91 days in the US

I accidentally booked my flights to the US a day longer than I should have on the visa waiver program - current time between arrival and departure is 91 days. It's likely that I will go to Italy for a week that will essentially solve the problem. However, these flights won't be booked until after I arrive in the US - without these tickets it will look like I am overstaying. Will it be a problem on entry? I imagine they might have an issue without the Italy tickets.

Appreciate any help.

There are three possibilities. No one can predict which one will happen.

1. You are not asked to show the onward ticket. You are admitted to the US.
2. The immigration official is bad at math and doesn't catch the 91 days. You are admitted.
3. The immigration official sees the problem. you are not admitted.

There is also the possibility that an airline clerk will notice and you will not be allowed to board the plane. Unlikely, but also not predictable.

Two other thoughts - check the International Date Line, to ensure that you are 91 days ... do all the calculations from the US point of view of course. And secondly - can't you book and pay for a fully refundable (no questions asked) return ticket to Italy, and as soon as you get to the US (and satisfy border control presumably, and get in) you can cancel that ticket, and buy a cheaper no-refund ticket that suits you.

Mad Max is full of crazy ideas, but if the cleaners and security don't move you on, this one just might work. Take a good book and a pillow.

The biggest concern is if you actually stay 91 days. You will have violated the VWP and can never use it again (unless you lie and they don't know -- but if you fly in and out they should know).

It is unlikely that CBP will notice. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need a return/onward ticket to apply for entry, and they very rarely ask for it. More likely that the airline will give you problems.

A few options:
- Re-book your trip to 90 days or less. Usually doable for a fee even for nonrefundable tickets.
- Book your Italy trip before you fly in.
- Book a fully refundable ticket that you later cancel. You can use this to show the airline/CBP if needed.
- Apply for a US B2 visa. I would advice against this.

Do NOT stay 91 straight days!

Actually, here's an interesting idea. Assuming the airline let's you board, when you arrive in the US, hang out in the pre-immigration area until after midnight... should put you at 90 days, not 91 :)

they still have your flight information on your immigration information, so not such a great idea.

I knew a magical solution from Mad Max would have a logical flaw.

I would not stress, I think you will be fine...not a big deal. Even if Immigration does ask for return ticket, and its 1 day, like they would really care to hassle someone over 1 day, especially if you say you are going to Italy for a week..

Contrary to popular belief, you do not need a return/onward ticket to apply for entry

Where are you getting that information? Customs and Border Protection says
>At the time of application for admission, a VWP applicant must:

Be in possession of a round-trip ticket that will transport the individual out of the United States to any other foreign port or place as long as the trip does not terminate in contiguous territory or an adjacent Island; except that the round trip ticket may transport the traveler to contiguous territory or an adjacent Island, if the traveler is a resident of the country of destination or if arriving at a land border, provide evidence of financial solvency and a domicile abroad to which the traveler intends to return.

The State Dept. says
> [You may be eligible for VWP travel if you can answer “YES”]
>If arriving by air or sea, are you traveling on an approved carrier and do you have a return ticket abroad?
>Travelers with onward tickets terminating in Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, or the Caribbean Islands

must be legal permanent residents of those areas.

Something to check:
The day you arrive is "Day 0," not "Day 1."
If you are counting in that manner, are you still at 91 days?

They count the day you enter. They do NOT count the day you leave. So if in fact you leave on day 91, you have not overstayed. So in effect, what they are really counting is how many NIGHTS you spent in the USA.

{quote:title=max_mexico wrote:}{quote}
Actually, here's an interesting idea. Assuming the airline let's you board, when you arrive in the US, hang out in the pre-immigration area until after midnight... should put you at 90 days, not 91 :)

That's a great idea but I have a connecting flight. Good tip

{quote:title=travelinstyle46 wrote:}{quote}
They count the day you enter. They do NOT count the day you leave. So if in fact you leave on day 91, you have not overstayed. So in effect, what they are really counting is how many NIGHTS you spent in the USA.

Where did you find this info?

they still have your flight information on your immigration information, so not such a great idea.
I knew a magical solution from Mad Max would have a logical flaw.

Hmm, well, I can tell you for sure that the date used to calculate your 90 days is when you go through US immigration, not when the airplane was supposed to hit the tarmac. But sure, it might be suspicious if the immigration officer realizes it took you 16 hours to make it to immigration... or if someone notices you loitering in the pre-immigration area. It might not be the best solution.

not a big deal. Even if Immigration does ask for return ticket, and its 1 day, like they would really care to hassle someone over 1 day

I don't know for sure, but I think+ it might be a big deal if you plan to overstay even 1 day. I +think they will consider you inadmissible, because they can't let someone in who intends to violate the VWP.

It used to be no biggie at all. Pre-2001, people overstayed and otherwise violated their VWP's all the time and were allowed back in. My understanding is that things are much stricter today.

Where are you getting that information?

Where do I start?

• 30+ own entries to the US of which I can only recall immigration asking once for onward/return ticket: when I had an overnight transit (Mexico-US-China) and claimed that I would sleep on the airport floor.
• A guy I know in Europe travels to the US each year on one-way tickets on the VWP (against my recommendation) and he has never experienced any issues.
• Icelandair is known for not requiring a return/onward ticket to the US. I have written confirmation from them that they don't.
• When directly asked if one can enter on a one-way ticket, CBP answers the following: Please be advised A round trip ticket is not required to apply for ESTA or apply for entry, however upon entry you will need to provide proof of residency, solvency, and intent to return.
• CBP rulebook states that a return/onward ticket is not required and normally not asked for, although it might become relevant in case your admissibility is at question.

The day you arrive is "Day 0," not "Day 1."

What is your source for this? For such a basic question, it is remarkable how hard it is to find a reliable source.

They count the day you enter. They do NOT count the day you leave.

