Bad Company

Hi all, this forum was recommended to me.

Mrs BC and I retired just over a year ago and have been travelling a lot in America. When we arrived this time the TSA agent advised us to apply for a B2 Visa as we are apparently entering too often for our ESTA's.

Our recent visits have been:-

3 weeks in January 13
1 week in March 13
6 weeks in May - June 13
4 weeks in October - November 13
4 weeks in January 14

Due back late February for 3 weeks.

So do we risk applying & possibly being denied a B2 or just arrive again next month?

Thanks in advance.

md95065

Your choice really.

Since you are retired it is certainly not unreasonable to consider applying for a B2 visa and, provided that you can show that you don't have immigrant intent, you will probably get one.

Of course, even if you do have a B2 visa there is still no guarantee that you will actually be admitted to the US on any particular occasion and, as you appear to be aware, if the B2 visa is denied then that will invalidate any current ESTA that you might have, you will have to reapply for ESTA and ESTA could be denied ...

Or, you could just go on using the VWP until you actually are denied entry (which may never happen) at which point you have nothing to lose by applying for a visa.

Or, you could also try to space your trips out a bit more and spend less time in the US.

RICH

No, you don't need a B2 for short trips like you described.
Yes, you could get denied entry, based on your pattern, or for no reason at all.

A lawyer consultation would help you understand an mitigate, but a B2 visa would not necessarily overcome the issues.

Bad Company

Thanks for the replies. Still not sure what to do as we have flights booked into the US late February and a return by ship in March all booked and paid for. We did not realise that this could be a problem until we arrived in the US for this trip a couple of weeks ago.

On balance I think probably best to arrive next month and just hope the TSA man is having a good day. The irony is that is we did not go home for the 4 weeks between trips we could simply get on the ship and not take the risk.

Pulaski

So long as you're making short trips, with (much) "more time out than in", I doubt you'll ever be denied entry. You could carry some evidence of your roots in the UK (mortgage statement or certified copy of house deed, photo's of the grandchildren, or what have you) in case you're ever "sent to secondary", but being a regular visitor for a few weeks at a time is not much of a problem, .... so long as you leave as regularly as you arrive!

scrubbedexpat099

B2 would only have an advantage if you wanted to make trips for more than 90 days, which does not seem to be the case.

Otherwise the issues are identical with both.

ian-mstm

If you don't want to risk it and it doesn't put you over the 90-day VWP limit, why not just stay in the US until your ship sails in March?

Ian

crg

I'm sure you meant CBP and not TSA. I'd continue with the VWP and have proof that you have a home outside the US and enough money in the bank to visit without working. Where do you stay while in the US? Hotel, rented home, RV?

Bad Company

Thanks for the replies. We need to go home at the end of January so will have used 30 of our 90 days this time. We are then due to return at the end of February for 3 weeks staying in hotels and returning to Europe on a cruise ship from Florida.

On balance and from what you guys are all saying I think probably best to stick with the ESTA.

TopSec

I would stick with ESTA. I was told 2 or 3 years ago (in secondary) that I was on the wrong visa. I went into a flat spin and was all for booking embassy appointment etc etc when I found this website, which I am so thankful for as I think I would have screwed our travel plans royally!! Thanks guys!

We have been travelling on ESTA for about 5 years now, in and out, staying anything from 4 to 10 weeks. OH gets stamped for business and I get stamped for pleasure. We are always mindful of staying out of US as long as we have been in and so far we have been waved through with a smile.

The occasion I was detained was before I was properly aware of the situation and had stayed for 89 days and hubby travelled back about 10 days later (no questions asked!) I followed a couple of weeks after that and got hauled in. Told the truth that my husband attends lots of meetings and it is 'easier' for us to stay here for a chunk of time rather than backwards and forwards every few weeks. I now travel with copy of house deeds, bank statements etc.

Hubby says one thing which is in our favour is that we generally leave when we say we are going to and that we have a 'good' history and coming into US and leaving again on time. Frankly I am always nervous at CBP but I have learnt that keeping mouth shut, answering only what is asked and a pleasant demeanour seems to help.

B1/2 wouldn't be any better for us because we don't need to stay longer than 90 days ever. Hubby is retirement age though so may be easier to get, I'm not though so I think it is best not to rock the boat and stick with what we have.

I have a friend here whose husband is on some official visa, she travels in to 'live' with him, stays 88-9 days, goes home for 3 week or so and comes back, no problems at all?? Rather her than me?!

Pulaski

A friend of mine, working for a large global firm with a record of relocating people internationally on "proper visas", did "12 weeks in and a week out" visa waiver trips for business travel repeatedly for at least two years (I am not sure, but it may have been three, or four years, and I can't ask him now because he died of cancer. ). And yes it was literally 48 weeks in the US per calendar year! .... This was in the early-mid 90's, which may make a difference.

MarylandNed

I'm not sure what advantage a B2 visa would give you over ESTA/VWP. You can be denied entry with either. The US immigration officer (IO) seems to be implying that you have a better chance of being admitted on B2 but I'm not sure if that is actually true or not. Much depends on the individual IO on the day of entry.

To be honest, I think you just might be pushing it - the IO's comment is indicative of that - and you're at increasing risk of a denial. However, I would stick with ESTA/VWP for now. There are risks with applying for B2 although maybe not as great for retirees who seem to have a higher success rate. However, if you are denied a B2, you will jeopardize your ability to use ESTA/VWP.

Bad Company

What I cannot understand is that we are now in the US and can stay until April. BUT because we need to leave at the end of January and return for 3 weeks at the end of February we apparently taking a risk.

Does the individual Immigration Officer make the decision or does it go to a higher authority on the day. Should I have documentary evidence to hand that we only intend to stay for 3 weeks?

scrubbedexpat099

You would be sent on to Secondary which is where they get the gloves out.

crg

§ Sec. 217.4 Inadmissibility and deportability. (Section heading revised effective 4/1/97; 62 FR 10312 )


(a) Determinations of excludability and inadmissibility . (Redesignated as (a) effective 4/1/97, previously (b); 62 FR 10312 )

(1) An alien who applies for admission under the provisions of section 217 of the Act, who is determined by an immigration officer not to be eligible for admission under that section or to be inadmissible to the United States under one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility listed in section 212 of the Act (other than for lack of a visa), or who is in possession of and presents fraudulent or counterfeit travel documents, will be refused admission into the United States and removed. Such refusal and removal shall be made at the level of the port director or officer-in-charge, or an officer acting in that capacity, and shall be effected without referral of the alien to an immigration judge for further inquiry, examination, or hearing, except that an alien who presents himself or herself as an appli cant for admission under section 217 of the Act and applies for asylum in the United States must be issued a Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for a proceeding in accordance with 8 CFR 208.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) . (Paragraph (a)(1) revised effective 11/28/09; 74 FR 55725 ) (Paragraph (a)(1) revised effective 4/1/97; 62 FR 10312 )


The instructions given by the officer to get a visa are not binding on the next officer you see. If the first guy truly believed you were not admissible, be should have refused you and not wagged his finger at you and told you to get a visa. He could have refused you and compelled you to get a visa, but didn't. Your travel pattern is not concerning. Your cruising and staying in hotels is good evidence that you are tourists. I would be prepared to prove you have a home outside the US, and the means to vacation so much. Stay calm and state the facts. You are visiting as a tourist for much less than 90 days and therefore, were advised that a visa was not necessary.