Question:
I was granted asylum a few years ago. I applied and received a Refugee
Travel Document from INS. I went to French to apply for a Schengen
visa. The visa officer asked about my national passport. After I told
him it's still valid he refused to issue visa to me on my Refugee
Travel Document. He insisted that he would issue Schengen visa on my
national passport.
Will I be in trouble if I travel with my national passport instead of
my Refugee Travel Document?
Answer:
Will you be in touble?
You bet. Big, big, BIG trouble.
To travel on your national passport is to invoke your government's
protection. That ends your eligibility for asylum. Remember: you
have to be totally unable to avail yourself of your country's
protection, for fear of persecution, or you don't qualify for asylum.
Use that passport and, before you know it, you'll be homeward bound.
I'm guessing that's not what you want.
The French government should know this, and their failure to honor a
convention Refugee Travel Document and insist on a national passport
instead is almost certainly a violation of a binding treaty. It may
be time for a call to a member of Congress, preferably someone having
oversight of the State Department.
In the meantime, DON'T let anyone put visas in your national passport,
and DON'T travel on it!
I don't see how using the national passport could be a problem (and I
disagree with David R. Tucker on this!) After all, you are still a
citizen of that country, and using the passport is your basic human
right. Just because you use that right doesn't mean that you'd be safe
in your home country - and that's the primary criterion for asylum.
The only thing that routinely is a problem for somebody who received
asylum is visiting your home country because that is normally
considered evidence that it is now safe to move back.
I explained how. Using a passport to enter a country invokes that
country's protection. Asylees are supposed to be afraid to do that.
(Doesn't your passport indicate it to be government property? And
doesn't it have a short letter of introduction in it from the foreign
affairs deparment?)
I am NOT saying he can't show the passport to folks as casual ID; only
that to use it officially muddies his intentions.
Asylees have the right to reenter their country, too, but that doesn't
mean it doesn't endanger their status as an asylees. And it's travel
that's the basic human right, not the right to use a specific travel
document and have no consequences follow. That's one of the reasons
refugee travel documents exist in the first place.
What if a refugee needs to travel to his/her country of persecution?
Refugees who return to their county of persecution risk losing their
refugee status at reentry into the United States. Such a return
always casts suspicion on his/her prior claim of a "well-founded fear
of persecution". However, a refugee does not automatically lose status
by returning to the country of persecution. The INS should examine the
extraordinary reasons and special circumstances that may have prompted
the refugee to return, (i.e. A sick immediate family member will have
a different bearing on a refugee's relation to his/her former country,
then visits for pleasure or business). Any refugee returning from
his/her country of persecution should be prepared to document,
(i.e. In the case of a sick family member - letters from the family
detailing a sickness, medical documents, photos, etc.), any reasons
for making such a trip.
Now, that doesn't exactly say that using the national passport in
international travel would cause the same problem, but I think it
would. In any event, it's a very large chance to take. Note again:
the refugee has the burden of proof, not the INS. What exceptional
circumstance exists here, if the original poster never even bothers
trying to get the US government involved?
Plus, there is still the issue of the French government dishonoring a
US refugee document, which I find outrageous.
So that's my case; judge it as you will. But at this stage it might
be best if we simply refer the original poster to a good immigration
attorney for a formal written opinion, especially since so much is at
stake.
You are right, it does invoke that countries protection. I don't see
why an asylee would have to be afraid of that, though. In an extreme
example, if a Jew in WW II travelled from the US to Australia, I
really fail to see how using his German passport would indicate that
he isn't afraid of Hitler.
I'm not even sure. After all, what ARE an asylee's intentions? I would
venture that many of them would prefer to return to their home country
as soon as it is safe. So it would be only logical that they do claim
their citizenship.
As far as I understood it, the main reason for the refugee travel
document is to:
- indicate that he has been accepted for refugee status
- serve as a substitute for a passport if the home country refuses to
issue one.
I'm straddling the fence on this. What they really said was that "if a
national passport is available, that's what we want to see. Only if no
national passport is available will we honor the US refugee document."
That said, most European nations, not only the French, have pretty
outrageous treatment of refugees.
If you can rely on your government's protection in a third country,
you don't have a well-founded fear of persecution, because your
government can and does protect you, or at least you are showing you
believe it does. At least, that's the implication. And if you have
no well-founded fear, refugee status terminates.
It's no good to pick an example where everyone knows persecution is
certain. Most cases are much more difficult, and in those cases proof
is hard to come by and small indications can be very important. In
fact, what worries me is that France as a matter of policy might hold
that persecution in the original poster's country is quite rare, and
that it would have few qualms about deporting the person there.
If the US didn't step in, there would be nothing to stop France from
doing that - and there would be no French recognition that the person,
not a US national, is entitled to US protection, so it could simply
tell the US to get lost. Or, worse, the US would decide there must
have been no well-founded fear in the first place, and allow the
deportation, or take the person back and deport him itself. All ugly
possibilities.
As a side note, I really can't see a Jewish refugee from Hitler
travelling on Nazi travel documents if anything else is available.
I sure wouldn't think much of a country that insisted upon it.
Yes. I wish my case were factually stronger, but it what I could find
was weaker than I remembered.
That's it, then - the "consensus" is a recommendation is to get a
formal written opinion before acting.
