Touring - Touring cyclist to be deported

The U.S. has detained a cycling tourist and is planning on deporting him. Words fail me.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015326196_apwabicyclistsdeportation.html

They arrested a guy leaving for staying?

Somebody needs a transfer to the Aleutian islands.

Yep ... those Visa laws are taken very, very seriously. It is astounding that the cyclist wouldn't know that.

Obviously he didn't watch Customs on TV before going ... this is one instance where watching TV might have made him more aware and prevented this problem. And it's going to be a big problem for him ... chances are he won't be allowed into the US for at least 7 years, and other countries will be reluctant to allow him in as well.

It is a very good idea to familiarise yourself with the immigration laws of the country you visit ... breaking those laws is serious. And it doesn't matter if you break the laws by a day or a month.

He was leaving, right?

Surely they should have let him go and just marked his records? Why bother to detain him to then formally deport him later?

Seems nuts to me (on behalf of the US immigration), but I agree with a few of the comments that he should have known he was going to get into trouble.

I think the details matter here. How long did he overstay his visa by? Was there other issues with his travels through the US? Did he have any legitimate reason not to renew his visa? If this was a matter of days, with no other problems with his visit, it first should have been seen if Canada would take him. The idea of incarcerating someone, at taxpayer expense, over a trivial infraction discovered as they left the country is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

Surely they should have let him go and just marked his records? Why bother to detain him to then formally deport him later?


"He was transported to the Tacoma detention center for immigrants, where he has been since.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Lorie Dankers says that his deportation has not been settled yet, but his visa does not allow to contest removal from the country."



They are looking into his situation. Once it is decided, he'll be deported.

If you read the first few paragraphs of the article very carefully, you will see that he was denied entry into Canada. That means he had to return to the US. He had already overstayed his US tourist visa. There is no indication that he had a ticket to fly to England after the supposed stay in BC.

Trust me on this. Really trust me on this. The guy has already overstayed his three-month visa. If he has done the diagonal south-north across America, he has probably overstayed by a seriously long time. The Canadians probably rejected his entry based on his failure to provide proof of financial resources and failure to substantiate his "planned" departure to England with a booked and confirmed air ticket.

The relationship with his ride "partner" also was probably identified as being liable to encourage him to stay in Canada over the (rather generous) six-month tourist visa the Canadians normally would grant.

On rejection from Canada, he had nowhere else to go, but back across the border to American territory. The Americans had no option but to look at his record. Hmmm, overstayed his original visa? Yes. No visa or continuing visa to re-enter the US? Nope. Any booked ticket to England? Nope.

The only thing they can do is detain him, then deport him. People who say it is stupid just don't have a clue. Rather, it is the arrogant Australian who is stupid and has no-one else to blame but himself...

From the US Immigration website ... (looked up and found under 5 minutes, it is not hard to find this information) ...

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html#extendstay

Staying Beyond Your Authorized Stay in the U.S. and Being Out of Status

•It is important that you depart the U.S. on or before the last day you are authorized to be in the U.S. on any given trip, based on the specified end date on your Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94. Failure to depart the U.S. will cause you to be out-of-status.

•Staying beyond the period of time authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and being out-of-status in the United States is a violation of U.S. immigration laws, and may cause you to be ineligible for a visa in the future for return travels to the U.S. Select Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas to learn more.

•Staying unlawfully in the United States beyond the date Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have authorized--even by one day--results in your visa being automatically voided, in accordance with INA 222(g). Under this provision of immigration law, if you overstay on your nonimmigrant authorized stay in the U.S., your visa will be automatically voided. In this situation, you are required to reapply for a new nonimmigrant visa, generally in your country of nationality.


The red bold print is my red bolding for emphasis.


And it is a good idea to look up the visa requirements several times before departure. Countries change their rules, and at a quick skim it looks like the US is one that has changed their laws relatively recently. It appears that an electronic visa is required to enter the US, like the electronic visa required to enter Australia.

As an Irish person who lives in Ireland I'd like to point out that this happens also to U.S. citizens who visit Ireland. Sometimes they are turned back at the airport for not showing they can support themselves(don't arrive with a bike and $100)or sometimes they are told to leave when they overstay. Often they or their friends start media campaigns on their behalf sometimes sucessfully.

