Citizenship question

clarity07

Registered Users (C)
hello everyone,

I am about to apply for my citizenship in February. I am a derivative asylee and I travelled back to my country couple times. My question is if you don't tell that you travelled (which I am not planning to do), how would they know you did?

Thanks for your answers
 
Not a good idea to lie

I don't think its a good idea to lie. If they catch you, your citizenship may be denied. I would tell the truth and hope they don't ask. I don't know if they have your traveling records, maybe, maybe not.

When are you having your citizenship appointment? It would be good if you share your experience with all of us.

Suerte
:)
 
clarity07 said:
hello everyone,

I am about to apply for my citizenship in February. I am a derivative asylee and I travelled back to my country couple times. My question is if you don't tell that you travelled (which I am not planning to do), how would they know you did?

Thanks for your answers

There are records everywhere... the most obvious/important ones are the ones that USCIS has on their database; every time you enter the U.S. you pass through immigrations and they record "when and from where you are arriving." They also have access to all airlines passenger list that enters the U.S.
Other records can come from the FBI or other federal institutions, if you are or have been investigate it.

If you have lost your passport, just make the best you can to remember all your trips, even if the dates are not exact. Best advice, NEVER LIE or Omit facts/ information to CIS; specially when you are applying for citizenship. They will find out, and your application may be denied.

But why would you want to "hide"/"omit" your trips abroad? Is it to shorten the citizenship clock and apply earlier? Is it because you visited your COP and you fear that your visit may have negative consequences?... It would be good if you can share more about it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think you need to worry. Derivative Asyless should have no problem visiting home country.
 
clarity07 said:
hello everyone,

I am about to apply for my citizenship in February. I am a derivative asylee and I travelled back to my country couple times. My question is if you don't tell that you travelled (which I am not planning to do), how would they know you did?

Thanks for your answers

You are ok. As everyone said do not LIE...why do you want to hide the fact that visited your COP?

All the experts on visiting COP, please clarify the rules for this guy...14ksusha, tortfeasor,punjabimunda??Please chime in.
 
The main thing is don't lie. If they want to, they can find out! I was watching something on cnn, that said that they keep track of all your travels, even domestic ones. They have a system they use to track terrorist and that systems records everything. Even the seats you were on (aisle vs window), what kind of food you ate etc... They said that based on your travelling "habits" they have a "grade" they give passengers to "decide" if you are a potential terrorist or not. So don't assume that they don't know. They might not check it in your case, but if they want to, it's one keyboard away. It's better to be honest and explain why you went to COP than get caught lying. And in your case, I don't think you should worry about your past trips to COP since your are not the main asylum applicant.
 
clarity07 said:
hello everyone,

I am about to apply for my citizenship in February. I am a derivative asylee and I travelled back to my country couple times. My question is if you don't tell that you travelled (which I am not planning to do), how would they know you did?

Thanks for your answers

Did you use your NP ? did you tell them at the port of entry that u were arrivng from COP? if u used transit country to visit COP.that would be different story. example if asylee from south america use mexico as a transit country to visit his COP.how can they find out ?
though they have every single Departure and Arrival records at CIS database . so dont hide anything .tell them truth . otherwise they might deny u.
even though they deny your citizinship it is not end of the world . you still got your GC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
clarity07 said:
hello everyone,

I am about to apply for my citizenship in February. I am a derivative asylee and I travelled back to my country couple times. My question is if you don't tell that you travelled (which I am not planning to do), how would they know you did?

Thanks for your answers

Clarity: It seems that forum members interpeted your question as though you are trying to lie. I think the important question; is there questions on the citizenship application or section that require that you document/mention your travelled back to your country. If there is such questions, I don't think you an option here. You must document your travel to everywhere that they ask for. If there is no such questions in form, they may ask you at the interview; you should tell the truth at the interview.
If there is not such questions on the form and if they don't ask you at the interview, then you don't have to tell them. After all as a derivative, going back to COP won't be an issue to you...Good luck
 
Hello everyone. I was not planning to lie. I was just wondering. My Husband never left the country for 12 years. I went back home twice. I had a new passport and an old one that i never used again after I was granted asylum. I used my national passport to go home and my Travel doc to enter back. Both Times I was a permanent resident already. No problem to enter. We are applying in Febuary so I start getting a little worried, that's all. I sure will share my experience once I get interviewed.
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
There is an official memo that came out from USCIS in May 2004 that it is perfectly OK for Derivative asylees to go back to COP with or without the primary applicant.

But that memo is for asylees not for LPR. An IO told me in an infopass appointment I will not face any problem when I apply for my citizenship If I travel to my COP as a LPR (I was principal asylee), but now I am LPR (I am not longer asylee anymore)

Travelco
GC holder
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
There is an official memo that came out from USCIS in May 2004 that it is perfectly OK for Derivative asylees to go back to COP with or without the primary applicant.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/nsc110504.html

Very Good Information .. Punjabi Sahab...

