What You Need to Know About Traveling to the US During Summer Holidays
Millions of international citizens travel to the United States each year for tourism, an industry that generates revenues of about $100 billion for the U.S. economy each year. Therefore, the United States has a vested interest in ensuring that the country remains accessible to tourists.
June 14, 2019 at 12:19 PM
6 minute read
Millions of international citizens travel to the United States each year for tourism, an industry that generates revenues of about $100 billion for the U.S. economy each year. Therefore, the United States has a vested interest in ensuring that the country remains accessible to tourists. Under the visa waiver program (VWP), the United States permits citizens of 30 countries visa-free travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days. In return, those 30 countries permit U.S. citizens and nationals to travel to their countries for a similar length of time without a visa for business or tourism purposes. Additionally, Canadian citizens generally do not need a visa to enter the United States as tourists. Those who don't qualify under VWP can apply for B-1 visa (visitor for business); a B-2 visa (visitor for pleasure) or a combination B-1/B-2 visitor visa.
As we head into summer travel, this article will focus on the two most frequently asked questions about traveling to the United States on a B-2 visa.
To qualify for a B-2 visa, the applicant must not be ineligible due to previous immigration or criminal violations. Additionally, they must prove to the consular officer that they have sufficient ties to their home country in order to show that any visit to the United States would be brief and temporary. At each entry into the United States on a B-2 visa, a foreign national can be authorized to stay for up to 180 days in the United States.
|Length and Frequency of Travel
The most common question immigration attorneys receive about traveling to the United States on a B-2 visa is: “How often can I come to the United States?”
Each time a person comes to the country as a visitor, the officer must be able to determine that the person is simply visiting; and that the purpose, duration and frequency of trips to the United States is consistent with evidence that the person permanently lives abroad.
There is no bright line rule for how many times a tourist can use their B-2 visa to enter the country. Instead, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) will look at the tourist's travel history to determine if they are coming to the United States for brief, temporary stays, or using the tourist visa to essentially live or work in the United States. Visitors who frequently spend prolonged periods of time in the United States may have difficulty convincing the CBP officer that they do not have intent to live or work in the United States.
For example, a person who enters the country once a year and stays for a couple of weeks or months at a time, is not likely to be stopped and questioned about their intent at the border. However, if a person were to enter the United States for a few months, depart for a few days or weeks and re-enter for a few months, they are more likely to be stopped at the border and questioned about the purpose of their visits to the United States. If the CBP officer does not believe that the person is coming in for brief and temporary stays, the officer can limit how much time the tourist is allowed to stay in the United States and in some rare cases, can prevent the tourist from entering the United States entirely.
So, depending on the frequency and duration of their trips, two trips in a year may be too many, or five trips in a year may be fine.
Ultimately, the CBP officer is assessing each visitor's honesty and reliability when interviewing the foreign national. The officer will also be considering any evidence they have brought with them of the purpose of their trip, duration of the trip and the immigration service's own records of the person's travel history.
If the officer is concerned about previous travel history or the foreign national's intent, the officer can reduce the period of authorized stay from six months to a handful of days. In the most serious of cases, the officer can refuse a foreign visitor entry into the United States.
|Permissible Activities on a B-2 Visa
While the frequency and duration of visits are the most common questions, we also receive many questions about what activities are permissible on a B-2 visa.
Given the temporary nature of the visa purpose, it can only be used for certain activities within the United States, such as tourism, visiting family and friends, medical treatment, short recreational courses of study or other similar activities. Courses may not be for credit toward a degree, but rather for example, a one-day cooking class while on vacation.
Certain activities are not permitted on visitor visas, including study and work. What constitutes “work” can be a tricky question. There is a common misconception that if an activity is unpaid, it is not work. Unfortunately, this is not true. For instance, working for free at a family friend's business while on a tourist visa would be construed as work. Babysitting a family member's children for room and board could also be considered employment.
B-2 visitors should be forthright about the reasons why they are seeking a B-2 visa at the U.S. Consulate overseas. After being granted the B-2 visa, it is important the foreign national be aware of restrictions on the B-2 visa and to ensure that all activities in the U.S. are consistent with the B-2 status. If there's ever any doubt whether a certain activity is permitted on a B-2 visa or if multiple or prolonged trips to the United States might trigger issues at the border, the B-2 visitor should schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney.
Karuna Simbeck is an associate in Klasko Immigration Law Partner's Philadelphia office and a member of the firm's EB-5 practice. As part of the EB-5 team, she is involved in various stages of the EB-5 process, including the preparation and filing of I-526 petitions for both regional center investors and individual investment opportunities.
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 AllCannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
The Forgotten Ballot: Expanding Voting Access for Incarcerated Populations
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
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