I know the issue of Irish 'illegals' in the U.S. is a thorny one and something I hold opinions on that wouldn't go down well with some of my countrymen but just thought I'd point out the other side of the coin.

He was leaving, right?

Surely they should have let him go and just marked his records? Why bother to detain him to then formally deport him later?


The board crossing folks are enforcement, the deportation process is due process.

Dunno why words fail the OP... Is it because customs on both sides are doing their job?

Rowan and Machka are 100% correct!

And I would bet the guy knew it.

He has a great big problem now, that will more than likely get him deported and not allowed to return.

Yep ... those Visa laws are taken very, very seriously. It is astounding that the cyclist wouldn't know that.

Obviously he didn't watch Customs on TV before going ... this is one instance where watching TV might have made him more aware and prevented this problem. And it's going to be a big problem for him ... chances are he won't be allowed into the US for at least 7 years, and other countries will be reluctant to allow him in as well.

It is a very good idea to familiarise yourself with the immigration laws of the country you visit ... breaking those laws is serious. And it doesn't matter if you break the laws by a day or a month.

Excellent point. Regardless of what he was doing at the time, he overstayed his visa. Obey the laws of the country you're in and you'll leave with a smile on your face. Just how far are you supposed to bend the rules? If they don't run him through the process, he could easily return for a much longer stay.... There's a major problem in the US with illegals and you can't pick and chose which nationality is "acceptable" and for whom you're going to turn a blind eye to when they break the law.

FWIW, I live on a resident's visa here in Mexico. I have to pay for this every year. Believe me, it's very clear what we're allowed to do and what's expected of us as non-nationals. Should I break the law, my rear could be deported in a NY second. Therefore, I do everything in power to make sure I respect and obey the laws. For my Xcountry trip in August, I'm only allowed to be out of Mexico for 90 days (part of my residency requirements). No, I don't need that much, but should I break that rule, I'll be fined. You better believe I have my dates written in blood on the calendar.

Having said all of that, I think everyone would agree that extenuating circumstances aren't a part of this. If the guy had an emergency (hospital) or something similar at the time the visa had expired, then documentation would probably have made a difference. It sounds to me like he just thought no one would notice. In this day and age of computers and 9/11 memories, ummmmm...yeah, they do.

Rowan and Machka are 100% correct!

And I would bet the guy knew it.

He has a great big problem now, that will more than likely get him deported and not allowed to return.

+1 He doesn't get to slide simply because he was a bicycle tourist.

My wife and I overstayed our visa in Thailand. The immigration officials took us into a back room, scribbled something in our passports, fined us 1000 baht ($3/person/day), and released us to board our plane. I think we got the light treatment because we were wearing business suits. The scruffier miscreants were placed in cells. Still another reason to try to look prosperous.

Yeah, I also agree with Machka & Rowan. Overstay your visa in Thailand, for example, and the punishment can range anywhere from small fines, to jail time and permanent ejection from the Kingdom. Border crossings are also less of a right and more of a privilege.

My only caveat is that some of the INS facilities are pretty nasty, and such places constitute an unjustifiable form of "pre-conviction punishment."

However, that's a specific enforcement issue rather than an unjustified deportation.

+1 He doesn't get to slide simply because he was a bicycle tourist.
Bingo!

Rowan and Machka said it well.

Oh Yeah...U.S. is real strict on immigration....If they need some guidance,they can start at any Home Depot parking lot in L.A.

If the guys a criminal,send him home.If not,let him go see his sister.He must have some money or capable of making money,chances are good he didn't hitchhike here.

+1 He doesn't get to slide simply because he was a bicycle tourist.

Hmm. Reminds me of the "free travel" movement. I know of at least one cyclist who rides long distances only because he can't get away with not registering his motor vehicle in PA.

Who cares where he comes from? If he didn't harm anyone, why stop him?

All this visa nonsense must be very annoying when travelling the globe by bike! :(

Who cares where he comes from? If he didn't harm anyone, why stop him?

