Can refugee go back with greencard to his origin country for short visit
- Thread starter canatilla
- Start date
tributeblinky
Registered Users (C)
the short answer is no! the long one is that some people have done it and have come back and gone through immigration check point with no problems! others, on the other hand, had their green cards revoked, faced deportation and had to appear in front of immigration judge to defend their cases! the law says u are not supposed to.
read the following brief uscis fact sheet regarding asylee/refugee (or a permanent resident who got his/her green card through one of those paths) traveling back to the country of persecution.
gd lk
read the following brief uscis fact sheet regarding asylee/refugee (or a permanent resident who got his/her green card through one of those paths) traveling back to the country of persecution.
gd lk
If you are talking about "a" visit but not "visits", then the answer is ok. Do not stay there long and it should be fine.
None of the cases I worked so far was caused or triggered by "a" visit to COP. Those asylees who got trouble fall into several situations:
Their story does not colllabrate with the ones told by their derivatives, overseas consular office did investigation and found fraud elements.
They return to COP too often for too long, and it casts doubt on their original claim of asylum.
They return to COP only one or two times, however, when questioned they claimed that they visited a third country. Once it is found that they lied at POE, it casts doubt on their original claim for "lack of credibility".
They participated in pro-COP parade and FBI (no kidding) did an investigation of their immigration status.
If you do not fall within those categories, I do not anyone has a viable case against you.
Have a nice trip.
Regards.
None of the cases I worked so far was caused or triggered by "a" visit to COP. Those asylees who got trouble fall into several situations:
Their story does not colllabrate with the ones told by their derivatives, overseas consular office did investigation and found fraud elements.
They return to COP too often for too long, and it casts doubt on their original claim of asylum.
They return to COP only one or two times, however, when questioned they claimed that they visited a third country. Once it is found that they lied at POE, it casts doubt on their original claim for "lack of credibility".
They participated in pro-COP parade and FBI (no kidding) did an investigation of their immigration status.
If you do not fall within those categories, I do not anyone has a viable case against you.
Have a nice trip.
Regards.
yes,
but he already adjusted status as LPR, so it is governed by the same section (INA 209).
I do not think they can revoke his GC without revoking his underlying refugee status (excluding criminals, other inadmissible issues, etc.).
By revoking his refugee status they will have a burden of proof and they must have "prima facia" evidence of his ineligibility. I think it is a really high bar, unless he lied about his trip and now it becomes an issue of "lack of credibility" which extends to his original claim. I know people get burned by continuing their lies. But for a single visit, they can't establish that your claim of be unable to live in COP is untrue simply because you can do a short visit.
but he already adjusted status as LPR, so it is governed by the same section (INA 209).
I do not think they can revoke his GC without revoking his underlying refugee status (excluding criminals, other inadmissible issues, etc.).
By revoking his refugee status they will have a burden of proof and they must have "prima facia" evidence of his ineligibility. I think it is a really high bar, unless he lied about his trip and now it becomes an issue of "lack of credibility" which extends to his original claim. I know people get burned by continuing their lies. But for a single visit, they can't establish that your claim of be unable to live in COP is untrue simply because you can do a short visit.
asyleedec2006
Registered Users (C)
I think a Short visit should be fine and also depends on the situation in you COP if anything had changed. In my case I had to go to my COP last week and I was there for only 5 days. I did not stay long enough for them to say that I was intending to reside there or be there for long time. I had to collect school documents and when at POE I was not asked anything regarding my trip only thing asked was
How many days were you there?
And I said 5 and after that he stamped me and said welcome Back.
Not problems whatsoever.
At least in my country I am not being persecuted by my government so I do not fear that at all. My asylum was granted on sexual orientation and one thing is a short visit and another thing is RESIDING there your whole life.
How many days were you there?
And I said 5 and after that he stamped me and said welcome Back.
Not problems whatsoever.
At least in my country I am not being persecuted by my government so I do not fear that at all. My asylum was granted on sexual orientation and one thing is a short visit and another thing is RESIDING there your whole life.
tributeblinky
Registered Users (C)
what is the difference?
An asylee's status can be revoked if there is changed circumstance in the country of persecution. But there is no legal authority to revoke refugee status on the basis of changed conditions. Fraud is the only basis to revoke refugee status.
Also when an asylee applies for a green card, he must still be a refugee (that is to have fears of persecution back home) before the green card is issued. But a refugee does not have to show continued fear of persecution to get a green card. In fact, technically, a refugee does not even apply for a green card (have you noticed that refugees do not pay the I-485 processing fee but asylees do?)
It is much safter (from the vantage of US immigration law) for a refugee to visit than for an asylee.
