Risk in travelling on AP
The Advance Parole is not a guarantee to return to the U.S. for certain I-485 waiters. For instance, those who are subject to the 3-year bar or 10-year bar are unable to return to the U.S. because of such a bar from returning to the U.S. Otherwise, people travelling on Advance Parole believed that their return to the U.S. would be guaranteed if they carried I-485 Receipt Notice, EAD, and probably I-140 Receipt Notice or Approval Notice. However, a question has been raised as to whether an EB-485 applicant travelling on Advance Parole can be denied of their return to the U.S. if the CBP officers at the port of entry learns that the traveller is no longer working for the green card sponsoring employer. This question involves two factual situations. One is the alien was laid off before he/she reached 180 days of filing. The second situation involes the alien who lost job after 180 days of filing but no new same or similar job. Probably the third situation involes the alien who changed the job after 180 days.
It is obvious that in the third situation, clearly the CBP officers would have no authority under the law to deny admission because of the force of the AC 21 legislation, even though some ignorant inspectors can question the admissibility and force the traveller to go through the secondary inspection. However, the troublesome questions involve those travellers falling under situation one or two. The issue became tricky and complex because of the division of functions between the USCIS and the CBP. Assumedly, Advance Parole should remain valid unless it was revoked. The Advance Parole can be revoked if the I-485 is denied. Adjudication of I-485 is the jurisdiction of the USCIS and not the jurisdiction of CBP. However, the travellers with the Advance Parole can face some CBP officers who believe that they have authority to deny the I-485 in the process of immigration inspection and by denying I-485 for the travellers in the foregoing situations 1 and 2, they can deny admission of the travellers on the ground that the Advance Parole is no longer valid.
Nowadays, anything can happen when it comes to immigration business. The best policy for the I-1485 travellers will be: (1) Always travel with I-485 Receipt Notice, I-140 Approval Notice or Receipt Notice, and Employer letter when they travel on Advance Parole to avoid difficulty with some inspectors at the port of entry. (2) Those who are no longer employed by the I-140 petitioning employer, particularly those who changed employer before 180 days of filing or before I-140 is approved, may review carefully the risk involved in returning to the U.S. and rethink travelling on Advance Parole. For these people, if they have a valid H-1B or L-1 visa, they may rather travel on a H-1B visa or L-1 visa which was sponsored by the new employer. If they are completely unemployed, they should refrain from travelling in either a visa or an advance parole.
The Advance Parole is not a guarantee to return to the U.S. for certain I-485 waiters. For instance, those who are subject to the 3-year bar or 10-year bar are unable to return to the U.S. because of such a bar from returning to the U.S. Otherwise, people travelling on Advance Parole believed that their return to the U.S. would be guaranteed if they carried I-485 Receipt Notice, EAD, and probably I-140 Receipt Notice or Approval Notice. However, a question has been raised as to whether an EB-485 applicant travelling on Advance Parole can be denied of their return to the U.S. if the CBP officers at the port of entry learns that the traveller is no longer working for the green card sponsoring employer. This question involves two factual situations. One is the alien was laid off before he/she reached 180 days of filing. The second situation involes the alien who lost job after 180 days of filing but no new same or similar job. Probably the third situation involes the alien who changed the job after 180 days.
It is obvious that in the third situation, clearly the CBP officers would have no authority under the law to deny admission because of the force of the AC 21 legislation, even though some ignorant inspectors can question the admissibility and force the traveller to go through the secondary inspection. However, the troublesome questions involve those travellers falling under situation one or two. The issue became tricky and complex because of the division of functions between the USCIS and the CBP. Assumedly, Advance Parole should remain valid unless it was revoked. The Advance Parole can be revoked if the I-485 is denied. Adjudication of I-485 is the jurisdiction of the USCIS and not the jurisdiction of CBP. However, the travellers with the Advance Parole can face some CBP officers who believe that they have authority to deny the I-485 in the process of immigration inspection and by denying I-485 for the travellers in the foregoing situations 1 and 2, they can deny admission of the travellers on the ground that the Advance Parole is no longer valid.
Nowadays, anything can happen when it comes to immigration business. The best policy for the I-1485 travellers will be: (1) Always travel with I-485 Receipt Notice, I-140 Approval Notice or Receipt Notice, and Employer letter when they travel on Advance Parole to avoid difficulty with some inspectors at the port of entry. (2) Those who are no longer employed by the I-140 petitioning employer, particularly those who changed employer before 180 days of filing or before I-140 is approved, may review carefully the risk involved in returning to the U.S. and rethink travelling on Advance Parole. For these people, if they have a valid H-1B or L-1 visa, they may rather travel on a H-1B visa or L-1 visa which was sponsored by the new employer. If they are completely unemployed, they should refrain from travelling in either a visa or an advance parole.
Last edited by a moderator: