AAO decisions on form I-131 travel document appeals 2010-11
 

AAO decisions on form I-131 travel document appeals 2010-11

on

  • 2,365 views

Now is the time to review this subject matter!

Now is the time to review this subject matter!

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,365
Views on SlideShare
2,365
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

AAO decisions on form I-131 travel document appeals 2010-11 AAO decisions on form I-131 travel document appeals 2010-11 Document Transcript

  • AAO Decisions on Form I-131Travel Document Appeals 2010-11 Compiled by and with Comments by Joseph P. Whalen (September 8, 2012)The USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document is adjudicated pursuantto Section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The Form is used for several purposes: (1.) Refugee Travel Document [RTD]; (2.) Reentry Permit [REP]; and (3.) Advance Parole (including Humanitarian Parole).There is no appeal from the denial of parole. Denials of either of the other twotravel documents may be appealed. The RTD might in some cases, be the onlytravel document that certain [stateless or persecuted] individuals can obtain andtherefore may substitute for a passport. The REP usually is supplemental to aforeign passport and the individual’s “greencard”. The REP is meant to protectLPR status when an LPR knows that (s)he is likely to be abroad for over one-fullyear.After an absence of a full year, the “greencard” will not be accepted as a validtravel document. The LPR who overstays abroad would have to apply for a“Returning Resident” [SB-1] Visa through the State Department abroad if not inpossession of the REP. The maximum period for which an REP is issued is two-years but can be issued for a shorter period. An RTD will only be valid for oneyear, or to the date the refugee or asylee status expires, whichever comes first. TheRTD is issued to refugees, asylees, and LPRs who gained that status through priorrefugee or asylum status. TPS and DACA recipients may1 apply for parole only!It would be a wise move to review the possibilities and intricacies involved beforeattempting to file for Advance Parole for a DACA recipient. It could be a waste!AAO non-precedent Administrative Decisions are posted online as AAO Decisioncategory: I1- Application for Issuance of Reentry Permit [<<<click this link]and I2 - Application for Refugee Travel Document [<<<click this link].These decisions from 2010 & 2011, and filed in the I1 & I2 folders. They concernRTDS and REPs. Some are misfiled as you might expect.1 Parole is NOT an entitlement. Parole is granted as an act of administrative grace through afavorable exercise of discretion, if you are found worthy of that discretion. It is not guaranteed. Page 1 of 20
  • Decision Linkand Outcome Excerpts and RemarksFeb162010_01I1223.pdf A review of the record reveals the following facts and Appeal Dismissed procedural history: On June 11, 2009, the applicant filed an Application for Travel Document (Form I- 131) with U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In Part 2, "Application Type," the applicant checked box a., indicating that he was a permanent resident or conditional resident of the United States and was seeking a reentry permit. The director denied the Form I-131 because the applicant failed to establish that he was a conditional resident or lawful permanent resident and was, therefore, ineligible for a reentry permit. On appeal, the applicant states that he entered the United States illegally prior to January 1, 1982, and has appealed the denial of his application for adjustment of status. The applicant requests that an advance parole document be issued to him, as he is still awaiting the outcome of the appeal of the denial of his Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Act. The applicant is correct in stating that an applicant who is pursuing an application for temporary resident status under 245A of the Act may submit an application for an advance parole document. In this matter, however, the applicant indicated on his Form I- 131 that he was seeking a reentry permit, claiming to be a permanent resident or conditional resident of the United States. He did not indicate on the Form I-131 that he was seeking an advance parole document. Once USCIS concludes that an alien is not eligible for the specifically requested classification, the agency is not required to consider, sua sponte, whether the alien is eligible for an alternate classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Chertoff Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008) [unpublished memorandum opinion accompanying the published precedent]. Page 2 of 20
