some helpful links 1-refugee travel doc

smirnoff said:
the uscis response is such a bullshit


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/...e_Travel_Document_USCIS_Response-12-27-05.pdf
Click to expand...

But doesnt this response contradicts everything that is being discussed in this forum that people who got their PR thru Asylum should not get their NPs issued for "obvious reasons"? How else they will travel if USCIS does not grant them RTDs as they are "NO LONGER ASYLEES"!!! Should they travel on a Re-Entry Permit? Or maybe it is true that getting the NP is not against the rules??? And if we take this letter as the final response and confirmationto our "inevitable question" aren't our fears baseless about the Citizenship's most important question, "DID YOU RENEW YOUR NP?" not to mention the visit to the COP!! Because whether the NP is renewed/Re-issued or you visit the COP, both mean that you are still claiming to be a citizen of that country...wether you go there to visit or not, is a different question.Even if you are going back to your COP on a short visit due to some unforeseen emergency, you are still trvlg on your NP...as you certainly can't go there with an RTD! Specially after this AUTHORITATIVE Letter..!!

Any comments?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Free100, I agree

Also, The LPR who gained that status through asylum are able to utilize this RTD if they can't get their NP. Their status doesn't expire until they apply for US citizenship. They have GCs with 10 years validity. USCIS is just not willing to admit that this RTD business is like a "cash cow" for them and they just don't want to let that go.
 
free100 said:
But doesnt this response contradicts everything that is being discussed in this forum that people who got their PR thru Asylum should not get their NPs issued for "obvious reasons"? How else they will travel if USCIS does not grant them RTDs as they are "NO LONGER ASYLEES"!!! Should they travel on a Re-Entry Permit? Or maybe it is true that getting the NP is not against the rules??? And if we take this letter as the final response and confirmationto our "inevitable question" aren't our fears baseless about the Citizenship's most important question, "DID YOU RENEW YOUR NP?" not to mention the visit to the COP!! Because whether the NP is renewed/Re-issued or you visit the COP, both mean that you are still claiming to be a citizen of that country...wether you go there to visit or not, is a different question.Even if you are going back to your COP on a short visit due to some unforeseen emergency, you are still trvlg on your NP...as you certainly can't go there with an RTD! Specially after this AUTHORITATIVE Letter..!!

Any comments?
Click to expand...

What is your point?
 
Punjabi_Munda said:
Also, The LPR who gained that status through asylum are able to utilize this RTD if they can't get their NP. Their status doesn't expire until they apply for US citizenship. They have GCs with 10 years validity. USCIS is just not willing to admit that this RTD business is like a "cash cow" for them and they just don't want to let that go.
Click to expand...

The problem here is this: There are 2 "set" of people in the USCIS world, those that are officers and are adjusting cases, giving asylum etc. Their thinking is of the "Fact Sheet", however the other "set" of people are in the people who let you in the country, the IO who only has to validate if you have a valid document to enter the U.S & your status is valid..nothing more, nothing less.

Both of these "set" of people do not talk to each other. Working in the government, makes me thinks its because of higher pay grade. So people who issue fact sheets have different opinion from a person who lets you in. To him, yes he goes by the law but how he/she interpret the law is different.

Now the problem is, we deal with both "set" of these people. People who travel a lot deal with Set #2 who interpret the requirements differently and give us lot of headache because we are not doing things as they like it. We also have to please set #1(who give USC) in the near future so we try hard to please them.

Now we can pick our poison. Do we want easy entry/exit out of the country or do we want "easier" time at USC interview? It makes no difference what "poison" we pick, both parties will always face trouble no matter what. Thats why we are immigrants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
free100 said:
But doesnt this response contradicts everything that is being discussed in this forum that people who got their PR thru Asylum should not get their NPs issued for "obvious reasons"? How else they will travel if USCIS does not grant them RTDs as they are "NO LONGER ASYLEES"!!! Should they travel on a Re-Entry Permit? Or maybe it is true that getting the NP is not against the rules??? And if we take this letter as the final response and confirmationto our "inevitable question" aren't our fears baseless about the Citizenship's most important question, "DID YOU RENEW YOUR NP?" not to mention the visit to the COP!! Because whether the NP is renewed/Re-issued or you visit the COP, both mean that you are still claiming to be a citizen of that country...wether you go there to visit or not, is a different question.Even if you are going back to your COP on a short visit due to some unforeseen emergency, you are still trvlg on your NP...as you certainly can't go there with an RTD! Specially after this AUTHORITATIVE Letter..!!


Any comments?
Click to expand...
This letter is no longer authoritative. It was issued in December 2005. The latest version of the Fact Sheet was published in the end of 2006. The new rule is The Rule, regardless of what has been said in the past(at least according to the goverment). Plus, this letter is not very trustworthy to begin with. Mr. Divine (what a name!) says that asylum is granted for one year and after that a person has to apply for the PR status. Sounds like nonsense. Our stamp says clearly " Asylum granted indefinitely". And adjustment is not a requirement if a person does not want to do that. From my understanding, adjustment is an option, not a mandatory thing. Plus, Mr.Divine forgot to mention what should those asylees, who are waiting for their GC, use as a travel document. Not a worthy paper.
 
doctorn said:
This letter is no longer authoritative. It was issued in December 2005. The latest version of the Fact Sheet was published in the end of 2006. The new rule is The Rule, regardless of what has been said in the past(at least according to the goverment). Plus, this letter is not very trustworthy to begin with. Mr. Divine (what a name!) says that asylum is granted for one year and after that a person has to apply for the PR status. Sounds like nonsense. Our stamp says clearly " Asylum granted indefinitely". And adjustment is not a requirement if a person does not want to do that. From my understanding, adjustment is an option, not a mandatory thing. Plus, Mr.Divine forgot to mention what should those asylees, who are waiting for their GC, use as a travel document. Not a worthy paper.
Click to expand...

I disagree. So you want to be an asylee indefinitely? I don't. I want to move on to a higher level of LPR (which I have) and then of a US citizen. That's the whole idea of becoming legal in this country- accumulating more rights. I liked this letter and found it very much worthy. I don't want an RTD to be valid for 10 years. It's not a US passport and it will never be. The shorter the timeframes for all those 'temporary funky statuses' the better it is for us and the shorter time it is towars the citizenship.
 
14ksusha said:
I disagree. So you want to be an asylee indefinitely? I don't. I want to move on to a higher level of LPR (which I have) and then of a US citizen. That's the whole idea of becoming legal in this country- accumulating more rights. I liked this letter and found it very much worthy. I don't want an RTD to be valid for 10 years. It's not a US passport and it will never be. The shorter the timeframes for all those 'temporary funky statuses' the better it is for us and the shorter time it is towars the citizenship.
Click to expand...
14ksusha, you are absolutely right, and most of us asylees, eventually want to be PRs. Why should we stay as asylees indefinitely when there is an option to change the status. The only reason why someone would remain an asylee indefinitely is that he/she will return to the home country. I personally know someone who even after 8 years of being a PR doesnt want to apply for Citizenship. Though he did change to a PR!!
WantmyGC, I dont understand what you meant by the question" What's your point?" I didnt have any! I am just asking for more opinions.!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
14ksusha said:
I disagree. So you want to be an asylee indefinitely? I don't. I want to move on to a higher level of LPR (which I have) and then of a US citizen. That's the whole idea of becoming legal in this country- accumulating more rights. I liked this letter and found it very much worthy. I don't want an RTD to be valid for 10 years. It's not a US passport and it will never be. The shorter the timeframes for all those 'temporary funky statuses' the better it is for us and the shorter time it is towars the citizenship.
Click to expand...

And what do you think about the very first thing that I mentioned - the letter is dated Dec 2005 and the new fact sheet is dated end of 2006? Also, I don't think you understand my view of this letter. No, I don't want to be an asylee indefinitely - I am a PR already, anyway. The letter does not reflect the current rule - asylum status is granted indefinitely. Based on that, whether I or anoone else want to adjust should be and IS a personal choice. But the letter from an official should not contain such obvious disagreement with the actual rule. That's why it is unworthy for ME. You make your choice according to your judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top