Posted by: kailo July 4, 2010
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
want to add my two cents worth of advice too...
1. the article in nepali is an extremely useful article.
2. it addresses lot of background issues.
3. it does not shed adequate light in how things are moving these days in the asylum front. there is lot happening than what is written above. in fact, that article could have been written in 2006 and still would have been outdated by nearly a year!
4. for those who want details and updates on asylum issues, subscribe to human rights first newsletter. it will keep you in forefront of anything that is happening out there, far ahead of the tons of lawyers in fact.
5. for "chef" above, i am no lawyer, but my understanding was that you CANNOT go back to your country which you said in your asylum application was dangerous to return to. well, you can go in theory, but upon your return, you will face a very very hostile immigration officer at the port of entry. and by law, you should explain why it was not dangerous to go there and stay for a while, and suddenly it became dangerous all over again. in other words, you could be prevented from getting into amrika altogether.
asylees, like refugees, need to know that you can legally travel outside amrika only after seeking permission from uscis through a process called advance parole, but again, that does not mean you can freely go to nepal and be back here. yes it means you can go anywhere else, except nepal.
this advance parole thing will apply until u get amrika citizenship.
mr. dyamn says traveling should not be a problem for mr. chef. during my years of research and interaction with people, i did not find any literature or cases to support his version of information above. i could have been wrong.
that said, i hold to my version of the statement above!
8. i wrote an elaborate note on this discussion about a month ago. i hate to repeat it.
good luck guys. remember to go to a good attorney at law, as always.
1. the article in nepali is an extremely useful article.
2. it addresses lot of background issues.
3. it does not shed adequate light in how things are moving these days in the asylum front. there is lot happening than what is written above. in fact, that article could have been written in 2006 and still would have been outdated by nearly a year!
4. for those who want details and updates on asylum issues, subscribe to human rights first newsletter. it will keep you in forefront of anything that is happening out there, far ahead of the tons of lawyers in fact.
5. for "chef" above, i am no lawyer, but my understanding was that you CANNOT go back to your country which you said in your asylum application was dangerous to return to. well, you can go in theory, but upon your return, you will face a very very hostile immigration officer at the port of entry. and by law, you should explain why it was not dangerous to go there and stay for a while, and suddenly it became dangerous all over again. in other words, you could be prevented from getting into amrika altogether.
asylees, like refugees, need to know that you can legally travel outside amrika only after seeking permission from uscis through a process called advance parole, but again, that does not mean you can freely go to nepal and be back here. yes it means you can go anywhere else, except nepal.
this advance parole thing will apply until u get amrika citizenship.
mr. dyamn says traveling should not be a problem for mr. chef. during my years of research and interaction with people, i did not find any literature or cases to support his version of information above. i could have been wrong.
that said, i hold to my version of the statement above!
8. i wrote an elaborate note on this discussion about a month ago. i hate to repeat it.
good luck guys. remember to go to a good attorney at law, as always.