Traveling Outside the US As Asylee applicant ,Asylee,LPR through Asylum

not guaranteed?

Like advance parole, a refugee travel document
does not guarantee admission into the United States. Rather, the asylee must still undergo
inspection by an immigration inspector from CBP.

Under what circumstances an asylee could be denied admission ?
I am an asylee willing to travel for tourism for 2 weeks and the above statement make me afraid of possibility of denying admission!

any ideas ?
Thanks
 
Well, if you go back to your COP, they MAY deny admission, especially if you don't yet have your GC. Also, if you commit crimes abroad, or seem suspicious, you could be denied admission. Chances are extremely rare that you would do something to cause them to keep you out, so you shouldn't really worry about it. I'm sure you'll be fine :)
 
Well, if you go back to your COP, they MAY deny admission, especially if you don't yet have your GC. Also, if you commit crimes abroad, or seem suspicious, you could be denied admission. Chances are extremely rare that you would do something to cause them to keep you out, so you shouldn't really worry about it. I'm sure you'll be fine :)

thx Cafe !
am for sure not going to COP at all .. not even with GC :D
I am just going for tourism 2 weeks to Egypt .. and will not do anything suspicious .. just tours and visiting places there ..
Thanks again for your reply !
 
thx Cafe !
am for sure not going to COP at all .. not even with GC :D
I am just going for tourism 2 weeks to Egypt .. and will not do anything suspicious .. just tours and visiting places there ..
Thanks again for your reply !

As per my knowledge any GC holder even through Asylum can visit his/her COP and there will be no problem in getting Citizenship. Please go through the link http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/AffrmAsyManFNL.pdf , and read page No. 163 X. DISMISSAL OF ASYLUM APPLICATION OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT provision (f)and 268 see 66. LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT NOTICE. It'l clear all the doubts regarding visit to COP. Please keep in mind that it is updated on November 2007 after the release of Revised Fact Sheet dt. January 04, 2007.
 
I don't think the LPR that they are talking about in that section is the one obtained through asylum. They never mentioned the term LPR through asylum. I think they are saying that if you are an asylee and you obtain green card through other methods (family, employment, lottery, etc), your asylum status will be dropped unless you don't want them to revoke your asylum status.
 
As per my knowledge any GC holder even through Asylum can visit his/her COP and there will be no problem in getting Citizenship. Please go through the link http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/AffrmAsyManFNL.pdf , and read page No. 163 X. DISMISSAL OF ASYLUM APPLICATION OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT provision (f)and 268 see 66. LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT NOTICE. It'l clear all the doubts regarding visit to COP. Please keep in mind that it is updated on November 2007 after the release of Revised Fact Sheet dt. January 04, 2007.

The section of the Manual you referred to has nothing do to with asylees traveling to their home countries. I fail to understand how you drew the connection you drew.
 
hey thankful, i think im_saiyed is saying that according to this document, once you become LPR, you are no longer an asylee and hence you can visit COP just like any other LPR. as i said before, i think this document is referring to those LPR who obtained that permanent status through other immigration benefits other than asylum. so for lets say you are an asylee and you have also been approved to become LPR through marriage or parents or employment. uscis will notify you that your asylum status will be revoked since you have become LPR through other methods unless you ask them not to do it!
 
Asylee has right to adjust his status to LPR. Once asylee becomes LPR, he/she is no more Asylee as per the document. Wa can say that It's a LOOP HOLE of the system, that's why many GC holder (AS6) visits frequently to COP with the consultation of their lawyers.
 
. Once asylee becomes LPR, he/she is no more Asylee as per the document. .

I do not know how you read this manual. But the reality is that at no point does the document say what you assert the document says. In fact, the document says that even after you become a LPR, the Asylum Office retains the authority to revoke your asylum status and place you in deportation proceeding. This means that in the view of the USCIS your asylum status does not disappear once you adjust.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. It says that the asylum office has control over certain A numbers or something. Totally not related to the OP.
 
