Yes, technically speaking, an LPR doesn't need anything else other than a GC to come back to the US. However, you still need to have either a passport or an RTD to enter Canada
VISA Information for Countries
- Thread starter wantmygcnow
- Start date
Yes, technically speaking, an LPR doesn't need anything else other than a GC to come back to the US. However, you still need to have either a passport or an RTD to enter Canada
busydoingnothin
Active Member
No, you need a passport as well. The US has to stamp it on the way back in.
When arriving from Canada, Mexico, or Bermuda by land, sea, or air, LPRs only need to present a Green Card, a passport is not required.
When arriving from any other countries, everyone must have a passport.
Source: https://www.usa.gov/enter-us
When arriving from any other countries, everyone must have a passport.
Source: https://www.usa.gov/enter-us
Asylum seeker
Registered Users (C)
I traveled to Canada by my car and just came back to the United State. When I came back to the U.S. I drove my car next to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection drive-through booth. I handed the officer only my Green Card because I don't have a passport and I don't have also a refugee travel document. He didn't ask me any question just scanned my green card and within maybe 45 seconds he gave me back my Green Card and told me "welcome back and have a nice day". I didn't even step a foot outside my car.
Do you think I did something wrong or risky be traveling without having a refugee travel document?
I'm afraid this may cause problems for me in my citizenship interview in the future!
Do you think I did something wrong or risky be traveling without having a refugee travel document?
I'm afraid this may cause problems for me in my citizenship interview in the future!
tinaina
Active Member
Nope.
For going to Canada you didn't need passport as long as you have green card.
dolcevita
New Member
I just came back from my trip and I had Travel Document and Green Card with me. Customs officer was extremely confused why I had Travel Document AND GC.
He said with GC I don't need Travel Document and that I CAN use my national passport. He literally said we don't care what passport you're using outside of US as long as you are not going to your country. He confirmed with his colleagues.
Now I'm a bit confused because all lawyers on the internet are saying that we must use TD. I hate TD cause I always get stopped abroad and no one knows what is it! Not to mention that I need visa for literally every country in the world, while with my national passport I don't.
He said with GC I don't need Travel Document and that I CAN use my national passport. He literally said we don't care what passport you're using outside of US as long as you are not going to your country. He confirmed with his colleagues.
Now I'm a bit confused because all lawyers on the internet are saying that we must use TD. I hate TD cause I always get stopped abroad and no one knows what is it! Not to mention that I need visa for literally every country in the world, while with my national passport I don't.
tinaina
Active Member
Would you mind saying what airport you were that the officer told you that?
busydoingnothin
Active Member
Why do you get stopped a lot?
dolcevita
New Member
It was on LAX.
I get stopped on the passport controls to stand on the side while they figure out that the document is. They make calls, etc. They let me go at the end, but even on the LAX airport they had to verify the document on the check-in desk, then on the gate, then passport control - it's so annoying. Same on the airports abroad.
Last edited:
busydoingnothin
Active Member
I’ve never had this problem and I’ve been traveling for the past 4 years.
You are very very lucky! I have been traveling for the past four years on an RTD+GC...the norm is to be questioned that just going through on your way. Sample:
1. Traveled to Canada in 2017. Drove. Waved through by Canadian immigration...no issues. Coming back, CBP officer asks: Why do you have the RTD? Why don't you have your country passport? Why are you a refugee? AEFATEYHwaqo r9iygasvljkdw!!! This me being patient, answering those stupid questions.
2. Air China, Air New Zealand, Hawaiian Airlines, United Airlines, all questioning me on various trips about the RTD. Of course, I have had to endure untold delays, all because of the RTD
3. LAX. Several trips through LAX, taken to Secondary Examination by CBP, all because I have a RTD! Two hour delays always! Missed flight connections!
4. Honolulu, NJ, a few airports that have let me through no questions asked when coming from abroad.
Generally, an RTD is a pain. I'm happy for you that it has been smooth sailing while using the RTD.
dolcevita
New Member
Are you going to continue using it? After what I was told (not to use it by CBP officers) I'm thinking of not using it for my next travel.
Also - I heard somewhere if you're not political asylee it's more OK when applying for passport, then if you're not.
I will continue using the RTD until I get my citizenship next year.
As for your confused CPB officer, i think that they were interpreting things differently. All asylees/refugees, you technically qualify for that desgnation becuase you no longer get benefits from you original country. Benefits = passports, pension, etc. Technically, you are not a refugee if you can get benefits from you old country. This issue has been dealt with here a million times. Using your national passport can be interpreted as you are someone who is no longer a asylee! That determination (never heard of it happening...) can happen when you are trying to enter the US after a trip abroad, or when you apply for your citizenship. People refuse to use their national passports because they don't want to be asked questions at their citizenship interview or at the border.
