The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables citizens from a number of countries to enter the United States for periods of three months without having to first obtain a tourist visa.
In December 2015, a bill called HR 158 was passed which put restrictions on the use of the VWP for individuals who have dual nationality with or have travelled to certain countries. At this time, the countries included are Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan. Anyone who is a citizen of a Visa Waiver Program country who also has dual nationality or has travelled to these countries since March 1, 2011 are no longer eligible to utilize the VWP and must apply for a tourist visa at a U.S. Consulate in order to be admitted to the United States.
HR 158 has been heavily criticized by many for being extremely overbroad; it nonetheless remains law at this time. It is important to take this bill into consideration before travelling to the U.S. if you have any connection to one of the above listed countries. For example, if you have an Iranian father, you are automatically a dual citizen of Iran regardless of your country of birth. You will need to apply for a tourist visa to enter the U.S. even if you hold a passport from a VWP country.
Please click here for more information about HR 158.
Does HR 158 apply to Canadians?
No. Canadians are permitted to enter the U.S. without a visa through a different agreement than the VWP. Therefore, HR 158 does not apply to Canadian citizens and Canadians do not need to apply for a tourist visa prior to entering the U.S. if they have dual nationality or travelled to the countries currently under the purview of HR 158.
You can set up a consultation by clicking the link below.
To find out more about our services and fees contact Scott Legal, P.C.
This website and blog constitutes attorney advertising. Do not consider anything in this website or blog legal advice and nothing in this website constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.