Denied a TN Work Visa - issues entering USA now...

Wow. Scary stuff.

Was this at the Peace Arch crossing, or the Pacific Highway crossing? When I lived in Surrey and went to WA for any reason, I'd always use Pac Highway, 'cause I never got hassles there (in either direction), but officers at Peace Arch always seemed to be, shall we say, less friendly.

My family's moving down to join me next month, complete with U-Haul, and presumably through one of those crossings. If you can confirm which crossing you had the problem with (guessing Peace Arch), I'll happily try the other one.

Thanks for all the great replies. I crossed at the Sumas border crossing and was grilled for almost 3 hours. I was calm through the whole ordeal and I know that I worked 'legally' in the US for 3 years without a hitch. We lived in Ohio so renewed at the Windor - Detroit crossing without hassle.

I originally crossed at the 176 border crossing in 2005 and they granted my TN-1 visa but were not a happy bunch. "Thanks for taking an American's job - have a good day" they said as I left. Nice.

At LAX, I was told I could apply for a C1 Visa that helps 'in transit' travel so my next trip is to Vancouver to visit the US Embassy. I travel alot to international destinations for CBC TV and it almost always require a US connection. Ugh.

It was odd that the other Canadian and I were the last, and I mean, last ones to get their issues resolved at LAX. It tough to see my 5-year old bawling on our way back from a great trip in Mexico. To the Embassy I go.

Canadians don't need a C-1 visa, but you can optionally get one - like I said above, I think the cheapest way of resolving this would be to explain the mistake in your entry record to the consular officer and see if he can sort it out.

Lawyers can't be present during an application, having sat in various secondary inspections I can attest to the fact there is usually a sign up that says that. Plus the lawyer runs the risk of being denied entry because once he's at the POE, he's on US soil.

I know at least two different U.S. Immigration Lawyers in Buffalo, New York who have personally accompanied TNer's to the border to expedite and facilitate their entry into the U.S. pursuant to NAFTA. If you don't believe me, here is the link:

http://www.naftatnlawyer.com/creating-a ... on-for-tn/

You're the one who's wrong Steven, you're the one who's WRONG.

MC, you are correct. Folks 'round here like to trumpet what the "real world" does when the law disagrees with their perception. We should then be willing to acknowledge when the real world disagrees with supposedly law-based paradigm too.

In the Buffalo district (Buffalo to Champlain) Immigration Lawyers are allowed to come to the POE with clients. Buffalo has stated in memos to the field that Immigration Lawyers should be allowed "as long as they do not interfere with the processing of the alien in question". Basically they have no say in the process, but can be there to show support for the alien. I have had one Immigration Lawyer come to the port for many years, he always comes in support of his clients. He is always respectful and never oversteps his bounds. I would recommend him highly, but in my position that would be a conflict of interest.

So in the end, you are all right on this one. Some ports allow them but I do know of at least two that do not. The management there sticks to their own port policy on Lawyers. Hope this helps.

Yes, Lawsrlaws is right.

Some ports do allow attourney representation while others do not. I've been through the buffalo border many times as an F-1 and have seen TN applicants go in with their representation. It really all depends on the POE you go through. So Steven, you are right as well. In essence it's ultimately the POE you choose and sometimes it may be the one with the "attourney ban".

And to the above posters, ease up on Steven a bit. He is well versed when it comes to immigration laws and obviously does his research...Geez man!

I have learned alot from Steven. I figured he was an Immigration Lawyer from in depth knowledge of the Law.

We have these sorts of arguments a lot on here, it all boils down to personal experience at the end of the day. Like me and agnelson are arguing a lot about tax laws at the moment. A lot of these questions I've actually run past IRS in the past (in writing) - there's more than one way to skin a cat, it's knowing the best way to skin it that's the trick. The only way you get to know that is experience.

Also I'm not a lawyer but I've had jobs in the past that were involved heavily in the law and/or required me to be in court occasionally. In fact I'm pretty sure I've spent more time in court than a lot of lawyers based on talking to them. Immigration law and tax law are both highly convoluted and it's okay for us to sit here and say "this is what the law is and this is what the caselaw is" blah blah, but let me tell you from having appealed things on highly technical legal issues what happens in reality. First of all, it's not Law & Order, it's much more like: "...And Justice for All".

Very few people indeed want to be immigration judges or tax arbitrators. So what happens basically is this, you prepare all your paperwork, you submit it in discovery to the government/police whomever. The judge is supposed to read it.

So you walk into whatever venue it is and the judge walks in looking haggard and overworked and starts asking you questions, and you think to yourself: "I put all this in my submission". And then you realize the judge hasn't read anything at all. So all your fantastic quotes of obscure caselaw and Hansard and committee proceedings count for nothing.

And then he goes and sits in his office with his clerk, they rapidly skim read through the submission and 90% of the time come back with a decision that splits the difference between what you said and what they said to keep you both happy and it's usually some totally idiotic decision that makes no sense at all.

So then you go to appeal.

And at the end of it (if you win) you wonder what all that damn effort was for.

So yes there's the "here is the law" blah blah answer and there's "here is the method the bureaucrats have been taught" method.

Which is why for example on the "six month" visit requirement there is no straight answer, because there is the law, there is the caselaw and there is the way CBP enforce it.

Like I keep saying on here, if you really want the answer, hire a lawyer and go to court.