This post is by Andrea Barron, the Advocacy Program Manager at the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC International), based in Washington, DC.
President Biden has sent Congress a sweeping immigration bill that embraces America’s commitment to immigrants, a commitment the Trump Administration tried to destroy. The legislation outlines a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented individuals and provides $4 billion to Central American countries to reduce the violence and poverty that push so many to emigrate. It also increases the number of judges in immigration courts. These are welcome proposals.
But the bill promises little to torture survivors and other affirmative asylum seekers. It fails to address a hidden asylum crisis in our country, a crisis not as visible as the migrants being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many torture survivors and thousands of other affirmative asylum seekers have been waiting four, five, and even six years to have their cases heard in the Asylum Office, a division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Already traumatized by torture and persecution at home, the prolonged uncertainty about their status and separation from their families is a terrible psychological burden for survivors — some have even become suicidal.
Most affirmative asylum seekers enter the United States legally and then apply for asylum because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a “particular social group,” like the LGBT community. Many are torture survivors who suffered extreme physical and psychological harm perpetrated by the repressive governments of countries such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon, Uganda, Guinea, and Sudan in Africa, as well as in the Middle East, Latin America, and East Asia.
They include Eritreans who were hung upside down and beaten so severely that they lost their hearing and suffered permanent damage to their spines. Their “crime” could have been nothing more than writing an article criticizing their country’s brutal dictator. Torture treatment programs report that an estimated 50 to 90 percent of female survivors are victims of rape, a frequent form of torture used with female political dissidents to shame not only them but their families.
Genet Dire is a torture survivor from Ethiopia with my organization, TASSC International. In 2014 she was a 17-year-old elite runner on her way to Eugene, Oregon with the Ethiopian National Team to compete in the World Junior Championships. She might have qualified for the Olympics, but Genet gave up her Olympic dream and decided to defect at Dulles International Airport. Her family had been targeted by the regime and she thought she could be next.
Genet applied for affirmative asylum in 2015, found a job in a Virginia chicken factory at $14 an hour, saved her money and even bought a house. She has been waiting six years for an interview with an asylum officer, while her Ethiopian friends who filed for asylum in 2019 have already been interviewed.
Some of these torture survivors are “essential workers” like physicians, nurses, and health aides combating the coronavirus pandemic. One is a medical doctor and epidemiologist who worked on a clinical trial of remdesivir, the antiviral medication used to treat severe cases of Covid. Another medical doctor took care of Covid patients 12 hours a day when hospitals were so overcrowded that patients had to sleep on the floor.
These torture survivors and other affirmative asylum seekers have waited years for their asylum interviews, with no end in sight. This is because USCIS has a backlog of over 370,000 affirmative asylum cases, representing nearly 600,000 people. There are not enough Asylum Officers at USCIS, and many of these officers do not interview affirmative asylum seekers. In 2018, the Trump Administration made matters worse when it perversely decided to prioritize interviews with newly arrived asylum seekers (called “last in, first out” or LIFO), relegating those like Genet, who have been waiting years, to the back of the line.
The Biden Administration and Congress can take two actions to reduce this backlog. First, they should tell USCIS to assign a specific number of Asylum Officers to interview exclusively affirmative asylum applicants. Hiring more officers could reduce the backlog even more quickly.
Second, USCIS should return to the pre-Trump system of scheduling interviews with asylum seekers in the order that their applications were filed (called “first in, first out” or FIFO). People who applied four or five years ago should be interviewed before those who applied in the last few months, which is the case now. No new legislation, executive order, regulation or additional funding is needed.
The Biden Administration says it wants to “restore humanity and American values to our immigration system” and ensure that the “United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.” This is why the Administration and Congress–both Democrats and Republicans–should show torture survivors and other affirmative asylum seekers that they are a priority too.
Hi, Jason
Thanks you so much for all your tremendous work.
I was granted withholding of deportation, in my asylum case, by the IJ in the year 2010. since then i have been living here. Under this new bill, will I also be able to apply for Lawful Prospective Immigrant Status, If it becomes a law ?
Thank you
If the bill passes, and if you got withholding due to the one-year filing bar, you would be able to reopen the case and get asylum, which would eventually allow you to get the GC and later become a US citizen. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thank you so much for all your work.
I would appreciate if you could share your thoughts on this question. Not sure, but I think I got from one of the replies that you believe asylum seekers in the backlog might be beneficiaries in the new bill. In that case, would the time frame for the path to citizenship [“temporary status, and later a Green Card and U.S. citizenship”] take into consideration the time a particular asylum has already been waiting? For example, my case has been pending for 6 years. Would I have to remain under the 5 year temporary status before being eligible for a green card?
Many thanks!
It looks to me (and other lawyers who are examining this long document) that most people with pending asylum will be included in the path to citizenship. I saw nothing about crediting people for “time served” and I doubt that will be part of any bill. However, under the bill, while you are waiting for status, you will have a work permit and I believe you can travel and return to the US, so while the wait is long, you will not be prevented from doing most things that you need to do (one exception – I think you will not be able to petition for family members until you have a GC). This all assumes that the bill will pass, of course. Take care, Jason
How about asylum seekers who had been waiting for a long time for an interview but when Trump came into power, he ordered all immigration officers to deny any asylum seeker and send them to court. So isn’t their away those people who were unfairly sent to court even with their credible fear, ask the Biden Administration for their cases to be reviewed again because it’s unfair. It didn’t matter whether you had credible fear, they simply denied and sent you to court.
Also, what does the Biden administration proposal for 8 years to citizenship. Does it include assylum seekers whose cases are pending and those whose cases were denied anndsent to immigration court. Or it applies to anyone who has been here for 8 years irrespective of what stage of asylum or deportation process you are in
I do not know that the Trump Administration did that, but as for the new immigration bill, I have read it, and it looks to me like it would include most asylum applicants who have cases in the backlog (it would not include most people who have some other non-immigrant status in the US, such as an F or H1b). Most lawyers on my list serve also seem to have reached this same conclusion. So if it becomes law, many asylum seekers will benefit. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason
Please I have a question and it is making me feraking out.
I have worked unauthorized while my asylum status was pending. When the officer asked me about that I felt so scared and said no. my asylum was granted and now I am applying for AOS. I want to disclose all the information and be honest but I’m really scared that USCIS will find out that I did not disclose that during the stage of asylum. What should I do???
I think this will not be much of a problem. You should mention your employment, as it is better to tell the truth than try to hide this. Probably, USCIS will not care, but if they do, you can explain that you were afraid and forgot to mention it. Probably the worst case is that they would require a “waiver” from you, which is a form, filed under INA 209(c), where you have to ask forgiveness for not telling them about the unauthorized work. That is generally a very easy waiver to get, but you can only get it when you apply for the GC. So it is best to do that now. If you are worried about this, it might be worthwhile to talk it over with a lawyer, who can help you present the case in the most favorable light. Overall though, I think this is something you can clean up and I doubt it will cause a major issue. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Any updates on enhance case flow for removal processing in Arlington immigration court? They keep postponing the cases nation wide? I am wondering when we will hear anything for merit hearing? Could you write something about this?
Thank you
I don’t have news about that. I know somethings are happening, but mostly, I am still seeing my cases postponed. Once in a while, I have an individual hearing, but most of those have also been postponed. I have a few coming up, so we’ll see what happens. I may get to a post about the new procedures, but I still need to learn more about it myself. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason. Thank you for your help
My case was referred to the court last year and I’m waiting for the first hearing (master hearing). While I’m waiting I got married to a US citizen. Can my spouse file I 130 form for me? Will it be the same process for submitting the form to the USCIS or should we submit additional forms or letters? How long will it take to receive a notice ? Do we expect an interview with ISCIS to approve the I 130 ?