Incorrect. It's the last day that counts, the first doesn't.

At the end of the day, I'd strongly advise against pushing it to the last day. The consequences for overstaying are very harsh (possibly never being able to use VWP again -- not sure how this is enforced in practice though). What happens if you miss your flight on the last day? Why isn't 88 days enough?

Q: What happens if you miss your flight on the last day? Why isn't 88 days enough?

A: I accidentally booked my flights to the US a day longer than I should have on the visa waiver program - current time between arrival and departure is 91 days.

I didn't 'find' the info sqww, I just 'know' about it.

Think about it. What does the visa waiver say? It says you may stay 90 days. So when do you start to count days? Obviously you count the day you arrive since you will 'stay' overnight. But on the last day, you do not 'stay', you leave. You do not stay the night in the country. Understand?

They actually count each 24 hour period or each night you 'stay'. So how many nights will you stay? 90 or 91?

In any case if you do go to Italy for a week the issue becomes moot. When you leave for Italy you will hand in your Visa Waiver. Visit ended. When you return you will get a new Visa Waiver, new visit begins.

I didn't 'find' the info sqww, I just 'know' about it. Think about it.

LOL. This is how you give immigration advice? We here try to base our arguments on the law, not guesses and flawed logic. OP, please do not trust a word this poster says.

Think about it. What does the visa waiver say? It says you may stay 90 days. So when do you start to count days?

My local garage charges $20 per day. Yet, when I park from 4pm until 2pm next day, they charge $40.

When you leave for Italy you will hand in your Visa Waiver.

This shows that you don't know what you're talking about, because there's no visa waiver to hand in. OP, please entirely disregard any posts from this poster if you want to stay safe!

In any case if you do go to Italy for a week the issue becomes moot.

Besides, it's not moot if the airline refuses to let him board in the UK because he doesn't comply with VWP! Lollicopters!

You can also buy a cheap ticket to Guatemala or Costa Rica from the USA and thus reset your visa waiver if you don't mind spend 3 days flying somewhere. You can often find a ticket for under $200 roundtrip via Spirit Airlines for example.

Yes, you don't hand it in anymore Max, it's all done online. I forgot about that as it doesn't apply to me as a Canadian. Only when I fly on my UK passport or with my wife on her UK passport. Nevertheless, going to Italy will in fact mean he is not going to be in the US for 90 days.

All this to me is a tempest in a teapot. Bear in mind that Immigration is not in the business of denying tourists entry into the USA. They are looking for illegal workers, etc. If the Border Officer notices the date of return, a simple explanation of what you are planning to do is all that is needed.

But you do bring up one intersting point Max. If he applied for his VWP online, he had to have entered the dates. If they accepted it, not rejected it, then it is moot. LOL

If the Border Officer notices the date of return, a simple explanation of what you are planning to do is all that is needed.

I don't know how strict they are in practice. My guess would be that if you explain to them that you intend to stay 91 straight days (i.e. one more than allowed), they would have no choice but to deny you entry since you are essentially saying "I am going to break the rules, please let me in". If you on the other hand explain to them that you intend to go to Italy but just haven't bought the tickets yet because you don't know the exact dates, I believe you have a very good chance to enter, since a return ticket is not required to apply for entry (contrary to what some posters claim here). Nevertheless, the airline could decide to not let you board without a return/onward ticket within 90 days, in which case it doesn't matter how lenient immigration is.

If he applied for his VWP online, he had to have entered the dates. If they accepted it, not rejected it, then it is moot. LOL

You don't apply for a VW online. Perhaps you are referring to ESTA, but you don't enter any dates for that. I don't really know what you are referring to.

Perhaps you are referring to ESTA, but you don't enter any dates for that. I don't really know what you are referring to.

In fact you do Max ... the online form for the ESTA does ask us furriners for dates and address while in the US. I entered roughly close dates, plus our first motel in Los Angeles, and the ESTA was approved for a further two years.

Hmm, I am looking at the form right now, and I don't see it. The only dates asked for is birth date, passport issuance and passport expiry. The travel information section (which is not mandatory and can be left blank) includes the city you'll fly out from, the airline and flight number but no dates as far as I can see.

Sometimes I have bouts of RA (Reverse Alzheimer's) - remembering things distinctly, even if they didn't happen!

As I said, I do not personally need to deal with I-94 forms or ESTA as a Canadian. So I am not current on what is or is not included on either the paper I-94 or the online ESTA.

So I had a look. As I now understand it, if you have your ESTA approved you enter without having to fill in an I-94 and just get your passport stamped on entry. Dates of travel are not required as you say Max to get an ESTA approved. The ESTA allows travel for within 2 years after it is approved. So far so good.

So obviously, the question of your length of stay is not going to come up until you get to the Immigration agent at the airport in the US. So he asks, where are you staying (at least first night address required) and for how long. The OP says, '90 days but I plan to leave and return in the middle of that time.' Probably he will be asked to elaborate on that answer and does so. Passport stamped, 'next please'.

I just don't see any big problem here. The OP could even feign ignorance that his dates constitute 91 days. 'NINETY ONE, really? Oh, is that a problem? I will be going to Italy for a few days in the middle. Does that make a difference?'

So obviously, the question of your length of stay is not going to come up until you get to the Immigration agent at the airport in the US.

Read my posts in more detail. There is a considerable risk that the airline will notice it during check-in at the airport. They don't even have to count days; they may ask for return ticket, enter it in their computer, and the system might come back and say that it's invalid. When this happens, the OP may have the option of canceling his trip or buying a valid return/onward ticket. I'm not saying this is what definitely will happen. As I said before, I know of people who travel on one-way tickets to the US without issues. But I've also heard of people who are denied boarding. If it were me, this is what I would be most concerned about, not immigration.

