庇护绿卡回国指南和科普

庇护绿卡能不能回中国，这是 case by case 的问题。风险来自于两方，一方是美国，另一方是中国。美国从来没有因为庇护绿卡回国就取消绿卡的先例，风险只来自于中国。
总的原则是：拿到绿卡之前必须符合被庇护者的定义，拿到绿卡之后就没有法律规定必须符合被庇护者的定义。不仅能更新中国护照，还能停止参加庇护活动，还能回国。
我要在这里插播一条，庇护绿卡是否受到美国的保护？或者庇护绿卡是否需要美国的保护？答案是否定的，美国并不保护庇护绿卡，只保护庇护批准人，当庇护批准人转换身份到 AS LPR 之后就不再保护这人了，也不需要美国的保护。援引案例是：Matter of N-A-I-, 27 I&N Dec. 72 (BIA 2017) [1]. 庇护绿卡本来就不需要美国的保护，美国只要求这人拿到绿卡之前需要保护。
另外美国也不禁止庇护绿卡持有人去更新母国护照，只是要求在拿到绿卡之前必须符合被保护的定义，所以我不建议在拿到绿卡之前去更新中国护照。虽然在 Instructions for Form I-131 里面有提及这方面的内容 [2]，但是英语不好的人很容易读错。这里面说的是 they may apply for a Refugee Travel Document 意思是允许 asylee 和 AS LPR 申请 RTD，不是强制他们必须申请 RTD ，插播一条法律英语小讲堂 [3][4][5][6]
庇护绿卡能不能回国，取决于你曾经参加过些什么活动，你的庇护案情是什么样。庇护分为五种理由，国籍、种族、宗教、政治、特殊群体。
你的案情如果是政治观点，或者其他观点但是你掺杂了反中国政府或者党的元素，你回国很有可能被剪中国护照，别说回国，如果继续对中国领事馆表达这个观点，连中国护照都换不出来。
Case 1：张三的案情是在中国反对中国政府或 CCP 。
Case 2：李四的案情是在美国反对中国政府或 CCP。
Case 3：王五的案情是，啥都不懂就是信仰宗教，在中国参加地下教会突然被警察抓捕殴打。在美国和中国都没有反对中国政府或 CCP。
Case 4：赵小娟的案情是，啥都不懂就是想要孩子，她 16 岁的时候未婚先孕被堕胎了。在美国和中国都没有反对中国政府或 CCP 。
Case 5：刘六的案情是，他是一个男同性恋者，啥都不懂就是喜欢男的，就被送到精神病院去打针吃药电击。在美国和中国都没有反对中国政府或 CCP 。

这几种案情，1 2 回中国都有问题，就算成为美国公民如果还在从事这方面活动，也回不去（拿不到签证），这种是纯粹的典型政治观点。 3 4 5 分别是宗教、计划生育（是一种特殊的政治观点）、特殊群体（同性恋），不掺杂任何反对中国政府或者 CCP 的元素，故而回国就算被问话，也不会被剪中国护照。
[1] The view that the list in section 208(c)(2) of the Act does not provide continuing protection for aliens who adjust to lawful permanent resident status is supported by the language of the provision…It is significant that an alien’s asylee status can only be terminated under section 209(b) of the Act if he or she voluntarily chooses to seek adjustment of status under that section. There are many reasons why an alien might choose to give up the protections of asylee status for lawful permanent resident status, but he or she is not required to do so and may remain indefinitely as an asylee…
[2] 2. Refugee Travel Document 

• If the alien is in the United States and (1) in valid refugee or asylee status based on INA sections 207 or 208 or (2) if the alien is a lawful permanent resident as a direct result of their refugee or asylee status in the United States, they may apply for a Refugee Travel Document. The alien must apply BEFORE they leave the United States.

