3

My mom arrived to the U.S. today on a B1/B2 visa. At the airport the CBP officer chided her for spending a lot of time in the US in the past 12 months (though never in excess of official limits) and told her she must leave the U.S. within 30 days. However when I checked her I-94 it showed the expected 6 months, with an Admit Until date of October 1st. Her passport was not stamped so that’s the only date we can cross check.

enter image description here

Is there a provision in U.S. immigration law for a CBP officer to verbally require a shorter length of stay? Or can this verbal warning be safely ignored and one should just follow the I-94 date? The current plan is for her to leave on June 12th and not come back for at least 6-7 months.

Update: added a more detailed travel history below for better context.

2019: 2 visits, 8 months total
2020: 1 visit, 3 months (COVID)
2021: 2 visits, 9 months total
2022: 3 visits, 8 months total
2023: 2 visits: 10 months total
2024: 2 visits, 4 months total

Update from 2025: My mom did end up staying for 2 months, ignoring the verbally prescribed 30 days limit. She then re-entered after a 7.5 months absence and was successfully granted entry without much additional questioning.

JonathanReez
  • 82,178
  • 90
  • 394
  • 764

2 Answers2

8

Generally I-94 is the authority. See here:

The visitor must exit the U.S. on or before the departure date stamped on the I-94

What I suspect happened was that the CBP officer either intended to override the default and didn't, or is trying to suggest that staying for another 6 months may lead to denial of entry on the next visit.

The CBP officers have a very wide discretion, but overriding the default probably requires some extra paperwork to document the decision that the officer ended up skipping. In the end of the day, the next CBP officer may just wave her in, or not let her in at all even if she does leave after 30 days.

I-94 defines the status, but doesn't guarantee anything in the future. She'd be within her rights to stay until October, but the CBP may deny her entry in the future if she does. The general rule of thumb is to stay outside the US at least the same amount of time as spent in the US, and your mother seems to be spending way more time in the US than expected from a temporary visitor.

oh whatever
  • 1
  • 3
  • 60
  • 98
7

Is there a provision in U.S. immigration law for a CBP officer to verbally require a shorter length of stay? Or can this verbal warning be safely ignored and one should just follow the I-94 date?

The problem is that it's a false alternative. Being allowed to stay doesn't mean it cannot create issues when reentering later, especially if your mother wants to do it soon after leaving (you mentioned elsewhere that you suspect a 10-day turnaround between two long visits is what got her the warning in the first place). And even if that one officer had no way to influence any further decision or overstated their authority, the fact remains that CBP officers work off the same rulebook and had the same training. So if something appears borderline to one of them, it's not unlikely to look the same to another officer the next time around.

Ultimately if your mother does run into problems because of her long stays, it won't necessarily be because she got warned by this officer but it would mean it wasn't entirely safe to ignore him. I have no idea how likely that is or how consistent CBP is but it's not reasonable to consider that decisions are completely random and that this warning contains no information whatsoever.

Relaxed
  • 117,712
  • 10
  • 249
  • 436