So he asks, where are you staying (at least first night address required)

First night address is not required. I have entered saying I will sleep on the airport floor or in a rental car. But if your admissibility is at question, of course the more you have planned the better.

The OP says, '90 days but I plan to leave and return in the middle of that time.' Probably he will be asked to elaborate on that answer and does so. Passport stamped, 'next please'.

Yep, agreed. If everything else is in order and he convinces the inspecting officer that his trip complies with the VWP and he will return to his home country at the end of it, I think he will be fine.

The OP could even feign ignorance

Now you are advocating lying to the CBP and violating US immigration laws, since we know that he already knows it's a problem.

"I have entered saying I will sleep on the airport floor"

Then you have been asked and answered as required.

When I arrived in the US, the officer wanted to see if I had return tickets or not.

All I had to show was a printed itinerary stating the return dates.
Connect the dots. :)

Once you arrive, rebook your return tickets.
You don't wanna mess with the US gov if you plan on visiting here in the future.

And max's idea of waiting a day in the airport is smart!
Haha

Airline's often cite, 'proof of onward/return travel' as a reason for denying boarding unless you buy a return ticket. Many people believe the airlines when told this. However, if you actually look at the Immigration website for many a country, what you find is that there is no actual requirement for a return or onward ticket. Often what it does say is something like, 'satisfy the Immigration officer that you do not intend to stay or work in the country'.

That 'satisfy' is taken to mean a ticket will 'satisfy' the agent. Which is obviously ridiculous since it may or may not satisfy the agent. Having a ticke is only PROOF that you have a ticket, it does not prove you intend to use it !

So the issue is not necessarily an Immigration requirement, it is an AIRLINE requirement that they try to tell you is an Immigration requirement.

So the issue is not necessarily an Immigration requirement, it is an AIRLINE requirement that they try to tell you is an Immigration requirement.

No, it's an Immigration requirement:
>(c) Restrictions on manner of arrival—(1) Applicants arriving by air and sea. Applicants must arrive on a carrier that is signatory to a Visa Waiver Pilot Program Agreement and at the time of arrival must have a round trip ticket that will transport the traveler out of the United States to any other foreign port or place as long as the trip does not terminate in contiguous territory or an adjacent island; except that the round trip ticket may transport the traveler to contiguous territory or an adjacent island, if the traveler is a resident of the country of destination.

(emphasis added)

The reasons airlines ask is because they are tasked with enforcement:
>(b) Procedures at ports of embarkation. At each port of embarkation carriers shall take reasonable steps to prevent the boarding of improperly documented aliens destined to the United States by taking the following steps:

(1) Screening of passengers by carrier personnel prior to boarding and examination of their travel documents to ensure that:

(i) The passport or travel document presented is not expired and is valid for entry into the United States;

(ii) The passenger is the rightful holder; and

(iii) If the passenger requires a visa, the visa is valid for the holder and any other accompanying passengers named in the passport.

(2) Refusing to board any passenger determined to be improperly documented. Failure to refuse boarding when advised to do so by a Service or Consular Officer may be considered by the Service as a factor in its evaluation of applications under §273.5.

Airlines are also responsible for the cost/inconvenience of taking anyone they carry to the US - who is then refused entry at their port of arrival - back to where they carried them from. So the airlines are strongly motivated to do the government's bidding ... which is of course the way the screening legislation was designed to function.

You read 'round trip' and think it means 'round trip'. In fact what the rule is saying is you must show proof you intend to leave the USA. That MAY be a round trip ticket. It MAY be an onward ticket (not the same thing is it). It MAY be any other explanation or 'proof' that the Immigration officer chooses to accept.

Let's take an example. You are a recreational sailor. You fly from Europe to San Diego with the intent of joining a yacht that is sailing to Hawaiii and points west. What happens to the apparent need for a return ticket? Obviously, you are not going to be returning to San Diego or from Hawaii necessarily to Europe. You could be going to sail on to the French Polynesians or Australia or Japan or India or anywhere. So what will they say when you arrive in San Diego?

Suppose you have a letter from the owner/skipper of the yacht you intend to join, inviting you to crew on the boat. Will Immigration accept that as 'proof' that you intend to leave the USA? Quite likely if you have a duffel bag with obvious sailing gear in it. Suppose you don't have a letter but you do have a cellphone number for the owner/skipper that Immigration can call and ask if your story is true? Quite likely that will get you through.

Here is the only part of the quote you gave bjookaj that matters, "will transport the traveler out of the United States to any other foreign port or place" ANYTHING that will satisfy Immigration that that is what you intend to do will get you through.

Why the airlines insist on it is clear. It costs them money if you are turned back. But it is not Immigration that insists on a return ticket. They will accept any reasonable alternative.

The rule is written and applies to probably 95%+ of all travellers. They all return to where they came from. ie. home. But that does not mean there are not exceptions to the rule that are allowed. They are allowed every day.

Of course there are exceptions, and discretion and judgement are applied.

But the salient reality for this branch is, if I went to Melbourne Airport this morning (just up the road) with a valid passport, a valid ESTA, but with just a one-way ticket to LAX and no visa, Qantas would not led me board ... I think that is close to a 100% certainty - despite any pleadings I made about going sailing, or motoring to Costa Rica, or whatever. And the example of the sailor is not a particularly good exception - visa classes do exist for people who live or work on boats.

You are a recreational sailor. You fly from Europe to San Diego with the intent of joining a yacht that is sailing to Hawaiii and points west. What happens to the apparent need for a return ticket?

False analogy.
Recreational sailors are required to have a visa, because they are using private transport. Visa holders are not required to have a ticket, as this is a provision of the VWP only.
The two instances are not comparable.

Suppose you have a letter from the owner/skipper of the yacht you intend to join, inviting you to crew on the boat.

Again, false analogy.
You need a (D-)visa to crew the boat.

