|
Originally Posted by r22r44bell47
(Post 26421021)
Interestingly my wife just got the ESTA status change mail, but we renewed her passport a couple of months back for just this reason and she has a shiny new chipped passport that was used to enter the US last week... one assumes that CBP are just sending shotgun-type e-mails out to anyone who has or used to have an ESTA in a non-chipped passport irrespective of whether it has been replaced and a new ESTA obtained. A simple filter on the database might have saved some temporary anxiety (in this household at least) :rolleyes:
Took a bit of effort finding my ESTA number! |
Originally Posted by LondonElite
(Post 26420155)
I won't repeat the theme of 'it's the traveller's fault' but this really should be moved a sub-forum of Travel Safety since it has nothing whatsoever to do with BA.
|
Originally Posted by IcHot
(Post 26421214)
Heaven forbid it is in a spot more likely to be seen and thus be helpful.
|
Originally Posted by orbitmic
(Post 26419875)
I'm not entirely sure what is the relevance to the BA forum. This has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with BA and is covered in other (more relevant) sections of FT.
Countries change travel requirements frequently and it is always worth double checking on national travel websites. There have been recent changes to entry conditions to the likes of Brazil, Canada, etc. Unfortunately, national authorities are rarely very good at advertising such changes so keeping an eye is really the only way to avoid bad surprises.
Originally Posted by AlanA
(Post 26419837)
This has been discussed in many forums, has been in the British newspapers and on certainly BAs web site
It's up to the individual to ensure they meet the requirements, I'm surprised when they applied for their ESTA they didn't notice thus as well! I had posted it on the BA forum, but it got moved to <<FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > America - USA > USA>> as everyone who is going to the States is obviously going to look there :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
(Post 26421498)
But that is the proper home for it so ALL visitors to the US can see it rather than just those flying BA!
|
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
(Post 26421498)
But that is the proper home for it so ALL visitors to the US can see it rather than just those flying BA!
|
My wife had the same e-mail on 1 April from CBP. I went ahead and arranged a 1 week guaranteed fast-track passport appointment for her, paid the £30 extra, now I read that her passport IS valid, because she has a digital photograph and machine readable.
After checking her ESTA status, her application is showing expired, now as i've learnt incorrectly. It's too late to refund the appointment now, but bravo DHS for a right royal screw up, that's now costing additional £30 fast-track, another $14 for ESTA again and what is now going to be a wasted trip to Newport this week. I wonder how given her passport is valid, that I would have got her ESTA approved again, given DHS think it's invalid though. |
Originally Posted by AdamUK
(Post 26431186)
... now I read that her passport IS valid, because she has a digital photograph and machine readable.
|
Biometric passports only. If your passport doesn't have this symbol it is not biometric and you will not be able to use the VWP & ESTA for the US.
http://www.ukpassportinusa.com/wp-co...-passport1.jpg |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 26432997)
Where did you read that? A machine-readable passport plus a digital photo are no longer good enough for the VWP. She must now have an e-passport. If she doesn't have an e-passport, she will need a visa.
The e-passport/biometric passport is indeed a condition of VWP use. Personally, I think the phrase "biometric passport" is a ridiculous joke? Why? Because ordinary adult passports used by most (if not even all) of VWP countries have been biometric for at least the past two decades since the included face in the passport can be a form of a biometric. That said, having a photograph of the face and a machine-readable zone in ordinary passports are necessary conditions to use the US VWP; but those two conditions are not sufficient to have the passport be considered an "epassport"/"biometric passport" as far as the USG is concerned. But here's some things to consider from the US, particularly the bold part:
Originally Posted by US DHS
Passports issued by Visa Waiver Program countries on or after October 26, 2006 must be e-Passports, which include an integrated computer chip capable of storing biographic information from the data page as well as biometric information, such as the required digital photograph of the holder. You can identify an e-Passport by the symbol on the front cover of the passport booklet (see the image to the right).
