You Can Go Home Again (Sort of): Visiting Your Home Country After a Grant of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

“If I am granted asylum, can I return to my home country?” I hear this question a lot.

The skeptic would argue that no legitimate asylum seeker should ever return home. Indeed, they might argue, asylum is reserved for people who cannot return due to the danger of persecution, and anyone willing to go back did not need asylum in the first place. I think this is wrong.

Your mother's bunt cake is probably not a compelling reason to return home (tempting though it may be).
Your mother’s bunt cake is probably not a compelling reason to return home (tempting though it may be).

Many of my clients face long-term threats in their countries. For instance, I have clients from Afghanistan who have been threatened by the Taliban. These clients could return briefly to Afghanistan and remain relatively safe. However, to live there for any length of time would be extremely dangerous. Even where the threat comes from the government itself, clients can sometimes safely visit home for short periods of time. I’ve had Ethiopian clients who were wanted by their government, but who were able to return for a few weeks before the government realized that they were in the country. Ethiopia—like many developing countries—is not as adept at tracking people as the United States, and so it is possible to keep a low profile and avoid trouble, at least for a time.

And of course, there are valid reasons to return home. Most of my clients have left family members behind. Others have businesses or properties. Still others are political activists who wish to return home to promote democracy and human rights. There are all sorts of reasons people want to go to their home countries—when balanced against the danger, some reasons are better than others (and some people are more willing than others to take risks).

But what are the legal implications of a return trip for people with asylum? And does the calculus change if the person has a green card or is a U.S. citizen?

For an asylee (a person granted asylum), the U.S. government can terminate asylum status if it determines that the person has “voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the country of nationality or last habitual residence by returning to such country.” This means that asylum can be terminated if the person placed herself under the protection of her home government by returning to her country (or even by using the passport from her home country to travel to a third country). USCIS can also terminate asylum status if it determines that the person is no longer a refugee (for example, if country conditions have changed and it is now safe to return home) or if it determines that asylum was obtained fraudulently (there are other reasons for terminating asylum, as well). A return trip to the home country could trigger one (or more) of these bases for termination.

Even with a green card, USCIS can terminate asylum for the reasons listed above.

If you don’t run into trouble when you return to the U.S. from your trip, you could have problems at the time you file for your citizenship. When you complete the naturalization form (the N-400), you need to list all the countries you visited, and so the government will know whether you went home (and if you omit your travels from the form, you run the risk that the government will know about them from its own sources).

For U.S. citizens who originally obtained their status based on asylum, the risk of a return trip is much less—but it is not zero. If the return trip causes the U.S. government to believe that asylum was obtained fraudulently, it could institute de-naturalization proceedings. I have heard of the U.S. government de-naturalizing citizens based on fraud, so it can happen, but all the case I know about involved aggravating factors, like criminal convictions or human rights abuses. Nevertheless, if USCIS knows about a fraud, it certainly could take action.

So how do you protect yourself if you have to travel back to your home country?

First, it is worthwhile to consult an attorney before you go. Don’t go unless there is a very important reason for the trip. Also, keep the trip as short as possible. The less time you are in your country, the better. In addition, you should collect and save evidence about the return trip. If you went to visit a sick relative, get a letter from the doctor. If you returned home for only a short time, keep evidence about the length of your trip—passport stamps and plane tickets, for example. If you hid in your house and never went out, get some letters from family members who can attest to this. In other words, try to obtain evidence that you did not re-avail yourself of the protection of your home government and that you had a compelling reason to return home. That way, if USCIS ever asks for such evidence, you will be ready.

The safest course of action is to never return home after a grant of asylum. However, in life, this is not always possible. If you do have to go back, you should consult a lawyer and take steps to minimize the likelihood that your trip will impact your immigration status in the U.S.

Continue reading

1,250 Comments

When Asylees Return Home

by Jason Dzubow

In the old days, when a person immigrated to the United States, he would probably never return home or see his family again.  For example, when my Great-Grandfather David came to the U.S. from Russia in 1904, he left behind his parents and six siblings.  He never saw them again, and as far as we know, they and their families died in the Holocaust. 

Today, it’s a different story.  It’s much easier to remain in contact with the homeland and to return for a visit.  However, for people who have received asylum in the United States, return to the home country may result in the termination of their status. See INA § 208(c)(2).

Sorry, asylees. Missing grandma’s cooking is probably not a valid excuse for returning to your home country.