Here is the only part of the quote you gave bjookaj that matters, "will transport the traveler out of the United States to any other foreign port or place"

Now you're just taking things out of context.
Let me add the context back:
>and at the time of arrival must have a round trip ticket that will transport the traveler out of the United States to any other foreign port or place

And if you refer to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd spell my handle correctly.

Why the airlines insist on it is clear.

Yes, it is--because they are required by rule to check.

But it is not Immigration that insists on a return ticket.

I quoted the rule, which states otherwise.

You're welcome to believe what you wish, as wrong as it is.

I had no intention to mis-spell your name bzookaj. Just a typo.

I'm not going to get into a whole discussion re yacht crew and visas. There is the law and there is common practice. They differ considerably with everyone involved knowing they do. It depends on whether the boat is going to spend any time in a country. A private yacht from Canada stops in San Diego to provision. Technically, all crew need a B1 visa (or a D visa for paid commercial ship crew). But all they are doing is provisioning and moving on to Mexico, (then Hawaii, then Tahiti, then Japan, then Indonesia, then India, then S. Africa, then Australia, etc, etc.) . Immigration will not deny them being allowed to provision. They may insist some crew members not get off the boat or they may not depending on nationality. If a new crew member joins from another country they may insist that crew member not leave the boat. They may insist the owner/skipper hire someone to do the provisioning and bring the provisions to the boat and no one leave the boat. They may allow the owner/skipper and crew ashore but insist they sail on the same day or in X days. It is not a simple black and white issue. Crew and visas is a very grey area. Some owners/skippers could insist all crew have visas for all countries they intend to or even just might visit. Imagine the nightmare that would involve. Often the answer is simply, you don't get off the boat in harbour if Immigration tells you you can't. People who live aboard yachts full time and sail the world do not always have a visa for every country they visit. Crew join and leave boats all over the world. Someone joins for a month then leaves and someone else takes their place. They don't all have visas. It's simply not practical. They enter as a tourist and then leave with no one the wiser.

But let's not get off track on boat crews. Let's stick to the 'return ticket' issue. One issue at a time. ;-)

All I intended was an example of a situation in which a return or onward ticket made no sense. You can think of any scenario you wish to provide an example of that and what would happen as a result. Here is another (hopefully less controversial) example.

A traveller is flying to New York with the intention of travelling (as a tourist) across the US to Los Angeles before making his way north to Vancouver, Canada. How long it will take is undetermined as he has no set itinerary at all. But he does know he must leave the US in 90 days. He intends to travel by train and bus. He will continue on from Canada to somewhere else in the world. He intends to travel for 2 years and has no fixed itinerary but has $50,000 cash in a bank account to fund his travel.

Under no circumstances would he have a return ticket. If you want, you could assume he has a Seattle to Vancouver bus ticket as an indication of onward travel. Or he doesn't and intends to state his plans to Immigration on arrival and show he has sufficient funds (online bank balance) for his time in the US and to fund leaving the US.

Immigration will not insist on a return ticket. It makes no sense. The airline may insist ianw in which case you buy a one way, fully refundable ticket from Quantas, New York to Melbourne, right then, right there at their desk in Melbourne and on arrival in NYC you return the ticket for a full refund at their desk before leaving the airport. You cannot stop an airline from following an inflexible policy but you can easily circumvent it. They do not insist because US Immigration insists, the airline insists because the airline is covering their butt.

What makes that clear is that many airlines insist on return tickets even when the country you are flying to clearly does not. For example, Quantas will no doubt insist you have a return ticket if you fly to Canada from Melbourne but Canadian Immigration regulations CLEARLY do not insist that you have a return ticket to enter Canada. Their regulation specifically does not mention it but does say you 'must satisfy Immigration you intend to leave'. I live in Canada and know that some airlines insist on return tickets while others do not. The same is true of the UK. Immigration there also uses the 'satisfy' word in their regulation and airlines interpret it as 'return ticket'.

The airline will argue that means you have to have a return ticket. They base the argument on the supposed 'proof' that constitutes. It proves nothing but it covers their butt if you are refused entry. They don't get fined and they have been paid already to fly you back to Melbourne.

All I am saying is that any regulation of this kind is not 100% enforced. Discretion and common sense can be applied by the individual Immigration officer. What does apply 100% of the time is that you must SATISFY the Immigration officer that you do not intend to work and you do intend to leave the country within the 90 days.

What an airline does is a totally separate issue from that and their reasons for doing so are NOT because the Immigration of a country makes them do it.

Travelinstyle is actually absolutely correct here. When the law writes "round trip ticket" that doesn't have to be a physical ticket. As long as you can satisfy the officer that you'll leave the US within 90 days, you're good. This has been shown over and over again, and has been verified by direct question to CBP and even the internal CBP rulebook dictates that a return/onward ticket is not required and normally not something asked for.

Why is it so hard to understand? Most countries in the world have official rules that differ from the actual rules. Take Russia for example, for which I am in the process of applying for a visa. According to official rules, you need to have paid accommodation for your entire stay in Russia, which in practice would make it impossible to backpack through the country. However, in practice, this is not something that is required. Similarly, the government of Iraq claims that it is impossible and illegal to enter Iraq from Turkey without visa. But it's not. It's trivial, and border guards let you in smiling, I've done it myself. These discrepancies, and many more are widely discussed on this forum, and travelers use them successfully all the time. USA is no different than Russia and Iraq in this regard. The rules say one thing, what happens in practice is something else.

I am not in any way advocating breaking the law. I'm just telling what the situation is actually like. Travelers are allowed to do whatever they like, but they should know that Travelinstyle and I are likely the most experienced travelers in this thread when it comes to international travel (in terms of crossing various borders and dealing with immigration), and are the ones most likely to know how things work in practice, and we are telling you that a return/onward ticket is not a requirement in practice with US immigration.

