Guille

Hi everybody! I read last month about the Congress intention to vote a law based on
an INS "idea" to reduce the stay for visiting the US (visas B1/B2) to a maximum of 30
days. Does anybody know if this is the maximum now? Did anyone have a recent
experience?

Thank you all!!!

Guillermo

Stuart Brook

Guille wrote:
    >
    > Hi everybody! I read last month about the Congress intention to vote a law based on
    > an INS "idea" to reduce the stay for visiting the US (visas B1/B2) to a maximum of
    > 30 days. Does anybody know if this is the maximum now? Did anyone have a recent
    > experience?
    >
    > Thank you all!!!
    >
    > Guillermo

It's the same kind of maximum that the old 3 or 6 months was.

In other words, if you want to stay for 2 weeks you'll be granted 30 days max instead
of 3 or 6 months max.

If you want to stay for 2 months, if you can justify it, you can.

Stuart

Ellemc

[email protected] (Guille) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > Hi everybody! I read last month about the Congress intention to vote a law based on
    > an INS "idea" to reduce the stay for visiting the US (visas B1/B2) to a maximum of
    > 30 days. Does anybody know if this is the maximum now? Did anyone have a recent
    > experience?
    >
    > Thank you all!!!
    >
    > Guillermo

I just spoke w/ an immigration atty who advised me that the 30 days will be
officially in effect next month but has really been implemented already by the INS.

Apparently, anyone wishing for more time must show why need over 30 days.

Chris Parker

    > I just spoke w/ an immigration atty who advised me that the 30 days will be
    > officially in effect next month but has really been implemented already by the INS.
    >
    > Apparently, anyone wishing for more time must show why need over 30 days.

Bad information from this attorney, unfortunately.

The latest news from INS is they have 10,000 public comments received for this
proposed rule they must read and consider before they can publish an interim or final
rule to implement it. The prior regulation, requiring an initial minimum 6-month stay
for B2 visitors (not applicable to B1 visitors, however) remains in effect.

You'll find the INS has very little to public support for its proposed change. In
fact, it is has been criticized by the U.S. Small Business Administration in one of
these public comments for circumventing the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
by omitting an analysis of the effect on small business entities.

Lots of fun reading, James Ziglar stands alone without groundless claims to support
his proposed rule.

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/index.html

CP

Chris Parker

    > I just spoke w/ an immigration atty who advised me that the 30 days will be
    > officially in effect next month but has really been implemented already by the INS.
    >
    > Apparently, anyone wishing for more time must show why need over 30 days.

Bad information from this attorney, unfortunately.

The latest news from INS is they have 10,000 public comments received for this
proposed rule they must read and consider before they can publish an interim or final
rule to implement it. The prior regulation, requiring an initial minimum 6-month stay
for B2 visitors (not applicable to B1 visitors, however) remains in effect.

You'll find the INS has very little to public support for its proposed change. In
fact, it is has been criticized by the U.S. Small Business Administration in one of
these public comments for circumventing the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
by omitting an analysis of the effect on small business entities.

Lots of fun reading, James Ziglar stands alone without groundless claims to support
his proposed rule.

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/index.html

CP

Joachim Feise

ellemc wrote:
    >
    > I just spoke w/ an immigration atty who advised me that the 30 days will be
    > officially in effect next month but has really been implemented already by the INS.

Wow, this lawyer really must be a genius for knowing more than the rest of the world!
The fact is that INS *proposed* this, and got lots of comments. They are evaluating
the comments right now. Nobody, not even this particular lawyer, knows when and if at
all INS is going to implement this rule.

-Joe

Stuart Brook

Joachim Feise wrote:
    >
    > ellemc wrote:
    > >
    > > I just spoke w/ an immigration atty who advised me that the 30 days will be
    > > officially in effect next month but has really been implemented already by
    > > the INS.
    >
    > Wow, this lawyer really must be a genius for knowing more than the rest of the
    > world! The fact is that INS *proposed* this, and got lots of comments. They are
    > evaluating the comments right now. Nobody, not even this particular lawyer, knows
    > when and if at all INS is going to implement this rule.
    >
    > -Joe

What INS officers *are* doing, which is within their discretion, is limiting people's
stay anyway.

This is one reason I cannot understand this proposal ... it's effectively doable
within the admitting officer's discretion now!

Utarun

bad attorney !!

I just(this sunday) came back from US and got a stamp for three months on my I94 when
I said I only need to stay for 2 weeks !!

so, I do not think the rule has been implemented yet.

Chris Parker

    > What INS officers *are* doing, which is within their discretion, is limiting
    > people's stay anyway.
    >
    > This is one reason I cannot understand this proposal ... it's effectively doable
    > within the admitting officer's discretion now!

For B1 visas they are doing it, not for B2 visas.

Sorry, the regulations continue to assert a special rule of minimum admission period
for B2 visitors which is not within the discretion of the inspecting officers.