Despite the possibility of termination, my clients who have received asylum sometimes need to return home.  There are different reasons for this–some want to visit sick relatives or help relatives who are in trouble.  Others are political activists or journalists, and they want to return home to continue their activities.  A few of my clients from Afghanistan wanted to return to their country as interpreters with the U.S. military. 

In cases like these, I explain the legal consequences of returning to the home country so that the client can weigh the risk of losing asylum status against her desire to go home.

The provision for termination of asylum,  INA § 208(c)(2), states:

Asylum… does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that… the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality.

It’s clear from this provision that the AG does not have to terminate asylum if the alien returns to her country (“Asylum… may be terminated”).  Also, return to the country in-and-of itself may not be a sufficient basis for termination if the alien has not “voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the [home] country.” 

So in the above examples, there is room to argue that the clients have not voluntarily availed themselves of the protection of the home country.  In the case of an alien who returns home to help a relative, perhaps he entered the country surreptitiously and remained in hiding during his time there.  Evidence that the alien’s journey home was clandestine might help to counter an attempt to terminate asylum (asylum may be terminated if DHS shows by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the alien voluntarily availed himself of the protection his country – 8 C.F.R. 208.24).

In the example of a political activist who returns to her country to engage in political activity, she can argue that she did not avail herself of the protection of her country.  On the contrary, she challenged her country’s government and put herself at risk to do so.

In the case of an alien who returns to his country to work for (or serve in) the U.S. military, that alien has not availed himself of the protection of his country.  Rather, he is being protected by the U.S. military.

In all these examples, the alien is able to argue that he or she has not “voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality.”  The alien in each case could also appeal to the Attorney General not to terminate asylum as a matter of discretion.  In these cases, the aliens have returned to their country for good reasons.  In some cases, the reason for returning might be in the interest of the U.S. government.  Under such circumstances, the AG might agree not to terminate asylum as a matter of discretion.

Although asylees who return home can sometimes make decent arguments against termination, they put themselves at risk of losing their status.  For this reason, any asylee considering a return trip should think carefully about the potential consequences.  At a minimum, the alien should gather as much evidence as possible to show that she has not voluntarily availed herself of the protection of her country.  She would also do well to consult an attorney.

Continue reading

1 Comment

BIA Defies Ninth Circuit: IJs Lack Jurisdiction to Review Asylum Termination

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held that DHS does not have the authority to terminate an alien’s asylum status (I wrote about this here).  The Court reasoned that although the regulations allow for DHS to terminate asylum, the statute (upon which the regulations are based) grants authority to terminate exclusively to the Attorney General (and through him to the Immigration Judges).  Now the BIA has weighed in, and they have reached the opposite conclusion–the Board held that DHS has the authority to terminate asylum, and that the IJ has no authority to review the termination. See Matter of A-S-J-, 25 I&N Dec. 893 (BIA 2012).

A BIA Board Member addresses the Ninth Circuit.

First, it strikes me as a strange coincidence that the Ninth Circuit ruled on asylum termination a few weeks ago and now the BIA is publishing a decision on the same issue.  The BIA publishes only about 40 decisions per year, and so it seems odd that they would publish a decision on this same issue at the same time as the Ninth Circuit.  Call me paranoid, but I feel like we should contact Oliver Stone about this one (though perhaps the more prosaic explanation is that the BIA knew about the Ninth Circuit case and was waiting for a decision there before it issued its own decision on the matter).

In essence, the Board held that under the applicable regulations, both the IJ and DHS have authority to terminate asylum in certain circumstances.  However, these are two independent tracks.  According to the BIA, the regulations do not give the IJ authority to review an asylum termination by DHS.

The Board framed the issue as follows: “[W]hether an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f) to review the DHS’s termination of an alien’s asylum status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(a).”  The Board drew a bright-line distinction between the regulations in section 1208 (which the Board held are for EOIR) and the regulations in section 208 (for DHS).  The BIA concludes that

[T]he regulations for termination of asylum status provide for either (1) USCIS adjudication, with the possibility of the alien asserting a subsequent claim for asylum before the Immigration Judge in removal proceedings or (2) Immigration Judge jurisdiction to conduct an asylum termination hearing or to reopen the proceedings for the DHS to pursue termination of asylum status.  The regulations do not confer jurisdiction on the Immigration Judge to review a DHS termination of an asylum grant under 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a).

What this means is that although the IJ does not have the authority to review termination of asylum by DHS, the alien may re-apply for asylum anew before the Judge.  The IJ does not have to accept the determination by DHS concerning termination.  Rather, the IJ makes a de novo determination about the alien’s eligibility for asylum.  So although A-S-J- may make it more difficult for the alien, it does not close the door to relief once DHS terminates asylum.

