Finally, an USCIS opinion about our endless question

Still not clear...

Accordingly, an asylee or a lawful permanent resident who obtained such status based on a grant of asylum status may be questioned about why he or she was able to return to the country of claimed persecution and, in some circumstances, may be subject to proceedings to terminate asylum status.

"May be questioned", is of importance here. Still leaves a lot of doubts. Clear as a mud, right? :eek:
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
Accordingly, an asylee or a lawful permanent resident who obtained such status based on a grant of asylum status may be questioned about why he or she was able to return to the country of claimed persecution and, in some circumstances, may be subject to proceedings to terminate asylum status.

"May be questioned", is of importance here. Still leaves a lot of doubts. Clear as a mud, right? :eek:
Click to expand...

PM...the point is that it did not say "LPRs are ok to travel to COP and nothing will be questioned"....

"May be questioned" was always everyone's concern..I wish they didn't release this memo. It hurts people who have renewed NP & visited COP since LPR welcome letter says "you are a PR like others".

This memo just contradicts the other. It even says LPR should use refugee travel documents..did it mention about NP??
 
Hi Want,

The fact sheet doesn't say that people who renewed their passport but never use it to go back to their country will be questioned, except if they renewed and went back to their country of prosecution.

CPA
 
That's what I meant when I said, "Clear as a mud". They can question you at a later stage and you just have to tell them the legit reason with proofs. If you have that, there is nothing to worry about. People who are going there as a vacation spot every year, they might have something to worry about, IF and IF in case I/O asks that at the interview. They would never come out and say its OK to go to your COP and assume the responsibility of risking someone's life by going back to COP. They deal with it on a case to case basis which I think is the right strategy on USCIS's part.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like not all people in USCIS has the same interpretation of the law, I remember the letter by Erich Cauller, Director of Miami Asylum Office, in January 2006 saying than any Perm Res. can travel freely, even if they have acquired residence through asylum.
If anyone is interested on it I have a copy and can posted here, can be usefull in case someone need defense.
 
Yes lookingfor green, I remember that letter very vividly. It was posted in Spanish and it was posted after they received so many inquiries from Cuban asylees. He clearly said in that letter that it is OK to go back for Permanent Residents even if that status was derived from asylum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lookingforgreen said:
Looks like not all people in USCIS has the same interpretation of the law, I remember the letter by Erich Cauller, Director of Miami Asylum Office, in January 2006 saying than any Perm Res. can travel freely, even if they have acquired residence through asylum.
If anyone is interested on it I have a copy and can posted here, can be usefull in case someone need defense.
Click to expand...

The dorks at USCIS are so freaking stupid. Instead of making it clearer, they like to confuse everyone. Why not mention NP?? I am confused as to why didn't they talk about NP+GC to travel abroad..they said Refugee Travel Document...
 
The reason they don't talk about NP + GC is because they like to sell us RTDs to make more dough to run their extremly inefficient machinery. I think pretty soon they'll have to put RTD on Sale "Buy one get one free for the next year" because every one hates paying for it. :D
wantmygcnow said:
The dorks at USCIS are so freaking stupid. Instead of making it clearer, they like to confuse everyone. Why not mention NP?? I am confused as to why didn't they talk about NP+GC to travel abroad..they said Refugee Travel Document...
Click to expand...
 
The reason they don't talk about NP + GC is because they like to sell us RTDs to make more dough to run their extremly inefficient machinery. I think pretty soon they'll have to put RTD on Sale "Buy one get one free for the next year" because every one hates paying for it.
Click to expand...

Ja Ja!
 
wantmygcnow,

Let me guess the reason for ur question. Since asylees are considered stateless therefore, asylee has no passport till they become citizen of the new state which accepted him/her as asylee.,
 
chang1428 said:
wantmygcnow,

Let me guess the reason for ur question. Since asylees are considered stateless therefore, asylee has no passport till they become citizen of the new state which accepted him/her as asylee.,
Click to expand...