  • Feb162010_02I1223.pdf The director denied the Form I-131 because the Appeal Dismissed applicant was not present in the United States when she filed her application. On appeal, the applicant does not dispute that she filed the Form I-131 while outside of the United States. The applicant states that she and her family currently live in Paris, France, and plan to move back to the United States "depending on the economic situation." This was a Pro Se filing, The applicant also states that she is currently in Boston thank goodness! at the house of her mother-in-law, from where she filed the appeal. I would hate to see anyattorney or representative As stated by the director, a lawful permanent resident involved in such an ill- is not required to obtain a reentry permit if he or she conceived appeal. She remains outside of the United States for less than one returned to the U.S. and year. Nevertheless, because the applicant did apply for could have just filed a a reentry permit, she must meet the eligibility criteria new I-131 which would set forth at 8 C.F.R § 223.2, which requires the have been approved applicants physical presence in the United States atinstead of an appeal that the time an application is made to USCIS. Here, theHAD TO BE DENIED as applicant filed the Form I-131 after she departed from a matter of law! the United States. The Act provides no exception regarding the physical presence requirement at the time of filing a Form I-131 for a reentry permit. Since the application was not filed until after the applicant had departed from the United States, the application may not be approved as a matter of law. If a lawful permanent resident seeks to reenter after an absence of one year or more, and does not possess a reentry permit, he or she should contact a United States consulate abroad for further information regarding possible options for return to the United States.Feb192010_01I1223.pdf A review of the record reveals the following facts and Appeal Dismissed procedural history: The applicant was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident on Page 3 of 20
  • July 23, 2004. He subsequently filed an Application Applicant claims that he for Travel Document (Form I-131) with U.S departed the U.S. for his Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and job in Canada in July was issued a reentry permit on January 10, 2007, 2005. That was just valid to January 10, 2009. On January 26, 2009, theunder one year as an LPR applicant filed the instant Form I-131 with USCIS,before departing abroad. and listed a U.S. address at Part l of the Form I-131. He was issued the first The applicant did not specify an intended date of REP in January 2007. I departure at Part 3 of the Form I-131, but did indicate have to ask if it really that he planned to return to the United States by thetook a year and a half for end of 2009. Regarding the information about his USCIS to issue that first proposed travel at Part 4 of the Form I-131, theREP or if he filed the first applicant indicated that he intended to visit Canada, I-131 from abroad as and that the purpose of his trip was that he was well! currently employed at the Bank of Montreal in Langley, B.C., Canada. At Part 5 of the Form I-131,I suspect that this dude is the applicant indicated that he had spent one to two already a naturalized years total time outside the United States sinceCanadian and probably in becoming a U.S. permanent resident. On March 27,the midst of struggling to 2009, the director requested that the applicant provide get an N-400 approved evidence to establish his actual date of departure from (to no avail). the United States. The applicant responded on April 15, 2009, and indicated as follows: he was not presently in the United States; he had departed the United States on July 10, 2005; and he intended to return to the United States as soon as he received the travel document. As evidence that he was in the United States at the time of filing the instant Form I-131, the applicant submitted a credit card statement dated December 20, 2008, listing a December 14th charge of $108.39 from [REDACTED] in Bellingham, Washington. The applicant annotated the credit card statement as follows: "This is only thing I can prove I was in USA when I applied." The director denied the Form I-131, concluding that the Form I-131 was filed after the applicant departed the United States. On appeal, the applicant states that he was previously issued a travel document that was valid from January 10, 2007 until January 10, 2009. As supporting Page 4 of 20
  • documentation, the applicant submits copies of the pages from his travel document, which reflect the following five entries to the United States on: October 5, 2007; December 26, 2007; April 27, 2008; May 2, 2008; and July 19, 2008. As the applicant does not specify his last entry date to the United States, it is not clear that the petition was filed while he was present in the United States. It is also noted that the Bank of Montreal credit card statement is insufficient evidence of the applicants presence in the United States. Moreover, the applicants travel document that was issued on January 10, 2007 does not contain an entry stamp in support of the applicants assertions that he was present in the United States on the date that is reflected on his credit card statement and at the time the instant application was filed with USCIS.Feb192010_02I1223.pdf The applicant is a native and citizen of Ecuador who Summarily Dismissed seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The director denied the application after determining that it was filed after the applicant had departed from the United States.Just because you have a On appeal, the applicants father states, in part, that, right to file an appeal had he known of the requirement to file the applicationdoes not mean you have while present in the United States, he and his family to; or should bother. would have filed while they were in the United States in December of 2008. The applicants fathers statement is noted. He, however, does not provide a reason for the appeal on the Form I-290B, a statement or brief which alleges any error of law or fact on the part of the director, or any other discussion regarding how the evidence submitted on appeal addresses the directors reason for denying the petition. Page 5 of 20
