4 ms·

The policy has changed, there is no precedent according to professionals. There were way more students flagged than that on that day, ASU is the only one coming

The policy has changed, there is no precedent according to professionals. There were way more students flagged than that on that day, ASU is the only one coming forward for now. But they had never seen such a high secondary screening rate, detained for so long, such a weird return “deal”, nor that many visa revoked in a single day.

pbourke 7y ago
What do you mean weird return deal? Isn’t that a common practice when someone is found inadmissible? If nothing else is out of order, you’re given the chance to withdraw your request to enter the US.
- nraynaud 7y ago
  After the visa as been revoked?
- mikelward 7y ago
  I thought normally the airline paid in this case?
  - mikelward 7y ago
    I misunderstood. It sounds like the airline must fly them back, but they can recover their costs from the passenger. https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/23622/who-pays-for-the-return-air-ticket-when-a-country-refuses-entry-by-air https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/23622/who-pays-fo...
- shkkmo 7y ago
  The "weird deal" is this: > told they needed to return to China, that they needed to pay for their own airline ticket to do so or face a ban from re-entering the U.S. for five years It is not normal for a re-entry ban to made contingent on the traveler paying for the return ticket. Usually airlines are required by the government to pay for the return ticket and it is left up to the airlines to recover that cost from their passengers. My guess would be either that 1) government officials are trying to avoid any legal conflict with airlines about the grounds on which entry was denied. or 2) Airline lobby groups got this policy implemented to reduce their costs.
diminoten 7y ago
If you've got actual evidence the policy has changed, let's see it. This article has none, no one else has any, but if you've got new information, now is the time to come forward with it.

pbourke 7y ago

What do you mean weird return deal? Isn’t that a common practice when someone is found inadmissible? If nothing else is out of order, you’re given the chance to withdraw your request to enter the US.

nraynaud 7y ago
After the visa as been revoked?
mikelward 7y ago
I thought normally the airline paid in this case?
- mikelward 7y ago
  I misunderstood. It sounds like the airline must fly them back, but they can recover their costs from the passenger. https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/23622/who-pays-for-the-return-air-ticket-when-a-country-refuses-entry-by-air https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/23622/who-pays-fo...
shkkmo 7y ago
The "weird deal" is this: > told they needed to return to China, that they needed to pay for their own airline ticket to do so or face a ban from re-entering the U.S. for five years It is not normal for a re-entry ban to made contingent on the traveler paying for the return ticket. Usually airlines are required by the government to pay for the return ticket and it is left up to the airlines to recover that cost from their passengers. My guess would be either that 1) government officials are trying to avoid any legal conflict with airlines about the grounds on which entry was denied. or 2) Airline lobby groups got this policy implemented to reduce their costs.

diminoten 7y ago

If you've got actual evidence the policy has changed, let's see it. This article has none, no one else has any, but if you've got new information, now is the time to come forward with it.