Why asylee would want to go back?

[ayyubov]

Why asylee would want to go back. Isn't he suppose to be afraid? Isn't that what he (she) said at the asylum interview? Don't u think that IO might ask him(her)self the same questions? What are the chances that some of would get an asshole IO? I think pretty big. Think about it and stop posting threads about how to return to COP. It's getting annoying.

 

[kaoticfury]

Why asylee would want to go back. Isn't he suppose to be afraid? Isn't that what he (she) said at the asylum interview? Don't u think that IO might ask him(her)self the same questions? What are the chances that some of would get an asshole IO? I think pretty big. Think about it and stop posting threads about how to return to COP. It's getting annoying.

dont u have parents there?

 

[taurusborn]

Unless there are some extreme circumstances like the death of an immediate family member these people should be prosecuted for fraud. These people make it hard on the real victims of prosecution to gain asylum, what a shame.

 

[Miss.PinK]

I dunno about ur case.

My case is definitely not a fraud and yes, I still have the feeling "want to go back" but it is not because I miss "the country" (coz I hate the country) but because I still have family n relatives there.

on Dec 1999. "a group" of people. attacking my house juz becoz we wanna celebrate xmas. (I dunno why, during that time, we need to inform the authority whenever we want to have a "Religious" gathering and When we inform the authority, a group of people sign a petition AGAINST and FORBID us to celebrate xmas). Me and my family stuck in the 2nd floor. No where to run. Our house surrounding by other houses. (I dont even know why none of them seemed to hear noises coming from my house) and hoping miracle to happen (coz it took 2 hours for the cop to come n rescue us). they destroy all my family property and almost burn the house (rite before the cops came). Why I know that they want to burn my house? COZ I can hear their loud voices screaming "allah akbar" whatever and keep asking for the fire, matches, ... aaah I better stop. it brings up all the hatred that I have within me whenever i have to tell story about THOSE IDIOTS! , and yes during the incident, stupidly I peek from the window (even when my parents told me NOT TOO) but I was so curious what are they doing outside. YES, I saw it all. stones everywhere. I saw them laughing when they smacking my mom's car. (what the heck they are laughing at?! , they think it is funny to destroy someone else property? They just dare to do that because they are in a GROUP. if they are only 1 or even 10. My bros can still take them!)


My case get into a news paper and national TV. I can easily get asylum because I have the actual news paper. (they didnt give out the copy of the tv shots because they said it's the company confidential balblalbal, they just not willing to give it to my family "so that my family can send it to me").

I am the only one that apply for asylum in this country. I have 2 older bro (1 married) and 1 younger bro. I dont have sister. this is the main reason my parents send me first. My dad own a business n also a priest/pastor/preacher. My mom is a doctor. They both "choose" not to apply asylum because their life pretty much settle in my country. 'n They didn't really traumatize over the incident. (I guess their faith is bigger than me). I am the only one who have problem. The first 2 weeks after the incident, I've got nightmare and "talking on my sleep". My parents concerned about this, esp when they fixed the gate (the gate fell down during the attack becoz those people torn it down). the sounds of the bang is the same like when those people wanna enter my house. After several time found me screaming in the middle of the night. My parents send me to united states, RIGHT away. JANUARY 2000. I arrived in united states. (the process of the visa is so fast compare to others who tried to get into this country.).

If my brother get married or any of my cousins. or any of my love ones sick. U expect me, not to even try "to figure out" how to go back to my country without jeopardize my status in here? I am a family person. despite the fact, I am the only one who apply asylum. I don't want to go back to that stupid country. but If it is "necessary". I would. even if I have to swim. (I am juz exaggerating).

I wish all my love ones can be in this country. so it will be easier for me to juz "care no more" eventhough they bomb the entire country. but anyway. 1% in my heart still admit it that no matter what .. "I am actually" from that country right. I shouldn't hate the country but only those stupid people who were attacking my house under the "religious" issues.

So pls. u might hate it when reading people write about "wanna go back to their country of origin" (coz it's kinda contradict) but ... things happen to require us to go back. It is still a choice. u might choose "not to" but others decide "want to, need to, willing to" ... okay?!

ps: I apply asylum on May 2002. Yes it took me 2 years, to made up my mind and fully understand that by applying asylum I won't be able to see my parents n all my love ones for quite awhile. And NO I never go outside united states since the day I came to this country. Once I get my greencard in my hand. I will travel to europe with my mom. and possibly go to a country that close to my country so that all my relatives can visit me there. (flight cheaper when the destination place is closer).

