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
© 2024 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 AllFederal 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 readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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