For reference, here is what CBP says when directly asked a question that is almost identical to that which Travelinstyle describes in #34:

Please be advised A round trip ticket is not required to apply for ESTA or apply for entry, however upon entry you will need to provide proof of residency, solvency, and intent to return.

LOL, actually, 'proof of residency and intent to return' can also get a lot of people all worked up. The guy leaving home for 2 years has given up his home in X when he left and may or may not intend to ever return, who knows.

But he can show solvency and he can explain his plan and he can say he knows he has to leave THIS country (whichever it is he is entering) within the allowed period of time.

It ALL comes down to SATISFYING Immigration of your INTENTIONS. In reality, it's all about perception. If Immigration perceives you as having intentions they do not approve of (likely to try and work illegally or overstay) they will deny you entry with or without return or onward tickets (they prove nothing about your intentions and will be ignored).

What do you think most illegal immigrants who enter by air do? They all have return tickets and Immigration KNOWS that.

Wise words, Travelinstyle.

What do you think most illegal immigrants who enter by air do?

Your fallacies would be humorous if they weren't so misleading and egregious.
They do not break that rule. They break the rule regarding length of stay.

This is simple:
You stated that it was not an immigration rule, but an airline rule. It's not, and you are wrong on that account. I have quoted the acutal rules to show such.
If you don't like them, please take it up with the rulemakers.

Until then "the rules are what they are."
And please do not advocate ignoring them.

Bjookaj, what is your problem. People arrive by air with return tickets who do not intend to use them. My point is and was that a return ticket does not constitute 'proof' of anything. Immigration know that and as I have said, ignore the return ticket if they think the person intends to stay and work illegally.

Yes, they don't break the 'rule' of having a return ticket. So what? All that indicates is that the rule is meaningless in terms of actually stopping anyone or being accepted by Immigration as proving anything.

No, I did NOT state it was not an immigration rule. I stated that it was not a 100% enforced rule. That is not the same thing as saying the rule did not exist. So I am NOT WRONG on that account.

This isn't like 'thou shall not kill'. It isn't black and white when it comes to enforcement. Immigration is flexible in how they interpret and apply the regulations.

Airlines, have policies and often are far less flexible. Airlines and Immigration are two different entities. EACH does what each does.

I am not advocating ignoring the regulations, I am advocating knowing what they really mean and how they are really applied. The 'rules are what they are' yes, but you just don't seem to understand (or are being deliberately obtuse) that they are not enforced 100%. Exceptions are made every day. They have to be based on common sense.

Let me ask you this simple question bzookaj. What nationality are you and what experience do you have of trying to enter the USA without a return ticket?

No-one is advocating ignoring or breaking any rules. We are discussing how the rules should be interpreted and how they are enforced in practice.

If what you are saying is correct Bzookaj, why then does CBP on direct question advice travelers that a return ticket is not required+ ? Why does the internal CBP rule book say that +a return ticket is not required ?

"Please be advised A round trip ticket is not required to apply for ESTA or apply for entry, however upon entry you will need to provide proof of residency, solvency, and intent to return."

Do you have a link for that Max. Maybe bjookaj will believe his own eyes.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1719825&messageID=18500764#18500764

No, he doesn't believe it since it's not from a government website. I've linked dozens of first hand travelers reports in the past, but they're apparently worth nothing.

In this case, the reply by CBP was whisked away as follows by another poster on this board: Methinks the reply was concocted by someone in a back office who didn't understand the rules - and possibly didn't know where Mexico was.

LOL.

In fact, I have now emailed CBP and asked them about what Smartcookiee wrote in #18, which is a method that I've often seen Bzookaj and others here recommend, namely:

You can also buy a cheap ticket to Guatemala or Costa Rica from the USA and thus reset your visa waiver if you don't mind spend 3 days flying somewhere.

I've always felt like this is wrong. While it might comply with the rules on paper, it is a method deliberately designed to "game" US immigration rules, and as such I've questioned it's legality. Here is the verbatim email and response:

Max
Dear CBP. Suppose I'd like to stay in the US for longer than 90 days and am traveling on the visa waiver, would it be OK for me to after close to 90 days in the US, buy a ticket to Guatemala or Costa Rica and return after 3 days, thus resetting my visa waiver and getting another 90 days?

CBP officer
NO you can not reset the visa waiver by going to another country. The terms of the Visa Waiver Program VWP are very clear - it is only to be used for occasional, short visits to the US. If the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer thinks you are trying to "reset" the clock by making a short trip out of the US and re-entering for another 90-day period, you can be denied entry. (If that happens, you will have to obtain a visa for any future travel to the US)

Huh, it seems bzookaj considers himself an expert on the subject. I'd like to hear the answer to my question bzookaj. What is your nationality and what is your experience of entering the US on a Visa Waiver?

Try this one on for size. My wife, a UK passport holder at the time but living in Canada repeatedly got 90 day VWers back to back over the course of a 3 year period (2007-10). According to the 'rules' as you interpret them that is not allowed. We used to drive across (lived 5 miles from the border) some days just to go to lunch at a Mexican restaurant we liked.

Or this one. On entry into the US with the intent of spending 3 winter months in S. California, I asked the agent what we should do as we might return to Canada after the 90 day period. The reason was we were renting a place for 3 months and to return within the 90 days we would have to cut our stay (at our paid for accommodation) short. He told me to just drive across the border into Mexico. Hand in the VW when we crossed then make a u-turn and re-enter the US and get a new 90 day waiver. So we did. No hassle, no major questions. When getting the new VW for my wife we just told the agent what we were doing. All he said was, 'so you will be in California another week and then drive back to Canada?' I said yes, he gave her the VW.

