This is a tricky question — from a lot of angles.   The simple answer is that a person who is here in the US in B status cannot attend school.  And, if you tell the Immigration Officer at the Border that you are planning on attending school, he will not let you in.

But, as always, it is not that simple.   You definitely cannot attend a regular school in its regular program.   In order to attend school, you need to switch to a F visa, and you are absolutely not allowed to enroll before your change to F status is approved.   But, what if you just visit the class and attend without being enrolled?   If you are not registered as a student, you are not “studying”, you are just enjoying learning for the sake of learning.   But, if you do this while you are waiting for the change to F, and then once the change to F is approved, you try to get credit for your attendance at the class before the change to F  — that gets sticky.  You probably shouldn’t do that.

By the way, you are not supposed to enter the US as a B visitor with the intent to change to an F (student) visa after you enter the US.  It seems that it is easier to enter as a B than to enter as an F.   So people do that, and it is frowned upon — but people do it anyway.

I know that the USCIS/DOS (Department of State) will let people come to the US on a B visa to attend programs that are educational but are also fun — perhaps a dance camp or a music camp or a science camp.   I think that, arguably, they can come for a m-ssions training program.   I can’t say that for sure it is allowable, but people do it — I don’t know what they say to the person at the border or at the Consulate when they apply for the visa.   Now, it gets stickier if that training program also qualifies to accept F visa students.   I think that if a border guard knew that someone was coming to the US to attend a training program at a school which also accepts F visa students, the Border guard would probably not let the person in, but I can’t say for sure.

There is a similar issue if the student coming for a m-ssions training program is coming on a B-1 m-ssionary visa.   Someone coming on a m-ssionary visa should be coming to be a m-ssionary, not to be a student.   I think attending a m-ssions training program could be a problem.   But on the other hand, you can make the argument that they training program also includes significant opportunities to perform outreach.

I hope that is helpful.  I really don’t have much guidance here because there is a clear rule, but there can be a lot of exceptions depending on how you shape those exceptions.   But, on the other hand, there is no guarantee that those “exceptions” will work and keep you out of trouble.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Well, here we go again!!   There is a new Revised Executive Order from President Trump.    Those who agree with his position on security in regard to immigration will cheer.   The main stream media will claim it is discriminatory.   As for me, I don’t agree with either.

Anyway, he did a much better job in writing this Executive Order.   The first one was a shoot-from-the-hip sort of job.   This one was much more carefully written in order to increase the chances that it will survive a court attack.   This version more carefully sets out the reasoning behind the decisions in the Executive Order.   This is done so that it is harder for someone to say that this Executive Order is arbitrary or based on prejudice.  That doesn’t mean that the courts have to agree with the reasoning in the Executive Order, but they have to at least give it reasonable consideration.

The main changes in this Executive Order are as follows:

1. Iraq is left off the list of nations whose nationals are not admissible.   There are now only six nations on the list.  The order says that Iraq has been working hard on helping us vet visa applicants (to be honest, I think it was a political decision — it looked bad to exclude people from Iraq).
2. The EO specifies that a person from those six nations can still enter if he has a US green card, if he already has a visa (or if he had one when the first EO was issued and then lost it due to the first EO), if he has already been granted refugee status, or if he also has a passport from a second country and is entering using that.   So, essentially, the EO just states that you can’t get a new visa if you are from one of those countries.
3. The EO no longer states that priority will be given to religious minorities in the refugee process.
4. The EO says that states and localities should be able to have a say in regard to whether refugees are resettled there.

The main things that were in the First EO and are continued in the Revised EO.

1. The 90 day limitations on entry by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
2. The Refugee program will be suspended for 120 days to allow the US to determine what additional precautions are needed.
3. The US Government will make a survey of countries around the world to make sure that they are providing the US with information necessary for the US to vet visa applicants.   And, if some countries are lacking in what they provide the US and the countries can’t or won’t improve, the US could take further actions — such as restrictions or limitations to protect US interests.  This was in the first EO, but was, in my opinion, not laid out clearly.  It is much more specific in this Revised EO.

So, in reality, this EO only affects people from those six nations who do not currently have visas, and refugees from all over the world.  And, currently it only affects people for 90 days if they are from those six countries, and 120 days if they are refugees.   Whether or not you agree with this EO, and I don’t, I still think those are not unreasonable limitations when a new leader is trying to grapple with what is, I think, a difficult situation.  Hopefully, within those timeframes, he will make an honest effort to fairly evaluate what steps can be taken to both provide for people who want to come here and for our security.   We can pray for that.