Who will adjust the status the immigration Court or the USCIS?
if you can please give me an idea of the process
Thank you so much
I wrote in more detail about this on August 6, 2018, so you might look at that post. Not everyone is eligible to get a GC based on marriage, and so you would do well to talk to a lawyer to review the case. Assuming you are eligible, she would file the I-130, you would normally submit a copy of the whole thing to the court, and once the I-130 is approved, you would either terminate the court case and get the GC at USCIS or have the judge give you a GC in court. The time frame is not predictable, but these days, and I-130 can easily take a year or more. Generally, people in court who marry a US citizen can get a GC, but the process can be confusing and it is really safer to have a lawyer help you with this. Take care, Jason
Hey Jason,
I filed for EAD c(8) (legal entry to the country) renewal two weeks ago. Around that time a friend of mine, let’s call him Jack, filed for an exact same EAD renewal as well. Jack’s application was canceled today because the biometrics fee was missing. Thankfully they sent him a response swiftly
I have not included the biometrics fee as well, and my EAD is about to expire in 75 days. However, I haven’t received my denial notice yet. Given my situation and Dallas Office current processing times, would you say that it is reasonable to send a second i-765 package with all the correct amount of fees included now, instead of waiting for my denial notice ? My fear is that by the time they review and cancel my first I-765 they technically can have a second one on file as well and the correct might get canceled as well, without me even knowing it. On the other hand I would prefer not to wait even a day to avoid interruptions in my work
Also, can you review if I missed anything from the c(8) renewal bundle:
– two passport photos with A number and names on it
– $410 fee for i-765 signed to the Department with A number on it
– $85 fee for biometric services signed to the Department with an A number on it
– most recent I-94 (black and white)
– foreign passport copy and visa copy with the date of entry on it (black and white)
– current EAD front and back (black and white)
– 797c copy (black and white)
– 589 copy (black and white)
– filled out i-765 with the most recent date on it
Thanks a bunch for your blog. The before mentioned Jack sent me here today. Much love and gratitude)
Unfortunately, it is common to send an application to the TX office of USCIS and if something is wrong, the application vanishes. So it is possible that you will never receive it back. It’s also possible they will process it with the $410 fee, given that everything is such a mess. That said, unless you are a member of ASAP or Casa de Maryland, you know have to pay the biometrics fee as well (I wrote about these organization on September 23, 2020 if you need more info). My guess is that the most likely outcome is that will return your I-765, eventually. I think you can send a new application with the proper fee. Provide a cover letter explaining what happened (you sent the wrong fee and you anticipate that the first application will be rejected). In terms of the documents, I do not know your case and cannot say much. The list looks fine, but in some cases, such as where the person was arrested or entered the US illegally or missed the one-year filing deadline, other documents are needed, and so you have to check the I-765 instructions at http://www.uscis.gov. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your tremendous job that you are doing for immigrants like us. My wife’s case was closed in Florida back in 2014 and we have married a couple of years ago and I want to add her to my case since my court is scheduled in 2022 I want her also be in my case and be my derivative and get a green card if my case will be granted. My initial court supposed to be back in 2019 January but because of the immigration shut down, it rescheduled. Back in 2019, I sent a copy of our marriage certification and also sent an updated version of i-589 with my and son’s information.
The question is should I fill another form and request her case from Florida to Illinois and merge hers to mine.
Any answer will be much appreciated.
Thank you so much and God bless you!
Best regards,
John
If her case is not also in court, you cannot join her to your case. If her case is in court, you can ask the judge (her judge or your judge) to put the cases together. Normally, a judge will do that. If you have a court case, you should really try to get a lawyer, and the lawyer can help with this. Take care, Jason
In case of my case granted will she also get a chance to get a green card, or I will need to fill petition for her?
Thank you.
If you win asylum, you can file an I-730 for a spouse, and normally she can benefit from that even if she is in court. If you get a GC, you can file an I-130 petition for a spouse, but in many cases, if the spouse is in the US, she would need to leave the country to get a GC based on the I-130 (if you were a US citizen, your wife could, in many cases, get the GC without leaving the US). There are exceptions to all these general rules, and so you would do well to have a lawyer look at the specifics of the case to see what your options are. Take care, Jason
HI Jason,
Thank you for all the help you are providing ,
I have a question regarding the new citizenship act by our President Biden.
I applied for asylum for almost 4+ years ago from NY, still no sign of interviews.
Will i qualify for 5 years greencard since i have been here for five years now.
And when will we get the updates for the new act whether it got passed or failed?
Lastly i want to travel to London to pick up my degree. How safe is it to travel with my condition since i have no decision on my case.
Cant thank you enough for all the help, really appreciated
I wrote about the proposed law two weeks ago – and that provides more detail, but the short answer is that we do not know when or if it will become law, or what effect it will have if it does become law. We also do not know when, if ever, it will become a law. So we will have to wait and see what happens. In terms of travel, if you have a pending asylum case, you need to get Advance Parole in order to travel and return here – I wrote about that on September 11, 2017. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
How are the cases in Arlington asylum office? Have your clients received interview recently?
Pretty slow. I had one interview last week – it was an expedited case. The first successful expedite since the pandemic. All our other requests were denied. We also have a case next week, which is a LIFO case. The client has a one-year bar issue, and we are wondering whether his case was selected for that reason. When I was there last week, I saw maybe 7 or 8 other applicants there for interviews, which was more crowded than I’d seen it lately, and so I guess that is a sign that some people are being interviewed, but it is still quite slow. Take care, Jason
Jason, any updates about the pending decesions by Arlington. Thanks
Once in a while, they issue decisions, but that is not moving quickly either. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for the updates!
my interview failed. no master court date yet. i change my address already . how can i transfer my case form new orleans immigration court to los angles court?
You have to file a motion to change venue. Typically, a lawyer in the new jurisdiction (Los Angeles) would file that for you. If you have to file it yourself, maybe you can check the Immigration Court Practice Manual (you can Google it) for an example motion. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason sir,
Any updates in Los Angeles court how they are moving I have a hearing in April this year?
Courts are generally a mess, but I have not heard anything specifically about LA. Unfortunately, if cases are postponed, they usually do that only a few weeks before the court date, and so you probably won’t be able to get any info until then. Keep checking the online system and prepare for the hearing as if it will go forward. Good luck, Jason
Hi Jason, once approved for AP How long it takes to get actual paper in hand? It’s been month and two days since I got approved still didn’t get actual traveling paper, and does is it says on the approval notice that how long my documents will be valid or it only tells on actual AP paper?
Thank you in advance!
Normally it is pretty fast. There have been all sorts of delays, and so maybe that is the issue, but it does seem a bit long to wait. Maybe you can try call them: 800-375-5283, but it is not easy to reach an actual person. The period of validity for AP varies widely, but should cover the period of travel you listed on the I-131 form. Take care, Jason
Just thought I would share my EAD renewal application timeline for anyone in the process of renewing their employment authorization/EAD card:
01/11/2021- Mailed documents via certified mail at the USPS main office in my area.
01/24/2021- Received a text message saying that my “Case was Received” and that I should be getting the official receipt form in the mail. I included Form G-1145 e-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance in my application package.
02/04/2021- I received Form I-797C Notice of Action to let me know that a USCIS Online Account was created for me and inviting me to Log in and Confirm the account within 90 days along with the official receipt of my application for EAD renewal.
Now the wait begins….
My current EAD does not expire until June 2021 but I did not want to take the risk of waiting too long to submit the renewal application knowing that things move too slow these days.
Good luck to everyone! Hopefully things will change for the better for us all especially those of us who have been waiting for years for an interview.
Which service center is that
Nebraska Service Center
USCIS has really been a mess and disaster. I have submitted my application for two months but never heard anything back from them nor had they cashed my check. It is release a disgrace . Happy for you though
Sorry to hear that you are still waiting for a confirmation. They cashed the check for $495 on 01/25/2021. Hope you get a confirmation and a receipt soon!
Hi Friends,
Does anyone have any idea why asylum decisions are delayed.
It’s been 2 months since my interview.
I am female and christian .
I am including my sex and religious affiliation,because my understanding is that male applicants from Muslim majority countries face significant delays in receiving decision sometimes.
Kindly share what you know, please. Any information is better than nothing.
Thanks.
Hi Tina, good to see you back here, I’m wishing you the best result for you and would like to see quick best outcome for you. I have been waiting for the interview as long as you were but you got it and I’m still waiting for it. I’m waiting for almost 6 years.
I’m actually not in hurry anymore I hope I will have my day!
Thanks Suli and Propro for responding, and for the kind wishes, suli. My attorney and I did multiple expedite requests, and I was placed on the short list.
I hope you two get your interview and decision soon, respectively.
Best of luck.
Hi Tina, your asylum case was in which office? As for as I know, most asylum offices no longer have the option of short listing. Would you mind sharing your timeline? Thank you!
Hi alien,
I did a post here in December shortly after my interview, and because I included a bit of details, I stated that I did not include the office on purpose.
I do apologize, but I will prefer to get my decision before posting more details, including the office.
Yes, I received a letter denying my expedite request, but placed on a short list, less than 2 months before I was called for interview.
Have you tried to reach out to USCIS through a member of congress?
Hi Tina, I am having a similar delay in my decision as you. Its been 2 months 5 days since i had my interview and I am yet to receive a decision.
Take care
In general, delays are worse for males from Muslim countries, but we see delays for lots of people, and the post-interview delay is worse these days than it was before the pandemic. Hopefully, the asylum offices will start to do a better job and also make some changes to the security background check process, which is (supposedly) responsible for most of the post-interview delay. What is so frustrating is that we do not see such delays in court; only in the asylum office. When I asked about this, I was basically told that the background check is different for court cases. Obviously, this makes no sense and so although delays are common, I think there is no good excuse for that and I hope they will improve that aspect of the process. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I want to withdraw my asylum case? Can I call the asylum office and withdraw it? I entered Us with J1 visa and I got I140 accepted , can I travel back to my country? after removing the asylum case?
ZINA, let me preface what I am about to say with this: I don’t know the details of your case- you may have fled your country because of a fear of non-governmental/state actors, or circumstances may have changed substantially since you fled- and I am certainly not Jason (I know your question was addressed to Jason), but this is a public forum. Nor am I offering any legal advice. Nor am I necessarily judging you.
Furthermore, we- the people who subscribe to this blog and who are actual asylum seekers and refugees- say what Jason doesn’t say because of his professional/admin. capacity.
My OPINION is this: your case screams economic migrant as opposed to bona fide asylum seeker/refugee. Economic migration, which is the act of seeking an improved standard of living because of a lack of opportunities, is fine, but when you abuse a system that was designed for another purpose, you unintentionally destroy the system, or hurt people who actually need the relief.
In any event, your asylum case doesn’t suddenly get “thrown out”, even though it may become “closed”, because your employment-based GC was approved. Going back to your country of persecution (“COP”), even after you have become a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) via an approved I-140, in theory, can pose risks/consequences: you can be accused of fraud or filing a frivolous asylum application- or even grilled on why you returned to your COP at the N-400 interview. The chances of the foregoing resultant effects of returning to the COP are much greater if you fear your government, or if the government is the perpetrator, how soon you went back to the COP having acquired LPR status, and whether there is a changed in country conditions such that you no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution (subjective and objective fear). The onus is on you to prove, by a near-preponderance of the evidence, those changed circumstanced circumstances if the U.S. government can prove that your fear was not genuine and that you lied on your I-589 application by virtue of returning to your COP.
Of course, simply returning to the COP is not necessarily evidence of fraud or sign of a frivolous application. I’d really hope that the government would consider the “totality of the circumstances” test in its decision on any case that involves a former asylum seeker returning to his/her COP.
However, in Matter of N-A-I-, 27 I&N Dec. 72 (BIA 2017), the BIA has clarified that an asylee has lost his/her asylum status once s/he adjusts to LPR, which suggests that asylum status may NOT be terminated AFTER adjustment of status. This also essentially means that the former asylee- the asylee who has adjusted status to that of LPR- is NOT bound to the same provisions/restrictions as an asylee who currently holds that status, and thus, should be treated like a “regular” LPR. What this means to me, especially when looking at the judicial aspect of the system, vis-à-vis governmental organizations like DHS, for example, is that the entire system is inconsistent: on the one hand, the administrative or judicial bodies are saying that your former asylum status is almost irrelevant once you’ve adjusted status (of course, unless there was fraud in the original claim or application), and, on the other hand, the governmental originations, such as USCIS, are saying that how you acquired your GC matters for the purpose of international travel. At the end of the day, it’s completely up to you.
@Jaime and Oliver,
Jamie, it may be possible for you to identify economic migrant asylum seekers where you volunteer because you are privy to more information.
In Zina’s case, you are concluding because s/he is asking if she could travel to COP?
On the post:
1. S/he did not say when
2. S/he did not go into details as to why she may be traveling(She may have lost a loved one,family, or someone might be very ill)
3. You have no idea the basis for her claim, whether state actors or non- state actors.
Basis for asylum: Past persecution and/or well founded fear of Persecution based on race, religion, political opinion,PSG, Nationality.
What constitutes persecution????
Go and look at that again, and you may realize why some asylees may have the zeal to travel to COP, and some say, ” thanks, but I am good”. I belong to the “thanks, I am good” category because the scars and psychological/emotional trauma of what I went through as soon as I became aware of myself as a human being caused me to denounce my COP when I applied for asylum, and not because someone will be waiting for me with guns and knives at the airport.
In a country where same sex relationships are punishable by law for instance, how would people know you are gay if you do not expose your sexuality? You will either live a lie all your life, or risk being punished if you expose your sexuality, right?
Let me assume that Zina has lived a lie all his/ her life by hiding who s/he really is, and based on a well founded fear of future persecution should he or she decide to come out, s/he filed for asylum. You do not need to establish past persecution to be granted asylum. It might be a hard nut to crack in winning asylum, but very possible with enough CCI, and other relevant evidence.
If s/he is granted asylum, s/he is free to live out her sexuality openly without fear of persecution here in the USA.
Still using ZINA here, while the asylum case was pending, s/he had an alternate means to permanent residency.
How does traveling to COP eventually, make him/her an economic migrant, so long as s/he does not get to the COP, and start kissing someone of the same sex in public?
By the way, What difference does it make if you travel to COP with green card or USA passport? You could still be killed if you arrive for even two days with a US passport.
I am using this example to establish that even people who are afraid of government actors may have a need to visit briefly.
You may have to take a broader look at asylees who do not fear state actors.
For someone like me, anyone that wants to see me will have to come here, because my COP constitutes the past I want so badly to forget.
I can possibly sneak in and out safely eventually, someday in years to come, but my emotions, my pains, etc would not be able to sneak in like my physical body, so I am almost 110% sure that I will never return. Does that mean I have/had a better case than Zina?
I have always spoken up here about people who get asylum based GC, and travel to COP for an extended period, but in Zina’s case, I have failed to understand why you two feel she filed a frivolous asylum claim.
Maybe you should have asked her when and why she intends to travel, and educate her on the implications instead of jumping into conclusions. .
Tina,
Thank you for your reasoned and well-founded response- and nice to hear from you again!
In case you’d missed the preface of my entire opinion on Zina’s case, let me repeat it for convenience and clarity: I do not know the details of Zina’s case, which also include the basis of the asylum claim, who the persecutors are/were, the reason(s) for the travel, etc., and I am basing my opinion on an intention, or possible intention, that can, at least, on the face of it, arouse suspicion.
I agree, like I said in my previous response, that a former asylee, or someone with asylum status, even, briefly returning to his/her COP is not necessarily indicative of fraud or the filing of a frivolous I-589. In fact, the USCIS manual encourages CBP and asylum officers to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration when trying to make a “re-availment” determination, or whether returning to the COP materially affects the basis of the asylum claim (or the I-589 application in Zina’s case). Obviously, too, any reasonable person would agree that if the circumstances for the travel are extenuating- such as the need to visit an ailing loved one or attend a loved one’s funeral- then the need to travel to the COP is understandable and can be defended easily. The person seeking admission or entrance at a port of entry- or an applicant for naturalization- would perhaps need to only explain, if need be, how s/he was able to stay in the COP safely.
