Visiting Aruba for 10 days between two stays in the US
My Friends are Australian citizens and will be coming for a visit. They want to visit Aruba for approximately 2 weeks, after being in the US one month.
When they return from Aruba will they have 90 days again on their stay ?
us-visa-waiver-program australian-citizens aruba
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
|
show 3 more comments
My Friends are Australian citizens and will be coming for a visit. They want to visit Aruba for approximately 2 weeks, after being in the US one month.
When they return from Aruba will they have 90 days again on their stay ?
us-visa-waiver-program australian-citizens aruba
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19
|
show 3 more comments
My Friends are Australian citizens and will be coming for a visit. They want to visit Aruba for approximately 2 weeks, after being in the US one month.
When they return from Aruba will they have 90 days again on their stay ?
us-visa-waiver-program australian-citizens aruba
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
My Friends are Australian citizens and will be coming for a visit. They want to visit Aruba for approximately 2 weeks, after being in the US one month.
When they return from Aruba will they have 90 days again on their stay ?
us-visa-waiver-program australian-citizens aruba
us-visa-waiver-program australian-citizens aruba
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
edited Apr 29 '16 at 20:46
Willeke♦
31.2k1088163
31.2k1088163
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
asked Apr 29 '16 at 20:18
Gwen HughesGwen Hughes
62
62
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19
|
show 3 more comments
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
See the State Department's web site (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html):
Trips to Canada, Mexico, or nearby Islands
If you are admitted to the United States under the VWP, you may take a short trip to Canada, Mexico, or a nearby island and generally be readmitted to the United States under the VWP for the remainder of the original 90 days granted upon your initial arrival in the United States. Therefore, the length of time of your total stay, including the short trip, must be 90 days or less. See the CBP website. Citizens of VWP countries* who reside in Mexico, Canada, or a nearby island are generally exempted from the requirement to show onward travel to another country* when entering the United States.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "273"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67522%2fvisiting-aruba-for-10-days-between-two-stays-in-the-us%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
See the State Department's web site (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html):
Trips to Canada, Mexico, or nearby Islands
If you are admitted to the United States under the VWP, you may take a short trip to Canada, Mexico, or a nearby island and generally be readmitted to the United States under the VWP for the remainder of the original 90 days granted upon your initial arrival in the United States. Therefore, the length of time of your total stay, including the short trip, must be 90 days or less. See the CBP website. Citizens of VWP countries* who reside in Mexico, Canada, or a nearby island are generally exempted from the requirement to show onward travel to another country* when entering the United States.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
|
show 1 more comment
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
See the State Department's web site (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html):
Trips to Canada, Mexico, or nearby Islands
If you are admitted to the United States under the VWP, you may take a short trip to Canada, Mexico, or a nearby island and generally be readmitted to the United States under the VWP for the remainder of the original 90 days granted upon your initial arrival in the United States. Therefore, the length of time of your total stay, including the short trip, must be 90 days or less. See the CBP website. Citizens of VWP countries* who reside in Mexico, Canada, or a nearby island are generally exempted from the requirement to show onward travel to another country* when entering the United States.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
|
show 1 more comment
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
See the State Department's web site (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html):
Trips to Canada, Mexico, or nearby Islands
If you are admitted to the United States under the VWP, you may take a short trip to Canada, Mexico, or a nearby island and generally be readmitted to the United States under the VWP for the remainder of the original 90 days granted upon your initial arrival in the United States. Therefore, the length of time of your total stay, including the short trip, must be 90 days or less. See the CBP website. Citizens of VWP countries* who reside in Mexico, Canada, or a nearby island are generally exempted from the requirement to show onward travel to another country* when entering the United States.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
See the State Department's web site (https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html):
Trips to Canada, Mexico, or nearby Islands
If you are admitted to the United States under the VWP, you may take a short trip to Canada, Mexico, or a nearby island and generally be readmitted to the United States under the VWP for the remainder of the original 90 days granted upon your initial arrival in the United States. Therefore, the length of time of your total stay, including the short trip, must be 90 days or less. See the CBP website. Citizens of VWP countries* who reside in Mexico, Canada, or a nearby island are generally exempted from the requirement to show onward travel to another country* when entering the United States.
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
answered Apr 29 '16 at 21:09
phoogphoog
74.9k12162244
74.9k12162244
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
|
show 1 more comment
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
Hmm, there were recent reports that all references to the "nearby islands" rule seem to have disappeared from websites run by the Department of Homeland Security (under which the actual border guards belong) -- as if they've silently switched to a less rigid way of determining what to treat at an attempt at a VWP visa run. It seems only to have been an administrative practice anyway. On the other hand there also seems to be no explicit announcement that the "nearby islands" rule has been abandoned. It is possible that changes just have not been reflected on Stated Department websites.
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 10:19
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
The "contiguous territory or adjacent islands" rule is in the code of federal regulations, so it can't be repealed without formal procedures, but the verb in that rule is "may," so I suppose the department could stop invoking it under its own discretion.
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 14:07
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
x @phoog: Do you have a reference for that?
– Henning Makholm
Apr 30 '16 at 15:51
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
@HenningMakholm see paragraph (b) at ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/…. (It's 8 CFR 1.217 in case the link breaks in the future.)
– phoog
Apr 30 '16 at 16:47
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
That looks to me more like it's about relaxing the requirement of arriving on a VWP-signatory carrier, than about constraining which length of stay the border guard can admit if you arrive from Canada/Mexico/Caribbean with a VWP-signatory carrier.
– Henning Makholm
May 3 '16 at 16:46
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Travel Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67522%2fvisiting-aruba-for-10-days-between-two-stays-in-the-us%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
They will most likely have to leave the US by the 90th day after their first arrival. In other words, their second stay will most likely be limited to a month and a half.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 20:48
Aruba is not part of the USA in any way, they might reset their 90 days but it is up to the immigration officer on their return into the USA.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 20:59
@Willeke the fact that Aruba isn't part of the US doesn't change the answer, however: the outlined itinerary will probably require the travelers to leave the US within 90 days of their first entry. The rule in question explicitly concerns trips outside the US, so I don't understand your point in asserting that Aruba isn't part of the US.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:12
Aruba is also almost on the South American coast, not 'near the USA' in my view.
– Willeke♦
Apr 29 '16 at 21:13
@Willeke my understanding of "nearby island" is that it denotes all of the Caribbean islands except Cuba.
– phoog
Apr 29 '16 at 21:19