crg

Odd. I checked with 4 Canadian visitors who arrived by air and all four had electronic I-94's issued. None were paroled.

As for Real ID. I think the biggest change is that state governments aren't intentionally issuing full validity/unmarked driver's licenses to people who are out of status. By "unmarked" I mean states that issue ID's to people who can't prove status look different than one issued to a US citizen or LPR.

Pulaski

"Aren't intentionally", or "intentionally aren't"

Steve_

And which POE was this, and did they go through OBIM? OBIM Biometric Procedures: Applicability to Canadian Citizens | Homeland Security

Read the bit at the bottom - Canadians only go through OBIM if they're getting I-94s and at the top it says Canadian visitors are exempt from OBIM. This is what CBP have told me as well, but there it is on their website. Basically, you can only be issued an I-94 after going through OBIM - which Canadian visitors are exempt from.

Both CBP and USCIS have told me at length that Canadian visitors getting an I-94 is usually a voluntary procedure (unless they're paroled), the USCIS person even read the guidance off the screen word-for-word.

My friend came through Pearson and he did not get one. I don't even know how it would be workable, say you enter with a NEXUS card, CBP don't ask to see your passport at the airport. I've done that and not even spoken to CBP, I just walked straight past.

Worth reading: Supreme Court says Arizona must issue driver's licenses to immigrants - LA Times

Many States now issue alternate ID under REAL ID, California, Washington, Utah, New Mexico, Connecticut and some others, and they usually say something like: "Not Valid For Federal Identification Purposes" on them.

crg

It was Pearson. No NEXUS card.

That just can't be accurate. As an example, what about the UK citizen infant child of a UK L-1? The baby would certainly get an electronic L-2 I-94.

Infants are exempted biometrics just like most Canadians and a few other categories, but infants still get electronic I-94's, so I wouldn't conclude that a lack of biometrics taken from a Canadian would prove that there was no electronic I-94 issued.

I wouldn't consider the occasional issuance to a Canadian visitor you mentioned as "voluntary". I'd say the people who are issued an I-94 are issued one to control and/or limit the period of time the person can lawfully stay. To give them only a week for example. The document is imposed on the Canadian at the discretion of the border guard and is not voluntary.

Interesting article. I don't really have a strong opinion about documents being issued to people who can prove lawful status if the document is distinct. There are pros and cons to it.

Steve_

Different procedure for small children?

Reading that OBIM thing it's got to be wrong unless they changed their minds yet again because Canadians entering as anything other than a visitor are subject to OBIM and do get I-94s and that webpage says: "Canadian citizens who are visa-exempt" don't go through OBIM. My understanding was they they changed it precisely because they can't issue an I-94 (to an adult) without putting you through OBIM.

But anyway it does say at the bottom:

Which implies if you don't get an I-94 you aren't subject to OBIM, which implies you don't routinely get an I-94 as a Canadian visitor. Did these people you dealt with go through OBIM? Because that definitely is not a requirement for Canadian visitors (over some age, is it 12?).

Found this on the CBP website: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...4%20Automation

And this: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...4%20Automation - which basically says no change at land borders, and there are things in the help about how I-94 automation is only being provided at air and seaports.

So you can read that two ways, Canadians visitors are not required to have I-94s and they shouldn't be issued. Or, they're just giving them to everyone at airports and don't care.

But it does say to people "requiring" an I-94 which implies there are people who don't require them and that means Canadian visitors.

Anyway I'll call CBP yet again tomorrow but I'm pretty sure if they are being issued at airports it is in error. This is what I've been told and I just cannot see the point to it given they're linking the entry systems together shortly.

According to 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) that can only be done at the discretion of the district director for "good cause", not the individual inspector and every time I've come across it the person was paroled in.

crg

That's a bit outdated. There has never been a district director in CBP. I don't even think CBP ever had districts as CIS got them. Even when there were district directors, the authority to "control" Canadians was delegated down to low level personnel.

I'd completely separate the OBIM and I-94 issue from each other. There are a few categories of foreign/non-Canadian adults who are I-94 and or OBIM exempt although even US citizens can be fingerprinted at their discretion. Mexicans with diplomatic/official passports and no visa at all can be admitted without an I-94. Bermudians are visa exempt like Canadians. NATO personnel on orders, foreign diplomats, North Amerian Indians with 50%+ blood who are born in Canada. You can be sure Queen Elizabeth and Pope Francis aren't putting their fingers down on a scanner and they're probably getting an I-94 generated.

I doubt there is a different infant processing system or one for Canadians. Making a multi-million dollar system for 30 million people doesn't seem likely.

Steve_

So I got hold of someone at CBP today who seemed pretty knowledgeable, she reminded me of Tyne Daley.

I asked her if Canadian visitors were routinely issued I-94s at airports and she said no, "fer shur" they are not, there has been no recent change in policy and there is no plan to change it because they don't need to apply for "benefits" which I took to mean they don't want them going into the DHS SAVE database, which is what USCIS told me also.

She said I-94s are only issued to Canadian visitors if the inspector feels a need to do it, for example parole. I asked if there was any difference since they were automated for entries by air, she said no.

I mentioned that you had said you'd encountered some Canadians who got I-94s at Pearson, she said there must have been a specific reason for it or they requested them, or it was a mistake.

She started going on about six month limits on stay so I asked her about 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) which mentions a one year limit if you're not issued an I-94 and she said you should never stay more than six months in a year because the next inspector you encounter will think you live in the US (which I already knew) but then she told me that if you are B-2 and have a valid reason for staying more than six months (e.g. medical reasons, co-habiting partner) you should request an I-94.