Reflections on using NP and visiting COP
(Tortfeasor) date: March 14, 2006 http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=206893
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As promised, here is my analysis. Sorry about its length but I thought it makes sense to address the issue thoroughly. For those few individuals who may not know all the alphabet soup of abbreviations used in this Forum, here is a quick guide of those used here: COP (Country of Persecution/native country); LPR (Legal Permanent Resident/green card holder); NP (National Passport) and RTD (Refugee Travel Document).

1. Let me start with the caveats. This is not a legal opinion nor is it addressed to be a specific legal advice. It is an analysis of the issues involved and the applicable legal standards. Its applicability is subject to individual facts and circumstances, changed or evolved COP conditions and the passage of time since one left the COP. That said, I am very confident of its soundness, internal logic and its ability to hold water in arguing ones case. It may even be helpful in one of my favorite sports - kicking some INS ass in court!

2. I do not make any absolutist assertions. While each person will have to consider the merits of renewing NP or visiting COP, you do not have to be deterred from doing what you need to do by the unsubstantiated and wild stories told on this Forum. Articulating the following arguments does not mean that you condone fraudulent asylum claims. On the other hand, after the passage of both time and the immediate threat to ones safety, most regular people would like to visit their home land and their relatives or even want their American born kids to develop some connection with their roots. If you cannot appreciate the difference between fraud and this legitimate desire to re-connect with ones roots, then you are at a loss. If in addition to ignorance, you are unable to engage in intelligent discussion, then, as Bart Simpson eloquently said, you can "eat my shorts."

3. Before adjustment to LPR. Using NP or visiting the COP before adjusting to LPR is not encouraged and may even lead to the revocation of the asylee status. Under the statute, the grant of asylum is conditional. Technically speaking, until the asylee adjusts to LPR status, the asylee should continue to have fear of persecution in order to continually benefit from the protection. This of course is rarely enforced as the INS does not do a new eligibility determination before the adjustment of an asylee to LPR status. Even while on asylee status, there are no absolute rules stating that applying for a NP or visiting the COP will automatically result in the revocation of the asylum status. INS will infer a heavy presumption that the asylee may no longer be eligible for continued protection. The asylee may rebut this inference by explaining why he or she is still eligible for asylee status protection despite the use of NP or visit to the COP. The ultimate result will depend upon the strength of circumstances surrounding the asylee's decision to get the NP or visit the COP. It is highly recommended that you consult with an immigration counsel before doing this while you are in asylee status.

4. After adjustment to LPR. Once a former asylee has adjusted to LPR, the asylee status is terminated and a new and different legal status is assumed. There is no requirement under any statute or rule that a former asylee who has adjusted to a LPR has to continuously show that he/she is still eligible to asylee protection after that status has expired. Logic will dictate that there should be more leeway and freedom for adjusted LPRs to use NPs and visit COPs than what was provided to asylees. Logic aside though, the only official document that is somehow related to the issue is the Welcome Notice sent to all LPRs which states that all LPRs (irrespective of how they have adjusted) have the same status and can use similar procedures when traveling overseas, including securing a NP from their respective native countries. LPRs who were former asylees are given the option of applying for a RTD or a Reentry Permit if they do not wish or cannot get NPs from their COP. Unlike asylees who are required to use RTDs for international travel, LPRs are not explicitly required to secure a RTD.

5. The Basic Argument. I believe some of the extremely humorous hysteria in this Forum arises from a certain frame of mind. Back in our home countries, our governments operated under the following rule: "Whatever is not expressly permitted or allowed is prohibited." On the other hand, one of the basic principles of rule interpretation in the US legal system is: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is allowed and permitted." The burden is on the INS to show that there is a clear rule against LPRs use of their NP or travel to the COP. In that case, we will either abide by such rule or most probably, challenge it in a court of law as an irrational rule that discriminates amongst equally situated LPRs (which is arguably, a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution).