  • Mar192010_01I1223.pdf A review of the record reveals the following facts and Appeal Dismissed procedural history: The applicant was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident on A Special Note to LPR September 18, 2005. She subsequently filed an and USC husbands: Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) withYour wife is a separate U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) human being and she and was issued a reentry permit on June 7, 2006, valid must apply for, and to June 7, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the applicantsqualify for the things that husband filed the instant Form I-131 on the applicants she needs, on her own! behalf with USCIS. On April 3, 2009, the director requested that the applicant submit evidence to document that she was in the United States at the time the Form I-131 was filed. In her April 14, 2009 response, the applicant indicated that her husband had filed for the familys travel documents while he was in the United States, and that she was not present in the United States at the time of filing. The applicant submitted various supporting documents, including evidence of her entries to the United States in 2007 and 2009, and copies of an airline ticket and itinerary. ***** The Act provides no exception regarding the physical presence requirement at the time of filing a Form I-131 for a reentry permit. Since the application was not filed until after the applicant had departed from the United States, the application may not be approved as a matter of law. If a lawful permanent resident seeks to reenter after an absence of one year or more, and does not possess a reentry permit, he or she should contact a United States consulate abroad for further information regarding possible options for return to the United States.Mar192010_02I1223.pdf A family member filed an I-290B but that person did Appeal Rejected not demonstrate that (s)he was an attorney or accredited representative and there was no G-28. Page 6 of 20
  • Judging by the tone of the rejection, I do not think we are dealing with a situation where the actual applicant was incapable to file due to young age or infirmity. I think it was probably a sexist spouse or pushy adult son (or daughter) filing for an illiterate person or worse a person viewed as a non-entity and in either case, that person might also have been outside the country.Mar192010_03I1223.pdf The evidence of record indicates that the applicant Appeal Dismissed entered into the United States as a B-2 visitor for pleasure on November 24, 1997. The record also indicates that the applicant has a pending Form I- 485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or The applicant did NOT Adjust Status. The applicant submitted the instant I-assert a simple mistake as 131 application on August 17, 2009. In Part 2, to “checking the wrong "Application Type," the applicant checked box a., box”. That tells me indicating that he held U.S. conditional resident something, there has got status and was applying for a reentry permit. to be much more to the story...... The director denied the Form I-131 because the applicant failed to establish that he was a conditional Perhaps this applicant resident or lawful permanent resident and was thus came to “visit” an adult ineligible for a reentry permit. On appeal, the applicant son or daughter and states, in part, that he is a victim of crime, and lists his waited for years for him rights and accomplishments. or her to naturalize andfile a concurrent I-130 for As discussed above, the record indicates that the the parent for a USC? applicant has a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. While an This B-2 overstay applicant who has a pending application for lawful couldn’t wait a little bit permanent residence status may submit an application longer for the I-485 to for an advance parole document, the applicant in this process? matter indicated on his Form I-131 that he held U.S. conditional resident status and was applying for aIt just sounds too strange. reentry permit. He did not indicate on the Form I-31 that he was seeking an advance parole document. Once U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) concludes that an alien is not eligible for the specifically requested classification, the agency is not Page 7 of 20
