kirreb

Still waiting here as well, I'm a week or so behind you...

It was no problem for me to enter yesterday for another ~90 days after being out of the US for 2 weeks (previous visit was ~85 days).

The officer only wanted to know more in detai who I was visiting, and I also said I was in the process of immigrating. I was quite surprised as I was prepared for the worse, with printed out bank statements, letter from employer etc., based on things I’ve heard on here, mainly.

As of Jan I’ll stay in Sweden as I think we’ll be pushing it to visit once more....

6 hours ago, Scandi said:

And yet it's a superfast process compared to many other countries. If I had moved my husband (then fiancé) to Sweden instead it would have taken close to 2 years. So the 9 months it took for us to get the visa (stuck at USCIS for 6 months last year) is nothing in comparsion. The US immigration is fast for us regular K-1 and CR-1 visa filers.

Wow 2 years? My wife immigrated to Sweden in 2008 (we both lived in the US then), and from what I recall it took 1-2 months and cost ~$60, but maybe it’s different for fiances?

2 hours ago, JFH said:

Not necessarily. Although the financial problems may have led to the high abuse rate. Statistically speaking, and that's all that the government can base decisions on, citizens from countries that are less financially stable have a higher rate of visa fraud, overstay, abuse, etc. There would be not much gained by someone from Australia or the U.K., for example, staying illegally in the USA and abandoning a country with a much better social welfare system, funded healthcare and so on.

 

My point was more that a place on the VWP is not permanent or guaranteed for any country. It is always subject to review. Any form of admission into the country is a privilege, not an automatic right, unless you are a USC. 

 

How are you funding your stays and maintaining your life in Sweden without being able to work here? Is it commonplace in Sweden to have so much paid time off?

 

 

No, my vacation was only 6 weeks, but we have savings and I have an arrangement with my employer. 

34 minutes ago, JFH said:

The decision to include or remove a country from the visa waiver program is based on the trustworthiness of the citizens of that country not to abuse the privilege. Abuse of the privilege takes many forms - overstay, illegal work or study, using the VWP to live in the USA in 90-day installments broken up by short jaunts to the native country, among others. Argentina and Uruguay have been removed. The program was designed to encourage tourism in the USA, not to help people spend 180 days a year living in the USA without a visa. If we all adopted your attitude of "so what if I spend 180 days a year there" you'll soon find that the program will be changed or even cancelled altogether, forcing everyone to apply for full B-2 visas. 

 

I assume you are filing tax returns in the USA since you are spending 180 days a year here? Don't be surprised if you are taken into secondary and have your phone and bags searched for evidence of illegal work. Any entry is a privilege, not a right. But with many privileges, there are always people determined to abuse them. 

So you're saying that Argentina and Uruguay were removed because people traveled multiple times during ESTA - which is allowed - and it had nothing to do with the financial stability of the country?

31 minutes ago, mallafri76 said:

You’re not just jeopardizing your own ESTA. It’s people like you, who use the VWP to live in the US, that make it difficult for other people who just wants to come and visit. They’re not believed because people before them have abused the system. 

Apologies for not agreeing with you at all.

Can you please point me to a specific example on how me traveling to the US for up to 180 days, during one ESTA period of two years, in any way makes it difficult for someone else to visit the US with their ESTA?

The border officer has all the information to make a final judgment call.

4 hours ago, mallafri76 said:

That’s a VERY short stop back in Sweden. If you get denied entry, you’re gonna need a visitors visa, which rarely happens with a spouse in the US. I wouldn’t risk my ESTA like that if I were you.

I’ll take my chances. It’s my wife and 2 kids that live in the US, if it doesn’t work I’ll stay in Sweden until the process is done (filed in Jan), hopefully early 2018...

I\m currently in the same situation.

I've been in the U.S. for almost 90 days when I return to Sweden at the end of the month (the I-130 is in process since the beginning of the year).

I booked a return to the U.S. 2 weeks afterwards, although I have some doubts that they'll let me back in...I can update you if there are any issues, albeit results may differ. 

12 hours ago, Scandi said:

Could've been the filing fee that was asked for (if he had to file again it would make sense with a new filing fee), maybe he remembers it wrong.

Yeah, no the check was not set out to the rep but to USCIS (or whatever deptartment was handling it).

1 hour ago, f f said:

what was the check for?

Can't remember (was ~13 years ago) but we thought it was quite odd, I'll dig it up when I'm back in Sweden in a couple of weeks. 

Same thing happended to me the first time I immigrated. We had moved and updated our address with USCIS, I was informed that we missed our interview and I had to leave the country - I was freaking out as I was also working at the time. 

We contacted the local rep for the Congressman, he said it happened a lot. Per his instructions we wrote a check for $100 along with a Letter of Explanation. We later received a new interview date, and a letter stating that they had missed to update the address (although they still cashed that check...).