We are talking about Permanent Residents who were asylees...
 
wantmygcnow said:
The dorks at USCIS are so freaking stupid. Instead of making it clearer, they like to confuse everyone. Why not mention NP?? I am confused as to why didn't they talk about NP+GC to travel abroad..they said Refugee Travel Document...
Click to expand...


Because you are not supposed to use national passports barring unusual circumstances

And this news release is just down to earth common sense. It reiterates the points I have tried to make over the past few years. For example, I said a number of times here that even as a LPR they can still revoke your asylum status.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wantmygcnow said:
It even says LPR should use refugee travel documents..did it mention about NP??
Click to expand...

Where does it say so? It clearly says: "may also travel abroad with refugee travel documents". Nowhere does it say that you are under obligation to use RTD. You may use it if you wish. To me, this implies that you may also use NP.

This document clears nothing. It just states what some people have been saying here for ages. The answer is neither a YES, nor a NO. Like Punjabi Munda said, it's dealt with on a case by case basis: for some it'll be OK, for some it won't.
 
thankful said:
Because you are not supposed to use national passports barring unusual circumstances

And this news release is just down to earth common sense. It reiterates the points I have tried to make over the past few years. For example, I said a number of times here that even as a LPR they can still revoke your asylum status.
Click to expand...

They can't revoke my status. If they try, I will sue the hell out of them. I applied for asylum 15 years ago and only now got my GC. My parents are getting old and need my attention, so I have to go to COP now quite often. Now, those lucky ones who got their asylums two-three years ago and are already in the possession of their GC may be (may be not) questioned and probably for a good reason. It's all common sense.

By the way, a case like revoking somebody's status will only be decided in the immigration court. I have worked in the court in the last 8 years (2 cases a day on average), I never heard of or interpreted for such a case. NEVER!
 
the risk to be on trouble at POE after travelling to COP is like the tree that does hide the forest...perhaps the forest here is the naturalization interview.
upon naturalization the immigration officer have the factor" time" to check carefully the applicant history and formulate an affidavit of denial if he want to..
at POE..usually the officer didn't have that privilege to do so.
 
FINNALLY it will open some brickheaded people eyes that they got GC through asylum .
guys tell me about paranoia now ;) it is just common sence .they dont care about your parents or whatever crap you tell them . i know it is brutal and unhuman.
you will have to justify everything on paper as an evidence in court.if you cant justify it you will be in deep sheet. :eek:

so guys just keep in mind you are not regular permanent resident as marriage based or dv lottery GC holder etc. you are an asylum based GC holder .so do it on your own risk if you want to visit COP or renew your NP . prove is above letter :rolleyes:

sueing uscis is not an easy case . they can easily ignore(dismiss) your case .plus $$$$ and waste of lifetime
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wantmygcnow said:
The dorks at USCIS are so freaking stupid. Instead of making it clearer, they like to confuse everyone. Why not mention NP?? I am confused as to why didn't they talk about NP+GC to travel abroad..they said Refugee Travel Document...
Click to expand...


I agree that the document is not really clear, but what I see is that they (USCIS) have a position about it and is not "a piece of cake" to travel back home as a LPR through asylum.

I'll wait until citizenship.
 
14ksusha said:
By the way, a case like revoking somebody's status will only be decided in the immigration court. I have worked in the court in the last 8 years (2 cases a day on average), I never heard of or interpreted for such a case. NEVER!
Click to expand...


Please refrain from making legal statements that are not correct. The USCIS can and does revoke asylum status without going through the immigration court system at all as long as the original grant was issued by an Asylum Officer. Read the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a). That power continues even after the person has become a LPR on the basis of an asylum grant.

Last summer I was personally involved in a pro bono case representing a LPR before the Newark Asylum Office (the firm I clerked for last summer takes on a significant number of pro bono asylum cases). Cases like his are not isloated by any means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top