Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, P.C.
does USCIS keep a record of all my returns to US via air when they scan my greencard?
- Thread starter danny1968
- Start date
Yes - according to the CBP web site, all air and sea exits/arrivals are tracked. Every time your GC is scanned, your information is put into the DHS records and IBIS has access to that information.
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs...F90ZXh0PXRyYXZlbCByZWNvcmQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs...F90ZXh0PXRyYXZlbCByZWNvcmQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
Last edited by a moderator:
thank you for that link!
I'm a little confused about CBP and USCIS. Which one is the one that checks
passports at the airports? When I drove from British Columbia back to Seattle,
I recall the officer inside the US border booths wore CBP uniforms...
thank you for that link!
I'm a little confused about CBP and USCIS. Which one is the one that checks
passports at the airports? When I drove from British Columbia back to Seattle,
I recall the officer inside the US border booths wore CBP uniforms...
CBP, USCIS, and ICE all used to be under the same INS umbrella but were broken up into separate agencies when DHS was created.
Basically CBP is the first line defense and is responsible for screening travelers. USCIS is responsible for the processing aspect regarding visas, naturalization, etc. They work together and basically share most of their systems. For example, when an individual first comes in they see a CBP officer, but if they are referred to secondary inspection for document/entry eligibility - they see a USCIS officer; in addition they may see other CBP officers if their belongings need to be searched.
Do they have access to this information at the interview, or only at the service centers? One poster here indicated that the IOs don't have acess to this at the interviews (although of course they can get it) and this is why they check the stamps in your passport to verify travel dates. Anybody know more about this?
Border crossing information is stored in CBP's TECS (formally IBIS) and TECS is referenced during the name check process. Since you're under oath at the interview, not providing a travel date at the interview on the assumption that the IO can't access that information during the interview can lead to greater trouble later if it's found that the travel date jeopardizes your continuous residency requirement.
just looked at that CBP page again....
it says:
"CBP only has complete records of the entry and exit of persons arriving and departing by air or sea......."
since there's no exit control at US airports, how does the CBP manage to keep records of people leaving the US?
or perhaps this data is collected by the airlines and sent to CBP?
Last edited by a moderator:
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
"since there's no exit control at US airports, how does the CBP manage to keep records of people leaving the US? or perhaps this data is collected by the airlines and sent to CBP?"
Exactly...
Exactly...
Triple Citizen
Registered Users (C)
Airlines supply flight manifests. Canada also supplies plate information for all US cars entering Canada.
since there's no exit control at US airports, how does the CBP manage to keep records of people leaving the US?
Here's the ATA information (http://www.airlines.org/government/issuebriefs/US-VISIT+Biometric+Exit.htm):
US-VISIT Biometric Exit
Air Transport Association (ATA) Position
ATA member airlines support the full implementation of US-VISIT Biometric Exit (Exit) at all air, sea and land ports of departure. The ATA airlines are committed to assisting the government in its deployment of this important program. To be of real value, however, it is imperative that Exit be managed and staffed by the Federal government as part of the official immigration inspection.
Background
Beginning in 1996 with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress has mandated that the government develop an automated entry/exit control system to collect the records of arrival and departure for every non-U.S. citizen entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land. In subsequent legislation, Congress reiterated its directive adding new requirements for the utilization of biometric technology.
US-VISIT Entry, which involves the collection of a digital photograph and two finger scans by Custom and Border Protection officers at the point of arrival, has been functioning very effectively at all air and seaports since early 2004. Unfortunately, US- VISIT Exit was not developed with the same rigor. Rather than rely on a mandatory process analogous to Entry, DHS designed the Exit program as a voluntary program, assuming departing foreign visitors would know that they were expected to voluntarily locate randomly placed airport kiosks and “check-out.” After two years of testing at twelve airports and two seaports, a report on the failure of Exit was submitted to the Secretary of DHS in December of 2005. Had the government designed the pilot programs differently and with more direction to exiting passengers, the compliance rates may have been higher.
Now some eighteen months later, despite repeated offers by the airlines to work with the government to develop an effective Exit program, and government assurances that the airlines would have input in the development of the program, DHS has advised the industry that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to unilaterally offload its responsibility for this program to industry, with the collection taking place during the “check-in process.” While the airlines are eager to work with the government to assist with regard to effectuating US-VISIT Exit, (e.g. coding the passenger ticket for Exit processing) this is an inherently governmental function that in the final analysis must be performed by government officials as part of the overall immigration inspection process.