  • required to consider, sua sponte, whether the alien is eligible for an alternate classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Chertoff, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008).Mar292010_01I1223.pdf The applicant is a native of Mexico and a citizen of Appeal Rejected Canada who seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §1203. The director denied the application after determining that it was mailed from Canada. But wait! It was filed late and rejected for that reason. On appeal, Counsel made unsupported assertions that the applicant was really in the U.S. when the I-131 was filed but there was zero proof in the record nor was any submitted on appeal so it did not meet the requirements of a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider..Mar292010_02I1223.pdf The applicant is a native of India and a citizen of Summarily Dismissed Australia who seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The director denied the application after determining that it was filed from Australia. On appeal, the applicant states, in part, that she was not aware that the Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, had to be filed from the United States. She also states that currently she is her mothers caregiver and that she is studying for her PhD. The applicants statement is noted. She, however, does not provide a reason for the appeal on the Form I- 290B, a statement or brief which alleges any error of law or fact on the part of the director, or any other discussion regarding how the evidence submitted on appeal addresses the directors reason for denying the petition. Page 8 of 20
  • Mar292010_03I1223.pdf The applicant is a native of the United Arab Emirates Summarily Dismissed and a citizen of Australia who seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Déjà vu! Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The director denied the application after determining that it was filed from Australia. On appeal, the applicant states, in part, that she was not aware that the Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, had to be filed from the United States. She also states that she plans to return to the United States upon completion of her studies in Australia. The applicants statement is noted. She, however, does not provide a reason for the appeal on the Form I- 290B, a statement or brief which alleges any error of law or fact on the part of the director, or any other discussion regarding how the evidence submitted on appeal addresses the directors reason for denying the petition.Apr192010_01I1223.pdf The applicant is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka who Appeal Dismissed seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and NationalityThis one is mom’s and the Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §1203. The director denied the next is her daughter’s. application after determining that it was filed after the applicant had departed from the United States. ***** A review of the record reveals the following facts and procedural history: The applicant was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident on March 6, 2007. On February 25, 2008, the applicant filed the instant Form I-131. On August 28, 2008, the director requested that the applicant submit evidence to document that she was in the United States at the time the Form I-131 was filed. In her September 23, 2008 response, the applicant indicated that she had departed the United States on March 20, 2007, to be with her children who are full-time students in Sri Lanka. The applicant submitted supporting Page 9 of 20
  • documentation, including copies of her passport pages with stamps from Sri Lanka Immigration, dated March 6, 2007 and March 22, 2007. ***** If a lawful permanent resident seeks to reenter after an absence of one year or more, and does not possess a reentry permit, he or she should contact a United States consulate abroad for further information regarding possible options for return to the United States.Apr192010_02I1223.pdf A review of the record reveals the following facts and Appeal Dismissed procedural history: The applicant was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident onShe and mom (above) and March 6, 2007. On February 25, 2008, the applicantprobably a brother and/or filed the instant Form I-131. On August 28, 2008, the sister will need SB-1 director requested that the applicant submit evidence Visas from State. to document that she was in the United States at the time the Form I-131 was filed. In her September 23, 2008 response, the applicant indicated that she had departed the United States on March 20, 2007, as she is a full-time student in Sri Lanka. The applicant submitted supporting documentation, including copies of her passport pages with stamps from Sri Lanka Immigration, dated March 6, 2007 and March 22, 2007.May022011_01I1223.pdf .... The director denied the application because the Summarily Dismissed applicant did not provide a U.S. address and comply with the requirement of attending an appointment for biometrics capture at an Application Support Center (ASC) in the United States. On appeal, the applicant states, in part, that she is unable to attend an appointment for biometrics capture in the United States because she is currently living inIt appears to be Pakistan [REDACTED] and caring for her elderly mother. Asand her case is addressed supporting documentation, the applicant submits ain more than one of these completed fingerprint chart and copies of her decisions. identification documents. The applicants statement Page 10 of 20