Also when an asylee applies for a green card, he must still be a refugee (that is to have fears of persecution back home) before the green card is issued. But a refugee does not have to show continued fear of persecution to get a green card. In fact, technically, a refugee does not even apply for a green card (have you noticed that refugees do not pay the I-485 processing fee but asylees do?)
It is much safter (from the vantage of US immigration law) for a refugee to visit than for an asylee.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thankful,
Correct me if I am wrong, but they (USCIS) have NOT been actively revoking asylee status based on change of conditions, although in theory they may do so in the grant of AOS process and asylee's entry of U.S.
I think this creates unnecessary chaos among asylees who have legitimate reasons to go back to COP.
I would recommendation anyone who has concern about this read what USCIS spokesman Chris Bentley told Miami Herald in April 2007. He clearly singled out change of conditions and family emergency visits.
Correct me if I am wrong, but they (USCIS) have NOT been actively revoking asylee status based on change of conditions, although in theory they may do so in the grant of AOS process and asylee's entry of U.S.
I think this creates unnecessary chaos among asylees who have legitimate reasons to go back to COP.
I would recommendation anyone who has concern about this read what USCIS spokesman Chris Bentley told Miami Herald in April 2007. He clearly singled out change of conditions and family emergency visits.
They have not done so en mass (that is they have not said that Saddam is gone we will review every Iraqi asylum case). But they HAVE used this provision in egregious individiual cases. They have contended that trips to COP mean "a fundamental change in circumstances" sufficient to revoke asylum status or that adjustment was approved in error and must be reversed.
I know of at least seven such appeals pending at the BIA.
Thankful, maybe we are going back to the ground of this problem: Once "adjustment of status" occurs what is the legal basis for USCIS to revoke the underlying asylum for LPR derived from aslyee status, unless they can say that the original asylum claim was fraudulent.
If the LPR sustain the challenge that he had credit fear of persecution at the time of asylum approval, the next timeline is the time of adjustment. USCIS must bear the burden of proof that the "fundamental change of circumstances" happened at the time of adjustment of status. but not after.
Unless there is some legal basis for USCIS to say that even in the LPR stage those individuals are still subject to the jurisdiction of asylum office (I believe it is indeed their position, but I am not sure about on what legal basis), as long as those LPRs can sustain their asylum claim between the time of asylum approval and AOS I don't see why they will get any trouble.
Thankful, I need to be enlightened.
Thankful,
See attached document, 6th Circuit seems to suggest in this case that if AOS happens, asylum issue is no long relevant.... (Page 12, final paragraph)
For the reasons discussed above, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the
immigration court’s decisions, and REMAND for further consideration before a different
immigration court. Essentially every aspect of this case leaves us “more than a little puzzled,” Mece
v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 562, 572 (6th Cir. 2005), and we would be hard pressed to point to anything
in this case resembling fair and proper procedure. Finally, it also appears to us that having vacated
the finding of a frivolous application, Alexandrov would be eligible for an adjustment of status to
lawful permanent resident and further proceedings on his asylum application would be unnecessary.
Wall Street is recovering! Maybe I got a little more time right now.
See attached document, 6th Circuit seems to suggest in this case that if AOS happens, asylum issue is no long relevant.... (Page 12, final paragraph)
For the reasons discussed above, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the
immigration court’s decisions, and REMAND for further consideration before a different
immigration court. Essentially every aspect of this case leaves us “more than a little puzzled,” Mece
v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 562, 572 (6th Cir. 2005), and we would be hard pressed to point to anything
in this case resembling fair and proper procedure. Finally, it also appears to us that having vacated
the finding of a frivolous application, Alexandrov would be eligible for an adjustment of status to
lawful permanent resident and further proceedings on his asylum application would be unnecessary.
Wall Street is recovering! Maybe I got a little more time right now.
Thankful,
See attached document, 6th Circuit seems to suggest in this case that if AOS happens, asylum issue is no long relevant.... (Page 12, final paragraph)
For the reasons discussed above, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the
immigration court’s decisions, and REMAND for further consideration before a different
immigration court. Essentially every aspect of this case leaves us “more than a little puzzled,” Mece
v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 562, 572 (6th Cir. 2005), and we would be hard pressed to point to anything
in this case resembling fair and proper procedure. Finally, it also appears to us that having vacated
the finding of a frivolous application, Alexandrov would be eligible for an adjustment of status to
lawful permanent resident and further proceedings on his asylum application would be unnecessary.
Wall Street is recovering! Maybe I got a little more time right now.
I do not see where the court says that "asylum issue is no long relevant." The court said that because we overturned a decision to terminate asylum, the person's asylum status is reinstated, now he can apply for asylum adjustment. So we will not discuss the asylum case further. This is all the paragraph says.
BTW, when the case went back to the immigration judge, the person was ordered deported for a second time and his appeal is pending at the BIA now (I know the attorneys in the case).