were shrunk. It's the unintentional consequence of the pursuit of "security" in a mental-silo of sorts.

.

Well, given that there is a fair amount of truth to that and yet passenger-to-photo positive-matching failure rates are still substantial, that just means that having more passports out there that expire in two years or less enables more people to misuse more passports more often. No real additional security, and lot more opportunities for undermining border security, is the consequence of shortened validity periods for passports. The shorter validity period doesn't provide for effective security at the borders; and biometric fingerprint recording is only as useful as it ends up being used (or not as is generally the case) -- great for providing a false sense of security.