As far as this being a discriminatory Executive Order, I don’t see it based on the rationale provided in the Executive Order.   As I wrote in my earlier post, the seven countries on the list were all countries where the government either cannot or won’t cooperate with the US in making sure that visa applicants are well vetted.   The vast majority of Muslim countries are not on this list.    Also, the refugee restriction limits access to Christians and other religions as well as Muslims.   Furthermore, this Revised EO pointed out something that I had not realized — all six of these countries had been identified by the Obama administration as either State Sponsors of Terrorism or as a “country of concern” based on factors relating to terrorism and national security.   So it isn’t only Trump who has concerns about these countries.  Now, people can feel free to believe that this is a discriminatory Executive Order (and maybe they are correct), but I would suggest that that conclusion is driven by facts outside of what the EO actually says.

How does this affect you?   If you are not a refugee or a person from one of those six countries who does not have a visa, it does not affect you at all.  If you are from one of those six countries, you won’t get a new visa.  If you are here in the US from one of those six countries and your visa expires (remember that you are allowed to stay here as long as you have “status”, which is unrelated to when your visa expires) or you have a single-entry visa, if you leave the US you will not be allowed back in.

One other thing to keep in mind — there is a chance that a limitation on the granting of visas from other countries could occur in the future once the US has reviewed the world-wide visa situation.   To be honest, I don’t really expect that, but it could occur.

In case you are interested in my opinion — I don’t like these executive orders.  I think that they are reasonable attempts to resolve a difficult world-wide problem, but I don’t think that they really will help.    I really don’t think that there is a way to effectively vet people from a section of the world where lawlessness is rampant and governments are breaking down.   In my opinion, from what I have seen in almost two decades of doing immigration law, the people that interview the visa applicants act on hunches and emotions more than anything else — to be honest, their job is almost impossible — there really isn’t any way to see into the hearts of the people standing before them.  That won’t change even with additional vetting — usually, the information just isn’t there.  I think it will increase the denials of innocent people, but it won’t necessarily make us safer.  We have the best law enforcement in the world — I think that they are doing a great job, and they protect us well.   I think we now have probably the best balance we can have between security and receiving the aliens that God has called us to reach out to and care for.  I think that the level of security that this Executive Order is trying to accomplish cannot really be attained, but it may result in people whom God commands us to receive instead being turned away.

I think that is all.  We will see how it plays out in the courts.    What I really hope is that we would pray for God to guide President Trump and give him Godly wisdom in his decisions.  I also wish that we could discuss these matters without accusing the other side of being racist or anti-American.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

The short answer is that you should not do it, but if you do it, you will probably be fine.  The reasoning is that a B-2 is a tourist-type visa.   It is for people who want to come and visit the US as a tourist or to visit friends or family.   It is not for people who are coming with some sort of purpose that could be viewed as business or religious.   There is a visa for people who want to come for a religious purpose — it is the B-1.

If at the consulate or at the border you say that you want to enter the US to be a m-ssionary, they will probably tell you that you cannot enter on a B-2.    However, things are never completely clear-cut at the border.   Perhaps you say that you want to come to the US to visit your friends and volunteer with their religious organization.   Perhaps, if the border guard focuses on the visiting your friends part of the description, he will let you in.   Perhaps if he will be okay with the idea that you are just coming to volunteer at a m-ssionary organization, even though he really should not.

The other option, which I think happens a lot, is that people say that they are coming to visit friends or to visit America.   That is true.   However, those friends are m-ssionaries with an organization here in the US, and the visitors are planning on volunteering at the m-ssion organization.  In my opinion, this is not really proper, and, if the border guard would know about it, he really should not allow it.    But, as I said above, the border guard might have allowed it anyway.   And, as long as there is no income for the visitor, most likely no one is going to complain about it or give the visitor a problem.   But, there is no guarantee.  You need to understand that there is somewhat of a risk to doing this, even though it is a small risk.  I think many, many people do this on a regular basis and never run into a problem — but I cannot recommend this because it really is not in line with what the B-2 visitor/tourist visa is intended for.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong

The general rule for a B is that you can stay as long as they think that you are not living and working here and that you have a residence outside of the US that you have no intention of relinquishing, and that you have the intent to return home when you legal stay ends.   In practice, for people here on a B-2 (tourist visa), that means that they will usually give you six months when you enter, and they will ordinarily give you one six-month extension if you file the appropriate papers.

