29

My 18-year old niece has been offered work in LA by a 20 year old American born videographer she met at the Cannes Film Festival. She is learning scriptwriting/directing. He has suggested that he pays all of her “living expenses” instead of a salary so she can travel on her passport and an ESTA Visa (she lives in UK and is a UK citizen). He has been told this by an immigration lawyer! Is this correct and legal?

  • 50
    This looks decidedly suspect. My suspicions rest on the videographer. – Redd Herring May 29 at 19:18
  • 28
    Planning to work for room and board on a farm or as an Au Pair/Nanny? Do Woofing? An internship? Even if you stay less than 90 days, these activities are considered work and require the appropriate visa. Visa Waiver Program travelers entering the United States with ESTA authorization are not allowed to work. Informal arrangements to work in exchange for lodging or meals are also considered unauthorized employment and are not permitted for tourists. de.usembassy.gov/… – user 56513 May 29 at 19:46
  • 69
    Let me discourage your niece for another reason: if the working relationship falls through, or the videographer (aged 20! not even a college graduate) makes demands she is unwilling to meet, she's stuck with no money, no place to live, and dubious legal status. – Andrew Lazarus May 29 at 20:44
  • 25
    @MikeHarris: people on the Internet have no reason to lie to you. The 20-year old videographer does (who apparently already lied to her about the legality of the whole thing). – Quora Feans May 30 at 7:43
  • 29
    Your niece is going to end up on a porn set. – James May 30 at 18:57
103

As a technical matter, your niece as a UK citizen can enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP); the ESTA is an authorization for the bearer to attempt to enter under the VWP. VWP visitors are only permitted to engage in activities that would be permitted under a B1 (business) or B2 (tourist) visitor visa, examples of which are enumerated on the State Department VWP page:

Business:

  • consult with business associates
  • attend a scientific, educational, professional, or business convention or conference
  • attend short-term training (you may not be paid by any source in the United States with the exception of expenses incidental to your stay)
  • negotiate a contract

Tourism:

  • tourism
  • vacation (holiday)
  • visit with friends or relatives
  • medical treatment
  • participation in social events hosted by fraternal, social, or service organizations
  • participation by amateurs in musical, sports, or similar events or contests, if not being paid for participating
  • enrollment in a short recreational course of study, not for credit toward a degree (for example, a two-day cooking class while on vacation)

The same page also provides examples of activities that are not permitted, which include

  • study, for credit
  • employment
  • work as foreign press, radio, film, journalists, or other information media
  • permanent residence in the United States

"Business" is allowed as noted, but "business" is not the same as "work," and you mention "work." For VWP and B1/B2 visitors, employment, even without pay, is explicitly disallowed. Even volunteer work is only permitted if the work is not normally done in expectation of pay, which would not the case with, say, screenwriting or videography. Interns, trainees, and the like require a J-1 (exchange student/scholar/worker) visa, and there are specific eligibility criteria to meet for each category. Others can be admitted on an H-3 (non-immigrant trainee) visa, though I do not think your niece would readily qualify for one of those, either.

So at best, your niece might characterize this as "short-term training," with incidentals covered, although without additional details of what her day-to-day activities would be, it is hard to say whether they would actually qualify. It would be one thing if this were with a company or non-profit organization with formal guidelines and expectations that could be evaluated. This sounds like this is a personal invitation, which is another matter.


That brings up another red flag, or several: is the videographer interested in your niece's talents, or in your niece? Now, I am sure she, and you, are not naive, and I know nothing about the exact nature of their relationship—he might have the purest of artistic motivations, or they might share an interest in each other (whether creative or intellectual or romantic) undergirding the plan. But to state it for the record, your niece would be on the short end of a tremendous imbalance of power. She would be relying on what sounds like essentially a stranger not just for training and career advancement, but for housing and other necessities as well, in a foreign country, and in an industry notorious for preying upon young women in the city it dominates.

So, while I am not an immigration lawyer and cannot tell you definitively whether her planned sojourn would be legal with the detail you have provided, I am someone who would discourage my own niece from embarking on such a plan unless she pays her own way and makes her own arrangements.

  • 20
    Excellent answer. Addresses the concrete technical aspects first, then provides a nice warning on the general red flags of this specific situation. – JMac May 30 at 13:02
  • 2
    It is unfortunate that your raising the red flag of possible abusive intentions, which is entirely justified because we know nothing about the relationship, has evolved into certainty that the videographer is actually a human trafficker. It's also entirely possible that the videographer is acting in good faith but naive about immigration law. In fact, it seems the more likely possibility to me. He's only 20, after all. – phoog May 31 at 12:52
  • 1
    @phoog I absolutely agree, and tried to caveat that we don't know anything about the individuals or the nature of whatever relationship they have, professional or otherwise. If the niece is interested in filmmaking, she'll be aware that Harvey Weinsteins exist, and if the aunt is posting concern, we know the niece has people who will look out for her if something goes wrong. They speak the language, and LA is a well-resourced, if not always well-run, city. My caution was aimed mainly at any random visitors looking to "find" such opportunities, which are hardly limited to Hollywood. – choster May 31 at 14:10
  • @phoog: Someone who would put a person they want to have a business or personal relationship with into a situation that's indistinguishable from human trafficking is not someone you want to have a business or personal relationship with. – R.. Jun 2 at 1:49
  • @R.. That may be true, but the chance that it describes the current situation strikes me as rather remote. – phoog Jun 2 at 4:46
29

He has been told this by an immigration lawyer!

No, he hasn't. He's lying through his teeth, because as the top answer points out, the law makes it clear that ANY work, regardless of whether or not it's for a regular salary, is not permitted under the terms of her visa. There is no immigration lawyer in the country that would have told him this because it's straight-up not true.

You might wonder then, why would he lie? And I genuinely don't want to sound alarmist, but keep in mind that he would have 100% of the power over her and her freedom while in the US. Considering that she would be violating the terms of her visa while staying there, that gives him ample opportunity to blackmail her into doing whatever he wants to her by threatening to report her to authorities / cut off her funding. Absolute worst-case scenario he could be planning to sell her as a sex slave; LA is a major hub for human traffickers.

Bottom line: he has already shown that he will lie right to your face about serious legal matters just to get her to come to LA. That should be an enormous red flag about his true intentions for her and she needs to seriously consider the danger she would be putting herself in if she chose to go.

  • 5
    It's possible that he was given a proposed solution by an immigration lawyer, perhaps to pass the visit off as training, and that the videographer misunderstood and therefore misrepresented the plan. – phoog May 30 at 17:34
  • 3
    I'm not saying this is a good situation, but lawyers tell their clients how to skirt around laws all the time. – JPhi1618 May 30 at 18:58
  • 4
    I agree with the overall sentiment of this answer, but I feel that saying "he would have 100% of the power" is overstating it a little. Short of him physically restraining her, there would be nothing to stop her from getting on a plane and coming back to the UK any time she likes, assuming she has a passport and enough money for a plane ticket (or a relative such as the OP who is willing to fund it). Even without those she could seek assistance from the British embassy. – JBentley May 30 at 21:43
  • 2
    @WGroleau That doesn't mean that will happen 100% for sure in this case. As I already said, I'm not disputing the overall sentiment of the answer, but rather the strength of its tone. – JBentley May 31 at 10:59
  • 2
    @JBentley another form of restraint, of course, is taking possession of the victim's passport. But this probably works best with people who have little money, poor English, or scant travel experience. A woman who has attended the Cannes film festival is probably sophisticated enough to work out that an attempt to coerce her into an undesired situation by retaining her passport should be countered by a call to the police. – phoog May 31 at 12:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.