Lawyer's comments on visiting home country after asylee adjustment

[jjusa]

I am really reluctant to jump into this topic, in light of the emotion it tends to evoke among some immature people here. But I do think the information I obtained today is of interest to many responsible people.

This afternoon I had a consultation at Maggio and Katter, PC, one of the country's preeminent immigration law firms. The main purpose of my visit was to talk about expediting an I-730 application. Toward the end of our meeting, I asked if a former asylee who is now a LPR should visit his/her home country. Mr. Michael Maggio said absolutely not. He said that this would give every appearance of having given false testimony on the asylum application. He offered an analogy of a family who told everyone in town of how dire their financial situation was and then as soon as their got enough charity contributions from kind neighbors, went on a cruise. Would that make neighbors suspicious of their original story? I think he made an excellent point.

I then asked Mr. Maggio about visiting a dying parent. He said in that case he still would not recommend going, but would not "actively discourage it either."

My last question to him was have there been REAL cases of people whose LPR was revoked as a result of this. His answer was positive and as a matter of fact he is representing such people at this time.

 

[suzanar]

I agree. Going home for most asylees could be the clear proof of non-existing prosecution.
Just a small excurse, I am curious regarding your experience with I-730? From the reason
I am expediting my application at the moment.

 

[Gilbert]

I do not think it is really useful to discuss this any more. This should have been very obvious. I feel that it is like explaning to people that the sky is blue and snow flakes are white.

Mike Maggio gives an apt analogy. Asylum is basically an expression of charity on the part of the host country. It is under no obligation whatsoever to confer the benfits on you. It does so because they believe how desperate you are relative to your country. Even a child would be thinking of deception on your part if you suddenly go back right after getting what you want. Just do not think Americans are that dumb.

If you focus on the word "permanent," why don't you focus on the world "alien," since the full term is "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence?" This is still not fully your country. There are many many reasons for which a "permanent" resident can be kicked out of the country for good. Fraud in securing that staus is one of them.

It is like the sky is blue.

 

[tonytony771]

What if the asylee becomes a US Citzen

Hello. What if the asylee become a US citzen and want to go visit his parents in the home country for 2 weeks. would it be a problem?

 

[jonny1]

Hello. What if the asylee become a US citzen and want to go visit his parents in the home country for 2 weeks. would it be a problem?

when u become US citizen, THEN WHOLE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION IS A THING OF THE PAST. you can travel to anywhere . your citizenship might be revoked if you engage in terrorist activity, otherwise no IMMIGRATION issues.

 

[Asylee13]

jonny1,

You are right and wrong. Right because, yes as a citizen you won't be asked any questions at the port of entry and since you don't have to appear for any immigration interview after that you don't care. Wrong becuase you still lied about your situation to US immigration to stay here. Every visit is recorded and God forbid, you get involved in any crime, I won't be surprised if your visit would be used an evidence to prove your character. Just my opinion.

 

[kalvar]

For USCIS to prove that you lied before you became a US citizen would be a very difficult task. In practical terms, onceyou naturalize you're FREE!

 

[assylum]

For USCIS to prove that you lied before you became a US citizen would be a very difficult task. In practical terms, onceyou naturalize you're FREE!

In fact, a naturalization can also be revoked. There was a case 2 years ago where ICE arrested a naturalized US citizen. They picked him up from his home because he lied in one of the immigration forms in the past.

 

[Mauricio22]

totally agree with Gilbert.

In my 5 + yrs in this forum this topic has been discussed a zillion times, Asylees just shouldn't go to their COP, that's all. It is not rocket science.

I do not think it is really useful to discuss this any more. This should have been very obvious. I feel that it is like explaning to people that the sky is blue and snow flakes are white.

Mike Maggio gives an apt analogy. Asylum is basically an expression of charity on the part of the host country. It is under no obligation whatsoever to confer the benfits on you. It does so because they believe how desperate you are relative to your country. Even a child would be thinking of deception on your part if you suddenly go back right after getting what you want. Just do not think Americans are that dumb.

If you focus on the word "permanent," why don't you focus on the world "alien," since the full term is "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence?" This is still not fully your country. There are many many reasons for which a "permanent" resident can be kicked out of the country for good. Fraud in securing that staus is one of them.

It is like the sky is blue.

 

[cafeconleche]

... unless their fear of persecution is diminished, or no longer present. Also, if they feel they have a compelling reason to go, and can prove it, then so be it.

 

[ASSYLEE]

Just because someone has spent a certain amount of time being on this forum does not make them an expert on this subject. And who is anyone to say that this topic shouldn't be discussed any further as immigration laws and polices change ALL the time.

With the risk of being accused of providing information without citing a specific source and becoming somewhat political, here are my two cents about this ever evolving debate/discussion. So take this adivce however you may. I'm NOT advocating anyone do anything without consulting their lawyers and using their own better judgment.

I have a good friend who is, without giving too much info, VERY closely involved in the process of naturalization of individuals that include asylees. I have had many conversations with this person regarding this topic. What has been communicated to me most recently is that the current administration has encouraged immigration agencies to be more lenient with certain areas of immigraton such as this one, especially compared with the Bush administration. The impression that I get from my friend is that they are not going to actively revoke or remove people with no criminal convictions who only happened to visit their coutnry of persecution. Due to the large backlog, they cannot use their limited resources and reserve them for criminal proceedings. But that does not mean that asylees who return to COP will not face intense scrutiny upon return at the point of entry or during their citizenship interview. So the suggestion is to be prepared to aptly demonstrate how country conditions have changed and the compelling reason for return if you do decide to go.

So, as you can see, it is not an easy answer, one way or the other.

 

[tributeblinky]

excellent point ASSYLEE.

i think this topic should be discussed because it is an on going question in every single refugee's head! new comers or the old ones! it is sensitive because it involves a great deal of emotions: sadness, desperation, fear, etc. there is no shame in that and if someone is stronger than others and less emotional, good for them! but he or she should not question anybody who seeks comfort by asking questions and waiting for answers! people here need to understand that asylum is one of the most sensitive and controversial areas of immigration laws and in general, the human rights.

each and every person has a different and complicated case, that is in absolute link to their unique background, involving special circumstances, events, incidences, people, factors, etc.

take this scenario for example: "a homosexual person, who has obtained his or her asylum based on his or her sexual preference, since he or she comes from a radical religious country." This person did not suffer any major persecution, directly due to his or her sexual orientation, from the government authorities, since he or she never acted on it, stayed in closet and basically lived a lie. since the person claims that he or she cannot live in closet anymore and if he or she chooses to come out, he will no doubt, be caught, jailed, tortured, trialed and probably executed if he or she wants to live in that country, asylum is granted to this person based on the fact that he or she will suffer future persecution!

now, if this person goes back to his or her COP for a short visit (regardless of the reason, of course the more urgent and serious, the better), will he or she be dumb enough to come out of the closet, act on his sexual orientation during that short visit and suffer persecution? no, so as long as that does not happen, no one knows about his or her case, situation, and that person is in no immediate danger! this is a valid reason and still keeps that person's case solid and legitimate. nothing has changed about the case. the fear is still there, the danger and persecution is still there, but based on true certain circumstances, which were clearly included, defined and discussed in the case and in fact, were the reason why the case is approved.

see this is a special case. so this topic is not all black and white. it is in fact very grey! be more accepting and helpful people! we all keep talking about how we should be supportive of each other! so walk the talk!

peace!