axolotl

The following article has more details about the case:
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...nd-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.

Omiak

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.

drmweaver2

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.

Bacciagalupe

“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.


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.

njkayaker

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

?? You think the details matter but didn't read the link (it seems).

axolotl

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.

eastbaybob

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.

Machka 

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.

njkayaker

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.

And this "visa waiver program" appears to technically be a "light visa" (one that is easier to obtain and has particular restrictions).

Schwerelos

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.

AdamDZ

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.

njkayaker

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".

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

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.

https://www.visapro.com/Immigration-A...s/?a=1050&z=46


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

https://www.securitymanagement.com/ne...-summer-007155

Aussies manage to "walk about" in many countries with stay limits. This case doesn't seem radically different.

Schwerelos

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.

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.


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

Schwerelos

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.

njkayaker

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).

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.

Schwerelos

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.

Schwerelos

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.

njkayaker

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!

Schwerelos

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.

Schwerelos

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.

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.

Brontide

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.

fietsbob

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..

axolotl

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.

Machka 

+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,
https://www.voyage.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

There are several informative publications ...
https://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.

Dirty Dan

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.