If your passport does not have this feature and you are a citizen of a country that joined the Visa Waiver Program prior to 2008, you can still travel without a visa if: * You have a valid passport with a machine-readable zone issued before October 26, 2005; or * If your passport includes a digital photograph and was issued between October 26, 2005 and October 25, 2006. If you were issued a passport on or after October 26, 2006 and it is not an e-Passport, you will need to obtain a visa. |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 26432997)
Where did you read that? A machine-readable passport plus a digital photo are no longer good enough for the VWP. She must now have an e-passport. If she doesn't have an e-passport, she will need a visa.
As per GUWonder's previous post and this official link: https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program-requirements So yes a machine-readable passport or a M/R one with digital photo is still acceptable for VWP use providing your issue date falls between certain dates and country joined VWP prior to 2008, so clearly a screw-up has been made, which for certain travellers (my wife included) has caused unnecessary grief and financial cost. |
Originally Posted by AdamUK
(Post 26436148)
You're incorrect, which is kind of amusing given your black and white criticism earlier in the thread.
In particular, have you seen the contents of this post? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26419690-post7.html This 1 April 2016 change is what has prompted this thread. |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 26438242)
You're welcome, of course, to prefer your own view to that given in this thread. But have you actually read the whole of the thread?
In particular, have you seen the contents of this post? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26419690-post7.html This 1 April 2016 change is what has prompted this thread. Given the thread started by saying as from April 1 the US requires an epassport for ESTA use and so someone's esta is cancelled is true for most, a mention of related exceptions and mess-ups out there is not entirely unexpected by all. Welcome to the life(cycle) of threads. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 26438427)
This thread about use of passports for the VWP scheme seems to not have been limited to just issues impacting the passports of VWP countries issued on or after October 26, 2006.
Given the thread started by saying as from April 1 the US requires an epassport for ESTA use and so someone's esta is cancelled is true for most, a mention of related exceptions and mess-ups out there is not entirely unexpected by all. See https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...am-update-2016:- 3. What is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the "Act"), signed into law on December 18, 2015, established new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP, to include travel restrictions. These restrictions do not bar travel to the United States, but they do require a traveler covered by the restrictions in the law to obtain a U.S. visa, which generally includes an in-person interview with a U.S. consular officer. The Act also requires all VWP travelers to have an electronic passport for travel to the United States by April 1, 2016. And finally, the Act codifies many of the enhanced security measures announced by DHS in August 2015. 4. What are the specific changes to the VWP? Under the Act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the VWP: • Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions). •Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria. These restrictions do not apply to VWP travelers whose presence in Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Sudan was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or in order to carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country. These military and official government services exceptions, however, do not apply to the dual national restriction. Travelers who are known to fall into the dual national category noted above will receive notice via email on or about January 21, 2016 that their current ESTA is no longer valid. The Act also requires that all VWP travelers use an electronic passport for travel to the United States by April 1, 2016. Finally, the Act includes other changes to the VWP to promote enhanced information sharing of terrorism and criminal data, and use of INTERPOL databases and notices for border screening purposes. The vast majority of VWP eligible travelers will not be affected by the legislation. |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 26438516)
Can you point to any exceptions, so far as the use of e-passports is concerned? See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26419690-post7.html - and that was what the pre-Christmas publicity was intended to convey, namely that all British citizens travelling on the VWP will have to hold an e-passport.
See https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...am-update-2016:-(Emphasis added.) A handful of posts earlier in this thread -- in a post made by me within the past 24 hours -- a quote from US DHS was provided. The content of that US DHS site should explain why it still is not surprising that this thread would bring out mentions of related exceptions and mess-ups out there on the matter of use of the US VWP. DHS hasn't yet killed that page and others mentioning the related exceptions. Should DHS do so yet, or should DHS revise other published material, online and offline, so as to make a more accurate and even precise communication that covers all possibilities? Welcome to government websites. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:31 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.