ESTA - rejection at immigration

My research suggests they wouldn't put you back on the ship, they would deport you. As someone earlier in the thread stated.

 

You could also be rejected at embarkation of course and not even be allowed on in the first place.

 

So if there are any doubts regarding the validity of the ESTA it's much safer to obtain a VISA via the US Embassy.

That's what airlines in the US do. If you don't have valid passport and visas, they don't let you board. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've been told the carrier who takes you to a country where your paperwork is insufficient will have to pay for you to be sent home. That potential cost could explain why the airlines are so careful to check passports.

I'm not sure if it's true, but I've been told the carrier who takes you to a country where your paperwork is insufficient will have to pay for you to be sent home. That potential cost could explain why the airlines are so careful to check passports.

You are correct, if an air travaveller is found to be inadmissable upon arrival because of imporper documentation(missing Visa, no ESTA) it is up to the carrier which brought them there to return them, the carrier will also be fined.

You are correct, if an air travaveller is found to be inadmissable upon arrival because of imporper documentation(missing Visa, no ESTA) it is up to the carrier which brought them there to return them, the carrier will also be fined.

And I imagine the waiting room doesn't have a food court or bars to enjoy while one waits to go home.

Are you talking about estate tax paid to the US government? If you expect to owe Federal estate tax, I congratulate you on having so much stock!!! The Feds don't charge estate tax until your estate is worth more than $5,000,000. State thresholds vary. I live in New Jersey, where the threshold is lower, at $675,000. Other states vary, and I don't know their estate tax laws.

I don't want to be accused of hijacking the OP's topic but some aspects of US estate tax for non residents needs to be clarified. And it may be useful to those of even modest means contemplating a US investment. The good news is my CCL stock is safe. Only for a short period was my estate in peril from the IRS. I have since divested most US investments.

True, for US residents the exemption is over $5 million. (It's been inflation adjusted for a couple of years and I think it's around $5.35 million now, but for simplicity pretend it's $5 million). It becomes irrelevant because the magic figures for non residents (like me and several others here) are $1.2 million of total world wide estate value and $60 thousand of US investment. For example suppose a person in Canada has an modest estate (for someone who is contemplating a US investment, that is). Say a house worth $500 thousand, a registered retirement fund of $250 thousand, a life insurance policy of $250 thousand. A few other investments they cash in because they hear about cheap Arizona real estate and buy a $250 thousand house there as a vacation home. I know people who are in that range who still invest in US real estate. So they're over both the $1.2 million of world wide assets as well as $60 thousand of US assets. When the person dies his estate in the US ($250 thousand) will be subject to US tax. So many foreigners hear about the $5 million exemption and think it applies to them and also has to be a US investment of $5 million. And many people, even of modest means, get caught up.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

I guess I will wait to see if they let me in before I start my hostile takeover of Apple then. :rolleyes:

I received my Police Certificate today.

It shows "NO TRACE" as expected.

I've no intention of using a lawyer, but how could the US possibly know of an arrest if it's not recorded by the police?

Ask Chancellor Merkel...

I received my Police Certificate today.

 

It shows "NO TRACE" as expected.

Good boy, but good enough?

:D

One would like to think so but apparently not for the US Government, one has to further satisfy them of ones suitability to visit their country beyond no convictions, no cautions, no warnings ......

One would like to think so but apparently not for the US Government, one has to further satisfy them of ones suitability to visit their country beyond no convictions, no cautions, no warnings ......

If it's a problem, just don't come here - simple solution, or as you say "Simples"

Ask Chancellor Merkel...

Shawn, let's be real about this - find a country that does gather as much intelligence as possible about both their friends and allies.

I'm sure Chancellor Merkel is experienced to know what her Intelligence Service is doing. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28819625

If it's a problem, just don't come here - simple solution, or as you say "Simples"

Had I known it was such a ball ache before paying Cunard £9,400 I assure you I wouldn't.

Had I known it was such a ball ache before paying Cunard £9,400 I assure you I wouldn't.

Yes, well, you see that is why such things need to be resolved at the time of occurrence rather than several years later. Frankly, the fault does not lie with either Cunard or the United States Government. The responsibility to set your record straight was your responsibility years ago. But you didn't want a lawyer then, and you don't want a lawyer now. I'm sorry you spent so much money for a voyage that might have so many complications, but it was your responsibility to assure that you were clear for this voyage before you booked.

Yes, well, you see that is why such things need to be resolved at the time of occurrence rather than several years later. Frankly, the fault does not lie with either Cunard or the United States Government. The responsibility to set your record straight was your responsibility years ago. But you didn't want a lawyer then, and you don't want a lawyer now. I'm sorry you spent so much money for a voyage that might have so many complications, but it was your responsibility to assure that you were clear for this voyage before you booked.

Well, as I don't have the ability to time travel it is impossible to undo the arrest. Involving a lawyer would have not changed the physical event that occurred, why do you think it would? The issue is as resolved as it possibly can be. I cannot control the actions of others and it was solely that action that caused my arrest.

You are correct though, as an innocent traveller with no criminal record whatsoever I should still have assumed the US Government would potentially deem me unacceptable to enter their country.

Well, as I don't have the ability to time travel it is impossible to undo the arrest. Involving a lawyer would have not changed the physical event that occurred, why do you think it would? The issue is as resolved as it possibly can be. I cannot control the actions of others and it was solely that action that caused my arrest.

 

You are correct though, as an innocent traveller with no criminal record whatsoever I should still have assumed the US Government would potentially deem me unacceptable to enter their country.[/QUOTE]

 

 

 

No, I did not say that.

PurpleMoonlight - Pleased to hear you have received the cert. Now you can proceed with the visa application. Good luck with that. Hope it goes smoothly and that you enjoy your trip. The visa is the important thing not what people are saying on here.

