I551 Stamp Travel in Removal Proceedings

[Family 3,491]

Since you appeared at the bond hearing, I will assume your attorney was there ( by phone or video) and would have DENIED allegations/charges in the NTA , making this a contested hearing . 
Plus hopefully he had a chance to thoroughly review the NTA for any deficiency 

 

But how you were let in is reflected in the NTA box they checked. I strongly recommend you get through to your attorney ( his office can relay a message) and I am sure he can peck away a quick response on his iPhone, considering your urgent need to travel . 
 

Some removal defense attorneys offer free consultations, if your fellow is so unreachable, so try talking to a few. 
Only a few on VJ that share their removal proceedings experience,  but will tag a couple that may chime in with their position and their own attorney’s advice about traveling while in removal. 

@Demise and @God is a good God any thoughts? 
 

On the other hand , a recent poster who was placed in removal as a result of I-751 denial just planned to go to Mexico for honeymoon, without worrying about the travel ….perhaps someone can recall the post .

[IlliChi 5]

2 minutes ago, Family said:

Since you appeared at the bond hearing, I will assume your attorney was there ( by phone or video) and would have DENIED allegations/charges in the NTA , making this a contested hearing . 
Plus hopefully he had a chance to thoroughly review the NTA for any deficiency 

Yes indeed, The 3rd box from top to bottom was checked (You have been admitted but are removable). So at the time the NTA was issued I was definitely not treated an arriving alien, which is the first option on the NTA boxes.

[Family 3,491]

3 minutes ago, IlliChi said:

Yes indeed, The 3rd box from top to bottom was checked (You have been admitted but are removable). So at the time the NTA was issued I was definitely not treated an arriving alien, which is the first option on the NTA boxes.

Ok so you need to tell your attorney of plan to leave and leave only with his OK ( doing anything else will be against legal advice , so to speak.) in case anything goes wrong and when you try and come back..CBP won’t keep their “ promise “ .to let you in same ….can’t talk to the parole itself and what/how s of it …

 

So , as an aside again hopefully your attorney denied charges when he entered pleadings
 

[IlliChi 5]

5 minutes ago, Family said:

So , as an aside again hopefully your attorney denied charges when he entered pleadings

of course, the bond hearing was just so I could get the hell out of there by proving that you are not a threat to the society but also have a valid status in the US. So we informed the IJ we will address the real issue during the actual hearings, denied all allegations. 

[Family 3,491]

Good , yes pleadings are required before getting/at bond hearing . 

[Demise 1,096]

1 hour ago, Family said:

Since you appeared at the bond hearing, I will assume your attorney was there ( by phone or video) and would have DENIED allegations/charges in the NTA , making this a contested hearing . 
Plus hopefully he had a chance to thoroughly review the NTA for any deficiency 

 

But how you were let in is reflected in the NTA box they checked. I strongly recommend you get through to your attorney ( his office can relay a message) and I am sure he can peck away a quick response on his iPhone, considering your urgent need to travel . 
 

Some removal defense attorneys offer free consultations, if your fellow is so unreachable, so try talking to a few. 
Only a few on VJ that share their removal proceedings experience,  but will tag a couple that may chime in with their position and their own attorney’s advice about traveling while in removal. 

@Demise and @God is a good God any thoughts? 
 

On the other hand , a recent poster who was placed in removal as a result of I-751 denial just planned to go to Mexico for honeymoon, without worrying about the travel ….perhaps someone can recall the post .

File a motion to terminate with prejudice on the basis that the charges are substantially defective and CBP severely exceeded it's authority by issuing an NTA. USCIS has jurisdiction over the I-751 and it hasn't denied it yet thereby OP is an LPR. CBP has no jurisdiction over an I-751 no matter what, thereby it has no jurisdiction to to treat the I-751 as it were denied and move the matter to an immigration court.