I have another question.... do we need to tell them that we have acquired some other parmanent residency/citizenship in the mean time ?.... what if you have got Canadian status in addition to the one over here and there is no passenger record since you never flew etc etc..... Just curious ..!!
 
Yeap..

Travelco,
The original memo from USCIS, I wish I would have kept the copy, I'll try to dig that up from this forum if I could, specifically mentioned the "Derivative asylees and the LPR who resulted from that status could go back without any problem. You know there are couple of people on this forum who went to their COP on RTD and came back without any problem??? I think Annaraka and 14Ksusha, if I'm not mistaken. LPR is even stronger status than Asylee and a lot less limitations.
Mr. Singh (Sardaar Ji :) ), I know that USCIS's take on taking up another PR status somewhere else means that you will no longer be residing in this country and they'll give you hard time. It doesn't mean that no one has gotten away with it. I know quite a few people who have done it by laying low :p .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here it is...

Here are the actual words from horse's mouth. It talks in detail about derivative asylees and LPR who got adjusted from that status.
"USCIS has issued guidance on how refugees and asylees who travel outside the United States without first obtaining advance parole or refugee travel documents are to be treated. Issued in the form of a legal memorandum by USCIS General Counsel Bo Cooper, the guidance addresses the following: (1) the status of refugees and asylees who leave the U.S.; (2) facilitating the return of refugees and asylees who travel without proper documents or whose documents expire; (3) the status of refugees and asylees and permanent residents as a direct result of refugees/asylees who return to the country of persecution; and (4) the effect of such travel on pending adjustment of status applications.
Status of Asylees and Refugees Who Leave the U.S. without Proper Documents. Current regulations require that asylees and refugees obtain refugee travel documents before leaving the U.S. Upon their return, all asylees and refugees must be examined for admissibility. Persons with valid documents retain the status they held prior to their departure. Refugees and asylees who leave the U.S. without proper documents or who return with expired documents are not admissible and are subject to removal under Immigration and Nationality Act section 240. Such persons cannot resume their status unless they apply for and are granted a refugee travel document or parole.
The general counsel's memo recognizes that refugees or asylees who are inadmissible can reapply for asylum in removal proceedings. As a practical matter, therefore, the only grounds of inadmissibility that affect asylees are those grounds that would also terminate asylum. Examples cited in the memo include the aggravated felony or national security grounds. The memo also notes that under section 207(c)(3) of the INA, certain grounds of inadmissibility (such as public charge) do not apply to returning refugees. Moreover, the INS may, for humanitarian purposes (to assure family unity or further public interest), waive other inadmissibility grounds (except those involving security, terrorist activity, Nazi participation, or foreign policy concerns). Therefore, the general counsel directs that only when the refugee is found inadmissible and a waiver is not appropriate may the refugee be placed in removal proceedings.
Facilitating the Return of Refugees and Asylees. The general counsel's memo suggests that, given the compelling circumstances that led refugees to flee their countries, it is appropriate for INS personnel to facilitate their return to the U.S. when they are stranded because either they do not have travel documents or the ones they have are expired. Thus, the memo allows officers to issue refugee travel documents from consulates abroad. District directors having jurisdiction over the port of entry where the refugee is present may grant him or her parole. As an alternative, the refugees may reapply for refugee status under INA section 207.
Procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. 223.2(b)(2)(ii) allow consulates to exercise discretion to issue travel documents outside the U.S. These may be granted in situations where the refugee did not know that the document was necessary or knew but due to urgent humanitarian reasons could not acquire it. The application must be made within one year from the date of departure from the U.S.
The memo suggests that parole under INA section 212 (d)(5)(A) may be an appropriate solution in cases where the refugee fails to obtain the documents within the one-year limit for applying. The factors that a district director may consider in granting parole include (1) the compelling circumstances leading to refugee or asylees status, (2) the reasons for the expiration of or failure to obtain documents, (3) whether the refugee or asylee has returned to a country of origin and why, (4) family reunification, and (5) the current circumstances in which the refugee finds him or herself.
Status of Refugees and Asylees Who Return to Countries of Alleged Persecution. Refugees and asylees and permanent residents as a direct result of refugees/asylees who return to the country where they claim to have been persecuted risk losing their status. When such individuals attempt to secure travel documents to return to the U.S., 8 C.F.R. section 223.2(b)(2)(ii) comes into play. Under this section, a refugee or asylee is eligible for a refugee travel document outside the U.S. if the "alien did not engage in any activities outside the U.S. that would be inconsistent with continued refugee or asylee status." According to the memo, refugees who return to visit an ailing parent are less likely to have engaged in an activity inconsistent with their status than those who get married with a view to reside there.
The memo also reviews the "cessation clauses" of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Handbook), which suggests that a refugee or asylee who returns to the country where he claims to have been persecuted may have "voluntarily availed himself of the protection of his country of nationality." The cessation clause includes three elements: (1) voluntariness (the refugee must act voluntarily); (2) intention (the refugee must intend by his action to re-avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality); and (3) re-availment (the refugee must actually obtain such protection).
When a refugee visits his or her former country, overseas personnel are directed to investigate the facts surrounding the refugee's visit and determine whether the refugee continues to need international protection and whether the status should be revoked. Application of the cessation principles can result in the invalidation of unexpired travel documents. Nevertheless, the memo heeds the cautionary note suggested by the Handbook and directs that cessation principles be applied restrictively to permanent residents as a direct result of refugees/asylees. Thus, unless it is clear that the principles apply, doubts should be resolved in the permanent residents’ favor.
Status of Asylees or Refugees with Pending Adjustment Applications. Finally, the general counsel's memo addresses the status of refugees and asylees with pending adjustment applications who depart the U.S. without obtaining advance parole. According to the memo, asylees and refugees who obtain travel documents outside the U.S. may resume their status when they return and maintain their pending adjustment applications. Although regulations provide that persons who depart the U.S. without advance parole generally abandon their adjustment applications, the memo clarifies that the effect of the departure depends on the law under which the applicant is adjusting. Since asylees and refugees adjust their status under section 209 of the INA and neither section 209 nor its implementing regulations deem applications abandoned when refugees depart without advance parole, the general rules regarding abandonment do not apply to refugees and asylees. Refugees and asylees who return from abroad with travel documents are readmitted as refugees and asylees, not as parolees. Therefore, their applications for adjustment remain valid.
As the holiday season begins, advocates should advise their refugee or asylee clients to seek advance parole prior to departing the U.S."
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
Status of Refugees and Asylees Who Return to Countries of Alleged Persecution. Refugees and asylees and permanent residents as a direct result of refugees/asylees who return to the country where they claim to have been persecuted risk losing their status. When such individuals attempt to secure travel documents to return to the U.S., 8 C.F.R. section 223.2(b)(2)(ii) comes into play. Under this section, a refugee or asylee is eligible for a refugee travel document outside the U.S. if the "alien did not engage in any activities outside the U.S. that would be inconsistent with continued refugee or asylee status." According to the memo, refugees who return to visit an ailing parent are less likely to have engaged in an activity inconsistent with their status than those who get married with a view to reside there.
The memo also reviews the "cessation clauses" of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Handbook), which suggests that a refugee or asylee who returns to the country where he claims to have been persecuted may have "voluntarily availed himself of the protection of his country of nationality." The cessation clause includes three elements: (1) voluntariness (the refugee must act voluntarily); (2) intention (the refugee must intend by his action to re-avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality); and (3) re-availment (the refugee must actually obtain such protection).
When a refugee visits his or her former country, overseas personnel are directed to investigate the facts surrounding the refugee's visit and determine whether the refugee continues to need international protection and whether the status should be revoked. Application of the cessation principles can result in the invalidation of unexpired travel documents. Nevertheless, the memo heeds the cautionary note suggested by the Handbook and directs that cessation principles be applied restrictively to permanent residents as a direct result of refugees/asylees. Thus, unless it is clear that the principles apply, doubts should be resolved in the permanent residents’ favor.
As the holiday season begins, advocates should advise their refugee or asylee clients to seek advance parole prior to departing the U.S."