The solution is readily available to DHS. Some point in the security screening at the airport of a departing foreign visitor offers the most logical location for collection of biometric information. Passenger screening is a process over which TSA has complete control. Adding biometric information collection to that process can be accomplished seamlessly. TSA’s plan to take control of identification document and ticket verification at airport security check points would facilitate the speedy processing of passengers subject to the US-VISIT program.
Industry Concerns
ATA member carriers have been waiting for over two years to assist DHS with the deployment of an Exit strategy and are extremely disappointed that the cooperative approach used to develop Entry has unilaterally been replaced by a decision to offload on the industry its responsibility for US-VISIT Biometric Exit.
DHS has been unmoved by the industry’s assertion that the check-in process of today is continuing to evolve and move away from the airport environment. For years, airlines have invested significant resources in streamlining procedures, reprogramming, and implementing processes to facilitate passenger processing to by-pass traditional ticket counter check-in. Approximately thirty percent of passengers are already utilizing the ability to check-in online and that number is increasing rapidly. In addition, carriers are implementing procedures and spending significant revenue to enable the off-airport check-in process to expand to include the use of PDAs and cell phones and accessibility from other off-airport locations.
If DHS mandates that the airlines collect biometrics during the check-in process in order to satisfy the requirements for Exit, it will be a costly and time-consuming move backward. Passengers could lose the ability to utilize self check-in processes that would result in out-dated, time-consuming procedures. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the U.S. government will be abdicating their role in the security/immigration process and damaging its integrity. Finally, a viable Exit solution at airports is of little value without equally viable land and sea Exit programs.
Airline Commitment
ATA and its member airlines would like the opportunity to work in cooperation and partnership to develop a US-VISIT Exit strategy that will enhance the U.S. immigration process – a program that is managed and staffed by government agents at existing government security checkpoints or other non-intrusive locations. Mandating the approach proposed by DHS will interrupt efforts towards seamless passenger processing and jeopardize airline business developments.
May 2007
------------------------
Another link: http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_rs21258_28dec04.pdf
US-VISIT Biometric Exit
Air Transport Association (ATA) Position
ATA member airlines support the full implementation of US-VISIT Biometric Exit (Exit) at all air, sea and land ports of departure. The ATA airlines are committed to assisting the government in its deployment of this important program. To be of real value, however, it is imperative that Exit be managed and staffed by the Federal government as part of the official immigration inspection.
Background
Beginning in 1996 with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress has mandated that the government develop an automated entry/exit control system to collect the records of arrival and departure for every non-U.S. citizen entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land. In subsequent legislation, Congress reiterated its directive adding new requirements for the utilization of biometric technology.
US-VISIT Entry, which involves the collection of a digital photograph and two finger scans by Custom and Border Protection officers at the point of arrival, has been functioning very effectively at all air and seaports since early 2004. Unfortunately, US- VISIT Exit was not developed with the same rigor. Rather than rely on a mandatory process analogous to Entry, DHS designed the Exit program as a voluntary program, assuming departing foreign visitors would know that they were expected to voluntarily locate randomly placed airport kiosks and “check-out.” After two years of testing at twelve airports and two seaports, a report on the failure of Exit was submitted to the Secretary of DHS in December of 2005. Had the government designed the pilot programs differently and with more direction to exiting passengers, the compliance rates may have been higher.
Now some eighteen months later, despite repeated offers by the airlines to work with the government to develop an effective Exit program, and government assurances that the airlines would have input in the development of the program, DHS has advised the industry that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to unilaterally offload its responsibility for this program to industry, with the collection taking place during the “check-in process.” While the airlines are eager to work with the government to assist with regard to effectuating US-VISIT Exit, (e.g. coding the passenger ticket for Exit processing) this is an inherently governmental function that in the final analysis must be performed by government officials as part of the overall immigration inspection process.
The solution is readily available to DHS. Some point in the security screening at the airport of a departing foreign visitor offers the most logical location for collection of biometric information. Passenger screening is a process over which TSA has complete control. Adding biometric information collection to that process can be accomplished seamlessly. TSA’s plan to take control of identification document and ticket verification at airport security check points would facilitate the speedy processing of passengers subject to the US-VISIT program.
Industry Concerns
ATA member carriers have been waiting for over two years to assist DHS with the deployment of an Exit strategy and are extremely disappointed that the cooperative approach used to develop Entry has unilaterally been replaced by a decision to offload on the industry its responsibility for US-VISIT Biometric Exit.