All this visa nonsense must be very annoying when travelling the globe by bike! :(

In an ideal world, we could go where we wanted. This isn't an ideal world.

Who cares where he comes from? If he didn't harm anyone, why stop him?

All this visa nonsense must be very annoying when travelling the globe by bike! :(

Just guessing here but....Because he broke the law? And should we wait until someone who is in the country illegally harms someone before we do something about it? And I still don't see how the involvement of a bike has any meaningful bearing on anything. Sould countries around the world sdopt separate visa and related standard applicable to someone travelling by bike?

@Booger1: His companions's mother was who they were going to visit. As someone noted, there is a good chance Canada refused him entry due to this connection (suggesting the ability to stay in Canada past the tourist visa period) and the lack of a documented way home. Two years ago my companion and I cycled into Canada for a planned 3-day stay. We got peppered with questions at the border obviously designed to ascertain our long term intentions. Where are you going? How long will you be here? What do you both do for a living? What's your next day back at work?

Not trying to be funny, but if they do deport him back to Australia, is it a free flight for him?

I suspect the Australian embassy will help him out and as long as he has the finances to pay for his own return, they will work this out. I bet he doesn't make the same mistake again.

Due to irresponsibility, the guy's life is now a mess over a visa technicality, trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth. While thousands hide in the US with no visa at all. I feel sorry for him, and frustrated that this couldn't have been straightened out in a few hours with a lecture, extension, and a fine. No money for the fine? Then detain him until someone agrees to pay for his plane ticket home. Someone besides the US taxpayer.

Not trying to be funny, but if they do deport him back to Australia, is it a free flight for him?
Probably not, unless he's completely indigent. That might be part of what they have to figure out while the INS detains him.



I suspect the Australian embassy will help him out and as long as he has the finances to pay for his own return, they will work this out. I bet he doesn't make the same mistake again.
Seems unlikely.... Their involvement was probably telling the guy to hire a lawyer. They don't tend to get too involved in stuff like this.

The following article has more details about the case:
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20110615/news/306159986/australian-who-bicycled-from-florida-to-port-townsend-about-to-be

Obviously, this guy screwed up. I can't imagine what he was thinking when he chose to overstay his visa waiver. But IF this article is correct that the guy already had a non-refundable ticket to fly from Canada to the UK AND was able to provide proof, the Canadian immigration officer was pretty harsh in not allowing him into Canada in the first place.

Years ago I got a ride with 3 others to drive up to Vancouver from California. The 4 of us were all US citizens and none of us knew one another beforehand. At the border, the Canadian authorities decided to interrogate me. I was separated from the others and led into a small room where I was questioned for a considerable period of time. The funny thing was that 2 of other 3 passengers had been busy consuming all of their illicit drugs before we got to the border. One of them was intending to live illegally on one of the Gulf Islands in BC, where he had previously lived illegally. The others were pretty messed up in one way or another. I was the only passenger who had a legitimate itinerary, departure date, and proof of funds. After maybe 10 or 15 minutes, they let me go to join my "friends" to enter Canada and proceed to Vancouver. The vehicle was never searched. When I rejoined the others and we got back in the vehicle, the others were very relieved. They had been afraid that I had denounced all of them. I told them the border officer never asked me a thing about them, and I didn't volunteer anything.

Who cares if he broke the law. He hasn't harmed anyone. The US government didn't create the land, therefore their claim to control access to it is unjust.

If this were a current story happening in the Middle East, Southeast Asia or Africa, it wouldn't be news as so many stories of such official actions in similar circumstances have made the rounds. But it's the US and Canada - time to bash the "mean old ignorant and arrogant" US/Canadian officials and policies. Shakes head. I can't understand people reacting so negatively to law enforcement officials actually enforcing laws as written.

I can't imagine what he was thinking when he chose to overstay his visa waiver.
“We knew that Fin's visa was expired, but we were having so much fun traveling through the states,” Lumsden said. “Even so, we thought it was no big deal and never thought he could be thrown in jail for this.”