B-1s are a little different.   Usually, when people come for a business purpose, they have a specific goal in mind.  And, therefore, at the border, B-1 business visitors are often given a time that is meant to correspond to the purpose of their trip.   If someone is coming for a business meeting, he might be given only a week or ten days.   If it is something that could take two or three weeks, he might be given a month.

But, m-ssionaries are often coming for a longer term.  In fact the regulations specifically say that a B visitor can stay more than a year, even a number of years, on a B-1 visa as long as the meet the requirements, stated above, for coming on a B visa.    However, it is not that easy.

At the border, they will seldom give you B-1 status for more than six months, even if you tell them you want to stay at least a year.   But, you can then request an extension.   The advantage of being a B-1 m-ssionary, is that you are more likely to be able to get an extension beyond one year.  It seems to me that I have known a person who stayed here for several years as a B-1.

But, that is rare.   And, the longer your stay stretches on, the less likely you are to get an extension.

However, the real problem is at the border.   It is seldom that a person comes here and wants to stay for two or three years without a break.   Sometime in the process he will want to go home.   And, when he returns to the border with his B-1 and asks to be readmitted, there is where he will most likely have trouble.   They are the gatekeepers.  They are the ones who are trained to be suspicious and look for people who may want to enter and stay.   They will look at your record and see that you have been here for the past year or 18 months, and will see that you have only been out of the country for two weeks or a month, and it will look suspicious to them.  It will fit the pattern of a person who really is living here rather than visiting.    If they are up on their rules, they will understand that a B-1 is allowed to do this.    But, often, they will look at this from the same point of view that they would look at a B-2 visitor, and deny you.   I don’t really fault them — they are expected to be suspicious, and there are so many different types of visitors and visas, and it is hard, mentally, to switch from the suspicious B-2 visa mental mode (where they are most of the time) and switch to consider a more generous but rare exception to the rules.

So, in summary, a B-1 m-ssionary can potentially be here for several years.  But in practice, I think it may be difficult to stretch the time here much past a year or 18 months, especially if you want to come and go.

But, if there is anyone who has been able to stay long on a B-1 visa as a m-ssionary, I (and any other readers) would be very interested in hearing from you.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

I was doing some research today, and found an explicit reference to receiving Honorarium on a B-1.   This may be of interest to some people coming to the US on a B visa for short visits.  I don’t think this would really help people who are here for a longer-term m-ssion trip.   This is taken from the Foreign Affairs manual of the U.S. Department of State.

9 FAM 41.31 N11.2 Honorarium Payment (CT:VISA-701; 02-15-2005) INA 212(p) provides that a B-1 nonimmigrant may accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental expenses for usual academic activities (which can include lecturing, guest teaching, or performing in an academic sponsored festival) if: (1) The activities last no longer than nine days at any single institution or organization; (2) Payment is offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(p); (3) The honorarium is for services conducted for the benefit of the institution or entity; and (4) The alien has not accepted such payment or expenses from more than five institutions or organizations over the last six months

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

See the last two week’s entries for an introduction to the topic of support on a B visa and for some possible avenues for stretching your resources while you are here on in B status.

Here is my final entry on this topic.

B-1s can sometimes receive stipends.  This might be allowable on certain business type B-1 situations where the B-1 is here to learn a skill or for some business purpose, and he is given a stipend to support him while he is here.   M-ssionaries are specifically allowed a stipend or expense allowance/reimbursement for the costs of living here.   Note this should come from the organization that they are a m-ssionary for.  This is not an excuse to fundraise.  Also, it is to cover costs — it should be just enough for expenses; it is not meant to be a source of income.   I would be extremely uncomfortable with a B-2 receiving money in this manner.   There is nothing like this in the B-2 regulations.

There is another option as well — but this is one where you need to be careful.   I have known of situation where a church has provided housing and food and, perhaps, money to people here on a B-2 or a similar status.   You need to remember that a B-2 (or a B-1 for that matter) is not allowed to seek or accept donations.   But, there is nothing forbidding them from receiving gifts.   But, if they are also volunteering for that church they need to be careful that the gifts really are gifts and not payment in disguise.