 

A motion can be filed and granted at any time. There's no point in waiting for a hearing. There is also very few cases where you can play hardball with the government, and in this case they screwed up so badly that ball should fly straight through their building.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Demise

[IlliChi 5]

21 minutes ago, Demise said:

File a motion to terminate with prejudice on the basis that the charges are substantially defective and CBP severely exceeded it's authority by issuing an NTA. USCIS has jurisdiction over the I-751 and it hasn't denied it yet thereby OP is an LPR. CBP has no jurisdiction over an I-751 no matter what, thereby it has no jurisdiction to to treat the I-751 as it were denied and move the matter to an immigration court.

I know that's what my attn considered at first, but he decided to go the Prosecutorial Discretion route through ICE directly also because no judge was assigned for a while and the system keeps switching it once one is assigned, it's a whole mess. So we are waiting on that PD answer first we may hear back soon we will see.

[Demise 1,096]

Just now, IlliChi said:

I know that's what my attn considered at first, but he decided to go the Prosecutorial Discretion route through ICE directly also because no judge was assigned for a while and the system keeps switching it once one is assigned, it's a whole mess. So we are waiting on that PD answer first we may hear back soon we will see.

File and let the court figure out who should read it. I've submitted a PD request back in April right when the Doyle memo went into effect. Heard nothing back up to this date. I submitted a motion to recalendar and change venue with the court on the third, unlike the PD request someone has to read it and rule on it.

[Family 3,491]

19 minutes ago, IlliChi said:

So we are waiting on that PD answer first we may hear back soon we will see.

You won’t get an answer and considering it’s been a year , your attorney left USCIS and FDNS unit with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. A precarious position for you considering you are no longer living with your spouse…

[IlliChi 5]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:47 PM, mindthegap said:

I agree. You are good. 

Doesn’t eliminate the fact that what they have done is very, very, wrong and way outside of procedure… and that’s not even getting into the permanent retention of someone’s genuine (not fake or tampered with) passport issued by a foreign government…highly illegal.

 

Im also intrigued as to precisely what basis they have cited against you. 

 

Please keep us posted if/when anything develops with this. I’m as intrigued as you are. 

 

 

Quick Update - I was able to travel to my home country for the holidays and came back with no issue and I was processed at the POE within

20mins. All they asked me for in secondary was to confirm my court date which I did and I was given a parole stamp. 

I had a nice conversation with them as well this time as they seemed to be more chill this time around. CBP advised someone in my case cannot be admitted as LPR at POE but instead is paroled in the country and can travel with no issue until the case is decided by the judge. Also advised no preliminary parole stamp is needed because no matter what I will be given one parole stamp at POE Valid for a year. 

That's about it for now, at least for the most part I have the peace of mind that even if the NTA is issued, a Conditional LPR can travel with just the I551. 

[Family 3,491]

54 minutes ago, IlliChi said:

Quick Update - I was able to travel to my home country for the holidays and came back with no issue and I was processed at the POE within

20mins. All they asked me for in secondary was to confirm my court date which I did and I was given a parole stamp. 

I had a nice conversation with them as well this time as they seemed to be more chill this time around. CBP advised someone in my case cannot be admitted as LPR at POE but instead is paroled in the country and can travel with no issue until the case is decided by the judge. Also advised no preliminary parole stamp is needed because no matter what I will be given one parole stamp at POE Valid for a year. 

That's about it for now, at least for the most part I have the peace of mind that even if the NTA is issued, a Conditional LPR can travel with just the I551

The reason attorneys advise LPR s who are in removal NOT to travel during proceedings is to avoid being paroled in since there are different ball game rules for LPR ( in the US having previously been admitted) are subject to Deportability while those returning from brief trip while in removal and paroled will be subject to Inadmissibility. 
An example being that a particular offense can make one inadmissible but does not make him deportable. 
 

So hopefully anyone facing removal, should be very cautious and listen to their legal rep before taking for granted the ease or travel
 

 

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/sample-pdf/ch._1.pdf

1. Special rules governing admission of returning lawful permanent residents under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)
When LPRs travel abroad and then come home to the United States, they generally will not be considered “seeking admission” at the border and will not be subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. There are six exceptions to this rule. Under INA § 101(a)(13)(C), an LPR returning from a trip outside the United States is seeking admission if they