12

I have a Canadian Student Visa. I did not know that I am supposed to get a C-1 visa for a stopover in LAX for 2 hours. I did not need to change airport so I thought that a visa was not required. I booked with Japan Airline with a connection at LAX to Canada. However, I was detained in LA and the officer told me that I would be deported back to the Philippines where I came from. Luckily, I explained to them my situation and they made me just pay a visa waiver fee of $585. They also told me that Japan Airlines (the airline that I took) would be penalized for allowing me to board the plane without checking if I had a transit visa.

My question is: is Japan Airline liable for allowing me to board their plane without checking?

Uciebila
  • 9,705
  • 6
  • 66
  • 90
user102163
  • 121
  • 3

1 Answers1

16

JAL is liable to the USA, but not to you. There is no chance that JAL will refund the amount you paid and they might even attempt to get back the money they paid as fine to USCBP.

For the USA, there is no sterile airside transit like in many other countries. Every person transiting has to clear the passport control and customs before catching their onward flights. This probably has something to do with the US policy of not having exit immigration controls.

Regarding penalty, yes. You should have been denied boarding by JAL. Due to their mistake, you are allowed on board. Like every country, the airline will be penalized for allowing you on board. You are just lucky that they didn't deport you, as is generally the case.

There might be consequences for your future flight with JAL.

MMM
  • 103
  • 4
Anish Sheela
  • 14,422
  • 3
  • 44
  • 81
  • 9
    Liable towards the USA, yes. Not liable towards OP. I think this should be clarified. – ugoren Sep 02 '19 at 06:16
  • I am not sure of the procedure. Airline will be fined, yes. But can the airline ban the passenger from further travels or attempt to recuperate the fines? – Anish Sheela Sep 02 '19 at 06:27
  • 4
    The problem with this answer is that OP might read it as if the airline is liable toward them, and should compensate them (e.g. for the 585$ visa waiver fee). – ugoren Sep 02 '19 at 07:45
  • 3
    JAL’s T&C Administrative Formalities Passports & Visas 16B(2) state: JAL shall not be responsible for any loss or damage incurred by a Passenger, and the Passenger shall indemnify JAL for any loss or damage incurred by JAL, in connection with the Passenger's failure to comply with this Article. https://www.jal.co.jp/en/inter/carriage/index.html – Traveller Sep 02 '19 at 08:08
  • 1
    "A Passenger shall pay the applicable fares, charges and expenses whenever JAL is required by any Applicable Laws to return the Passenger to his/her place of departure or elsewhere because the Passenger is not permitted to enter a country of transit or Destination. JAL may apply to the payment of such fares, charges and expenses any fares and/or charges paid by the Passenger to JAL for unused portion of the Ticket or any funds of the Passenger in the possession of JAL. JAL will not refund the fare collected for Carriage to the point of such refusal of entry or deportation." – Anish Sheela Sep 02 '19 at 10:20
  • 13
    Please don't just put "edit: ..." at the bottom of your post. Instead, edit it fully (as I've done) so that somebody reading it for the first time will get the right understanding. Anybody who cares about how the post has changed (which nobody will) can check the edit history. – David Richerby Sep 02 '19 at 11:07
  • 3
    The absence of sterile airside transit is due to the fact they have a hard time actually making it sterile. Note that many countries have sterile airside transit, but still require citizens of some countries to apply for an airport transit visa for similar reasons: there are way too many holes, and smugglers know them. Some countries will also separate those people from the others right at the gate and escort them to a holding facility until their next flight departs for the same reasons. – jcaron Sep 02 '19 at 11:58
  • 4
    @jcaron do you have any source to support the assertion that the ATV is to prevent the exploitation of holes? I always thought it had to do with limiting opportunities for asylum requests. – phoog Sep 02 '19 at 13:19
  • @phoog That was what I remembered, but looking back at the introduction of this (back in 1995), it seems it was indeed linked to asylum requests. Which is a form of "hole" in the transit process, though not quite the kind I had in mind :-/ – jcaron Sep 02 '19 at 16:18
  • For those reading french, a interesting article on the topic of immigration control at airports, including ATVs, "accompanied transit", penalties for airlines, and much more: https://journals.openedition.org/conflits/15743 – jcaron Sep 02 '19 at 16:34
  • @phoog It seems the issue with transit passengers exploiting holes is the driver for "accompanied transit" rather than ATVs, I must have mixed up the two. – jcaron Sep 02 '19 at 16:37