300

You spent less than 90 days total. You likely re-entered on your previous waiver when you returned to the US, rather than received a new one (although receiving a new one can happen, as all entry is at the discretion of the official you receive).

301

thanks for the info guys,Bzookaj sure on both occasions I got a new 90 day waiver so guess I was lucky

302

You were not lucky. Under the circumstances you describe, spending a month in Mexico (>30 days) is considered a meaningful departure from the US. You will be granted 90 new days upon return.

303

Since they returned to the US, the time in Mexico is counted toward their 90 days. Official discretion is what allowed them a new waiver, if that is indeed what they received.
(If you have evidence showing otherwise, please cite your source.)

304

That's not how it works in practice. He could stay in Mexico 95 days if he so pleases, he would still get 90 new days once he returns to the US.


Of course. As is entry at all. But in practice, unless you're trying to cheat the system, it works the way I wrote. I've done it myself as has countless other people.

Source: Consular Section, US embassy

305

Due to official discretion.
You haven't said anything to counter that yet.

Which embassy? Provide the link.
Here, I'll show you how to cite a source:
CBP:


Note, nothing in there says anything about "long trips" to these places. If you still believe there is a rule for such, cite it.

306

Official discretion lets you in to begin with. You are not entitled to anything. What we are discussing here is what "official discretion" means in practice. For that, your static and outdated websites are pointless. Actual traveler feedback is gold. That's the value of this forum. We travel, then we give each other advice. Also, if you contact a US embassy and tell them that you are a traveler and this is the situation you are in, and what is the scoop, you will get a more realistic answer, something like the below. Enjoy.

CBP ESTA Office
Each entry into the United States is for a period of up to 90 days. You should not encounter any problems re-entering the United States.

US Consulate in France
Since you will be residing in Mexico as a student, the 90 day rule does not apply to you.

US Embassy Sweden
You can visit the US with the VWP. If you stay in Canada for 30 days or more that is considered a meaningful departure from the US

Visa Section, US Embassy Netherlands
The 90 day restriction is for 90 straight days in the US, and will not count the time spent in Canada, so that will not be an issue.

"ESTA / Visa Waiver Program / I have a general question about ESTA/VWP" reply
That will not be a problem. You will be OK if you go to Dominican Republic for 40 days {after having spent 87 days already in the US} and then return to the US for 13 days. I hope this answer helps and your family has a good trip.

307

Again, links please.
Especially since much of this explicitly contradicts the CBP's website (to which the State Department links).

308

I will cite another source, that appears to be one of yours.
The "US Embassy Netherlands" redirects VWP queries to the consulate in Amsterdam, which states:

The "US Embassy Sweden" redirects for more information to the State Department, who redirects to the CBP, which was quoted in #308.

I haven't found anything of "US Embassy France" regarding this.

You will note that these are all official sources. Please ensure yours are too.

How quickly we obfuscate. What we are discussing is whether or not there is a rule stating that a "meaningful departure" to an adjacent territory allows one to re-enter with a new waiver, or whether there is no rule and such entry is granted via "official discretion." (See #305). You are taking the position of the former, and I am of the latter. You have not shown any evidence to contradict my assertion, which is backed up by official sources with links.
Until you provide actual links, I say you're blowing smoke as usual.

309

I think honestly its a very strange and difficult rule to understand....If I understand quit well say I arrive in US stay one month,go to mexico and stay 2,5 months and go back to US for couple of days to fly out.... so technically I overstayed my 90 days and would have problems getting back in to fly out....?correct ? seems totally absurd to me....or even more stay only a week in US ,travelling around caraibean islands for 3 months and return tu US to fly out....I overstayed...?there must be exceptions on this cos that does not make sense,am not saying its not true but...hard to understand

310

It's very easy to understand in the context in the context of the average middle American's (ie those who have never heard of LP and have no interest in or connection with the tourist industry) paranoia about immigration, and more recently terrorism. Many of them are (or would be if they knew) horror struck that foreigners can get into the US without a visa at all and would happily see the abolition of the waiver scheme - which is a compromise, less than perfect, between Fortress America and visitor friendliness.

Your solution is to apply for a visa - far fewer restrictions.