In Zina’s case, the timing of the need to travel to the COP, on the face of it, looks suspicious. Zina wants to travel to the COP right after the I-140’s approved and after the asylum case is successfully withdrawn. I can reasonably infer, from the information presented, that this person is smart and his/her intentions are well-thought-out and carefully planned up to this point.
With all due respect, what constitutes “persecution” at this point is irrelevant. Unfortunately, aside from the fact there is no legal or standard definition for persecution, the applicant doesn’t get to determine if he’s persecuted or will be persecuted, or if s/he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, though the onus is on him/her to provide the evidence. The government- inconsistently and arbitrarily, I might add- determines who was or will be persecuted based on available public information and information provided by the applicant. Naturally, though, your subjective fear of persecution may determine if you want to travel to the COP or not.
Using the example that you used (the LGBTQ+ persecution claim), the U.S. government, quite frankly, does not care if you showed affection in public or not to a member of the same sex, or whether or not you waved an LGBTQ+ flag in public. What they care about is WHY you returned to the COP when you claim(ed) you were or will be persecuted, whether you have voluntarily re-availed yourself of the protection of your government- one you claim(ed) was/is unwilling or unable to protect you- and therefore, whether your asylum claim was fraudulent, or frivolous, by virtue of the travel to the COP and the voluntary re-availment.
Finally, the differences between an asylum-based GC holder and a asylum-based naturalized citizen are vastly different. The first difference that comes to mind is the freedom, or restriction, when it comes to traveling. In addition, the asylee-based naturalized citizen has access to a U.S. passport and its associated benefits, which include the protection of the U.S. government, when the citizen travels abroad. When you travel on a Refugee Travel Document (“RTD”), you are merely given permission to travel abroad and return to the U.S. A U.S. citizen, native or naturalized, does not need to seek permission to travel abroad as s/he has a constitutional right to a U.S. passport, which facilitates the holder’s travel abroad. And, though the law concerning asylee-based GC holders traveling abroad with their former government’s passport or traveling to the COP seems promising in some respects, especially when you closely examine Matter of N-A-I-, 27 I & N Dec. 72 (BIA 2017), Mahmood v. Session, 849 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2017), and other Circuit Court and BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) cases, going back to your COP, even after you’ve adjusted status to LPR, can pose a risk and you should be prepared to explain why you travelled to the COP and how you were able to stay safe.
I wrote my opinion of returning home in a post I did on January 6, 2016. I have not looked at N-A-I- in a while, but my recollection is that that case relates to the refugee waiver (INA 209(c)), and says that once you get a GC, you can no longer qualify for the refugee waiver if you need it. I don’t think that case helps if a person returns to the COP after a grant of asylum and adjustment to a lawful permanent resident. As you note, the problem for such a person is whether the original case was fraudulent, and I think that concern exists until the person becomes a citizen and (theoretically at least) even beyond that time. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for your response.
In Matter of N-A-I-, 27 I & N Dec. 72 (BIA 2017), a clarification of Matter of C-J-H-, 26 I&N Dec. 284 (BIA 2014), the Board held that once an asylee has adjusted status to LPR under 209(b) of the Act, the asylee status automatically terminates, basing their decision on Mahmood v. Session, 849 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2017). With the termination of the status, and the acquisition of a different/new status, the Board reasoned that the restrictions under section 208(c) of the Act and 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(1)(A)(2012) cease to exist.
Some, not all, of the restrictions in section 208 of the Act include:
-A change in circumstances (country conditions or personal circumstances)
-The temporariness of the asylum status (status has become more permanent)
-The voluntary re-availment of himself or herself of the protection of the his/her country of nationality
The BIA further reasoned in its analysis: “Based on the statutory language, as well as the relevant regulatory provisions, case law, and legislative history, we conclude that the best reading of sections 208(c) and 209(b) of the Act is that an “alien granted asylum” under section 208(b) who has his or her status adjusted to that of “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” pursuant to section 209(b) does not retain the status of an alien granted asylum and therefore the restrictions on removal set forth in section 208(c)(1)(A) no longer apply.”
It stands to reason, therefore, that an asylum-based GC holder, if we are going to go by the ruling in Matter of N-A-I, that the restriction on travel, including to the GC holder’s COP, cease to exist because of the more permanent nature of the LPR status as one of the restrictions mentioned under 208(c) of the act is voluntary re-availment.
I’d have to look at the case again, but I would not take that to mean that the restrictions on return travel no longer exist. Based on your prior post, I think we both agree that a return trip to the COP, even if you have a GC, involves some risk, since USCIS (or whoever) could conclude that your original asylum case was fraudulent. I don’t advise people not to return, as that is not my role, but I do tell them about the risk, which is hard to assess. Anyway, I think the short answer is that you should not go to the COP unless you have a very compelling reason, and even then, you should be prepared to explain why you went and how you stayed safe. Take care, Jason
Jason, to me, the wording in Matter of N-A-I is clear and unambiguous about what happens to the asylum status when an asylee adjusts his/her status to that of LPR. For instance, the N-A-I analysis, citing a ruling by the Fourth Circuit, also says, in plain language: “It is significant that an alien’s asylee status can only be terminated under section 209(b) of the Act if he or she voluntarily chooses to seek adjustment of status under that section. There are many reasons why an alien might choose to give up the protections of asylee status for lawful permanent resident status, but he or she is not required to do so and may remain indefinitely as an asylee. As the Fourth Circuit noted, an asylee who adjusts status under section 209(b) obtains significant benefits, including “a direct path to naturalized citizenship,” a better chance for his or her family to obtain lawful permanent residence, and “the right to travel outside of the United States without the advance permission of a refugee travel document.” Id. at 192. An asylee who adjusts to lawful permanent resident status also cannot have that status terminated on the grounds that he no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. Id. However, an alien who prefers to retain the benefits and protections of asylee status, including the restrictions against removal under section 208(c) of the Act, is not obligated to file an application for adjustment of status.”
There are a few things that attract my attention in the above quotation/excerpt:
1. ” An asylee who adjusts to lawful permanent resident status also cannot have that status terminated on the grounds that he no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution.”
2. “…the right to travel outside of the United States without the advance permission of a refugee travel document.”
Is it reasonable to argue, or conclude, that if the LPR’s asylum status can’t be terminated (terminated based on no longer having a well-founded fear of persecution), she can therefore visit the COP since there is no status to be lost or terminated? If no, what section of the law says that a FORMER asylee can lose her LPR status if she returns to the COP? If the law does not support, or make clear, the possibility that termination or cancellation can occur, because of travelling to the COP as a former asylee, then what exactly is there to terminate or lose?
The ruling also expressly says that former asylees do not need advance permission in the form of an RTD in order to travel outside of the U.S. as the LPR status eliminates the need for seeking advance permission. This, to me, clearly challenges the idea/belief that asylee-LPRs have to get an RTD before they travel. Logically, then, this ruling, at least in theory, agrees that asylee-LPRs can travel with their country’s passport without the fear of being accused of availing herself of the protection of their government.
Section 208(c) of the Act, which was relied on by Matter of N-A-I, also makes mention of the CEASING of the LPR being accused of availing herself of the protection of her government because she is no longer an asylee and therefore not restricted, or protected, by the provisions enumerated in section 208(c) of the Act.
There are three main reasons, however, why I think traveling to the COP, even after the adjustment/change of status, can potentially pose a risk:
1. The U.S. government, especially the organizations that process or handle immigration cases, can be cruelly arbitrary, and more often than not, inconsistent with its decisions (or their decisions). Immigration officers, judges, and asylum officers tend to feign ignorance of their own laws, policies and rules. And, I guess, they sometimes genuinely don’t know?