According to the rules this is simply not allowed. But since we wife was resident in Canada and since it was obvious we had no intent other than to vacation in the US, the rules were simply ignored. Did you know that the rule for Canadians entering Canada is generally understood to be 6 months (not 90 days). But in fact there is no maximum for a Canadian. You just have to be able to explain why you want to stay longer than 6 months and be BELIEVED.

Thank you Travelinstyle for sharing your knowledge. Stories like yours are so much more useful for travelers than copy and pastes from some random and outdated "official" website. I have copied your experiences into my archive of truths.

Try this one on for size. My wife, a UK passport holder at the time but living in Canada repeatedly got 90 day VWers back to back over the course of a 3 year period (2007-10). According to the 'rules' as you interpret them that is not allowed.

This is ridiculous ... have you actually read the provisions? You can go back and forth to Canada (or Mexico or Adjacent Islands) if you are a resident there.

No, he's right, according to the rules on some "official" websites, and some posters on this forum, even residents of Canada/Mexico should have a B2 visa if they intend to spend more than 90 days in North America. You might recall all these discussions we've had here about whether exchange students and long term visitors of Canada/Mexico need a visa or not. My opinion, and that of many CBP officers and consulate staff I've spoken with, and many many sources I've heard from, is that a visa is often not required. The only thing residency in Canada/Mexico buys you is that you can officially travel there on a one-way ticket via the US. For reference, below are the official rules the airlines go by. As you can see, they will allow you to travel to Canada/Mexico via the US on a one-way ticket even as a non-resident as long as your stay in the US is a transit -- this is not quite in line with official US immigration rules. As with the immigration rules, the airlines seem to apply these rules at their discretion. I have written before about Icelandair who are very lax about allowing people to travel to the US on one-way tickets on the visa waiver.

IATA rules used by airlines:

Visitors must hold return/onward tickets. Exempt are holders of a valid US visa.

A return/onward ticket (or electronic ticket record) must be to a final destination country other than Canada, Mexico or contiguous (adjacent) countries or territories situated in or bordering the Caribbean Sea . If passenger holds proof of residence in, or is transiting the USA to such a country or territory, an onward/return ticket to that country or territory is accepted.

Compare with information from US Embassy:

If entering the United States by air or sea, you will qualify for travel under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) if you are holding a return or onward ticket. If traveling on an electronic ticket, a copy of the itinerary must be carried for presentation to U.S. immigration at the port of entry. Note: Travelers with onward tickets terminating in Mexico, Canada, Bermuda or the Caribbean Islands must be legal permanent residents of these areas.

Not sure all of that applies to this case.

Canadian residents can enter the US by land, sea, or air under the VWP if they don't stay in the US longer than 90 days continuously, and if entering by air, they can have an outbound ticket to their North American country of residence (unlike myself - I need an outbound ticket further than North America). So under these conditions, each time our example returned to Canada (after that lunch at the US Mexican restaurant) the VWP 90 days are stopped/reset. But for me as a non-resident of Canada, the clock keeps ticking from the US point of view. No?

ian, give up. They've moved well away from "don't understand" and into "refuse to understand."

Btw, Canadians don't use the VWP. They have their own agreement.

Perhaps you're right ...

BTW we're picking up my SIL in Maryland (a US Citizen) and the three of us are tootling up to Canada. As Australians in the US under an ESTA/VWP entry, we're fine (we don't need anything but our passport) - but does my SIL require anything more than her passport to wander into Canada for a month or so?

but does my SIL require anything more than her passport to wander into Canada for a month or so?

Not unless there's some extraordinary circumstance (drunk driving charge, etc.).
And technically, she needs the passport to return to the US. Canada still allows Americans in with alternative documentation.

Seems there is a little confusion caused by my personal example. Let's keep some clarity. I have Canadian citizenship, so comments about the VW referred only to my wife who only had UK citizenship at the time. Canadian citizens of course do not need a VW or anything other than a passport.

Re your SIL ianw, assuming she is a US citizen she just needs her passport to enter Canada provided there are no other reasons as bzookaj notes, why she would be refused entry. A DUI conviction is such a reason. A lot of US citizens don't realize Canada won't let them in with a DUI charge on their record. They see it as a minor thing while Canada sees it as a felony. Nor do they ask 'do you have any criminal convictions', they ask, 'do you have any arrests'. An arrest even without a conviction can stop her entering.

Here's the point ianw and bzookaj. There are rules and we know what they are. But then there are common practices and we know they differ from the rules in many cases. You still haven't said what your nationality is bzookaj and your experience of entering the US on a VW is. It is not difficult to find people who have been allowed entry in situations that appear to contravene the rules. The question of 'don't understand vs. 'refuse to understand' applies to you bzookaj, not to me. You are simply arguing from a 'position', rather than looking for actual evidence that supports or refutes what you are saying. I am refuting what you say. The rules are flexible and I know that from personal experience. Not just from entering the US but from travel to many countries.

In my experience, the rules can be written using whatever words/terms the lawyers tell them to use. But when you get to Immigration, what the officer will accept and has the authority to accept are not necessarily the same thing. As I keep trying to tell you, if you can SATISFY the officer of your intent, you will probably get in. There are many circumstances under which someone may not have a return or onward ticket. US Immigration does not insist that they do.

The airlines are a separate issue. They follow their own rules, not Immigration's rules. Generally speaking, the airlines interpret the Immigration rules as absolutes and err on the side of caution. So for example Canadian Immigration rules do not say 'return ticket' they say 'satisfy Immigration' and yet if you look at the IATA website (which the airlines use to make their decisions re their policies) you will see that according to IATA, a return/onward ticket is required for entry to Canada.

The IATA Timatic site says this: "Visitors are required to hold proof of sufficient funds to cover their stay and documents required for their next destination."

Certain Visa regulations apply as follows:
Visitors not holding return/onward ticket could be refused entry."+

The airlines interpret that as an onward/return ticket is required.