They just underestimated the consequences of overstaying the visa. It's possible they've traveled to other places with relatively lenient policies, and thought Canada/US would be the same.



But IF this article is correct that the guy already had a non-refundable ticket to fly from Canada to the UK AND was able to provide proof, the Canadian immigration officer was pretty harsh in not allowing him into Canada in the first place.
Perhaps, but at the same time, the border official has no obligation to let anyone into Canada. If he didn't trust the guy for some reason -- say, for blowing his US visa by 2 months and being short on cash ;) -- then it was well within his job not to allow entry.

Ultimately the responsibility was Fagan's; if he had gotten the right type of visa, or was able to obtain a longer visa while he was in the US, he wouldn't be detained and facing deportion.

The only other real issue IMO is how well he's being treated at the detention center.

They arrested a guy leaving for staying?

He was leaving, right?

If he didn't harm anyone, why stop him?

He was leaving the US for Canada, which denied him entry.


I think the details matter here. How long did he overstay his visa by?
?? You think the details matter but didn't read the link (it seems).


after staying in the country for two months after his visa waiver had expired.

David Fagan, 29, had arrived at the Sumas border crossing June 11 with his companion, Dawn Lumsden, when a border guard refused to allow him into the country because he could not show proof that he had the funds necessary to support himself in Canada, Lumsden said.

They just underestimated the consequences of overstaying the visa. It's possible they've traveled to other places with relatively lenient policies, and thought Canada/US would be the same.
No, he didn't have a visa. He entered the US under the visa waiver program. If he wanted to stay longer than 3 months, he should have obtained a 6-month tourist visa.

axolotl is completely correct on this and unfortunately Rowan and Michka are completely wrong. They had no visa, they were here on the visa waiver program and there are no extensions to the time of admission under the program. When the guy was admitted he agreed to stay for less than 90 days and by deciding to go this route instead of getting a visa before hand he waived his rights to a hearing before an immigration judge. When the guy was refused admission to Canada and given to CBP they have no option other than upholding the laws that they are sworn to enforce. For all the sympathy this story garners here maybe the fact that someone decided to post it will be beneficial to some other tourer in the future as they will understand that there are consequences to actions.

axolotl is completely correct on this and unfortunately Rowan and Michka are completely wrong. They had no visa, they were here on the visa waiver program and there are no extensions to the time of admission under the program. When the guy was admitted he agreed to stay for less than 90 days and by deciding to go this route instead of getting a visa before hand he waived his rights to a hearing before an immigration judge. When the guy was refused admission to Canada and given to CBP they have no option other than upholding the laws that they are sworn to enforce. For all the sympathy this story garners here maybe the fact that someone decided to post it will be beneficial to some other tourer in the future as they will understand that there are consequences to actions.

No, we're not completely wrong. As a matter of fact, you are restating what we said.

The visa waiver program only allows the person to stay in the US for 90 days ... and apparently he overstayed that by 60 days.

As I said in my first post ... "It is a very good idea to familiarise yourself with the immigration laws of the country you visit ... breaking those laws is serious. And it doesn't matter if you break the laws by a day or a month" .... or in his case, 2 months.

As I also mentioned, he has screwed himself up for future travel to the US, and quite possibly, future travel to other countries as well.


I'm glad this topic was brought up. Just because we're on bicycles and may not appear to pose a threat to anyone, we still need to follow the immigration laws (and other laws as well) when we travel to other countries.

axolotl is completely correct on this and unfortunately Rowan and Michka are completely wrong. They had no visa, they were here on the visa waiver program and there are no extensions to the time of admission under the program. When the guy was admitted he agreed to stay for less than 90 days and by deciding to go this route instead of getting a visa before hand he waived his rights to a hearing before an immigration judge. When the guy was refused admission to Canada and given to CBP they have no option other than upholding the laws that they are sworn to enforce. For all the sympathy this story garners here maybe the fact that someone decided to post it will be beneficial to some other tourer in the future as they will understand that there are consequences to actions.
No, the essential, important thing is that the person failed to comply with the requirements of entering and staying in the US.

Note that the person went two months (60 days) beyond the 90 days allowed.