Well, in closing, you may say that that was a lot of non-clarity.  The truth is, there are few clear rules here.   But there is some guidance, and, we also rely on experience to give us a guide as to what is acceptable.  In the final analysis,  the people at the border or the people at the USCIS adjudicating an application are the people who really determine what is allowed and what is not — and what they decide is usually based more on their attitude at that specific moment than it is on any clear-cut rules.   So, all we can do is make careful and wise choices and pray.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Yesterday, Friday, a Federal District Court in Seattle issued a Temporary Oder overturning President Trump’s Executive Order which had temporarily banned visas from seven Muslim countries and halted the refugee program.    Two states, Washington and Minnesota, filed a request for this Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).   It is not clear from the Order what the basis was for their request, but, most likely, it was the idea that the Executive Order is unconstitutional in some way.

A Temporary Restraining Order is issued when the need for the Order is so great that there isn’t time to wait until a full hearing.   A permanent Order can only be issued after a full hearing with evidence.  On Friday, there was, basically, just an argument, without real evidence, before the Court, and the two states, Washington and Minnesota, apparently succeeded in convincing the Judge that 1) they would probably win at the full hearing and 2) that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Executive Order is not overturned immediately pending the full evidence hearing.   This is the standard procedure for obtaining a TRO and there is nothing unusual here.

I don’t like the Executive Order.  I think it was implemented hastily without careful thought, and, in my opinion, I think it is doing more harm than good.   And, consequently, I am glad that it will not be in effect.

However, I am not at all convinced that this Court is correct that it most likely violates the law.  I do not think that the Executive Order is unconstitutional.  The heightened protections of our Constitution apply to US Citizens and permanent residents — not to non-citizen non-residents.  There are lesser protections that may apply to non-residents, but I don’t think that those are relevant to this discussion.  And the heightened Consitutional protections especially don’t apply to people outside our country.   Furthermore, as I said in my last posting, I don’t think that this Executive Order, at least as it is written, discriminates against any religion.

The court order also forbids the part of the Executive Order that states that preference will be given to minority religions.    I think that is completely wrong.  Our refugee policy has always picked and chosen what nationality or religious group was going to get our primary assistance.   Under Reagan, we made a priority of assisting Armenians, Soviet Jews and Russian Baptists and Pentecostals.   We have prioritized Muslims from Sarajevo.   More recently, we have been prioritizing Syrian Muslims and Christians and Muslims from Burma. I really don’t think that this decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant governing law.

Finally, will this court order be overturned?   Will the Executive Order come back into force?  I think it is unlikely.   I think that the Judge who entered this order has already made up his mind — and so I don’t think there is likely to be any change after evidence is presented.   And, if it is appealed, it will go up to the 9^th Circuit — the judges who oversee Federal cases in California, Oregon and Washington.   Their decisions are usually consistently on the liberal side of the law — so they most likely will side with the lower court.   And, if it is appealed to the Supreme Court, which could take a long time, at this point, the Supreme Court is evenly balanced between liberals and (mostly) conservatives — and a tie will “affirm” the decision of the Ninth Circuit.   Of course, if Trump can get a conservative on the Supreme Court, then it might come out differently.

So, who knows, but I think that the Executive Order is dead for now.  I am glad that it is not in force.  But I wish it was withdrawn in a reasoned legal manner, rather than in an Order which, in my opinion, does not follow the law.

How does this affect people who want to travel to the US from those seven countries and how does it affect Refugees?   Currently, things will continue much as they were going before.   People can now come and go freely as long as they have a visa.  It is not certain what will happen for the, I think, 60,000 people who had their visas canceled.  I think that they will probably need to reapply for a visa.

It is important to keep in mind that if a person is from one of the seven countries, this TRO is temporary.  It may be ended at any time after a hearing or after an appeal.  In that case, the Executive Order may come back into force.   So, if a person from one of those countries wants to come to the US, they had better come as soon as they can.   I suspect that President Trump will be appealing this as soon as possible, so we may be hearing that the Executive Order is back in force in just a few days or few weeks.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

This is a post that I put on my Immigration Facebook page yesterday.   But I am also putting it here, slightly edited, for those of you who haven’t seen it or don’t have access to Facebook.

Here is my Facebook Post:

Well, whatever you think of President Trump’s start, he is sure getting things roiled up.   Some people are really upset with all of his actions, and others are thrilled.    But, what exactly did he do with this particular Executive Order, and what did he not do?   I have been getting some e-mails asking for clarification.   And, looking at the headlines, it seems that most of the news tends to get overblown.