6. The Most Confused Issue on the Forum. We read of how some people had their LPR status revoked allegedly because they renewed their NP or traveled back to their COP. Any potential revocation or rescission of LPR status and the underlying asylee grant by the INS may arise not merely because one has used a NP or even traveled to COP per se BUT because the INS (through a hearing process) established that AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL ASYLUM GRANT, the applicant was not entitled to asylum relief because he/she was not at that time a "refugee" or has violated some legal requirement. If the INS cannot establish that the former asylee has committed fraud at the time of the initial application or grant or on the other hand, the former asylee shows that he or she had a credible fear of persecution at the time of the initial application or grant, the fact that years later and after becoming a LPR, he or she applied and received a NP and even visited his or her COP (in spite of any danger he/she might face) by itself, does not automatically result in the revocation of LPR status. PLUS: Note that once you have adjusted to LPR status, immigration officers at airports or those conducting your citizenship interview (however officious he or she may look, act, huff and puff) do not have the right or the power to revoke your LPR status. Any representation to the contrary is an abuse of authority. Always know that you can challenge any arbitrary action in court and once the lawyers at INS get involved, the issue gets quickly resolved.

7. Another Thought. A related issue I usually hear about and concerns me are individuals going to COP through a third country to evade the INS. I strongly advice against such schemes. Specially LPRs should be less concerned about using their NPs and visiting their COP when compared with the problems associated with attempting to evade the INS. To tell you the truth and in practical terms, I do not think that the INS or the US government give a damn as to whether or not you will have problems in your COP, that you desire to visit your parents or you want to hook up with that old flame! On the other hand, the US government will be concerned (and rightly so) if you are sneaking in and out of your COP without fully disclosing your itinerary or where you may have traveled to, specially if you travel to or from potential "terrorist" or problem spots.

I hope this helps!

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE PIECE WHEN AND IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT.
 
I do not get it. First you misquoted from an official USCIS document. Then when people pointed out that you were wrong, you ignored them and proceeded to quote from the opinion of another forum member. What point are you trying to make?
 
hi.. i'm from Indonesia...my asylum case got approved on June 9th 2008... and then.. i will apply for green card after june 9th 2009, right?! but i need to go to Singapore on July 2009.. what document should apply before i go and what document should i bring with me so i can get back to USA again? thx.
 
hi.. i'm from Indonesia...my asylum case got approved on June 9th 2008... and then.. i will apply for green card after june 9th 2009, right?! but i need to go to Singapore on July 2009.. what document should apply before i go and what document should i bring with me so i can get back to USA again? thx.

Generally, you would have to get a Refugee Travel Document (I-571), as Raziel correctly stated. But, I'm afraid I have bad news for you:

US Travel Documents (I-571 and I-327) are not recognised for entry into Singapore.

http://www.mfa.gov.sg/newyork-consul/USA visa regulations.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is somthing new, check it out
3 Derivative asylees allowed to travel to the principal's country of persecution

From my own experience (almost 20yrs worth) as a "Derivative Asylee", I would strongly advise against traveling to the country from which the principal applicant requested the Asaylee status.

Unnecessary and ludicrous civil war broke up my country in the 90's.
I had to travel to one of the "broken" parts, of which I was not a citizen, I had the worst time upon entry there as well as the return to US.
Both parties questioned every cell within me - regardless of the fact that I was only 15y/o when my family ran away from the upcoming hell.
To an extent I expected questioning from the officer upon entry to the "broken" component of the old country, so I was prepared for their usual barbaric approach. However, what waited for me upon return still has me baffled at times. The IO officer made such mockery of me, all in front of those numerous lines of people, to the extent that his sadistic side was simply evident. That did not satisfy him so he sent me to the "special room" for further questioning. My heart was pounding sooo hard I taught it will simply jump out of my chest. I was very lucky that the IO officer there was a normal individual and let me go within minutes.
At times I ask myself if "Marquee DeSaad" was just doing his job and in a way I do understand it - regardless of the fact that you may not be a principal applicant for asaylum, that individual has claimed that your welfare would have been at stake as well, therefore you are a "Derivative Asylee".

I am strongly advising anyone of traveling under such circumstances, I again believe that I was lucky (I must have not been Marquee's type :). Seriously, today I can laugh about it but it was no laughing matter then - it was quite scarrrrry!!!
 
Top