[3]   10-61-3: USE OF "SHALL" AND “MAY":
A.   "Shall" Means Mandatory: The word "shall" means that the directives or requirements are mandatory and may not be waived or modified. If used within the text, "will" and "must" also mean “shall.”
B.   "May" Means Permissive: The word "may" means that the directives or requirements are permissive and are imposed at the option of the decision-maker. "Can" and "strive" also mean "may." (Ord. 2019-04, 10-16-2019)
美国法律出版：https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/wellsvilleut/latest/wellsville_ut/0-0-0-12316
[4] May expresses a permissive term or grants rights to a party. When you use may, you indicate that the term or act is merely discretionary, not mandatory. For example:
俄勒冈州律师协会：https://www.osbar.org/publicatio...ar/legalwriter.html
[5] Art. 5053.  Words and phrases
Words and phrases are to be read in their context, and are to be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language employed.
The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive.
路易斯安娜州立法院：https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=112141
[6] “May” for granting discretion
密歇根州律师协会：https://www.michbar.org/journal/...tion?ArticleID=4639

前几天读到一个第四巡回法官的判决书，RIAZ MAHMOOD v. JEFFERSON SESSIONS III (2017)
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/161438.p.pdf
这人是巴基斯坦人，庇护获批后来申请绿卡获批，驱逐他的理由不是因为他回到巴基斯坦，是他申请难民旅行证（131）和绿卡（485）撒谎，他回过巴基斯坦也领过巴基斯坦护照，但是他在 131 表格没说回过也没领过巴基斯坦护照，这属于造假获得证件，后来他在 485 表格上面又没写自己曾经撒谎获得证件。故而驱逐他。他就算回过巴基斯坦也领用过巴基斯坦护照，只要在 131 表格如实交代即可。

Riaz Mahmood, a native and citizen of Pakistan who was granted asylum in the United States in 1997, voluntarily applied in 2011 for adjustment of his asylum status to the status of a lawful permanent resident, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). His application was granted in 2012. The Attorney General thereafter sought to deport Mahmood for having, over the years, obtained several immigration benefits by fraud

The immigration judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Mahmood deliberately misrepresented material facts in order to obtain travel documents and his lawful permanent resident status and ordered that Mahmood be removed from the United States to Pakistan.

…In his application, Mahmood indicated that, since being granted asylum in 1997, he had neither returned to Pakistan nor “applied for and/or obtained a national passport, passport renewal or entry permit” from Pakistan…In December 2007, Mahmood applied for another refugee travel document, again purportedly to visit his wife and children in Bangkok, and, as in his first application, he denied having returned to Pakistan or having obtained or renewed a Pakistani passport since his grant of asylum...While that charge was pending, Mahmood filed a Form I-485 application in August 2011, seeking to adjust his asylee status to that of lawful permanent resident, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). In his application, Mahmood certified under the penalty of perjury that he had never “by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, ever sought to procure, or procured, a visa, other documentation, entry into the United States, or any immigration benefit.” He further certified that he had never “knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any alien to try to enter the United States illegally.” While this application was pending, the DHS dropped the illegal entry charge against him and subsequently, in December 2012, granted his application for adjustment to the status of a lawful permanent resident...
在判决书的最后一页，联邦法官对被庇护者、庇护绿卡持有人两者，做出了清晰的划分，庇护者必须符合恐惧的这类定义，而庇护绿卡持有人则需要保持绿卡即可。
Of course, strong policies underlie the INA’s protection of aliens granted asylum, as Mahmood points out, temporarily prohibiting, except in carefully delineated circumstances, their return to a country where they would be persecuted. But strong policies also underlie the INA’s authorization to asylees to change their status and eventually to become naturalized citizens of the United States. These policies serve different purposes, either of which an alien in Mahmood’s position may invoke. But the statute does not provide for both statuses to apply simultaneously. Asylum status is a transient status that is conditioned on the fear of persecution in the country of origin. Lawful permanent resident status, on the other hand, focuses on a future permanent status in the United States. Nonetheless, as we have noted, even in the circumstance where an asylee has adjusted his status to a lawful permanent resident and thereby relinquished his asylum status, the lawful permanent resident can, after obtaining that status, still object to deportation by requesting asylum if the conditions in his country at that time justify such a request.

sans_non 发表于 2025-3-20 10:40
不知道楼主为啥一直到处宣扬壁虎绿卡回国再回美没问题，USCIS官方指南上明确说：

If you return to the  ...