The visa waiver program only allows the person to stay in the US for 90 days ... and apparently he overstayed that by 60 days.
And this "visa waiver program" appears to technically be a "light visa" (one that is easier to obtain and has particular restrictions).

And this "visa waiver program" isn't really any different than an actual visa. It seems that it merely a simpler way to get a visa but it has further restrictions than a "normal" visa would.

Well, technically a visa is the actual laminated visa stamp page in a passport issued at a U.S. Consulate abroad which is the Department of State. The visa waiver is an entry without having to obtain an actual visa stamp. The I-94 card issued by the CBP (part of the Department of Homeland Security) upon entry determines the allowed length of stay, although I have seen lots of visa waiver I-94 cards issued without an expiration noted. That combined with the Australia idea of "walk-about" makes this not a surprising occurrence to someone who works in the immigration field.

This guy messed up, plain and simple. It's nobody's fault but his and those people are just doing their jobs. He knew what he was risking. He knew the conditions he was here under. He gambled that the Canadians would let him in and he lost the bet. There was no other way for the US officials to handle this: Canadians denied him entry and he was in the US illegally and he had no right to extension, there was nowhere for him to go. Deportation is the only thing they can do now.

Well, technically a visa is the actual laminated visa stamp page in a passport issued at a U.S. Consulate abroad which is the Department of State. The visa waiver is an entry without having to obtain an actual visa stamp.
I realize that but so what? There are the same sorts of limits to length-of-stay. It's basically just an easy-to-obtain visa.

One still has to apply for the "ESTA".

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/


The I-94 card issued by the CBP (part of the Department of Homeland Security) upon entry determines the allowed length of stay, although I have seen lots of visa waiver I-94 cards issued without an expiration noted.
This is interesting. There could be details that we don't quite know about. It's still odd that some people didn't even get the details that were listed in the link!

Anyway, I haven't passed judgement on this person.

I'm just more surprised by the looseness that some people here seem to think characterizes international travel.

According to this, the I-94 cards determine the actual period you are allowed to stay. And it's supposed to be stamped.

http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=1050&z=46


While a visa is a permit to seek entry to the US, the I-94 card gives you permission to enter and remain in the US. Very few foreign nationals are aware that their stay in the US is controlled by the I-94 card issued to them at the time of entry, and not by their visa. Incorrect interpretations of the dates on I-94 or visa could cause serious trouble. It is the I-94 card that says how long you can stay in the US, and in what status you were admitted.


It is stamped with a date indicating how long the nonimmigrant may stay for that particular trip. It is this date – and not the expiration date of the visa – that controls how long a nonimmigrant may legally remain in the US.


This from 5/20/2010 indicates eliminating the paper I-94W (the version applicable to people using the visa-waiver-program).

http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/dhs-will-eliminate-paper-i-94w-forms-end-summer-007155


That combined with the Australia idea of "walk-about" makes this not a surprising occurrence to someone who works in the immigration field.
Aussies manage to "walk about" in many countries with stay limits. This case doesn't seem radically different.

I realize that but so what? There are the same sorts of limits to length-of-stay.

One still has to apply for the "ESTA".

Yes, I was just pointing out that visa waiver is not a visa . . .technically. I'm not making any argument here just stating a fact.


According to this, the I-94 cards determine the actual period you are allowed to stay.

Yes, I just said that but not as eloquently. And in the hundreds of I-94 cards that I have seen over the years, I see a lot of visa waiver ones where the officers do not note the expiration date. I'm not saying that it was not noted in this case or that it excuses him from overstaying, but that it if it was not, it can cause confusion.



Aussies manage to "walk about" in many countries with stay limits

Again, not making an argument, just stating a fact that I've seen this before. Sheesh, immigration makes people testy.

It's basically just an easy-to-obtain visa.


This is really incorrect. A visa and I-94 card are issued by completely different departments of the U.S. government. You can think of it that way if you want but in your own quote you can see that confusing the two documents can cause trouble.

This is really incorrect. A visa and I-94 card are issued by completely different departments of the U.S. government. You can think of it that way if you want but in your own quote you can see that confusing the two documents can cause trouble.
No, it's not "really incorrect".