 

[faysal]

We (humans) are unique species on earth. We have different preferences, tastes, interests and questions etc... Each persons priority and problem is different. Some of us are concerned about going back to their country of birth. This is not becuase they were not persecuted but becuase they love their country of birth. As we know once one get asylum in united states the status of that person changes. We get job and perhaps money. Once we feel empowered we want to go back to our families ( father, mothers, sister, and of course our village colleagues). I am not one of those though. I am not planing to go back to country of birth; however, I admire asylees who want to go back to their country, and this should be part of their new freedom, I believe...

Having said we share this forum in order to get information and experience. If for some reason one does not like what someone else hates that is why we came here and asked for asylum. That is type of authoritariansm. We should not tell what individuals would or would not post this forum. That does not mean I love every post. Of course there are posts that I really hate; For example, "How long does it take to get the plactic card on the maile". Posts like this drive me crazy for two reasons. First, if one is approved and has the approval letter why bother greencard. Just a time and wait for it to come through the mail. Second such questions has been answered millions of times, and is available the USCIS website. and Yet I have never complained about it and not told people not post things like that, and will not.

Bottom line here is we need to learn to live togather, which means we need to be patient with one another. Let each person express their concerns and someone will respond to it......................

 

[vinisterz]

what question is that ? dont you still have a sense of where you were born no matter how bad the country's citizen are ?

Even jews of the holocaust still go back to Germany some to find the remains or trace of their missing relatives, others to tell the younger generations what they have been through in that country.

 

[Noman74]

...

ayyubov,

Just wait another 3 months. Watch you will be asking us "Oh guys is that ok to go back to COP? Cmon guys, I have sick parents back home". Truth to the matter is, every case is different and if someone is traveling back home after becoming PR doesn't necessarily makes their case a fraudulent one. WAKEUP!!!

 

[kjonim32]

taurusborn ! Is not it a shame when spilled coffee in McDonald's brings to someone millions of dollars and some other people who get really injured in accidents for years try to get insurance money end up with nothing ? Do not you think all GOOD people in the world deserve to live better no matter they are asylee or USC ? You are not in perfect world. And if asylees after going thru all this immigration crap for a years and there lives on hold want to go back to there home country to see there old parents it's a shame USCIS will not allow them to do so.

You are entitled to your opinion but that case is just a little more than spilling coffee.
here are some detailes
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
Skin grafting!!!!!!!!!! third degree burns!!!!!!!!! debridement
treatments!!!!!!!!! Man I'm a medical professional but I still feel sick.
I guess that she was lucky not to get 4th degree burnes right?

 

[clotty]

I really think INS better address this issue straight up (I know pigs will fly before it happens but one can dream, right?). Especially the part about renewing NP, visiting COP after green card, etc. I know each case is different which is why maybe they are refraining to put it in stone in black and white terms. But not all visits to COP indicate a desire to move there or is a sign that your claims while applying to asylum were fraudulent.

Jubilee once gave an analogy to point out why one should not visit their COP viewing USA as the new wife and COP as the ex-wife and how visiting the ex-wife is cheating; and I took that anology and stretched it a bit and said : it is not always cheating if ex-wife has some bonds to you , like KIDS (in which case your family over there is in the role of "kids"). You would visit your kids at your ex-wife's house (no matter how much they come visit you in your new turf) but that does not imply you are moving back with ex-wife. Many people have relatives in their COP and some (like grandmothers) are not healthy enough to takle 9 or 11 hrs flights to come visit you here. Unless an asylee seeked asylum due to political reasons that do not enable them to have the COP's passport or are wanted by police in their COP or would be in danger from setting foot in their COP, I do not see why other asylees should not VISIT their old grandma and grandpa before they go six feet under. I do not agree with some people's stance where they talk down on people and imply "they are fraud" just because they voice a desire to visit their family in COP. The "you should be grateful for what USA offered. You should now never even think about setting foot in your COP ever. Not even after citizenship" are some comments I have read on this board over the months. No need to be that extreme; every case is different, period. If people want to tell us their EXPERIENCES from visiting COP or experiences from their citizenship interview, by all means they should. But otherwise deciding on what to do and what not to do is strictly a personal choice.

 

[thankful]

To add to this story, during the trial counsel for McDonalds told the jury that in effect since the victim was so old , her injuries were no big deal. I think the jury penalized the company for this absolutely insensitive remark.

You are entitled to your opinion but that case is just a little more than spilling coffee.
here are some detailes
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
Skin grafting!!!!!!!!!! third degree burns!!!!!!!!! debridement
treatments!!!!!!!!! Man I'm a medical professional but I still feel sick.
I guess that she was lucky not to get 4th degree burnes right?

