QUESTIONS DURING CBP INSPECTION
Foreign nationals applying for admission carry the burden of establishing that they are admissible and entitled to the immigration classification they seek. Refusing to provide information needed to resolve admissibility can therefore have serious practical consequences even though refusal itself is not automatically a separate ground of inadmissibility.
INA §291 places the burden on a person applying for admission to establish that the person is not inadmissible and is entitled to the immigration status claimed.
Refusing to answer is not necessarily a separate immigration violation, but it may leave the traveler unable to establish admissibility.
INA §235(a)(5) provides that an applicant for admission may be required to state under oath information sought by an immigration officer concerning the purposes and intentions of the proposed entry, including intended length of stay and facts relevant to inadmissibility.
Current CBP guidance explains that foreign nationals seeking lawful entry must establish admissibility to the satisfaction of the inspecting CBP officer. A valid visa authorizes travel to seek admission; it does not guarantee admission.
A refusal to answer and a knowingly false answer are different issues. A traveler should not invent an answer merely because the traveler believes an answer is expected.
Knowingly providing materially false information can create a separate and potentially much more serious misrepresentation issue.
CBP’s current electronic-device policy states that when a foreign national refuses to present a device in a condition that allows examination, CBP may consider that noncompliance and the inability to inspect the device when making an admissibility determination.
CBP also states that inability to inspect a device alone does not determine admissibility.
See CBP Search of Phones and Electronic Devices at the Border.
The ordinary border-inspection rule concerning counsel changes when the applicant has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.
A person subject to expedited removal who expresses an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution, torture or return must be handled under the applicable fear-referral procedures rather than simply processed through ordinary expedited removal without that referral.
A visa holder still must establish admissibility during inspection. Refusing information necessary to make that determination can prevent the traveler from meeting the burden of proof.
No. Silence or refusal is different from affirmatively making a knowingly false statement.
Yes. INA §235(a)(5) authorizes officers to require applicants for admission to provide under-oath information concerning the purposes and intentions of entry and admissibility.
These government materials provide the principal CBP inspection and expedited-removal rules discussed on this page.
The border consequences depend on what CBP is trying to establish, what information is withheld and whether the applicant can still meet the burden of proving admissibility.