2. The law and policies change on a whim, and, in some instances, punishment is administered retroactively, even when the previous law/policy clearly exempted you, or made what you did perfectly legal at the time you did it
3. Matter of N-A-I and the other Circuit Court cases that are similar in ruling are not popular or widely known. Therefore, your risk of being inconvenienced, or worse, placed in removal proceedings, is greater.
The foregoing reasons, however, don’t negate my conclusion- notwithstanding the fact that I believe that people file frivolous asylum applications, or my ostensibly contradictory stance on former asylees (those who have LPR status) travelling to their COP- that matter of N-A-I essentially gives former asylees the right to travel abroad without restrictions and that asylee-LPRs are accorded the same privileges as any other LPR in the U.S.
I am not convinced by this – the problem is that the US government can look back at the original asylum application and if they deem that fraudulent, they can take action. I have seen that happen. It usually comes up during the naturalization process where a person includes relatives that were not listed on the I-589, for example, and this triggers an investigation from USCIS. Also, on the I-485 (and I think the N-400), it asks whether you ever lied to obtain an immigration benefit, and so when you say “no” that also creates a problem if USCIS believes your old asylum case was fake. So I think regardless of this case, the danger still exists (though I see your point that in theory, N-A-I- allows an asylee to go to the COP). As for the RTD, it is not needed if the GC-holder also has a valid passport, but there is the (small) risk that using the COP passport might be viewed as re-availing oneself of protection. This, I have never seen happen, but it is theoretically possible, and so it is safer to have the RTD, mostly for the reasons you mention (the arbitrary and capricious nature of immigration law). Take care, Jason
Sometimes we have ties to our COP that we can’t just leave behind. Zina might have been here for years or decades. He/She might have an elderly parent or terminally ill sibling they would like to visit. For me personally, when and if I do get my LPR, I sure won’t be rushing to go buy a plane ticket to go back to my COP for sure. But, I do miss my mother and the fear of losing her was heightened recently when she told me my sibling and their spouse recently contracted COVID.
Now, my mother is in the high-risk category for this virus. Considering she is in her sunset yets, it would be cruel and unreasonable for 5 years to pass and not once in that time I visited her even for a day or two. I left my country because of my sexual orientation, I was just existing and not living. This journey to file for asylum has been an internal, emotional battle, it’s something that weighed for years. This is something I think the asylum system really needs to look carefully. I sure as hell won’t be going back to my country to live even when I become a citizen. Because there is just no future for me there: mentally, emotionally, economically, and sexually.
It comes at a huge sacrifice and I think part of the pain of leaving someone behind can sometimes cause us to make decisions that require us to sometimes bend the rules a bit. For me, I would like my mother to visit me, but, with her being in a high-risk category; hasn’t been on a plane in 20 years; the risk of the local US embassy divulging my business about filing asylum if she were to renew her Visa. It’s such a double edge sword.
My asylum really was the fact that I could not live my authentic self anymore in my home country and at my age, the pretense was starting to run out and the consequences of that were unknown. I know persons who gained naturalization through asylum and live their full authentic lives here in the US. But when they get on that plane back to my home country, they really have to put themselves back in the closet, sometimes for family and just for their personal safety. I even know someone who goes back every month to volunteer and helps the homeless and persons in the local LGBT community who are persecuted constantly by society.
There are nuances and you can’t broad-brush it.
Enronn Sierra, I completely understand and can empathize with you as I am literally experiencing the same thing. I also agree that things should move more quickly and “LPR asylees” should be be able to travel back to the COP, at their own risk, to reunite with family or visit ailing loved ones without fear of losing your status, or interrogated about your travel. What we shouldn’t ignore, however, is the fact that people file for asylum because they are economic migrants and not actual refugees or asylum seekers.
Of course you can withdraw, and nothing will happily cancel it…. but apparently you filed a fraudulent asylum application, and depend on the officers who are working on your case, an officer may raise concerns or maybe just leave you alone…. Why would you feel safe going back to your country just after another immigration benefit has been granted to you? How you think you are not in danger any more just after you were granted I-140?!!
I dont know you and I dont know what are the circumstances that forced you to do this, but the people who abuse the system are the reason why all the rest of us are suffering.
@Jamie and Oliver,
Do you know circumstances of Zina? You guys are just acting out of your mind. What your perception is about Zina, I am rest assured the far right people have about all the asylum seekers including you both “real good asylum seekers”. Have you guys in his/her shoes??
Stop being jealous and hateful toward people who just got green card. You guys suck!!!
Let me say this Zina, congratulations on the green card. I hope you stay safe and strong.
Nick (not that it matters) I was granted asylum in early 2017 and adjusted a year later. Thankfully, my I-485 was approved in almost 4 months. I also work with MANY refugees and asylum seekers; I can tell when they are economic migrants. You can rest assured that there is no jealous over here. I’m not even judging. I am pointing out the obvious. And, if it’s obvious to me, best believe it will also be to the powers that be.
“…no jealousy…”
Oh really Jamie, you’re a judgemental person, you shouldn’t be helping migrants. You can tell, if someone is truthful or not by there case, I am impressed. CIS should close the asylum offices, and courts. They you should hire 100 “extremely highly intelligent” people like you and would find out who’s truthful or who’s not, there would be no need for attorneys as well, Jason better go and find a different job because people like Jamie can tell who’s “economic migrant” or not by looking at their posts or meeting with them.
Oliver, I won’t take it easy when people like you start bullying others online. Being approved for J1 and I140 also means, that person is highly intellectual and was eligible for both of them not all asylum seekers are so lucky. But people should stop bullying in the name of public opinion.
Is this a new nick or same old, same old🤣🤣.
If same old, same old, I salute you!!!!!!!.
Sorry Tina if there’s another Nick. I will change the name to Nickthe2nd. I just wanted to respond to those “real good asylum seekers” so chose the online name whatever came into my mind that time.
@Nickthe2nd,
Thanks for clarifying. There was a Nick who seemed to be trolling, and very controversial too😊
I would have been super surprised if he wrote your response to Jamie and Oliver.
We have other trolls here like Jamie The Great, who are writing paragraphs and paragraphs, just to show off they know a lot (when obviously they don’t).
But thanks Tina for replying to him and making some sense. I hope and pray you get an approval for your case soon. Stay blessed
It seems to me that he knows what he is talking about. Take care, Jason
@Nickthe2nd
Thank you so much for the kind wishes.
I will however respectfully disagree with you on Jamie being a troll.
I have disagreed with him/her a couple of times, but s/he is definitely not an internet troll.
Jason, I think we are all on the same page on the risk of travel to COP.
The disagreement is on concluding that Zina must be an economic migrant because s/he wants to visit COP after s/he withdraws his/her asylum application.
We do not know his/her situation.We do not know how long s/ had the asylum case pending. We don’t even know the reason s/he plans to travel to COP.
It is totally unfair to conclude based on a short paragraph.
I agree Jason what you said, but I do disagree with Jaime when he says
“Furthermore, we- the people who subscribe to this blog and who are actual asylum seekers and refugees- say what Jason doesn’t say because of his professional/admin. capacity.
My OPINION is this: your case screams economic migrant as opposed to bona fide asylum seeker/refugee. Economic migration, which is the act of seeking an improved standard of living because of a lack of opportunities, is fine, but when you abuse a system that was designed for another purpose, you unintentionally destroy the system, or hurt people who actually need the relief.”
It is same type of thinking we as asylum seekers are trying to change of general public and anti refugee mindset. You and Jaime knows law better than me, I do not, but it is not fair to say that someone is economic migrant by looking at the comment and then claiming “I also work with MANY refugees and asylum seekers; I can tell when they are economic migrants”. This person should APPOLOGIES to Zina who might came here the first time to ask a question and instead faced above quoted comments. I personally think, stopping people to return to COP is unfair. I have been waiting for my asylum interview past six years – it is the worst mental torture someone can get while being here and not being able to see kids, parent, siblings, and other people just because you’re seeking asylum (It’s different story when someone fears from state) but an overwhelmed percent of people seeks asylum due to non-state actors.