The dissenting Board Member points out that section 208 of the regulations discusses the IJ’s authority to terminate asylum, and so “it is logical to infer that he also has the authority to restore asylum status terminated by the DHS.”  Although this would make sense from a practical point of view–it would be more efficient to allow the IJ to review a DHS termination rather than force the alien to re-apply for asylum in Immigration Court–I am not so sure that it is “logical to infer” that the IJ has the power to review a DHS termination, particularly given that in other instances, the regulations specifically grant such authority to the IJ.

Given the decision in the Ninth Circuit, I imagine the respondent in A-S-J- will file a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (or maybe a request for rehearing en banc before the BIA).  Although asylum termination is fairly uncommon (as far as I can tell), the issues of who has the authority to terminate a grant of asylum and how that decision is reviewed are important.  I expect we will see much litigation about these issues over the next few years.

Continue reading

Citing the Beatles, Ninth Circuit Determines that Only the Attorney General Can Terminate Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A few days before Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit ruled that only the Attorney General–not DHS–can terminate asylum.  In Nijjar v. Holder, No. 07-74054 (9th Cir. 2012), the Department of Homeland Security, through the Asylum Office, terminated Gurjeet Singh Nijjar’s asylum approval In Spite of All the Danger in his country. 

Mr. Nijjar received asylum in 1995, based on political persecution he claimed to have suffered in India.  Before he left India, he was advised to Run for Your Life.

The Beatles: Great music AND binding precedent.

In 2003, DHS notified Mr. Nijjar that it intended to terminate his asylum status for fraud and order him to Get Back to India.  DHS wrote that it had information indicating that Mr. Nijjar was in the United States at the time he claimed to have been Across the Universe being persecuted in India and that Every Little Thing about his case was false.  The DHS letter instructed Mr. Nijjar to Come Together for a termination interview with an asylum officer to see whether We Can Work It Out or whether they would tell him, Hello, Goodbye.  However, Mr. Nijjar was a Nowhere Man and failed to appear.  After he failed to Help himself, DHS terminated his asylum status and referred his case to Immigration Court.

After a Long and Winding Road, the IJ (a Woman) concluded that she did not have jurisdiction to review the termination and gave Mr. Nijjar a Ticket to Ride to India.  After She Said She Said he is deported, the BIA Let It Be.  Mr. Nijjar then filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit Like Dreamers Do.  There, he asked the Court to Please Please Me.

On review, three Ninth Circuit judges noted All Together Now that the regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 208, provide as follows–

[An] asylum officer [of the DHS] may terminate a grant of asylum . . . if following an interview, the asylum officer determines that… There is a showing of fraud in the alien’s application such that he or she was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.

The problem, however, is that the statute (the INA) does not give DHS the authority to issue such regulations–

Congress [a/k/a The Fools on the Hill] did not confer the authority to terminate asylum on the Department of Homeland Security. Congress conferred that authority exclusively on the Department of Justice.

Congress expressly provided that “the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum . . . .” But the subsection governing termination of asylum is not parallel, and does not say that either cabinet department may terminate asylum. The “termination of asylum” subsection of the statute says that asylum “may be terminated if the Attorney General determines” that any of several conditions are met.

The Government attorney countered that Because the Asylum Office had the power to grant asylum, it must also have the power to take asylum away Any Time at All.  The Court called this argument “euphonious but not logical,” and held that popular songs are full of euphonious lyrics that make false statements, such as the Beatles’ lyrics:

There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known,
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown,
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant
to be…

In other words, don’t Ask Me Why, but “there is no general principle that what one can do, one can undo.”  Because the statute specifically gives DHS and DOJ the power to grant asylum, but only DOJ the power to terminate asylum, the Court concluded that only the Attorney General can terminate asylum.  The regulations allowing DHS (through the Asylum Office) to terminate asylum are invalid.

I Want to Tell You, the Ninth Circuit’s logic seems sound.  I Imagine that unless Congress changes Something in the statute, future asylum terminations by the Asylum Office will face strong challenges from asylees Here, There and Everywhere.  Rather than waste resources litigating this issue Helter Skelter every time the government seeks to terminate, I’m Down with the regulations being amended to reflect the statute–only DOJ has the power to terminate an asylum grant.  In the future, when DHS wants to declare The End of an alien’s asylum status, it will need to issue a Notice to Appear, and then allow the IJ to make the initial decision concerning termination.  Dig It?

Continue reading

3 Comments