Frequent Business Traveler? Why the VWP May Not Be the Best Option
When it comes to international business travel, the United States theoretically still does have a few friends out there in the world. Citizens of these friendly countries are permitted to travel to the United States as a visitor for business or a visitor for pleasure without needing to appear in person at a U.S. consulate to obtain a visa stamp before travel.
December 17, 2018 at 02:32 PM
6 minute read
When it comes to international business travel, the United States theoretically still does have a few friends out there in the world. Citizens of these friendly countries are permitted to travel to the United States as a visitor for business or a visitor for pleasure without needing to appear in person at a U.S. consulate to obtain a visa stamp before travel. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), established in Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, currently applies to citizens of 38 countries who meet certain criteria regarding their travel documents and background qualifications. Countries participating in the VWP must offer reciprocal visa-free travel to U.S. citizens, with similar requirements and terms. Most European countries, along with Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Brunei and Chile, as well as Taiwan, qualify for participation.
The vetting of visitors who wish to participate in the VWP takes place online, before travel, through ESTA, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. With some exceptions, ESTA travel authorizations are approved or denied within 72 hours (and sometimes within minutes) and are valid for two years. Note however, that ESTA travel authorization does not guarantee admission to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers determine admissibility upon a visitor's arrival at an airport or other port of entry.
Travel through the VWP can be very convenient and attractive for the business traveler. The alternative is obtaining a B-1 Visitor visa stamp in the passport, which, requires the business visitor to schedule an in-person interview weeks or months in advance, depending on the capacity at the consulate. Furthermore, the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate may be hundreds or thousands of miles from home, necessitating advance travel for the required interview appointment.
There are a number of common pitfalls to using the VWP, and the consequences can be severe and long-lasting. It is thus highly advisable to discuss international business travel well in advance with qualified immigration counsel to minimize the risk to the business and to the business traveler.
As an example, it can be difficult to distinguish between business activities that are appropriate on the VWP, and activities that constitute skilled or unskilled labor in the United States which are not appropriate for business visitors. The following are examples of activities that are generally allowed on the VWP: meetings and consulting with business associates; attending scientific, educational, professional or business conventions or conferences; attending short training programs; and negotiating contracts. Employment in the United States is not permitted.
However, many international business activities fall into a gray area. Take training or collaborative activities, for example. Training or collaboration that includes some component where work product will be generated, for example, is generally only appropriate on the VWP where the training will allow the person to do a job overseas, where the production of work is necessary and incidental to the training, and where the person is not displacing or replacing a U.S. worker. At the same time, meeting with direct reports who work in the United States and managing them may be deemed to require a work authorized visa, even though “meetings” are generally allowed.
Thus, eligibility for the VWP and the business traveler's admission to the United States can depend on the description of the activity—and the meaning understood—at the critical, possibly rushed, stressful, and fatigued immigration inspection conducted (in English) upon arrival in the United States. Particularly where an overseas employee is traveling to the United States for the first time, or will be coming frequently for a longer-term project, expert advice on whether entry on the VWP is appropriate and pre-travel counseling regarding the entry process are both advisable.
Business visitors traveling on the VWP are generally admitted for 90 days. This period of admission may not be extended within the United States, and the individual may not apply to change to another immigration status if their objectives change. The visitor must depart the United States and obtain the required visa stamp abroad before returning to the United States for the new purpose. Back-to-back long periods of stay on the VWP or numerous frequent visits can raise the suspicion that the individual is abusing the opportunity for visa-free travel and/or is actually employed in the United States. These suspicions can cause long-lasting and possibly unpleasant difficulties for future travel.
In addition to botching the planned business activity, the immigration consequences of refused admission on the VWP can haunt the individual forever. In perhaps the best case scenario, the traveler may be permitted to “withdraw” his or her application for admission to the United States, as opposed to being “denied” admission by the CBP. However, withdrawal vs. denial is a technical distinction and may be well beyond the language abilities or legal understanding of the traveler to request. In either case, the decision is subject to the discretion of the CBP officer, whose determination cannot be appealed.
A failed admission changes one's eligibility for ESTA and a new application must be submitted. The refused entry must be disclosed on future ESTA applications or when applying for a visa stamp at a consulate. In either case, we would generally advise most individuals in this situation to give up on the idea of visa-free travel and to plan on applying for a B1/B2 visa stamp at a United States consulate going forward.
Business travel on the VWP can be easy, fast, flexible and convenient. But it is not for the unprepared. When international business travel on the VWP is anticipated, it is wise to confer in advance with immigration counsel for an analysis of the proposed activity, the abilities of the traveler to understand the potential issues and express himself, recommended supporting documentation and the option to obtain a visa stamp as a more conservative approach.
Lisa T. Felix, an attorney with Klasko Immigration Law Partners, represents corporate and educational clients who seek to hire or transfer foreign employees, as well as foreign individuals seeking employment in the United States as scientists, highly skilled professionals, executives, managers and artists. She advises employers on immigration compliance, responding to government investigations, and immigration strategy and planning. Contact her [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250