> crg14624 wrote on 10/17/05 05:52:
>
> >>crg14624 wrote on 10/16/05 20:21:
> >>>Oh, by the way:
> >>>The US does have departure/exit stamps. I have seen them.
> >>>However,
> >>>they are only used in special circumstances.
> >>Thanks for the info. I have never seen them, though. Any pointer on
> >>what they
> >>look like? Just curious.
> >>-Joe
> >>--
> >>I am not a lawyer.
> >>For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.
> >
> >
> > They're sort of rectangular with rounded corners and say "Departure"
> > and
> > have the date. They look a little pink.
> >
> > I know you're not indicating that the officer doesn't have the
> > authority
> > to request to see the person's documentation ie: passport even
> > though
> > it's not specifically required by law for entry, but I found this
> > interesting statutory authority. It essentially states that they
> > can
> > look at anything the person has with them if they think it may
> > reveal an
> > immigration problem.
>
>
> Yeah, I know that. This is normally stuff they would do at secondary
> inspection.
> A standard situation would be if they feel a person is not truthful,
> e.g.,
> somebody on a visitor visa coming to work as au-pair (I have read
> stories about
> that kind of stuff in the 90ies, where they found the paperwork in the
> luggage...)
> But of course, there is not likely a "reasonable cause to suspect that
> grounds
> exist for denial of admission" in the case of a PR who was out of the
> country
> for a week on a business trip...
>
> -Joe
> --
> I am not a lawyer.
> For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.
The reasonable suspicion is apparently tongue and cheek. Noone will win
a case based on the lack of reasonable suspicion if something is found
at the border.
If you couple that with the customs authority that doesn't require any
suspicion to search property and they can pretty much look at anything.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