I also agree with Tina “The disagreement is on concluding that Zina must be an economic migrant because s/he wants to visit COP after s/he withdraws his/her asylum application.” We should put ourselves in the shoes of the person before judging.
Take it easy @Nick! Why you are taking our criticism personally?! This is a public blog and the person asked the question publicly, so they should expect us to express our opinion, otherwise they could’ve contacted Jason privately and paid the consultation fees. Criticizing this question doesn’t mean we have something personal, like jealousy, against the person who asked it. We wish the person who asked the question all the best, and we are happy for them. For you information sir, the asylum process is meant to protect people who actually needs protection, and asylum is one option for them to have a better life, or maybe it is their only option. Fraudulent asylum applications shows irresponsible mind set, since such applications will need resources and time to be processed, and a fraudulent application will definitely affect people who suffered from torture and they need asylum and they need it ASAP, and will cause unnecessary delays in the affirmative asylum process for all asylum applicants. That being said, we do understand that some very special circumstances or some sort of unforeseen hardship may force some people to file for asylum although they know they are not qualified, and they need to have a work permit or other benefit (I think such cases are very rare), but someone who is on j1 and they have a chance to win i-140 means they are less likely going through serious sort of hardship that is forcing them to file a fraudulent asylum application.
Nick, calm down! As far as I am concerned, you aren’t making sense. I have decided not to dignify your comment with logic as your response offered none. Instead, you are in attack mode.
I don’t know Zina and cannot comment on her situation, but in general, I have seen many examples of legitimate asylum seekers who have very legitimate reasons for going back. Also, I don’t agree that fake cases are the main reason for problems with the system. I think they are a problem, but the main reason – as I see it – is the volume of cases at the Southern border. These cases are mostly “real” in the sense that applicants have a real fear of being harmed or killed. However, these cases are usually not “classic” asylum cases, in that they are usually based on fear of criminals or domestic violence, which do not easily fit into the asylum framework. The Biden Administration has indicated that it would review these basis for asylum, and so we will see what they come up with, and whether that does anything to improve the situation for asylum seekers. Take care, Jason
Jason, you are absolutely correct! It would be really weird if many genuinely asylum seekers didn’t have reasons to go back to the COP. After all, most asylum seekers spend their entire lives in the COP and leave behind families and friends. It would be really stupid of me to think otherwise. My concern with ZINA is the timing.
Hi Jason! I never mentioned that fraudulent applications are the main problem. And I agree with you on that point. I am also sorry that Nick took it personally and thought we are bullying him or Zina. At the end of the day we are all immigrants, and we came to the US to have a decent life for our kids then maybe for us to enjoy whatever left of our life, especially if our countries are torn apart by dictators and terrorists, and we need to keep our mouth shut and live with fear of persecution every single day. I am sorry Zina if we made you feel uncomfortable or acted judgmental, eventually we don’t know you and we don’t know what are your circumstances, but we have seen many people who abuse the system and they brag about it without any single remorse. I congratulate you (and your family if you have one) on the approved i-140, and wish you all the best and success in the US. And I agree with Jason, you probably need to prepare yourself for explanation if you travelled to your country, which will make an officer raise questions about your asylum application (just like me and Jamie), and that consequences will depend totally on the personality of the officer or the people who may see your case at USCIS, they may let it go or just escalate the situation, so you really need a lot of good luck. Good luck and best wishes.
It is easier to withdraw a case by email. You can find their email if you follow the link under Resources called Asylum Office Locator. In terms of traveling to the home country, the fact that you are withdrawing the asylum does not erase it from your record. If you return home, it could raise suspicions that your asylum case was fraudulent and this could have a negative impact on your immigration status. At a minimum, you should be prepared to explain why you returned home and how you remained safe, but there is definitely a risk to your status here if you go home. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
I am writing this to ask you if I can apply for DACA. I came to America in April of 2013 with my parents when I was 15 years old. My parents applied for asylum and our case has been pending for some time now. And now I am College Student .Please let me know. I look forward for your response.
Best,
Atul
I think you had to be here prior to 2007 to apply for DACA, but you need to check the USCIS DACA website to be sure, as maybe there will be changes under the Biden Administration. Take care, Jason
It has been pending for that long ?
hi Jason, Greetings and all respect.
I have a quesstion regarding form 131.
Question no. 6.
Class of admission. ( how to answer that question for an asylee with pending !-458).
Thanks,
I think that question refers to the visa you entered the US on. Check the instructions to be sure, but I think that is correct. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I have already applied for my EAD renewal, that will expire by the beginning of March along with my driver’s license. I even have not received the receipt from USCIS so far. I have the court document for my asylum approval. Is there any way the DMV can help me to issue my driver’s license without receiving anything from USCIS? I have visited them twice and they keep saying sorry we cannot do anything unless you provide us with the receipt.
They should be able to – you may need to be more aggressive with them. Ask to talk to a supervisor or ask for contact info for their lawyer (they must have a lawyer). Someone with asylum is eligible to work even without the EAD, so maybe you are eligible for a license. Each state has its own rules, and so some states may be “easier” than others, but this may be worth looking into a bit more. Take care, Jason
Try to get i-94 and go to DMV
Hi Jason,
I will be filing asylum-based i-485 in July. How likely do you think the processing times will shorten with the new administration ?
Thanks
Jason, wouldn’t it be nice if you know this kind of information (or able to make a reasonable prediction), especially since we are talking about processing times and USCIS? I don’t know… I think that if you were able to tell, especially at this point in time, how quickly USCIS will be processing I-485 applications in July 2021, it would certainly be apt to describe your ability, or you, as transcendental. I guess what I am trying to say is that no body- including the people who actually work at USCIS, it appears- can tell/predict when, or how quickly, I-485 applications will be processed. In fact, it seems like there is no one working at USCIS!
I-131 applications are taking almost 1 year to process, which, in and of itself, is extremely restrictive and arguably a violation of the Refugee Convention and the INA, or what Congress intended (and, no, the pandemic is not an excuse as I-131 applications don’t require an interview!) Imagine waiting for almost a year for a document that has a 1-year validity to travel?!!! Why they can’t make the RTD a (minimum) of 2 years still baffles me! It’s not like they are processing I-485 and N-400 applications in a timely fashion, anyway! And even if your I-485 application is processed in under a year (meaning you have been conferred LPR status), you still, in most cases, need the RTD out of fear of being interrogated at the airport, border, N-400 interview, or possibly losing your status! The same goes for EADs, especially EAD applications submitted by those who already have asylum status. Another violation of the Refugee Convention and the INA!
Agreed. There was once a proposal to make the RTD valid for 10 years, like a passport, but it never went anywhere. Hopefully that will be revived, as people need it for at least 5 or 6 years, and in most cases longer. Take care, Jason
I do not know. They specifically indicated that they will shorten the wait time for citizenship, but they did not yet announce anything about I-485 forms, so we will see. I do think they will be more competent, so hopefully, the wait times will improve. Take care, Jason
If my application is anything to go by, you are likely in for a long wait. Could be easily 7 to 8 months depending on the service center. We haven’t even included biometrics and the actual interview. That’s one more month and maybe even longer for the interview in addition to processing time if it’s approved. So, it could easily take 6 months in total to 1 year or 2 years at the extreme before you get the card. Hopefully, with the new administration, this could be streamlined. But, untangling the boobytraps of the administration, insider bias for Trump, and the pandemic, expect a long wait time.
Hi Jason
Greetings and all respect .
I have a question.
If the Master hearing is scheduled with the jurisdiction court,and the defendant moves to another city.Will the the 1st court transfer the case to the new court (where the defendant moved to )automatically or only by defendant request.
If you move, you must file a change of address with the court and the DHS (the prosecutor). It is form EOIR-33. That will not necessarily cause the case to move. You may have to file a motion to change venue. If the case does not move, you are obligated to attend the hearing, and if you miss it, the judge will likely order you deported, so be careful about that. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason and community,
Finally I have received my I-485 form receipt. I sent my package exactly 40 days ago. It seems like there are some improvements on processing cases. My receipt came from one of the NBC centers. Does National Benefit Centers process I485 cases?