For the US, there isn't any real difference.

In either case, you need the the I-94 determines the actual length of stay. And it appears that the ESTA replaces the I-94W formerly required for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers.

One might be able to say that the US policy is different than that of other countries (the I-94 seems unusual).


Yes, I just said that but not as eloquently. And in the hundreds of I-94 cards that I have seen over the years, I see a lot of visa waiver ones where the officers do not note the expiration date. I'm not saying that it was not noted in this case or that it excuses him from overstaying, but that it if it was not, it can cause confusion.
Pointing out that it can cause confusion is worthwhile.

Even with an undated I-94, it would be imprudent to assume that one can stay beyond the 90 days required of the VWP.

It seems that, if the I-94 is undated, it should indicate "D/S" (duration of status) instead.

No, it's not "really incorrect".

For the US, there isn't any real difference.

In either case, you need the the I-94 determines the actual length of stay. And it appears that the ESTA replaces the I-94W formerly required for VWP travellers.

Yes, that statement really is incorrect. I did not mean "really" in the "very" sense but in the "actually" sense. And there is a difference between the visa stamping process and obtaining an I-94 card via visa waiver. The security clearances and other internal checks that would be done during the visa process are not the same when you apply via ESTA. The I-94W was just a special looking I-94 card to differentiate it from those in other statuses.

It seems that, if the I-94 is undated, it should indicate "D/S" (duration of status) instead.

Dude, some officers just screw it up. Seriously, they are not perfect and I see it everyday. Again, I'm not saying that this guys wasn't noted (I have no idea if it was or not), but I wouldn't be surprised if he was confused or if the decided to take advantage of a messed up I-94 card.

FYI, there's no need to argue with me. He overstayed, he deserves to be handled as per standard procedure.

Yes, that statement really is incorrect. I did not mean "really" in the "very" sense but in the "actually" sense. And there is a difference between the visa stamping process and obtaining an I-94 card via visa waiver. The security clearances and other internal checks that would be done during the visa process are not the same when you apply via ESTA. The I-94W was just a special looking I-94 card to differentiate it from those in other statuses.

Yes, a "real" visa is harder to get. The VWP thing is easier to get (as I said). They both serve the same basic purpose (to the issuing country and the traveler).

The VWP thing is a "light visa" (it certainly is not "no visa").

Beyond that, you haven't indicated any practical difference between the two!

Your own quote: While a visa is a permit to seek entry to the US, the I-94 card gives you permission to enter and remain in the US.

A visa stamp must be valid upon the date of entry and after that it means nothing, absolutely nothing. It only allows you to seek entry, but you still must prove at the airport that you qualify for entry based on the visa you have. While inside the U.S. the I-94 card rules. When you exit the I-94 is taken, and the visa stamp may be used again, if still valid, to re-enter in the future and obtain a new I-94 card. The visa waiver does not leave someone with a "visa" that they can use for subsequent entries.

I know you and no one else really cares and that in common speech we use "visa" to refer to the function of the I-94 card but I felt, in my immense foolishness, that I should point out the difference between the two documents, since you were so vehemently holding people to details that were technically incorrect and not particularly relevant.

The VWP thing is a "light visa" (it certainly is not "no visa").

Incorrect. If it were a visa, they wouldn't call it a visa waiver, now would they? It is a program where they waive the need for a visa. A visa does not govern your stay in the U.S. It is an approval of your ability to apply for entry at the airport or border. A visa wavier person applies directly at the port of entry without . . . wait for it . . . a visa. :eek:

Plus, anyone may be eligible to remain in the U.S. with an expired visa because it is not the visa that governs your stay but the I-94 card and the I-94 card may be issued beyond the expiration date of the visa stamp. See completely different documents and the word "visa" is often used incorrectly.

I think people are splitting hairs here. VWP and Visas allow foreign nationals to enter and stay in the US ( under specific conditions ) legally.

The fact is the cycling tourist was stuck and the US ( because he could not secure travel to Canada ) has no other option than to hold them ( since they have no right to be in the US ) and deport them back to their home country. This whole thing could have been avoided had he applied for a visa under a change of status when he realized that his visit would last more than 90 days.