She said that if you don't, it doesn't just cause confusion about why you were in the US so long - if you file an I-539 with USCIS to extend your stay then USCIS has to make a request to CBP to find your entry record to confirm your date of entry and that slows down the processing of the I-539. That bit was new information I wasn't aware of, I assumed USCIS could look you up but apparently they must only use the SAVE database (or not the entry system anyway).

So if you needed to apply for any kind of "benefit" she said always request an I-94.

So anyway, I-94s are not routinely issued to Canadian visitors.

So getting back to my original point (I think), REAL ID is going to cause a problem for Canadian visitors unless the US recognizes Canadian ID as REAL ID, because you can enter using a NEXUS card or EDL and have no US documentation or a passport, so it would be bizarre if you then couldn't use that same ID for an internal flight inside the US.

Steve_

Well this seems to tie them together: OBIM Biometric Procedures: Applicability to Mexican Citizens | Homeland Security

Says people under 14 and over 79 are exempt from OBIM. But it also says when a Mexican citizen gets to the point of being issued an I-94, they have to go through OBIM.

The Queen is over 79 and the Pope has never visited the US since being Pope, he's visiting in September and will be 79 next December, so we shall see...

Bermudans don't go through OBIM either or get I-94s (not visitors anyway), not sure what your point is there. Indians with 50% blood born in Canada are LPRs (or Canadian, so exempt), so once again, not relevant. Not sure that foreign diplomats are treated any differently either, with an A visa you get an I-94 and go through OBIM. And that link seems to say Mexicans who don't get an I-94 don't go through OBIM, so Mexican diplomats don't disprove the rule.

crg

I highly doubt A-1 diplomats go through OBIM. I highly doubt a foreign head of state would be fingerprinted upon arrival so you should check that. I believe the DOS FAM reads otherwise. As for the helpful person on the phone, take that for what it is worth (not much). I'm sure we can go back and forth on this ad nauseam so I will just encourage you to keep asking Canadian friends to check the public I-94 site upon arrival in the US by air to see if there is an electronic I-94 and report on their experiences.

rpjs

Heads of state are privileged under international law - they don't carry passports for a start. I wonder if they are even "admitted" as aliens.

crg

Nonsense (see 9 FAM 41.21 P.N. 1.1). Someone else may carry it for them when they travel, but there is a passport and US diplomatic visa required to enter the US. You're talking about a country that had Neil Armstrong fill out a customs declaration form to import moon rocks. Moon rocks are duty free though.

rpjs

The Queen doesn't have a passport though. The logic is that as passports are issued under Royal Prerogative there's no need for her to issue herself one.

And I thought Apollo XI customs form thing was a bit of a joke to give the newspapers a good story.

crg

I see what you mean now. Interestingly enough, The queen could actually meet the US passport requirement without actually having a traditional UK passport.

The U.S. has a broad definition of "passport" that covers more than the book people traditionally think of when thinking of a passport. The state department even has a standalone form that a visa is affixed to called a DS-232. The form is considered a passport equivalent. Some people on Cyrpus traveled with such a form many years ago due to a Greece/Turkey dispute. It's an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet with a visa foil glued to it.

Per 22 CFR § 42.64 Passport requirements.
(a) Passport defined. Passport, as defined in INA 101(a)(30), is not limited to a national passport or to a single document. A passport may consist of two or more documents which, when considered together, fulfill the requirements of a passport, provided that documentary evidence of permission to enter a foreign country has been issued by a competent authority and clearly meets the requirements of INA 101(a)(30).

Per INA 101(a)(30) The term "passport" means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

Steve_

I think you should check it. I've done enough checking, I think everyone does go through OBIM as detailed on the DHS website with certain stated exceptions, find a CFR that disproves what it says, because I can't.

She clearly knew what she was talking about, she was going into some depth about how USCIS and CBP use the database and when to request I-94s, if you doubt it, call them yourself: (202) 325-8000.

This wasn't some low level person I was talking to, I made sure I got through to someone who knew what they were talking about.

Speaking as a Canadian who regularly visits the US I haven't gotten one. It makes no sense that there would be a completely different entry procedure at the airport and CBP were very specific on the now two separate occasions I have asked them, the first person probably was just a regular help person but the second person wasn't. I specifically asked if there has been any change in policy recently or since I-94s were automated and she said no. She wasn't vague or ambivalent about it.

I don't know how much more from the horse's mouth you can get than someone at CBP HQ whose job it is to know this stuff.

Comparing Canadians we know who have and haven't gotten one doesn't really tell us much because like she said, could have been a specific reason for it or they could have been issued in error.

crg

Ask and you shall receive....

Check out: this DOS link

22 CFR 41.105 relates to fingerprinting and 8 USC 1201 section 221 relates to waiving requirements for certain diplomats. Heads of state get A-1 visas.

b.Registration; photographs; waiver of requirement

Each alien who applies for a visa shall be registered in connection with his application, and shall furnish copies of his photograph signed by him for such use as may be by regulations required. The requirements of this subsection may be waived in the discretion of the Secretary of State in the case of any alien who is within that class of nonimmigrants enumerated in section 101(a)(15)(A) [8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15)(A)] and section 101(a)(15)(G) of this Act [8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15)(G)] , or in the case of any alien who is granted a diplomatic visa on a diplomatic passport or on the equivalent thereof.

Putin sure isn't being fingerprinted upon arrival when he comes to the UN General Assembly. There goes the "everyone" is subject to OBIM.

You can either keep asking Canadians who fly, or believe what the person tells you on the phone. Do what you want, but I'm not sold.