Spouse green card granted but political asylum pending

[Redro 4,611]

20 minutes ago, Vakcarcel said:

I agree with you, immigration processes keep changing over the years. However, Derivative asylees are not tested for credible fear of future persecution or past persecution or any other refugee standards. There is no legal basis for revoking their asylum status because they (derivative asylee) travel to the country of persecution of their primary beneficiary which is my dad. However, the safest answer will be travel after adjustment of status to a legal permanent or citizen  resident, which I already have.

 

I do understand you’re point of view though

You're probably okay.

BUT, your travel in and out of the States to your home country might impact your parents'  asylum claim. 

Hopefully you'll be able to remove conditions AND naturalize before your parents have their interview/ are denied and have to go before a judge. 

And you can file for them as parents' of a US citizen... 

VJ is fairly conservative so the advice will be to not do anything to jeopardize your parents' case.

But, if you think the timing will be fine do what you want to do... 

I think you understand the situation. Good luck. If this vacation is 100% necessary go for it... but because your name is the same as your father's (the primary asylum claimant) be aware your travel might compromise his asylum case.

Who is to say when you go home the threat to your father believes you are your father.... If you're not in danger traveling with your father's name the US might conclude your father is no longer in danger... (result? asylum denied- and inability to adjust as USCIS believes your parents filed a frivolous asylum claim).  

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by ROK2USA

[Boiler 45,486]

I will be the first one to admit my knowledge of asylum cases is limited and tends to be around things that have gone wrong.

 

It would be interesting to know if the asylum claim did not include the OP being under threat I get it that it is not needed but my impression has been that a Lawyer would include everything and seems unlikely they would have said the 19 year old is fine but here for the ride

 

I am fully aware that it is common for asylum seekers to want to visit there home country, for example it seems after the Afghan debacle last year most of the ones left behind had previously sought protection in western countries 

 

It is what it is, from an Immigration perspective when there are so many places to visit why risk it for a 3 week holiday?”

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

8 hours ago, Vakcarcel said:

“Your child must meet the requirements for derivative refugee or asylee status. They are not required to have a persecution claim that would qualify them independently as an asylee or refugee; rather, they derive that status through their relationship to you.”

That does not say you cannot be questioned.  That does not say you are free from all scrutiny...... USCIS uses every opportunity to review everything....LOL.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Crazy Cat

[Villanelle 4,122]

Im going to attempt to explain the concepts being discussed here differently since many seem to be struggling as its illogical at face value.  

 

An irrational fear or phobia is being afraid of something you shouldn't be. Like traveling to a location that is currently safe. 

 

When one applies for asylum because of current threat and the threat is determined to be N/A anymore- well, just because the threat is gone doesn't mean your fear automatically disappears as well.  

 

So asylum with current threat- you are processed accordingly. Threat is gone- you are not processed based on the threat but rather on the residual fears you still have.

 

One can claim asylum and include their children regardless if the children are threatened or even afraid. 

 

The children can grow up and decide for themselves that they don't share the same 'irrational fears' as the parent, as the location is 'safe'.  But the childs POV is the childs. The parents is the parents. They don't have to agree. 

 

For the parent to still be approved for asylum when the threat is gone it's because they state they are still unable/unwilling to return. They will be questioned about it. 

 

If one truly has an irrational fear no one is going to be able to convince them otherwise.  They can ask you a thousand ways and logically explain reasons why you shouldn't be afraid but it makes no difference. 

 

Over time irrational fears can subside. The more you observe your fears are unsubstantiated the more likely you are going to be able to move past them. Makes sense?

 

So the OP can be damaging the parents case by showing the parent (not USCIS) that their fears are unwarranted. If the parent has a light bulb ah ha moment observing their childs travels they might not qualify for asylum any more. 

 

This is why there are a variety of comments about how the childs actions can indirectly impact the parents case and they need to think carefully about whether or not the vacation is worth it right now. 

 

 

[Boiler 45,486]

In this case the OP stated his parents want to say here having settled.

[SalishSea 17,828]

6 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Im going to attempt to explain the concepts being discussed here differently since many seem to be struggling as its illogical at face value.  

 

An irrational fear or phobia is being afraid of something you shouldn't be. Like traveling to a location that is currently safe. 

 

When one applies for asylum because of current threat and the threat is determined to be N/A anymore- well, just because the threat is gone doesn't mean your fear automatically disappears as well.  

 

So asylum with current threat- you are processed accordingly. Threat is gone- you are not processed based on the threat but rather on the residual fears you still have.

 

One can claim asylum and include their children regardless if the children are threatened or even afraid. 

 

The children can grow up and decide for themselves that they don't share the same 'irrational fears' as the parent, as the location is 'safe'.  But the childs POV is the childs. The parents is the parents. They don't have to agree. 

 

For the parent to still be approved for asylum when the threat is gone it's because they state they are still unable/unwilling to return. They will be questioned about it. 

 

If one truly has an irrational fear no one is going to be able to convince them otherwise.  They can ask you a thousand ways and logically explain reasons why you shouldn't be afraid but it makes no difference. 

 

Over time irrational fears can subside. The more you observe your fears are unsubstantiated the more likely you are going to be able to move past them. Makes sense?

 

So the OP can be damaging the parents case by showing the parent (not USCIS) that their fears are unwarranted. If the parent has a light bulb ah ha moment observing their childs travels they might not qualify for asylum any more. 

 

This is why there are a variety of comments about how the childs actions can indirectly impact the parents case and they need to think carefully about whether or not the vacation is worth it right now. 

 

 

Should be noted too that asylum cases are not evaluated solely on thoughts and fears.   The burden is on the applicant to show evidence of credible threats to their safely.

[SalishSea 17,828]

14 hours ago, Family said:

Cannot find where that is buried…just looked. 

And you won’t, because it was rapidly axed by moderation.   Now it exists only in the catacombs of the minds of VJ old-timers.   

[Marthaeu 39]

On 7/8/2022 at 6:05 PM, Vakcarcel said:

I see what you mean, the only thing that makes me feel safe is that one of the new lawyers who is Colombian too and has the same immigration history as mine went back to Colombia after getting her GC (she did have an interview for her spouse GC and she terminated her political asylum then, her parents were the main applicants for that process too). When she came back to the US nothing happened, now she’s a citizen and her parents case still in process  

Well , let 's hope you 're lucky , the only certainty is that it does not seem credible that the danger your parents were in Colombia and you have now disappeared , then they will easily question the veracity of your parents ' case .  When you flee the country due to these circumstances, it is not credible if the first thing you do when you have your residence is to return to that country.

[TBoneTX 45,286]

The OP has talked to lawyers already.

Perhaps a call to CBP (Customs & Border Protection) is also in order.

The answers may suggest whether the OP might face scrutiny, upon return or afterward.

Answers may also suggest the potential impact on the parents' cases.

Lawyers can have their own opinions, but CBP deals with asylum eligibility daily.

OP, consider calling any CBP port and asking for the shift supervisor.

[nekotakacho 60]

Are you willing to stay in Colombia forever? I wouldn’t risk it. Is it worth it?