Thank you in advance!
I think so – USCIS moves cases around (seemingly in random ways) depending on their work load. Anyway, these days, getting a receipt is an accomplishment. Hopefully, things will move along from there. Take care, Jason
Hi is that a green card based on asylum and what service center you send to ????
Yes, it’s green card application based on asylum. Package was sent to Phoenix Lockbox
I’m also waiting my I-485 receipt. Today marks 40th day and looking forward to receiving it!
I am curious if anyone else experienced the situation similar to mine:
* Applied for i-485 2 years ago
* After a year was asked to to biometrics again
* After a year Request for Evidence has been send (I am still waiting for it to come by mail, so don’t know what the require)
I have very detailed list of documents I sent initially and I can’t imagine any of required things be missing. Could it be the medical exam? I’ve read somewhere that it expires in 2 years. But it is not my fault that it takes them forever to process cases.
With all the delays at mail boxes (I’ve been waiting for 2+ months for receipt for travel document), it is also unclear when they process the documents I’ll send for this RFE.
I wonder if it could be anything besides the medical exam and why I was not requested it a year ago, when they asked for biometrics again.
Looks like very sick way of torturing people, imo
There are all sorts of reasons for an RFE, and the only way to know is to get the letter. I doubt it is the medical exam, unless you submitted it 60+ days after you did the exam. I check USCIS processing times for the I-485 and it was up to 29 months, which is pretty crazy. If you have a reason to expedite, you can try that – I wrote about that on January 28, 2020. Take care, Jason
Same here. Applied for GC 2 years ago with medical exam , received biometrics appointment a year ago, did the biometrics and then heard nothing from USCIS. I am not sure what I should do now to expedite? I am a front line medical worker working day in day out. do you have any idea Jason to expedite? thanks
There is no easy way. I did a post about expediting with USCIS on January 28, 2020 – maybe that would have some ideas. I think it is mentioned there, but if not, you can also contact the USCIS Ombudsman – a link is under Resources at left. They can sometimes help with delayed cases. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason, thank you so much for everything.
I want to pay USCIS filing fees by debit card, can I use the form G-1450 (credit card transaction authorization) or can I only pay with a credit card ?? (I don’t have one)
That form can only be used to pay fees at a Lockbox, but as far as I know, a debit card should work – it is the same as a credit card; you just have the money come from your account instead of from the credit card company’s account. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for sharing this article! I am so excited I got to read this. I agree with everything that Andrea is advocating for and against.
Her two recommendations are pretty straightforward and arguably easy to implement/achieve. If going back to FIFO and increasing the number of asylum officers are achieved, they would not only reverse the profoundly immoral objectives of the previous administration- objectives that seem(ed) to target affirmative asylum applicants- but also allow for (at minimum) some semblance of order, assurance, and progress or forward movement.
Obviously, the asylum process wasn’t prefect prior to the previous administration; however, the previous process/administration did not have applicants (barring any security/background check issues, obviously) such as Genet waiting for 6 years, or more, for an interview, while her friends, and other applicants who just arrived a few months ago, got interviewed and on their way to citizenship and possible reunification with family.
And then, to further compound the trauma that many affirmative asylum applicants experience, the current administration seems to forget that there are asylum applicants, like Genet, stuck in an asylum black hole. Instead, the current administration is focusing on people who are undocumented and who hold TPS status. I fail to understand why the urgency to give these people permanent status while there is a current backlog (people who are already in the system and who did exactly what they’re told them to do) that is growing exponentially. The one that absolutely boggles my mind is the seeming undying urge to make TPS holders GC holders and eventually citizens! Blows my mind! Mind you, I am not saying that undocumented immigrants and TPS holders shouldn’t be in the bill, or there shouldn’t be amnesty for the undocumented; the proposed bill doesn’t nearly address the current backlog. Instead, it is proposing measures and ideas that would, in fact, exacerbate the current backlog. Furthermore, how do you grant permanent status to people who arrived in the U.S. a few months ago and, at their own volition, became undocumented, while there are people who applied (legally) for humanitarian relief 6 years ago but are still stuck in your system of never-ending uncertainty and cruelty?
Further, how do they propose to address the backlog and the inevitable influx of applications if this bill is accepted by Congress? Also, didn’t Biden and Kamala run on actually modernizing the immigration system? Where in the proposal is modernizing/overhauling the immigration system mentioned? This proposal, though not final, is nothing but amnesty (which, for me, is totally fine if the amnesty is dished out fairly). To be clear- I don’t mind giving amnesty to undocumented people who paid taxes and don’t pose a security risk. I am, though, at odds with the inherent unfairness and impracticability of their proposal.
Jamie,
Thank you for sharing our concerns. Hope there are a few more people like you to help us reach this concern to Biden administration. We are extremely unfortunate and vulnerable. Individuals like us that waiting for asylum interview are in limbo situation and are legally deplorable and stateless aliens. No body cares for us even we abide the law, service the country as per our capacity, pay taxes, and despite all challenges raise our children who will service this country in future. I feel bad for my young kids that they time and again ask me when are we getting our green cards and when we will be able to see our grand parents and other close relatives. On the other hand, there are many individuals who are highly skilled and can better service the United States if they get US citizenship. The skill sets and experience of those individuals has gone in vain waiting for 6 years, and then waiting another 5 years to become citizen. I believe it is a matter of political will of new administration to fix this conundrum. One solution will be defining a list of countries that they should receive automatic asylum without affirmative interviews. The other solution will be reviewing the complete documents submitted by individual and taking a decision based on those documents.
It is absolutely insane that individual who have arrived legally and applied for asylum are chocked in the system with undefined timeline. The changing of FIFO to LIFO made the system extremely unfair. I know many people who came many years after me, were granted asylum. They have their green cards, but hundred thousand of us who filed our cases 5-6 years are still living uncertain life.
Alien, thank you for your kind words, and I definitely can relate to what you are going through. I spend a lot of my time volunteering for organizations that represent, and advocate for, refugees and asylum seekers. I also try to change hearts and minds, so to speak, whenever I come in contact with people who may have a negative impression of immigrants and asylum seekers. If you can, you should try to get people to lobby their Congress people and senators.
I agree and I think that Andrea would also – there needs to be more focus on asylum seekers, who have “followed the rules.” I will say that trying to apply the concept of fairness to our immigration system seems like an impossible dream. I think Biden is aiming to deal with a problem that has existed for decades – comprehensive immigration reform. I worry that even if it somehow got through, it would lead to Trump part 2 when many people vote against Biden because they opposed “amnesty.” For that reason, I appreciate that the executive orders indicate they will study a number of the issues before implementing policies. I do think they have smart people, who are also politically savvy, and so hopefully, we will get some positive reforms that do not create a major political counter-reaction. Take care, Jason
Jason, thank you for your response! The most we can do at this time is hope- hope that things will work in our favor.
Hi Jason!
I have a question:
If BIA order removal, can i have a chance to look for AMNESTY ?, i have no criminal record or nothing !
Thank you
I am not sure what you mean by “amnesty.” There is no such rule. The President may be proposing something along those lines, but that would have to become a law before it could help anyone, and we are far from that point. Also, while maybe it would help someone with a removal order, we don’t know about that either. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
Hope you are doing great. I would like to know if asylees with pending GC application are exempted from the travel ban for travelers returning to the united states. There is no language that indicates that asylees are exempted but this one comes close:
Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.
“(b) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any individual’s eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United States.”
Question:
1. What do you think of the above language
2. Do you think it will be okay for travel and come back ?
Thank you
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/25/proclamation-on-the-suspension-of-entry-as-immigrants-and-non-immigrants-of-certain-additional-persons-who-pose-a-risk-of-transmitting-coronavirus-disease/
As I recall, the rule is not clear, and I have heard about asylees having trouble returning. One person had to go to a third country and wait two weeks before returning, in order to avoid the Covid restrictions. I know that President Biden has rescinded some orders about travel, but I am not sure whether this order is covered. I would see if the airline can advise you, or if necessary, have a lawyer look into it, as you don’t want to get stuck abroad trying to figure this out. Take care, Jason
Hey Jason , I just wanna know if it’s safe to go to Mexico with refugee travel document and come back to USA?