Hey Folks
I feel very confused about this post. Could somebody explain me what this paragraph means? I am thinking about traveling to visit my mother to my COP in january just for 2 weeks, my mother is 80 years-old and has became sick lastly, but that post scare me about if traveling

Thanks guys

Travelco
GC holder
 
Travelco said:
Hey Folks
I feel very confused about this post. Could somebody explain me what this paragraph means? I am thinking about traveling to visit my mother to my COP in january just for 2 weeks, my mother is 80 years-old and has became sick lastly, but that post scare me about if traveling

Thanks guys

Travelco
GC holder


Travelco: You understand the pragraph clearly. Use your judgement.
 
faysal said:
Travelco: You understand the pragraph clearly. Use your judgement.

Because is no clear for me, I am asking someone who has expertice in immigration laws, help me to understand what the memo want to say.
I have reading a lot of posts in this forum from people with well founded knolweges in that issue, and I think there is no problem going back to COP after get the GC using a valid NP. That was confirmed to me by IO in two infopass interviews and by phone. But I would like to be sure I am right.

Thanks

Travelco
GC holder since 28/01/05
 
Travelco said:
Because is no clear for me, I am asking someone who has expertice in immigration laws, help me to understand what the memo want to say.
I have reading a lot of posts in this forum from people with well founded knolweges in that issue, and I think there is no problem going back to COP after get the GC using a valid NP. That was confirmed to me by IO in two infopass interviews and by phone. But I would like to be sure I am right.

Thanks

Travelco
GC holder since 28/01/05
derivative can visit COP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
clarity07 said:
Hello everyone. I was not planning to lie. I was just wondering. My Husband never left the country for 12 years. I went back home twice. I had a new passport and an old one that i never used again after I was granted asylum. I used my national passport to go home and my Travel doc to enter back. Both Times I was a permanent resident already. No problem to enter. We are applying in Febuary so I start getting a little worried, that's all. I sure will share my experience once I get interviewed.
dont worry your husband was principal .so u must be fine
 
Top