Meanwhile the Canadian Immigration site says this:
"+•have a valid travel document, such as a passport;
•be in good health;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you have ties, such as a job, home, financial assets and family, that will take you back to your country of origin;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you will leave Canada at the end of your visit; and
•have enough money for your stay. "+

NO WHERE does it say anything about onward travel or return travel. So why does the Timatic site say differently? Because they are about telling the airline how to cover their butt. So they put in that line about 'could be refused entry'.

Not sure you have all the oars in the water here TIS46.

•satisfy an immigration officer that you have ties, such as a job, home, financial assets and family, that will take you back to your country of origin;
•satisfy an immigration officer that you will leave Canada at the end of your visit;

How on earth does a busy, bored, and possibly over-worked immigration officer reach satisfaction on these two issues? Here's a thought - does the traveller carry a ticket out of the country? Brilliant indeed ... and that has become the de facto (and virtually de jure) requirement for the airlines as well, since the airlines get into trouble if they carry people to the US who cannot or will not be allowed entry.

Solution? Make sure all travellers have outbound tickets before we let them on the plane.

Hey, ian, instead of continuing this farce of the thread, which degrades to base insults the more they attempt to prove the rules are wrong, read this.

And that's the last thing I post here. Hopefully the mods will take control soon.

No ianw, a ticket proves nothing other than you have a ticket.

What is the problem that you and bzookaj cannot separate the airline from Immigration? There is a connection between what the airline insists on the Immigration regulations but it is not a 100% accurate connection in many cases.

I've just given you a perfect example. In simple words, the Canadian Immigration regulations say NOTHING about having a ticket of any kind. Yet the airlines often insist you have one. So OBVIOUSLY, the airline is not following the regulation, they are following their own policy which insures they don't get fined or stuck flying someone back who hasn't paid for a ticket.

The busy, bored and over-worked Immigration officer does NOT always accept a ticket as proof you will leave the country.

Here is what you need to think about. For 99% of visitors to Canada, the questions they get asked are, 'what is the purpose of your visit to Canada?' Answer, vacation/tourism. 'How long will you stay in Canada?' Answer, 2 weeks. Often those are the ONLY questions they get asked.

Now, why do some people get asked more questions? Answer, because the Immigration Officer is suspicious or is simply making a random check. So they may get asked, 'where are you going? Where will you be staying. Do you have a return ticket? etc.' They may have their luggage checked. They may then get asked, 'why do you have this CV in your luggage? Do you intend to look for work in Canada?'

People NEVER get refused entry simply because they do not have a ticket and they NEVER get granted entry simply because they do have a ticket. Either through a random check or suspicion they are asked more questions that the norm and their answers to those questions lead to their being allowed to enter or being refused entry.

Only the airline relies SOLELY on a ticket to cover their butt. So yes, that is the solution for the airline but it is not the solution for Immigration or the passenger.

This has been done to death now. If you can't or won't see the logic and illogic of this I can't see that any further attempts to explain it to you are going to help. So I'm done with the thread. Apparently on that other thread Max referenced, bzookaj kept up his inability to understand for 22 pages. I'm not about to waste that much time here.

Bottom line. A return ticket is not required by Immigration and having one proves nothing other than you have one.

Canadian residents can enter the US by land, sea, or air under the VWP if they don't stay in the US longer than 90 days continuously ... each time our example returned to Canada the VWP 90 days are stopped/reset. No?

What do you count as a Canadian resident then? Wouldn't this hold for European students who go to Canada for exchange studies or a working holiday visa? Then why have we had all these discussions in the past whether these folks need a US visa or not for transiting/visiting the US? Or are you referring to a permanent resident of Canada? A source would be nice. In my view, from what I've gathered from researching this topic extensively and talking to many many people who have been in this situation, is that there really is no set rule. Many seem to consider 30 days as a safe number of days to spend outside of the US to be let back in, although several official sources have stated that there is no such number, you just have to satisfy the CBP officer that you're not abusing the rules and you'll be let in. Travelinstyle's stories are perfectly aligned with my previous research.

And technically, she needs the passport to return to the US.

No. We have discussed this too in the past. An American citizen is never denied entry to his or her own country. They will just be given a slip that looks like this and told to bring a passport next time.

How on earth does a busy, bored, and possibly over-worked immigration officer reach satisfaction on these two issues? Here's a thought - does the traveller carry a ticket out of the country? Brilliant indeed ...

The officer deals with hundreds of people every day, they have a pretty good sense of reading people and pick up who might have questionable motives. If there is any doubt, the traveler is sent to secondary screening which, at least in Canada, is INTENSE. I have written about this before. I flew from San Francisco to Calgary to have lunch with a return back to SF 6h later. The Canadian immigration officer refused to believe this and was convinced I was trying to either circumvent US immigration ("reset" my status somehow) or smuggle something into the country. They confiscated my smartphone, read through my emails and started interrogating me on specific emails (who is this person? which birthday party did you go to two days ago? where did you fly last weekend?). Yes, seriously! Trust me, they will keep digging until they're satisfied. If a valid return ticket was all that was needed to prove that your visit is legit, anyone with bad motives would just make sure they had one, so that wouldn't be such a good proof I think.

I note how you continue to avoid saying what personal experience you have of trying to enter the USA on a VW bzookaj. One can only assume the answer is no experience at all.

I agree bzookaj ... the guy is just a flipper who needs a stage for glory-hunting, Goodbye 46.

what I would be interested in is an after the event report, but people seem to do that

what I would be interested in is an after the event report, but people seem (not) to do that ...

I think I mentioned it up-thread pretty strongly ... try to get on a Qantas flight out of Melbourne to the USA on a WHV without an outbound ticket in your pocket ... it simply isn't going to happen for you. I think that is the only reality that 46 needs to confront - real impact on real travellers. It's not about whether some US immigration official is feeling good that day.