8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) Minimum six month admissions. Any B - 2 visitor who is found
otherwise admissible and is issued a Form I - 94, will be admitted for a minimum
period of six months, regardless of whether less time is requested, provided, that
any required passport is valid as specified in section 212(a)(26) of the Act.
Exceptions to the minimum six month admission may be made only in individual cases
upon the specific approval of the district director for good cause.

CP

Stuart Brook

Chris Parker wrote:
    >
    > > What INS officers *are* doing, which is within their discretion, is limiting
    > > people's stay anyway.
    > >
    > > This is one reason I cannot understand this proposal ... it's effectively doable
    > > within the admitting officer's discretion now!
    >
    > For B1 visas they are doing it, not for B2 visas.
    >
    > Sorry, the regulations continue to assert a special rule of minimum admission
    > period for B2 visitors which is not within the discretion of the inspecting
    > officers.
    >
    > 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) Minimum six month admissions. Any B - 2 visitor who is found
    > otherwise admissible and is issued a Form I - 94, will be admitted for a minimum
    > period of six months, regardless of whether less time is requested, provided, that
    > any required passport is valid as specified in section 212(a)(26) of the Act.
    > Exceptions to the minimum six month admission may be made only in individual cases
    > upon the specific approval of the district director for good cause.
    >
    > CP

In which case lots of people on B2s have been limited illegally, unless specific
approval means "pre approved blanket conditions approved by the district director".

Chris Parker

    > > 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) Minimum six month admissions. Any B - 2 visitor who is found
    > > otherwise admissible and is issued a Form I - 94, will be admitted for a minimum
    > > period of six months, regardless of whether less time is requested, provided,
    > > that any required passport is valid as specified in section 212(a)(26) of the
    > > Act. Exceptions to the minimum six month admission may be made only in individual
    > > cases upon the specific approval of the district director for good cause.

    > In which case lots of people on B2s have been limited illegally, unless specific
    > approval means "pre approved blanket conditions approved by the district director".

A "blanket" would not be consistent with "individual cases upon specific approval."

If anyone seriously has an I94 for admission in B2 status for less than 6 months with
a passport valid for at least a year they should send a copy of it to their
Congressman and INS headquarters complaints bureau and Dept. of Justice Inspector
General because it is illegal activity and evidence of false testimony delivered to
Congress by the INS commissioner.

CP

Stuart Brook

Chris Parker wrote:
    >
    > > > 8 CFR 214.2(b)(2) Minimum six month admissions. Any B - 2 visitor who is found
    > > > otherwise admissible and is issued a Form I - 94, will be admitted for a
    > > > minimum period of six months, regardless of whether less time is requested,
    > > > provided, that any required passport is valid as specified in section
    > > > 212(a)(26) of the Act. Exceptions to the minimum six month admission may be
    > > > made only in individual cases upon the specific approval of the district
    > > > director for good cause.
    >
    > > In which case lots of people on B2s have been limited illegally, unless specific
    > > approval means "pre approved blanket conditions approved by the district
    > > director".
    >
    > A "blanket" would not be consistent with "individual cases upon specific approval."
    >
    > If anyone seriously has an I94 for admission in B2 status for less than 6 months
    > with a passport valid for at least a year they should send a copy of it to their
    > Congressman and INS headquarters complaints bureau and Dept. of Justice Inspector
    > General because it is illegal activity and evidence of false testimony delivered to
    > Congress by the INS commissioner.
    >
    > CP

Uhhh ... they don't have a Congressman!

Chris Parker

    > Uhhh ... they don't have a Congressman!

Sure they do; anybody can submit a letter to any Congressman about any matter.

Further, anyone (such as a sponsor) can submit a letter to their particular district
Congressman on behalf of anyone else.

CP

Stuart Brook

Chris Parker wrote:
    >
    > > Uhhh ... they don't have a Congressman!
    >
    > Sure they do; anybody can submit a letter to any Congressman about any matter.
    >
    > Further, anyone (such as a sponsor) can submit a letter to their particular
    > district Congressman on behalf of anyone else.
    >
    > CP

If I don't live in the US, I don't have a congressman. I can write to any congressman
I choose, but since I'm not a voter, I have as much right to expect a result as if I
wrote to Santa Claus.

Chris Parker

    > If I don't live in the US, I don't have a congressman. I can write to any
    > congressman I choose, but since I'm not a voter, I have as much right to expect a
    > result as if I wrote to Santa Claus.

First of all, you don't need to state your citizenship in any letter you write to a
Congressman, just your U.S. address. Congressmen consider you to be a potential
future voter even if you aren't a voter now.

Second of all, your sponsor can submit a letter on your behalf.

Third of all, the issue of INS violating the rulemaking process is a national issue
of corruption, abuse, and fraud which is of particular interest for Congressmen in
general to be aware of.

Anyway I look at it, you're just making excuses about why you cant complain instead
of complaining. If this did happen to you, don't expect any change in your admission
period anyway, but for others and in the future it may have an effect.

This is the way our system of government works.

CP