Yes, well, you see that is why such things need to be resolved at the time of occurrence rather than several years later.

So what are you saying he should have done at the time? Employ a lawer to do what?

David.

To obtain written confirmation from the then Chief Constable that the police regarded him as innocent of the charges he was arrested for - which as someone else was charged and convicted at the time was a real possibility of obtaining.

To obtain written confirmation from the then Chief Constable that the police regarded him as innocent of the charges he was arrested for - which as someone else was charged and convicted at the time was a real possibility of obtaining.

If you expect this kind of thing you are living in cloud cuckoo land. No policeman would ever offer such an opinion but would only report the facts. Those facts are not in dispute.

If you expect this kind of thing you are living in cloud cuckoo land. No policeman would ever offer such an opinion but would only report the facts. Those facts are not in dispute.

The facts are that he was not convicted of any offence. The CPS felt they had a strong case to bring against his ex wife. He had nothing to sort out. The American Immigration/Visitors process is extremely stringent and intrusive, and although I disagree with aspects of their process I do understand. If you want to visit the US you need to abide by their rules. If you can answer a NO to all if the questions then proceed to ESTA; if not apply for a full visa where you will be able to explain in a fuller fashion. I also think Cunard and other cruise lines need to be more proactive about this before people book a cruise so they can make an informed decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The facts are that he was not convicted of any offence. The CPS felt they had a strong case to bring against his ex wife. He had nothing to sort out. The American Immigration/Visitors process is extremely stringent and intrusive, and although I disagree with aspects of their process I do understand. If you want to visit the US you need to abide by their rules. If you can answer a NO to all if the questions then proceed to ESTA; if not apply for a full visa where you will be able to explain in a fuller fashion. I also think Cunard and other cruise lines need to be more proactive about this before people book a cruise so they can make an informed decision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, all that I'm saying is that the police would only say just that. They wouldn't offer any opinion as to guilt or innocence, they could only state the facts.

On a slight tangent, I don't know what any cruise company could do regarding allowing or disallowing embarkation before a transatlantic because you don't need to be in possession of an ESTA at that moment. You need an ESTA when you arrive in the USA and they only require 72 hours notice between the application and arrival. No-one at Southampton or Heathrow has ever enquired of me whether I have an ESTA or not.

On a slight tangent, I don't know what any cruise company could do regarding allowing or disallowing embarkation before a transatlantic because you don't need to be in possession of an ESTA at that moment. You need an ESTA when you arrive in the USA and they only require 72 hours notice between the application and arrival. No-one at Southampton or Heathrow has ever enquired of me whether I have an ESTA or not.

I agree that the Southampton check-in process does not appear sophisticated but on my last P&O World voyage 5 passengers (3 separate bookings) were denied boarding as a result of not having all the necessary Visas. They were Australian Nationals that pleaded their travel agent had made the error. Their UK visas were OK so no problem flying Aus-UK to join the ship. P&O stood firm but agreed to hold the cabins and allowed the pax to join the ship at its first port of call after the passengers managed to make an emergency appointment at the London based Embassy (I can't remember which country) who were sympathetic and turned around their in-person and thankfully successful applications within 24 hours!

At UK Airports, however, the check-in system is linked to 'big brother' global immigration and police/security networks. Passport numbers are linked to the US database of ESTA approved passengers and Check-In would be unable to print a boarding pass if the ESTA had not been pre-approved. A second fail safe check is made when boarding passes are scanned at the gate which would immediately flag up a warning sign on the screen if something had been missed at, or identified after, initial check-in. It is a seamless process invisible to passengers.

I agree that the Southampton check-in process does not appear sophisticated but on my last P&O World voyage 5 passengers (3 separate bookings) were denied boarding as a result of not having all the necessary Visas. They were Australian Nationals that pleaded their travel agent had made the error. Their UK visas were OK so no problem flying Aus-UK to join the ship. P&O stood firm but agreed to hold the cabins and allowed the pax to join the ship at its first port of call after the passengers managed to make an emergency appointment at the London based Embassy (I can't remember which country) who were sympathetic and turned around their in-person and thankfully successful applications within 24 hours!

 

At UK Airports, however, the check-in system is linked to 'big brother' global immigration and police/security networks. Passport numbers are linked to the US database of ESTA approved passengers and Check-In would be unable to print a boarding pass if the ESTA had not been pre-approved. A second fail safe check is made when boarding passes are scanned at the gate which would immediately flag up a warning sign on the screen if something had been missed at, or identified after, initial check-in. It is a seamless process invisible to passengers.

That's interesting and reassuring about airports. I know that on World Cruises there have been problems with visas because people have come on here whingeing about them not being told/being expected to know that they needed visas to travel. ESTAs seem to be treated somewhat differently though, maybe because of the 72 hour clause.

That's interesting and reassuring about airports. I know that on World Cruises there have been problems with visas because people have come on here whingeing about them not being told/being expected to know that they needed visas to travel. ESTAs seem to be treated somewhat differently though, maybe because of the 72 hour clause.

The standard Immigration response is "ignorance is no excuse"!

If anyone relies on a third-party to apply on their behalf, it is always advisable to personally check that everything is in place before departure/check-in.

I agree with you here, you can phone someone who really knows or you can phone the US Embassy, I am sure they know.

 

It is clear as day , if you have any arrest then you need a visa and the embassy is the place to go.

 

I cant believe so many dont know what is asked of them on the ESTA application, or Do they

Found the below on the USA Embassy web site.

A visa is issued by a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. A visa entitles the holder to travel to the United States and apply for admission; it does not guarantee entry. An immigration inspector at the port of entry determines the visa holder's eligibility for admission into the United States.

Seems like its all down to the guy's on Immigration.

( make a small mistake when young and pay the penalty forever )