LOL, "try to get on a Qantas flight out of Melbourne to the USA on a WHV without an outbound ticket in your pocket"

Have you tried ian? What jbinternational said was it would be interesting to hear from people who HAD tried to enter.

Nor was a WHV mentioned until now. The issue was entering on a Visa Waiver.

All I read is what you THINK will happen, not what you know from personal experience has happened. I have enterd various countries for which the airlines say a return/onward ticket is necessary and I have entered without one. That's first hand factual info ian, not opinion.

That's what's so laughable, you and bzookaj want to argue that your opinions trump first hand experience.

try to get on a Qantas flight out of Melbourne to the USA on a WHV without an outbound ticket in your pocket ... it simply isn't going to happen for you.

How do you know this? A WHV is good for up to two years, you can't even buy a return/outbound ticket that far ahead! And neither US nor Canadian immigration requires the return in this case. It would surprise me if the airline would refuse to let you board, but sure there's always the risk, so I'd definitely recommend contacting the airline ahead and asking.

what I would be interested in is an after the event report, but people seem (not) to do that

Exactly!!!! This is exactly what I am trying to promote, actual event reports, not some mossy copy and pastes from embassy websites that we know do not describe what happens in real life.

How do you know this? A WHV is good for up to two years, you can't even buy a return/outbound ticket that far ahead! And neither US nor Canadian immigration requires the return in this case.

Mad Max ... are you losing the plot? Firstly, a WHV isn't "good" for any length of time, since it doesn't exist as an entity - the ESTA has to be renewed each two years, if that's what you mean.

And secondly, on any specific trip to the US, where you're relying on the WHV for entry (with a current ESTA approval), you have exactly 90 days at your disposal, and Qantas will demand (trust me on this) that you have some form of onward air ticket out of America (and 90 days is more than reasonably short enough for everyone to purchase an outbound air ticket). This is not bureaucratic overkill from me ... it is what Qantas (and I expect all of them) insist on. They do not wish to haul your sorry ass back to Australia if you fail entry at LAX.

just changing the subject a bit, you can't board a flight to Fiji without a return ticket. I travel to the US regularly and had a tourist visa, on one of my trips the check in person didn't notice it and said I had to have the Esta, or I couldn't board, but each time I enter even on the tourist visa they want to know when I am leaving.

Ianw, are you talking about a Working Holiday Visa (WHV) or a Visa Waiver (VW)?

The USA does NOT participate in the WHV program that exists between countries like Canada, Australia, the UK,etc. They do have some student visa programs that allow work but that is not the same thing.

Why are you introducing WHVs into this? The issue was about entering the USA without a return or onward ticket, on a Visa Waiver. All you are doing is muddying the water with a totally different subject.

"Firstly, a WHV isn't "good" for any length of time, since it doesn't exist as an entity - the ESTA has to be renewed each two years, if that's what you mean."

That would seem to indicate that you do not know what a WHV is and are perhaps confusing it with a VW. This statement would also seem to indicate that is the case. "secondly, on any specific trip to the US, where you're relying on the WHV for entry (with a current ESTA approval), you have exactly 90 days at your disposal"

A WHV (where one exists for a country, IS for a specified time. Usually 1 or 2 years. Australia (is that where you live) for example gives out 1 year WHVs that can be extended for a second year. Canada is currently in the process of changing from a one year to an automatic 2 year visa. When you enter Canada or Australia on a WHV you do not get asked by the airline to buy a return/onward ticket, they can't insist on it since they can't sell one two years out from your arrival date. Australia for example requires that a WHV holder have either $3000 and a return/onward ticket or $5000 and no ticket.

But the USA does not have a WHV so it is irrelevant for that country.

http://www.migrationexpert.com/work_visa/us_working_holiday/

Either you stick to the specific subject or you change the subject and start a new thread. WHVs have nothing to do with VW. Or do you just not understand they are two different things?

Again, I will ask bzookaj and now also you ianw, what experience do you have personally, of trying to enter the USA on a VW without a return/onward ticket? Again, attempting to refute personal experience with opinions based on what you have read but have no experienced of, is ludicrious.

What Quantas or any other airline tells you has NOTHING to do with what Immigration will do.

I fail to see the relevance jbinernational. Fiji has nothing to do with entering the USA on a VW. If there is something you want to discuss or advise, start a new thread on it. This one is confused enough already.

Ay, sorry Ian I thought you were referring to a Working Holiday Visa for Canada. Yeah, with a visa waiver, I can believe what you say. I guess you can ignore Travelinstyle's #66 then, this thread is getting confusing indeed!

How's the planning coming along for your trip here? Would have been fun to meet up and bungee jump from the Golden Gate or City Hall or something, but alas I am leaving this country in 3 weeks. Mongoliabound!

This thread is definitely crazy ... yes of course we are talking abut the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), and not the WHV ... it's all your fault Mad Max.

Trip is totally planned - all booked and mostly paid for ... every night's accommodation for eight weeks is pre-arranged ... perhaps not your style, but we like it that way - and planning from home in the months prior is much more efficient and relaxed than doing it on the day.

The day you arrive is "Day 0," not "Day 1."
So if in fact you leave on day 91, you have not overstayed.

I doubted this statement from the moment I read it. And a few days ago I had the chance to take a peek at a passport for someone who had recently traveled to the US on the VWP. The entry on 11/21/12 expired 2/18/13. The entry on 3/21/13 expired 6/18/13 (expiration is printed in the passport). For both of these, the end date is 89 days after the start, leaving 90 days total including both start and end date, not 91. Unless you have any sources for your claims, this indicates that you are giving incorrect information/advocating ilIegal activities (overstaying), and I must ask you to stop that.

Now I found another passport! Again 89/90 days, NOT 91! This is for a recent entry in SFrisco!

I took a picture of it to proof.

I rest my case!