3 month Visa? seems kind of short to cross a big country.

I got 6 from Brits, though I was going to Eire, the clock started passing thru
Heathrow I guess , ( got an extension , so legally spent 9 months) .

maybe because US barely lets anyone have 2 weeks holiday it seems generous..

One still has to apply for the "ESTA".

Not always. Visitors to the USA who are eligible for the visa waiver program do not need to apply for ESTA if they are arriving in the US by land from Canada or Mexico. The Q&A section in an official US government page with the heading "Do I need to apply for ESTA" there is the following:

Q:I am a citizen of a VWP country and am visiting the U.S. from Canada or Mexico? A:If you are coming by land, you do not need to have ESTA authorization. If you are flying into the U.S. or arriving by sea, you do need to apply for ESTA.

I don't think we know how this Australian guy originally entered the US.

I think people are splitting hairs here. VWP and Visas allow foreign nationals to enter and stay in the US ( under specific conditions ) legally.

The fact is the cycling tourist was stuck and the US ( because he could not secure travel to Canada ) has no other option than to hold them ( since they have no right to be in the US ) and deport them back to their home country. This whole thing could have been avoided had he applied for a visa under a change of status when he realized that his visit would last more than 90 days.

+1

Many countries have limited-stay options (whatever they call them) for tourists, and many have options if a person needs (or wants) to extend their stay ... with, of course, no guarantee that the extension is going to be granted.

If you want to come to Australia for a cycling tour, you'll apply for an ETA. It is called a Visa, but there's no card or sticker or anything involved, it's all electronic. I print the confirmation page to carry with me, just for my own peace of mind. The ETA allows you to be in Australia as a tourist for 90 days ... just like the Visa Waiver thing in the US does. There is a service charge of $20 for the ETA, and it takes a few minutes online to fill out the form.

If you want to stay in Australia longer as a tourist, or if you want to change your status so you can work or whatever, you've got to apply for a different type of visa before the ETA runs out. Those cost more and are more complicated. I have experience with this. I'm a Canadian legally living and working in Australia, and I've been here for 2 years now.


The US situation looks similar. You're allowed in for 3 months as a tourist, if you want to stay longer, you apply for an extension or a different visa.

In Canada it is 6 months, and if you're going to stay longer, you've got to apply for an extension 30 days before the end of your allowed time.

In the UK, it is also 6 months.


The point is that it only takes a few minutes to do an online search to find out what the rules and regulations are. Look up "<<your destination country>> immigration" on Google, and click the link to the official government immigration site. From there you will either be able to find the visitor information, or you will be provided with a link to another site where the information you are looking for is located.

If you are going to another country, it is worth it to spend a few hours one evening before you go to have a look ... especially if you plan to spend more than 90 days there, but even if you're only planning to be there a short time.


--------------------------------------------------------------
This Canadian site provides some good information regarding international travel ... from a Canadian perspective, of course, but there may be similar websites available for people living in other countries as well.

It is full of travel reports (warnings about potentially dangerous things happening in other countries), travel tips, information about passports and visas,
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

There are several informative publications ...
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/publications/bon-voyage-eng.asp

A comment from the above publication ...

Visas and other entry requirements
You need a visa to enter certain countries. The most common categories are business, work, student, and tourist visas. Be sure to obtain any visas and fulfill all entry requirements well before travelling. For details, consult with your travel counsellor or the destination country’s embassy or consulate in Canada (see our website for a list of foreign government offices accredited to Canada).

Some examples of entry requirements include:
•a certified criminal record check (provided by the RCMP);
•a medical certificate;
•proof of HIV testing; and
•a yellow fever vaccination certificate (if you are arriving from an infected area).

Some countries will allow you to enter only if you can prove you will be leaving and have enough money to support yourself during your stay. Be prepared to show your return or onward ticket, a bank statement, or any visas that demonstrate that you plan to visit another country.

He over stayed his Visa. I don't know what the debate is about, the US has no responsibility to him and neither does Canada.