Regardless of whether or not you like this Executive Order, it is a demanding new rule that will negatively impact the lives of a number of people (of course those who support it hope that it will protect people too).   But at the same time, it is important to not exaggerate what it really says and does — exaggeration helps no one.   So, I am going to try to lay out exactly what the new Executive Order does.

The first point is that the Executive Order shuts down refugee admissions for four months.   That means no refugees at all will enter the US for four months (earlier I had said that religious minorities will continue to come — but that was not accurate).  During this time, the government is supposed to go over its admissions process to make sure it does a better job screening for people who may be a danger to the US.   Once new and improved procedures are implemented, refugee processing will resume.   Refugees fleeing religious persecution (if the refugees are from a minority religion in their home country) will be given preference.

Even when refugee processing resumes, all Syrian refugees (apparently whether or not they are Christians) will be denied entry until the president determines that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect against potential dangers.   Also, the Order drops the number of refugee admissions from over 100,000 to 50,000.

The other main point of the Executive Order is that it suspends for 90 days all immigrant and non-immigrant admission of any person (except for certain government travelers) from seven Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.   It is not clear that this order was meant to cover people who have green cards, but a clarification provided two days later on January 29, 2017, states that people from these countries who have green cards will be able to enter the US.

During this time — the 90 days — the US government is to assess the ability of these countries to provide sufficient information to the US to allow the US to evaluate whether or not any particular intending visitor is a danger to the US.    It also appears from the text of the Executive Order that other countries could be added to this list in the future if they are unable to provide the US with the information that we feel is necessary to determine whether or not potential visitors are dangerous.

So, what can we take away from this.   Here are some suggestions:

• Hopefully this is all temporary.   There are time limits on these restrictions.   We can pray that the Lord would give President Trump wisdom in this regard.  Hopefully most, if not all, of these restrictions can be lifted.
• At the current time, the only people who are affected are refugees seeking to come to the US, and people from those seven countries who are not US citizens and who do not have green cards.
• If you are from one of those seven countries and you do not have a green card, you do not want to leave the US.
• If you are from any other country, this executive order will not affect you and you are free to travel.
• However, if you are from any country where terrorism is an issue, there is always a possibility that your country will not be able to provide whatever it is that President Trump feels is required for security purposes.   There is always the possibility that in sixty or ninety days when President Trump completes further review of the information he is requesting from other countries that he could extend the ban on entry to people from other countries in addition to the seven already listed.   To be honest, I felt that the Executive Order was not clear about this — but I think that they are requesting information from more than just those seven countries.
• I think it is worthwhile to point out that although this is portrayed as anti-Muslim, I think that is not an accurate depiction of this Executive Order.    The suspension of Refugee Processing affects everyone — not just Muslims.    The seven countries are all, with the exception of Iran and Sudan, countries where there is great upheaval and lawlessness and virtually no central authority.   Iran and Sudan are countries that are both terrorism sponsors and are not friends of America in any way.  The president of Sudan has been charged with genocide by the International Court.  There are many Muslim countries that have much larger Muslim populations and, some, such as Saudi Arabia, are even viewed as sponsors of terrorism and are the source of terrorists, but they are not on the list of countries whose nationals are prohibited from entering the US.  I think that the real issue is that these seven countries either have no government that is capable of cooperating with the US or, like Iran or Sudan, will not cooperate.

This is a difficult issue and people have strong feelings about this Executive Order.   I, personally, don’t like this order.  I think it is too harsh, and will cause hardship to too many innocent people — including some of my clients.   But, many people feel that we have had eight years of a President who downplayed the issue of terrorism and the potential dangers, and they are frustrated — they want to see action.   And, in my experience the first steps of a reaction are often too strong, and then, often, there comes a degree of moderation.

Many people want to paint this Executive Order as racist or bigoted.   I don’t know President Trump’s mind, and I don’t know what he intends in the future.   But, as far as the words of the Executive Order, it is limited to only seven countries with certain poor-government issues and three to four months — and applies to all refugees, Muslim, and Christian.

I think we need to give President Trump a chance to work through this issue and try to reach a balance between immigration and safety.   Pray for the innocent people — many of them Christians — who are affected negatively by this Executive Order.   We are commanded by the Bible to pray for our leaders.  Pray that President Trump will seek God’s wisdom as he evaluates this situation.   And pray for God’s blessing and protection on our country.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong

See last week’s entry for an introduction to the topic of support on a B visa.