The exceptions occur when officials, deliberately or negligently, use their discretion and don't apply the rules. It may be they are being kind to you, it maybe they can't be bothered with the paperwork of refusing you.

311

According to information found on CBP and embassies' websites, yes. In practice however, that's not how it works. The rules are written in a way for them to safeguard against people trying to "game" the system and give them a reason to deny people if they so please. In reality, unless gaming the system is what you're doing, you will be let in. As you should know, because you've twice done what, according to Bzookaj's #311, should not be possible.

Last year, this was a big topic in the facebook group for the exchange program of University of Victoria in Canada. Several people contacted various US embassies and CBP officials. The consensus was unanimous: if you are transiting the US heading to and from Canada in order to study there, contrary to what CBP website says, you do NOT need a US visa. Every single student who contacted their local US embassy received a similar answer. The group made a collective decision to not apply for US visas. As far as I could tell, they were all fine.

You can imagine how many exchange students and long term tourists from VWP countries go to Canada or Mexico each year transiting through the US. Must be tens of thousands. How many of them do you think know about this rule and apply for US visas? How often do we see posts in this forum of such people being denied entry to the US?

This is also discussed to and from in various European forums, and the consensus is almost always the same: the information on official websites is incorrect. If you actually contact the embassy and describe your case, you'll get a different answer. In the case you mention of going to the Caribbean, take a look at this correspondence:

Swedish family, Sep 2011
My family is visiting USA this winter. We are planning to travel for 87 days, then fly to Dominican Republic for 40 day, for tourist purpose. We plan then to fly back to USA and spend another 13 days in Miami before we fly back home to Sweden. Would that be a problem for us? We have all of our air tickets and things in order to show our travel route.

"ESTA / Visa Waiver Program / I have a general question about ESTA/VWP" reply
That will not be a problem. You will be OK if you go to Dominican Republic for 40 days and then return to the US for 13 days. I hope this answer helps and your family has a good trip.

Information given by email by officials is likely more conservative yet than what actually applies in practice. In practice, this should be no problem whatsoever. (Unless of course there's another reason they do not want you to enter the US. Suspecting that you'll work, commit crimes, don't have enough money, will try to marry someone, you being an ass with the official, etc. In which case, having this official rule could be a convenient thing.....)

The cases where people regularly DO get denied entry, is when they obviously are "gaming" the system. For example, stay in USA 89 days, go to Tijuana, come back a day or two later and expect to get 90 more days. THAT will be an issue.

The much bigger problem you might encounter is with airlines who, not knowing better, rely on the same official sources as Bzookaj does and might refuse you to board your flight to the US unless you possess a return/onward ticket within 90 days. There are a few ways around that, although none of them very practical. I'm not sure if bringing a printout of a response from the embassy would be enough. (On the other hand, reports of people in this situation are very rare, so in practice it's unlikely to be much of an issue as well.)

312

You still have no cited evidence.

Max, you are starting to advocate ignoring the rules, which is against the forum rules. While official discretion happens, it should not be relied upon. All visitors should follow the rules set forth, as quoted above, to ensure the best chances of entry.

313

Isn't that up to each individual traveler to decide? What if you email the US embassy, describe your case, and they tell you that it's ok (as in the examples I posted above). Should it still not be relied upon?

What I am advocating is that "official discretion" under many circumstances is more of a rule than an exception. I would suggest all visitors to question the CBP website, contact their local US embassy, or CBP, or the VWP, describe their case, and get accurate information.

If you believe that the verbatims I've posted above are fabricated, feel free to contact any US embassy yourself and verify.

314

1) Your examples aren't cited. They may as well be fabrications until you do. (And knowing you and your posting history, that's a very likely possibility).
2) Many of your examples are wrong, as I noted above (with actual citations).
3) While it's up to each traveler to decide for themself, recommending people ignore the rules is both stupid and against forum rules.
4) All of this is a red herring, straw man, and maybe a few other fallacies, as you haven't actually proven anything regarding the "meaningful departure," which is the point of this discussion.

Telling others to go find your evidence for you is a fallacy, and generally implies you're making it up to be "correct."
In any event, I went through much of your "evidence" above, and proved it wrong.