She can try to check her case status online at http://www.uscis.gov using the asylum receipt – not the Alien number, but there should be another number that starts with the letter Z, followed by 2 more letters and then some numbers. If that does not work, she can reach out to the local asylum office to ask if the case is still pending and what she can do – you can find their email if you follow the link under Resources called Asylum Office Locator. She can also check to see if she has a court case if she follows the link under Resources called EOIR Case Status enters her Alien number. Take care, Jason

Hi Mr Jason:

One of my friends applied for the asylum in 2020. He missed the fingerprint schedule. It has been 4 years that have passed. Do you have any suggestions on what she should do next.

Best Regards,

Dexu Yuan

I have already responded to your prior posts – please see that comment below. Take care, Jason

The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways ban went into effect on May 11, 2023, and so I am not sure if people who entered that day are covered or not. If yes, and if you did not use CBP One to enter the US, there is a bar to asylum. There are some exceptions, but those are not easy to meet. We have dealt with this issue a couple times and in those cases, our clients got withholding instead of asylum. We have appealed. Also, there is federal litigation that is trying to overturn the ban, and if that succeeds, maybe our cases (and yours if the ban applies) will become eligible for asylum. In terms of the I-130, once that is approved, you would likely need to leave the US to get a GC based on marriage. A person who entered without a visa is generally not eligible to get a GC inside the US. You would need to talk to a lawyer about that, but maybe you would be eligible for a “provisional waiver,” which allows a person to leave for a short time and then return with a GC. Of course, all this might be affected by the new Administration and so we will have to see what happens. Take care, Jason

In general, it should not be a problem and I have not seen anyone have such a problem in the past. However, if the principal’s asylum case indicated that the derivative was also in danger, maybe that would be an issue. At a minimum, the person should be able to explain why he returned and how he stayed safe, or that he was not in danger because he is not the principal applicant. With Trump in charge, it is probably best to avoid anything that gives them an excuse to harm you, and so if you want to make this trip, it would probably be better to go and return before January 20, 2025. Take care, Jason

What are the risks for derivative Asylees who traveled to their home country and do not fear their government? There are speculations that the Trump administration might look into Asylees who travel to their own countries but no mention of derivatives who do not fear traveling there. Have you ever seen such cases being treated as adversarial at the time of Naturalization?

The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways ban went into effect on May 11, 2023, and so I am not sure if people who entered that day are covered or not. If yes, and if you did not use CBP One to enter the US, there is a bar to asylum. There are some exceptions, but those are not easy to meet. We have dealt with this issue a couple times and in those cases, our clients got withholding instead of asylum. We have appealed. Also, there is federal litigation that is trying to overturn the ban, and if that succeeds, maybe our cases (and yours if the ban applies) will become eligible for asylum. In terms of the I-130, once that is approved, you would likely need to leave the US to get a GC based on marriage. A person who entered without a visa is generally not eligible to get a GC inside the US. You would need to talk to a lawyer about that, but maybe you would be eligible for a “provisional waiver,” which allows a person to leave for a short time and then return with a GC. Of course, all this might be affected by the new Administration and so we will have to see what happens. Take care, Jason