  • and additional evidence are noted. She, however, does not provide a reason for the appeal on the Form I- 290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a statement or brief which alleges any error of law or fact on the part of the director, or any other discussion regarding how the evidence submitted on appeal addresses the directors reason for denying the application. As discussed above, the applicant is required to attend an appointment for biometrics capture at an ASC in the United States. ***** Inasmuch as the applicant has failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. I2 in 2010 None PostedMar012011_01I2223.pdf The applicant is a native and citizen of Pakistan who Appeal Dismissed seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C § 1203. The director denied the application after determining that it was filed after the applicant had departed from the United States. The director also denied the application due to abandonment because the applicant failed to appear for biometric processing. Pursuant to 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b)(15), the denial of an application due to abandonment may not be appealed. The AAO does not have appellate jurisdiction when an application is denied due to abandonment. Accordingly, the portion of counsels appeal addressing the applicants failure to appear for biometric processing will not be addressed.Mar012011_02I2223.pdf The application was denied by the Director, Nebraska Appeal Dismissed Service Center. The director granted a subsequent motion to reopen, and reaffirmed his previous decision to deny the application. The matter is now before the Page 11 of 20
  • Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. Theappeal will be dismissed.The applicant is a native and citizen of Korea whoseeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit)under section 223 of the Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The director denied theapplication after determining that the applicant wasnot a lawful permanent resident of the United Statesat the time of the applications filing. ** * WAIT-IT GETS BETTER!* * *A review of the record reveals the following facts andprocedural history: The applicant was admitted intothe United States as a lawful permanent resident onJuly 30, 1982. On May 15, 2005, the applicant signeda Form I-407, Abandonment of Lawful PermanentResident Status, at the Port of Entry in Blaine,Washington, and concurrently signed a Form I-877,Record of Sworn Statement in AdministrativeProceedings, that the surrender of her U.S. lawfulpermanent resident status was voluntary. On February27, 2007, the applicant filed a Form I-131, Applicationfor Travel Document. The director denied theapplication after determining that the applicant was nota lawful permanent resident of the United States at thetime of the applications filing. The director granted asubsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, andreaffirmed his previous decision to deny theapplication.On appeal, counsel asserts that the applicant did notvoluntarily surrender her U.S. lawful permanentresident status, but did so under duress. In support ofhis assertion, counsel submits a declaration from theapplicant.While the AAO acknowledges the assertions fromcounsel and the applicant on appeal that the applicants Page 12 of 20
  • surrender of her U.S. lawful permanent residence was not voluntary, the AAO has no authority to review the decision pertaining to the applicants surrender of her U .S. lawful permanent resident status. Since the application was not filed until after the applicant had surrendered her U.S. lawful permanent resident status, the application may not be approved as a matter of law.Mar222011_01I2223.pdf DISCUSSION: The application was denied by the Appeal Dismissed Director, Nebraska Service Center, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Things have a way of on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.catching up to you in theend. That is, past frauds The applicant is a native and citizen of Guinea, whousually come back to bite seeks to obtain a refugee travel document pursuant to 8 in the rear-end! C.F.R. § 223.1(b). The director concluded that the applicant did not hold valid refugee status under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), valid asylum status under section 208 of the Act, or permanent resident status as a direct result of her refugee or asylee status at the time the application was filed. The director denied the application accordingly. On appeal, the applicant submits a brief statement on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and copies of: a Form 1-94, Arrival/Departure Record; a social security card; a New York State drivers license; and an Employment Authorization Document. Applicable Law The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 223.1 states in pertinent part: (b) Refugee travel document. A refugee travel document is issued pursuant to this part and article 28 of the United Nations Convention of July 29, 1951, for the purpose of travel. Except as provided in § 223.3(d)(2)(i), a person who Page 13 of 20
  • holds refugee status pursuant to section 207 of the Act, or asylum status pursuant to section 208 of the Act, must have a refugee travel document to return to the United States after temporary travel abroad unless he or she is in possession of a valid advance parole document.The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 223.2(b)(2)(i) states: General. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an application may be approved if filed by a person who is in the United States at the time of application, and either holds valid refugee status under section 207 of the Act, valid asylum status under section 208 of the Act, or is a permanent resident and received such status as a direct result of his or her asylum or refugee status.Facts and Procedural HistoryOn June 9, 2003, the applicants alleged spouse filed arefugee/asylee relative petition (Form 1-730) on herbehalf, which was approved on July 29, 2004. OnSeptember 30, 2005, the Director, California ServiceCenter, reopened the matter based upon informationobtained from the U.S. Consulate in Conakry, whichindicated that the applicant had submitted a fraudulentmarriage certificate at the time of her consularinterview. The applicant was afforded 30 days to rebutthe derogatory information, and she failed to respond.The director, therefore, denied the Form I-730 onDecember 9, 2005.In December 2005, the applicant submitted anapplication for refugee travel document (Form I-131)that was approved on January 21, 2006. The applicantfiled a second Form I-131 in July 2007 that wasapproved on June 13, 2008. The applicant filed theinstant application for a third refugee travel document Page 14 of 20
  • on May 15, 2009. In denying the application, thedirector noted that the applicant was not a refugee oran asylee, and had not been granted adjustment ofstatus as a direct result of refugee or asylee status. Thedirector acknowledged that the applicant had beengranted two refugee travel documents in the past andconcluded that these documents were issued in errorand U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS) was not bound by those erroneous approvals.On appeal, the applicant states that she was issued tworefugee travel documents in the past by USCIS, andshe holds refugee status as evidenced by an endorsedForm I-94 as well as an approved Form I-730 that wasfiled by her spouse on her behalf.The Applicant is not Entitled to a Refugee TravelDocumentThe applicant notes on appeal that USCIS approvedtwo applications for refugee travel documents in thepast. The directors decision indicates that he reviewedthe prior approvals of the other applications andacknowledged that they had been approved in error.Neither the director nor the AAO is required toapprove an application where eligibility has not beendemonstrated, merely because of prior approvals thatmay have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of ChurchScientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597(Comm. 1988).The relevant evidence clearly establishes that theapplicant is neither a refugee nor an asylee, and did notadjust her status to that of a lawful permanent residentas a direct result of being a refugee or asylee. As notedearlier, the Form 1-730 that was initially approved onthe applicants behalf was subsequently denied afterproper notice on December 9, 2005. Similarly, theapplicants adjustment of status application (Form 1-485) was denied on October 20, 2009. Page 15 of 20
  • We note that the applicant was initially issued a refugee travel document in January 2006 and used that document to reenter the United States after a brief trip abroad, at which time an immigration inspector issued to her a Form I-94 indicating that asylum status was granted indefinitely. USCIS is not bound by an error committed by an immigrant inspector at the time of admission. Matter of Khan, 14 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 1973). Just as USCIS is not bound to approve the instant application based upon the erroneous approvals of two prior refugee travel document applications, the applicants possession of an erroneously-issued Form I-94 also does not demonstrate eligibility for a refugee travel document. Conclusion As in all proceedings, the applicant bears the burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.Apr052011_02I2223.pdf The evidence of record indicates that the applicant Appeal Dismissed filed the instant 1-131 application on April 2, 2010. In Part 2. "Application Type," the applicant checked box a., indicating that he held U.S. permanent or conditional resident status and was applying for a reentry permit. The director denied the 1-131 application after determining that the applicant was not a lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident of the United States at the time of the applications filing and was thus ineligible for a reentry permit. On appeal, the applicant correctly states that he became a permanent resident on July 27, 2010. Page 16 of 20
  • A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records confirms the applicants statement on appeal that he became a lawful conditional resident of the United States on July 27, 2010. The application may not be approved, however, because the applicant must establish eligibility at the time of filing the application. USClS regulations affirmatively require an applicant to establish eligibility for the benefit he is seeking at the time the application is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). An application may not be approved at a future date after the applicant becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). In this case, the application was filed on April 2, 2010, and the applicant became a lawful conditional resident on July 27, 2010. As the applicant was not a lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident of the United States at the time of the applications filing, it is concluded that the application may not be approved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In sum, the director properly denied the I-131 application because the applicant was not a lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident of the United States at the time of the applications filing. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the applicant. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The applicant has not sustained that burden.Apr052011_03I2223.pdf The applicant is a native and citizen of Vietnam who Appeal Dismissed seeks to obtain a travel document (reentry permit) under section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1203. The director denied the application after determining that the applicant was not a lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident of the United States at the time of the applications filing. Page 17 of 20