Thank you !
As long as the RTD is valid, you should be able to return. Also, be aware of any Covid travel restrictions. Buen viaje, Jason
Hello
I don’t know what to say about waiting for affirmative asylum interview
It is so sad. We need hope here. I personally don’t know how long i can tolerate.
There must be a solution . Anybody who can shed light on this issue?
Most of us share the same concerns and challenges. Waiting without any certainty is worse than hell. It has been my 6th year waiting for my interview. I developed depression. I never thought that the backlog will trap me here for years. My work productivity has affected significantly, I am not the person that I used to be 6 years ago. I have lost my motivations. Imagine how can I focus on my work when I am checking the Asylumist blog at least four to five times a day, checking my case status, and immigration news. As a result I was laid off from my work. I attempted to expediate my case three times but with no hope. Unfortunately, we had to witness 4-years of Trump area accompanied with pandemic.
Biden administration must end this vicious cycle and determine the future of individuals like us. I am equally unhappy from my attorney, I never receive an email or call from him to check at me how I am doing or share a new approach expediating my interview. I understand all attorneys are not the same, but most of them are caring for their fees.
Allen
Same here. I am not laid off but pretty soon due to lack of motivation focus stress endless worries about affirmative asylum interview. My mind is trapped. I think only about my status.People say Torture is pain. But it is not pain. Time is pain. Time (waiting) kills you slowly
Hopefully as the pandemic eases and the Biden Administration makes some positive changes, we will see things move more quickly. Also, if you are interested, I wrote about expediting a case on March 30, 2017. That is not easy, given that asylum offices are working at reduced capacity, but you can try. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason, Thank you for actively maintaining this blog, it is extremely helpful!
As I mentioned above that I am not happy with my attorney, what is your communication approach/strategy with your clients? Do you sometime check on your clients? I know you are primarily interacting with them through this blog, but still – are you periodically contacting them to see where they are standing? I know it is difficult attorneys to communicate with all their clients, but from a client perspective, I believe attorney can alleviate the stress of clients navigating their path during the uncertainty. We know attorneys can’t do more beside contractual tasks to draft affiliate, ensure all documents are properly filed, and accompany client during the interview. But since the prolong waiting period changed the whole dynamic of asylum process, I believe attorneys have a moral responsibility to think out of the box and check on their clients periodically.
I am not big on checking with my clients if there is nothing happening in the case. Some attorney are good at setting up automated systems to send news or other general updates to clients, but I am not good at that and that it is not practical to check in with so many people. I do let them know about this blog and that if they need me, they can reach out. And I usually get back to people within a day or two – attorney are required to communicate with clients, and so we cannot ignore our clients for too long. My feeling is that if you are not happy with a lawyer, you should change. Maybe the lawyer is fine, but it sounds like that lawyer is not for you (or more likely, the lawyer is not so good, as there are plenty of bad applies). You can try telling the lawyer about your concern and seeing if that helps. But otherwise, maybe you need to switch lawyers. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason
I applied for asylum at LA office in 2015 and moved to another state in 2016 but never moved my case. I have 2 questions
1. Is it safe to move my case these days where some administration transitions are happening or should I wait?
2. Do I just fill out the form of changing address?
Thank you
If the move is permanent, and you give up the old address, you are required to file a form AR-11, which you can do online at http://www.uscis.gov. So if that is your case, you should file the AR-11. It would have been better to file as soon as you moved, but I have never seen them give a hard time to a person who filed the AR-11 late, so I think there is nothing to worry about. As to the questions: 1 – I think it is safe to file and have not seen any problems in this regard. 2 – Yes. It is best to file online and this will automatically cause the case to be interviewed at your new asylum office (assuming the move causes your case to move – you can check that if you follow the link under Resources called Asylum Office Locator and enter your new zip code). Take care, Jason
I’ve been waiting for my interview for 4 1/2 years and when I applied for affirmative asylum I was hopeful that I’d get my interview within 3 years of the receipt date.
During the lockdown, I was working about 56 hours a week because my job was considered essential by the state. I could have just sat home and received around $840/week..
Anyway, I just hope they get back to FIFO.
Best
And that’s not possible.
Even with new immigration officers, it will take at least a year for those waiting to be interviewed to have a scheduled date. They need to grant people who waiting for more than 3 years asylum based on their background check. otherwise, we are all screw for four more years. Or grant people green cards based on achievements, such as work, school, or even self-sufficiency.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we are a priority right now. Anyway, only God knows.
I disagree based on achievements. Many of us don’t have a chance at good education or self-sufficiency due to disability
I also mentioned good background checks first.
Hi Jason,
Thank you so much once again for all the amazing work you do! I can’t tell you how much you impact humanity!
My timeline:
Asylum granted: July 2018 (Newark, NJ)
AOS/I-485 [Green card application]: August 2019
Shortly after this, I moved to Michigan, changed my address with the USCIS & received acknowledgement at my new address in Michigan.
Biometrics: February 2020 @Grand Rapids, MI ASC, and then the pandmic/lockdown happened in March 2020.
Now, its been about 1year, and no further progress on my case. I check online nearly everyday. Do you have any idea as to timelines, and when I could expect any sort of movement on my case?
Also, I switched out my driver’s license to a Michigan driver’s license a few months ago, and the Michigan license had “not for federal use” printed on it. The lady at the DMV told me that this means that from October 2021, the license will be invalid for entry into any federal buildings and perhaps for boarding airplanes within the US. She also said the only way to get a Real ID license was to either produce a valid foreign or US passport, or a greencard. I explained to her that as an asylee, I am not permitted to renew my foreign passport due to my asylum status. I obviously do not have a US passport, and my greencard application has been pending for over a year; apprently too, a refugee travel document is not acceptable for these purposes.
I’m sorry this has been a long message. Do you have any ideas or insights, I’d really appreciate!
Thank you so much once again!!
That’s I said background check first.
You can check the processing time at http://www.uscis.gov, but last time I looked it was something like 1 to 3 years. Hopefully, that will improve. If you are still inside the processing time, I doubt there is much you can do that is effective, but you can always try to call them (800-375-5283) to see if you can reach a human. If you are outside the processing time, you can call and also try the USCIS Ombudsman – a link is under Resources and they can sometimes assist with delayed cases. As for the license, my suspicion is that the person you spoke to is wrong, and that you can get a REAL ID license with your asylee documents. Maybe try to speak to a supervisor or – since you have some time – wait to see if you get the GC, which will make it easier. Take care, Jason
Hi Spartanj
I think the officer was confused, I was able to get a REAL ID with my asylee status within 15 minutes.
Is there anybody who can support the cause of returning to FIFO at this Biden administration. My concern is that there is some very big problem at immigration system that they don’t even see of LIFO ,I don’t even know if they are aware of how unfair that LIFO is to people. Please let tell them to bring back FIFO.
That’s not going to happen. Tho a lot of people will tell you otherwise.
At least some non-profits will be pushing for FIFO, but I do not yet know if most organizations have looked at that issue yet. I think this is not a top priority, and so I doubt we will see any quick changes, but hopefully, once the asylum office leadership settles in, they will address this point. Take care, Jason
LIFO practice damaged the lives of many affirmative asylums. It’s completely inhuman and unfair. I’m waiting for 6 years now because of LIFO took place on 1-1-2017 besides , the interview bulletin was hidden from the USCIS website and the number of days that you waited also hidden. Living in fear and uncertainty for 6 years is the same experience that I have had in my country, but after all I never doubt the United state is the greatest refuge on the face of earth, and things always going to be alright even in the darkest times, if you know that 85m Great Americans stood up and said something is wrong and vote for new administration to fix the system then you are in good hands.