Originally Posted by DavidLemon

Unless you travel to Canada or Mexico for a short trip then you are re-entered in on the remaining time of the vwp.

Originally Posted by Noorah101

I think you have that backwards.

If you travel to Canada or Mexico, you will re-enter the USA on the remaining time of the current VWP trip.

If you go all the way back to the UK, you will re-enter the USA with a new 90-day period.

Rene

Originally Posted by DavidLemon

Unless you travel to Canada or Mexico for a short trip then you are re-entered in on the remaining time of the vwp.

Originally Posted by Noorah101

It doesn't matter how long you stayed on your last trip. Each new trip to the USA is seen as a new 90-day period. You won't be let in for the remainder of your previous 90-day allotted time.

Originally Posted by DavidLemon

Unless you travel to Canada or Mexico for a short trip then you are re-entered in on the remaining time of the vwp.

Originally Posted by AJH90

civilservant thank you so much.

If all this is indeed true then it would make far more sense for me to withdraw my application for the B2 and travel on the VWP. My only qualm with that being that i last travelled to the USA on the 27th of March for 17 days but my 90 day allowance runs out on the 24th of June, 19 days after i ideally would arrive. Do you think there is good chance of me being allowed another 90 day allowance seeing as i only stayed for 17 days previously? Or would i have to leave by the 24th of June?

Thank you so much for the help guys, my nerves are starting to settle just a little bit!

Originally Posted by Noorah101

The way it's stated above (or at least the way it reads to me), it says UNLESS you travel to Canada or Mexico, you'll be admitted for the remaining time on the VWP. The way it reads the way you wrote it, it means if you travel anywhere except Canada or Mexico, you'll be admitted for the remaining time of the VWP, which is incorrect. Canada and Mexico are the exceptions. It should say "unless you travel to Canada or Mexico, you are re-entered on a new 90-day VWP".

Or am I just going bonkers? LOL

Rene

Originally Posted by GeoffM

I think it can be interpreted either way - but slightly less so if read in the context of what he quoted. Perhaps "in which case" would have clarified it beyond doubt more than "then you are".

Originally Posted by S Folinsky

The clock resets other than a trip into Canada, Mexico or an adjoining island.

Originally Posted by S Folinsky

The clock resets other than a trip into Canada, Mexico or an adjoining island.

Originally Posted by DavidLemon

Thats how i should have said it

Originally Posted by DavidLemon

Thats how i should have said it

Originally Posted by GeoffM

Which of Mexico's adjoining islands count?

Originally Posted by S Folinsky

Should have said "adjacent islands." Mea culpa.

Take a look at section 101(b)(5) of the Immigration & Nationality Act.

When I first started there were more "adjacent islands" than there are now -- Belize, Guyana and Suriname lost that classification.

Originally Posted by GeoffM

Nah, it's the final comma (or lack thereof) that sometimes causes arguments I was focusing on. Like: "You have a choice of a, b, c and d" - does that mean c and d are lumped into one? A Serial, Oxford [,] or Harvard comma apparently. Anyway, it was in jest rather than seriousness.