DHS has been unmoved by the industry’s assertion that the check-in process of today is continuing to evolve and move away from the airport environment. For years, airlines have invested significant resources in streamlining procedures, reprogramming, and implementing processes to facilitate passenger processing to by-pass traditional ticket counter check-in. Approximately thirty percent of passengers are already utilizing the ability to check-in online and that number is increasing rapidly. In addition, carriers are implementing procedures and spending significant revenue to enable the off-airport check-in process to expand to include the use of PDAs and cell phones and accessibility from other off-airport locations.
If DHS mandates that the airlines collect biometrics during the check-in process in order to satisfy the requirements for Exit, it will be a costly and time-consuming move backward. Passengers could lose the ability to utilize self check-in processes that would result in out-dated, time-consuming procedures. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the U.S. government will be abdicating their role in the security/immigration process and damaging its integrity. Finally, a viable Exit solution at airports is of little value without equally viable land and sea Exit programs.
Airline Commitment
ATA and its member airlines would like the opportunity to work in cooperation and partnership to develop a US-VISIT Exit strategy that will enhance the U.S. immigration process – a program that is managed and staffed by government agents at existing government security checkpoints or other non-intrusive locations. Mandating the approach proposed by DHS will interrupt efforts towards seamless passenger processing and jeopardize airline business developments.
May 2007
------------------------
Another link: http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_rs21258_28dec04.pdf
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
They don't have perfect entry and exit records of every green card holder. At some land entry points, they just look at your card and let you in without swiping it. And the passenger manifests are not completely reliable for uniquely identifying people, because you don't provide an A# or SSN to the airline (although in some cases the airline swipes your card when you check-in for the flight, but that doesn't happen for everybody at every airline).
The imperfect knowledge of people's entries and exits is the main reason why they ask for it; for some trips they'd never know you were gone if you didn't tell them. But although they don't have perfect records of everybody, you don't know how much info they have or don't have about your own travels, so it's not a good idea to leave out anything. Maybe they have nothing on you. Maybe they have everything. Maybe they have 50%. They rely on the combination of your honesty and the fear of getting caught lying in order to extract the full information from you.
The imperfect knowledge of people's entries and exits is the main reason why they ask for it; for some trips they'd never know you were gone if you didn't tell them. But although they don't have perfect records of everybody, you don't know how much info they have or don't have about your own travels, so it's not a good idea to leave out anything. Maybe they have nothing on you. Maybe they have everything. Maybe they have 50%. They rely on the combination of your honesty and the fear of getting caught lying in order to extract the full information from you.
Understood, and I would never intentionally omit a travel date for this reason. I was just curious because I was not able to recollect all of my travel dates on the N-400. I stated as much on the form and also indicated that I had numerous trips less than 24h in duration. I provided a good faith estimate of the trips that I could not recollect, in terms of the number of these and their duration. I am not close to either the physical presence limit (I have been outside the US for a total of 65 days since I got my GC) or the continuous residence limit (my longest trip out of the US was for 8 days). I was just wondering if, assuming the IO has access to all entry and exit records, I could expect to get grilled on perceived inconsistencies between these records and what is stated on my N-400.
I think it's easily explainable - not all entry records are associated with trips > 24h in duration (and hence are not reportable) and entry records may or may not exist for trips that I stated were > 24h in duration. Crossing at land border crossings, it really is hit or miss in terms of whether your GC is swiped. Nowadays it is more common, but a few years back there was a very good chance that it was not scanned.
Yes, I understand that the US scans your license plate when you enter the country via vehicle. Canada does the same thing, and shares this info with the US. The US also scans your plates as you EXIT the US for Mexico. However, many of my land border crossings were as a PEDESTRIAN (as this is very common at border points with Mexico). In this case, there is no record of your exit and, if they don't swipe your GC upon re-entry, no record of your arrival.
Again, the point of my post was to ask if can I expect to get grilled on perceived inconsistencies between the electronic records and what is stated on my N-400. Anybody with any experience in this area?
There's no need to provide trip information if it was less than 24 hours.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about at the interview. If you don't remember if you left in April 2004 or May 2004 on a 2 week vacation doesn't really make a difference. There may be inconsistencies in the exit/entry history they have on you, but any major inconsistencies can quickly be put to rest by the line of questioning by the IO during the interview.
From what you provided, you have nothing to worry about during the interview.