Once you are here in B status, there may be options for stretching your resources.   As stated above and last week, you can’t work here as part of the US economy.    But there may be some other possibilities.   This is mostly directed toward people who are here on B-1s as missionaries, because a lot of people coming here as missionaries are often on shoe-string budgets, and the work that they do is not naturally income producing.   Most of the options that I would suggest would work best within a religious situation, and many of these suggestions simply wouldn’t work for most B-1 business visitors.    On the other hand, some of these suggestions may work for B-2 visitors who want to do some volunteer work while they are visiting here in the US, and some of them might work for people who volunteer in non-religious non-profit situations as well.

Most m-ssionaries who are here in the US on a B-1 visa are supported by people in their home countries.   Although the statue nowhere says that this is allowable, I think that it is assumed to be allowable under the regulations because they are clearly allowed to come as missionaries on a B-1 visa.  The regulations specifically anticipate that they could be here for more than a year, so there has to be an assumption that they will be receiving support from abroad.

On the other hand, I know that there are people who come here on B-2 visas who volunteer with religious organizations and they are supported as m-ssionaries from their homeland.   In my opinion, that is probably not completely legal because, in reality, they are working here as m-ssionaries on a B-2.   However, since they are allowed to have friends in their home country provide them with money to live on while they are here on a B-2, and they are “volunteering” rather than working, I think this situation will probably not cause any real difficulty.   But, if they should run into a border official who is a stickler for the rules, they could get in trouble for this arrangement.

One option for B-1s who are here in the US as m-ssionaries is that they can be provided with housing and food by the organizations for whom they are volunteering.   This is a frequent arrangement for B-1s.   Remember that the housing and food cannot be in return or payment for the volunteer service.   But it can be given to allow the B-1 missionary to serve.   Again, this is not specifically allowed by the law or regulations, but I think it is within the scope of what is expected.

I know that B-2s also volunteer for organizations and receive room and board.   I think that this is a marginal activity for B-2s.   I don’t know that it is not allowed, but I think that it is not really within the scope of what a B-2 is supposed to be doing — B-2s are visitors for pleasure, and, not only are they working/volunteering but they are also receiving room and board to enable them to do it.  I could imagine a border official saying that this is not allowable.

Check back next week for my final suggestions on this topic.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong

757 Appleton Road, Elkton, MD 21921

Gunnar.L.Armstrong@gmail.com

A B visa is for people coming temporarily to visit the US.  As we discussed last week, a person on a B visa is not allowed to work here.   And, usually, before you are allowed to get a B visa, or to enter in B status, you need to prove that you have enough savings or support to allow you to be here without working.   Some people think that they can come here and do odd jobs to support themselves, but they are not allowed to do that.   Others, such as m-ssionaries, think that they can come here and raise support.   That is also not allowed.  But, there are options that can be considered.

There is one thing I want to say about this at the beginning.   My purpose in writing today is not to give you a list of ways you can get around US immigration law.   Rather, in my opinion, immigration law can be ambiguous in a lot of ways.   These are options that, in some cases, are clearly legitimate, and in others, not as clearly legitimate, but, as far as I can see, are allowable.   Or to put it another way — some of these things I think are allowable under the law and regulations, but if you told them at the border that you were doing it, they would not let you in.   With some of the other options, one person at the border would let you in, and the next would not.   So, be wise how you implement these suggestions.

The other thing I want to say is that these suggestions are more directed toward people who are here in B-1 status as a business visitor.   As I stated last week, the regulations and Department of State and USCIS/CBP (Customs and Border Protection) practice specifically recognize some of these options for people here on B-1 visas.  There is nothing like this for people who are here as a B-2 visitor for pleasure.   However, all the same, some of these options may work for people who are here on a B-2 as well.

If a person wants to come as a B visitor (B-1 or B-2), among other things, you need to establish that you have the resources to enable you to stay here for the requested period of time without needing to work or access welfare.   If you are coming as a B-2 visitor for pleasure, usually they want to see that you have a reasonable amount of money in the bank.   They will also look at letters or Affidavits of Support from friends or relatives in the US who will promise to provide you with housing and food and spending money while you are here.

If you are coming as a B-1 for business or as a m-ssionary, they may want to see the same things if you are self-employed or self-supported.   If you are employed outside of the US and are coming on behalf of your business for a business trip, they should be satisfied with proof that you are being paid by your foreign company while you are here.

Check back next week for the first set of options for support while you are here in the US in B status.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.

Gunnar Armstrong