我一直宣扬到处宣扬壁虎绿卡回国再回美没问题，是因为没有人因为回国而被吊销庇护绿卡或者不能入籍的。身边很多人都这么回去，也没有任何问题。


移民局没说不能回，他说是得有理由才能回去，而且回国时间不能太长，但是绿卡本来就不能离开美国太长时间。庇护绿卡回国的都准备一个理由的。

A person granted permanent residence based on a grant of asylum is still subject to the possible consequences of returning to the country of claimed persecution. An individual’s underlying asylum status may be terminated even if the individual has already become a lawful permanent resident. In some limited circumstances, you may be able to return to the country you fear if your stay is of a short duration and you can demonstrate that your return to that particular country was due to compelling reasons.

补充内容 (2025-03-21 06:36 +08:00):

你说所有网上的source99.999999%都反对，但是我身边的人回去都没问题，我这么多年了，我也没听说过有一个出问题的。
另外，就算 CBP 知道，他们无权取消绿卡，只有移民法官才有权取消绿卡。

补充内容 (2025-03-21 13:18 +08:00):

你说“有一得必有一失，什么都想要是不可能的，”
什么都想要就是可能的，无数人都这么做了没有任何问题。这只不过是你的一厢情愿，你嫉妒别人拿绿卡容易又没有任何代价，只不过是你给自己的心理安慰而已。你倒是给我找找从前的判例，哪个庇护绿卡因为回国就被吊销绿卡或者不让入籍了？

Larry_cat 发表于 2025-3-20 22:02
在这边宣传政庇干嘛？
一亩三分地的都是留学过来的，基本上不会考虑政庇这一条路。

我是为了教育的目的，没看到标题是科普吗？你们这里人水平低，没有一个说的准确的，我是为了传播真相，扫除法盲。

你说一亩三分地的都是留学过来的，我本人也是留学过来的。你说要等很久绿卡，我本人是来了美国两年就绿卡了。

你说什么壮胆，我也不需要壮胆，我是这方面的法律专家，只有什么都不懂的人才需要壮胆。你才需要壮胆，你什么都不敢做，结果苦熬 10 多年绿卡，我就跟你说吧，我把 from 我来美国 to 我入籍的年数乘以 2 ，说不定相当于你来美到拿绿卡的年数，说不定还更短。


我的心就是为了扫除大众对于这方面的错误认识。顺便刺激（嘲笑）一下苦熬 10 年甚至更久绿卡的人。

吊销绿卡需要证据，铁证如山，你可知道哪些证据才能让一个庇护绿卡成功被吊销？你这些都不懂，你还不谦虚向我请教。

gavinLaw 发表于 2025-3-19 17:09
长见识了，我一直以为bh就是说受到了政治迫害，从来没考虑过bh，因为不回国消费，总感觉来美工作的汇率差没 ...

中国人的申请，政治迫害都少，大部分人是非常低调地编一个宗教或者计划生育的故事，一小撮脑子糊涂的人是非常高调地举牌子让你看到了

长见识了，我一直以为bh就是说受到了政治迫害，从来没考虑过bh，因为不回国消费，总感觉来美工作的汇率差没啥用

总觉得你和之前地里某个人很像，哈哈

兄弟你最好别在这里发，吃力不讨好。去泥潭或者红迪吧

早乙女玄马 发表于 2025-3-19 21:12
兄弟你最好别在这里发，吃力不讨好。去泥潭或者红迪吧

你帮我转过去吧

1145147 发表于 2025-3-19 20:54
总觉得你和之前地里某个人很像，哈哈

我 10 年前上中学的时候就在这个论坛上

我问个弱智问题，庇护绿卡能从卡片上看出来是庇护的吗？

夏刈不能 发表于 2025-3-20 08:12
我问个弱智问题，庇护绿卡能从卡片上看出来是庇护的吗？

能，还有啥问题