  • On appeal, the applicant states, in part, that she needs to visit her ill father for three weeks. The applicants statement is noted. She, however, does not provide a reason for the appeal on the Form I- 290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a statement or brief which alleges any error of law or fact on the part of the director, or any other discussion regarding how the evidence submitted on appeal addresses the directors reason for denying the application.May022011_01I2223.pdf The applicant is a native and citizen of [REDACTED] Appeal Dismissed who seeks to obtain a refugee travel document pursuant to 8 C.F.R.§ 223.1(b). The director denied the application because, although the applicant was paroled into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) for the purpose of filing an asylum application, the record contains no evidence that he ever filed for asylum, and thus he does not qualify for a refugee travel document. On appeal, the applicant states, in part, that, as a [REDACTED] he was automatically granted refugee/asylee status and, therefore, he is eligible for a refugee travel document. ***** A review of the record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The applicant arrived in the United States in 1980 during the Mariel [REDACTED] boatlift. On July 23, 1980, the applicant was paroled into the United States until September 27, 1980, pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, for the purpose of applying for asylum. The record, however, does not find that the applicant ever applied for asylum, and thus he was never granted asylum status. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 223.2(b )(2)(i) states clearly that a refugee travel document may be granted only to an applicant who "either holds valid refugee status under section 207 of the Act, valid asylum status under section 208 of the Act, or is a permanent Page 18 of 20
  • resident and received such status as a direct result of his or her asylum or refugee status." As the applicant does not fall into one of these categories, his application for a refugee travel document must be denied.May022011_02I2223.pdf The applicant is a native of China and citizen of Appeal Dismissed Honduras who seeks to obtain a refugee travel document under 8 C.F.R. § 223.1(b). The director denied the application after determining that the applicant had not been granted refugee or asylee status. A review of the record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The applicant entered into the United States on August 10, 1997. The applicant was subsequently granted Temporary Protected Status. The applicant submitted an I-131 application on July 6, 2010, stating that the purpose of his trip was to visit his relatives in Hong Kong, China. In Part 2, "Application Type," the applicant checked box b., indicating that he held U.S. refugee or asylee status and was applying for a refugee travel document. The director denied the Form I-131 because the applicant failed to establish that he had been granted refugee or asylee status and, therefore, was ineligible for a refugee travel document. On appeal, the applicant indicates, in part, that he has filed a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and requests a travel document to visit his grandparents. The record indicates that the applicant re-registered for Temporary Protected Status during the designated re- registration period for Honduran nationals, from May 5 until July 5, 2010, in order to maintain his status through January 5, 2012. The record also contains a Form 1-797, Notice of Action, reflecting that the applicants request for employment authorization was approved and valid from July 6, 2010 to January 5, Page 19 of 20
  • 2012. While an applicant who has been granted Temporary Protected Status may submit an application for an advance parole document, the applicant in this matter indicated on his Form I-131 that he held U.S. refugee or asylee status and was applying for a refugee travel document. He did not indicate on the Form I-131 that he was seeking an advance parole document. Once U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) concludes that an alien is not eligible for the specifically requested classification, the agency is not required to consider, sua sponte, whether the alien is eligible for an alternate classification. Brazil Quality Stones, Inc., v. Chertoff, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2743927 (9th Cir. July 10, 2008).May022011_03I2223.pdf This appellant and the one in the case above are Appeal Dismissed obviously a parent and child/son/daughter. ...... the applicant indicates, in part, that she has filed a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and requests a travel document to visit her parents in China. Page 20 of 20