 

[Lazerthegreat]

Skin grafting!!!!!!!!!! third degree burns!!!!!!!!! debridement
treatments!!!!!!!!! Man I'm a medical professional but I still feel sick.
I guess that she was lucky not to get 4th degree burnes right?

kjonim32! You sound more like a newsreporter!!!

 

[Noman74]

For clotty

Clotty my friend,

There is a Klan on this board (don't want to name names here) who will beat you to death if u dare talk about returing to COP. They will call you fraud, liar, cheat if you even THINK about it. If you carefully examin their comments, you will realise that NONE of them has first hand experience. Most of their tough talk is mere assumptions concluded from other conversations. I would suggest nobody pay attention to them and just do what you think is best for you (ofcourse after consulting with a professional).

 

[ayyubov]

I have left a lot of very close to me people in my country. When we need to see each other we meet on the neutral territory.

It is definitely ok to go back to COP if you have sick family member and USCIS is allowing that. Other than that it is not ok. Like I asked before what are the chances that some of us would get an asshole IO who would wanna dig in to find something???

I remember that Wantmygcnow posted about somebody geting their PR revoked due to mistakes like that.

 

[ayyubov]

I think people who think it's not OK for asylees to go to COP after becoming PR's are very conservative and if there where born in USA they would be republicans

P.S. Thank god they are not born here we would have more republicans and as a result tougher immigration laws

That was a good comparison . But u missed my point. Personally I don't care if somebody goes back to COP. I'm just expressing my personal opinion that person (asylee) who will visit his or her COP might have problems with USCIS.

 

[clotty]

I just had a talk with my lawyer who is experienced in asylum cases. He said basically not to renew the NP before getting the gren card (which I did. Oh well, I can not undo it), and when I said I did, he said it is OK as long as I did not use it. I then asked what about after getting the green card? he said one can renew NP then and can use the green card with NP for travel. I asked about going to COP after obtaining green card, he said one can....Well, it is pretty much most other lawyers have said from what I know of the posts from here, so it is no news. Same old. It really is up to the person at this point to do whatever they want. The "professionals" aka lawyers give these kind of advice and on the other hand INS is mostly mum about this main issue, so it is up to you to take whatrever direction.

 

[copper1]

I personally know at least 3 people that went back to COP after GC and today they are US citizens. Do not forget how long it has taken most of us and others to get to the green card point. If someone applied for asylum 10 years ago, after 12 years became a GC holder makes a lot of difference. A lot can change after a decade such as People, government your neighbours and you.
We can argue about this all day long but at the end its your own luck.

 

[MGTgrl]

I personally don't see anything wrong with visiting COP after GC. We all have ties to our COP be it family, house, etc... And there is nothing wrong with wanting to go back for a visit (some people here seem to think it makes you a fraud), but I think these people are confusing the question. The question is not whether or not we (the members of the forum) think if it's right or wrong. I think the question is what does USCIS feel about that. I think we don't know because USCIS is not saying it in black and white, so we will all have to decide for ourselves. If we feel our reasons warrant us to go, then we should go (just make sure to bring back anything that can help us defend our case if we are ever questioned)!!

 

[ayyubov]

I personally don't see anything wrong with visiting COP after GC. We all have ties to our COP be it family, house, etc... And there is nothing wrong with wanting to go back for a visit (some people here seem to think it makes you a fraud), but I think these people are confusing the question. The question is not whether or not we (the members of the forum) think if it's right or wrong. I think the question is what does USCIS feel about that. I think we don't know because USCIS is not saying it in black and white, so we will all have to decide for ourselves. If we feel our reasons warrant us to go, then we should go (just make sure to bring back anything that can help us defend our case if we are ever questioned)!!

You described my point a lot better than me. Thanks.

 

[taurusborn]

It wasn't my intention to attack anyone on this board. I am just saying that going back to COP may not have ramifications for those who do but it does for people who are seeking Asylum from your country. I have testified at Asylum hearings for friends to help their case and the government claimed that my friends were not telling the truth because people have gone back. Anyways thats all I have to say, Good Luck everyone.

 

[ltsanis]

I personally don't see anything wrong with visiting COP after GC. We all have ties to our COP be it family, house, etc... And there is nothing wrong with wanting to go back for a visit (some people here seem to think it makes you a fraud), but I think these people are confusing the question. The question is not whether or not we (the members of the forum) think if it's right or wrong. I think the question is what does USCIS feel about that. I think we don't know because USCIS is not saying it in black and white, so we will all have to decide for ourselves. If we feel our reasons warrant us to go, then we should go (just make sure to bring back anything that can help us defend our case if we are ever questioned)!!

i so much agree with you!