If you are comfortable with jeophardizing your citizenship application a few years from now, you can use your national passport instead of the RTD. Citizenship officers, may or may not care about what passport you used to travel. Just in case they care, just in case they interpret that you are no longer a refugee because you are getting benefits from your old country, its better to never use your old passport. As for me, prepping to apply for another RTD right now, hopefully the last one before I get a US passport. Good luck.
busydoingnothin
Active Member
Traveled United, Delta, Singapore, Lufthansa, KLM, Porter, Ryanair, EuroWings, never had any issues except for one time Singapore airlines had to clarify what an RTD is. Flying back to the US only got questioned twice out of the 5 times. Never went to secondary. Flew into both NYC and Boston.
dolcevita
New Member
Interesting! I guess it's all just luck. Since this was my first time traveling with this combo, I will probably try it few more times before I decide wether or not I want to continue using it. Personally, 4 years of traveling like this is a bit frustrating for me and I don't think this would be that big deal as long as I'm not going to the country of persecution. After all, Travel Document is not an actual passport and they know that. I don't think they would deny your citizenship for using NP after you list all the issues with TD. If Travel Document was amazing, no one would even think of using NP.
Anyway, personal choice. Thanks for sharing!
Anyway, personal choice. Thanks for sharing!
I've actually done quite a bit of research on this, and the reason is because as per the EOIR and the BIA, current interpretation of asylee/refugee law is that once a refugee/asylee adjusts to legal permanent resident, the definition of asylee/refugee no longer applies to the person AT ALL. Therefore you're no longer bound to the same benefits and restrictions that a refugee has. Once you become an LPR, you gain new privileges and responsibilities. One of those privileges is being able to travel without having to obtain advance permission from USCIS in the form of an RTD or AP. (This is the reason that RTDs are only valid for one year, they're meant to be temporary until you obtain a GC). As long as there wasn't fraud, the law doesn't distinguish between LPRs depending on how they obtained that status.
There is actually a case about this making its way through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but former court rulings seem to indicate this interpretation will stand.
The problem here is the "fraud" part. As many others have indicated, using or renewing your national passport could indicate re-availment. And even if the definition of asylee no longer applies to you as an LPR, this could make your life difficult during the citizenship interview if the officer "believes" there was fraud in the original application for asylum. This is where it gets sticky. The problem isn't using/renewing your passport as an LPR, the problem is this could arise a suspicion of fraud on the asylum claim, which gave you your green card. As long as your original claim of asylum wasn't based on persecution by the government, you "should" be fine. However under no circumstances should you go back to your home country until you become a US citizen. That is the biggest NO NO.
Know your case, know the law, consult with an experienced attorney on the merits of your individual case. And be ready to present a strong argument backed with evidence on why you KNOW using your NP isn't a problem as an LPR.
PS. I plan on using/renewing my passport after I get my green card.
Last edited:
Yes, but you require a visa. Contact the Thai embassy in the US to obtain one.
https://thaiembdc.org/visas/
Thank you for your contribution. This clearly presents all the arguments here. The operative word is risk. I would like to prosecute further the issue of 'fraud during the original asylum application'
1. Affirmative Asylum - I have no evidence, but I think the government can reopen the case without any issue if fraud is suspected. The govt doesn't need permission from anybody to move forward with claims that there might have been fraud.
2. Immigration Court adjudicated cases - Technically, after a is case has been settled, the government is given 30 days to appeal the case. On the day the case is settled, the govt is asked if it is waiving their option to appeal or not. This is an open chance for the govt. to 'say yes, we would like to appeal because we think that there was fraud etc'. If the govt decides not to appeal the judge decision, then that's it.
My argument here is that issues of fraud are more likely to be raised if you got affirmative asylum rather than through the Immigration Court. Immigration judge granted asylum cases can't technically be reopened: that would be considered malicious prosecution, esp. if the govt had previsously indicated that they won't appeal. That is why at citizenship interview or at GC interview, the officers should never ask you about your asylum case.
This doesn't change the advice from above: renewing your passport, might be interpreted as you having not been a genuine asylee.
busydoingnothin
Active Member
Btw does anyone know if I can leave the country for a week before I have to apply for citizenship without affecting my application? Just wanted to travel to Europe a few weeks before I have to file.