A campaign to protect travel rights for derivative asylum applicants in the U.S.
I Want to Hug My Family
I Want to Hug My Family
A campaign to defend the right of derivative asylum applicants to travel internationally without risking their legal status. Support families — sign the petition.
Derivative applicants under Forms I-589 and I-730 who have not filed an individual asylum application face the risk of losing their status when traveling internationally.
Such travel may be interpreted by USCIS as an abandonment of asylum or as re-availment of protection from the country of persecution.
Such travel may be interpreted by USCIS as an abandonment of asylum or as re-availment of protection from the country of persecution.
How many people signed the petition?
- 7%Signatures100.000
- 1%Stories75
- 1%Class Action Readiness75
Thousands of families who have received asylum in the United States are grateful for the protection granted and the opportunity to begin a new life.
However, spouses and children included in a principal applicant’s asylum application (Form I-589) face serious legal uncertainty: even a short trip abroad—for example, to attend a funeral, accompany a child to school, or care for a critically ill relative—may be interpreted by immigration authorities as abandonment of asylum or re-availment of protection from the country they fled.
Derivative applicants are not required to submit their own asylum claims or prove a personal fear of persecution. Their status is based solely on their family relationship with the principal applicant, as provided under INA §208(b)(3)(A).
Despite this, actions such as international travel, use of a national passport, or a visit to a consulate may be viewed by USCIS as grounds for denying protection—even when those actions are undertaken for legitimate humanitarian reasons.
However, spouses and children included in a principal applicant’s asylum application (Form I-589) face serious legal uncertainty: even a short trip abroad—for example, to attend a funeral, accompany a child to school, or care for a critically ill relative—may be interpreted by immigration authorities as abandonment of asylum or re-availment of protection from the country they fled.
Derivative applicants are not required to submit their own asylum claims or prove a personal fear of persecution. Their status is based solely on their family relationship with the principal applicant, as provided under INA §208(b)(3)(A).
Despite this, actions such as international travel, use of a national passport, or a visit to a consulate may be viewed by USCIS as grounds for denying protection—even when those actions are undertaken for legitimate humanitarian reasons.
Legal Basis
- Legal Status of Derivative Applicants (INA §208(b)(3)(A))Derivative applicants obtain their status through the approval of the principal applicant’s Form I-589. They are not required to file separately or establish an individual fear of persecution.
- International Travel (8 C.F.R. §§ 208.8, 208.22, 208.24)There is no law prohibiting temporary travel abroad. However, travel to the country of persecution—even for humanitarian reasons—may be interpreted by USCIS as a voluntary re-establishment of ties with the government from which protection was sought.
- Use of a National PassportThere is no explicit ban on using a passport. However, applying for or renewing a national passport may be considered by USCIS as a re-availment of national protection, especially if followed by international travel. The lack of clear guidance results in inconsistent and arbitrary decisions.
- 1951 Geneva Convention, Article 28The U.S. is obligated to provide travel documents to recognized refugees (Form I-571). However, derivative applicants—who do not hold official refugee status—must apply for Form I-131 (Advance Parole), which requires a valid passport and does not guarantee re-entry into the United States.
- Right to Freedom of Movement (Kent v. Dulles, 1958)The U.S. Supreme Court recognized international travel as part of personal liberty. While the ruling applied to U.S. citizens, it highlights the need for proportional and predictable restrictions that apply equally to all lawful residents.
- Legal Inequality Between Forms I-589 and I-730Derivative applicants entering the U.S. under Form I-730 use national passports and visas—without it being treated as abandonment of asylum. However, similar actions by derivatives under Form I-589 within the U.S. may result in status loss. This contradicts the principles of equal treatment and consistent application of the law.
- Threat to the Right to Family LifeDue to the lack of regulatory safeguards, derivative applicants cannot safely visit loved ones abroad without fearing they won’t be allowed to return. This violates the right to family life and contradicts the humanitarian principles enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention.
What We’re Asking
We call on USCIS, DHS, and other relevant agencies to:
-
Clarify that temporary international travel by derivative applicants (including travel to the principal applicant’s country of origin) should not be automatically treated as abandonment of asylum or re-availment of national protection. - Ensure the right to travel to third countries without risk of losing status, and allow the use of national passports for visa and ticket purposes.
- Simplify and streamline the process for applying for or renewing Advance Parole (Form I-131) — aligning its validity period with EADs or green cards.
- Update the USCIS Policy Manual and CBP instructions to reflect the specific legal and procedural position of derivative applicants who did not file their own asylum applications.
- Consider establishing a new document — the Dependent Asylee Travel Permit (DATP) — available to derivative asylees. This could be introduced through internal administrative guidance without legislative action.
What We’re Doing
We are collecting signatures for a petition.
Our goal is to gather 100,000 signatures in order to file a class action lawsuit and bring national attention to this issue.
Our goal is to gather 100,000 signatures in order to file a class action lawsuit and bring national attention to this issue.
- Collecting Real StoriesWe need at least 75 personal stories from derivative applicants to clearly show how the current legal uncertainty is breaking families apart and violating basic rights.
- Building the Legal FoundationWe are working on a legally grounded appeal to USCIS, DHS, and Congress, based on U.S. law and international human rights obligations.
- Launching a Public CampaignThrough media, social networks, and partnerships, we are promoting the need for clear, humane, and fair rules for derivative asylum applicants.
Once We Reach This Goal, We Will Submit:
✅ Congressional Hearing RequestAn official request to the U.S. Congress to hold hearings on systemic violations of the rights of derivative asylum applicants.
✅ OIRA Petition at the White House
A formal request for an administrative review of USCIS policy and the creation of a new travel document —the Dependent Asylee Travel Permit (DATP).
Derivative applicants are law-abiding residents of the United States who comply with immigration rules. They live within the law, yet lack any guarantee of safe travel or re-entry.
Every necessary step to maintain ties with loved ones—whether buying a ticket, renewing a passport, or visiting family—can be interpreted as a threat to their legal status/
⚠️ We are not asking to change the law. We are asking for the fair and consistent application of existing rules to individuals who never requested protection individually, but obtained status solely through family connection.
⚖️ We advocate for reasonable, predictable, and humane administrative practices that preserve families and reflect the U.S.’s obligations under the Geneva Refugee Convention.
Every necessary step to maintain ties with loved ones—whether buying a ticket, renewing a passport, or visiting family—can be interpreted as a threat to their legal status/
⚠️ We are not asking to change the law. We are asking for the fair and consistent application of existing rules to individuals who never requested protection individually, but obtained status solely through family connection.
⚖️ We advocate for reasonable, predictable, and humane administrative practices that preserve families and reflect the U.S.’s obligations under the Geneva Refugee Convention.
My story
👋 Hi, my name is Veronika.
🇺🇸 I’ve lived in the United States for 9 years as a derivative asylum applicant.
I’m deeply grateful to this country for the protection it granted the principal applicant in our family — a protection that allowed us to stay together.
💔 But as a derivative, I live with a heartbreaking reality:
I can’t leave the U.S. — not even to visit my daughter’s grave or see my critically ill father — without risking my legal status and being permanently separated from my family.
🚫 There are no clear rules to protect people like us.
Even a short humanitarian trip can be interpreted by USCIS as “abandonment of asylum” or “re-availment of national protection.”
If that happens, I could be denied reentry — even with a valid visa — and separated from my child in the U.S. for years.
👧 My younger daughter was raised here.
This is her only home. She studies here, dreams here, and builds her future here.
The thought of not being able to return to her is unbearable.
🕊️ That’s why I started the campaign “I Want to Hug My Family Again.”
🇺🇸 I’ve lived in the United States for 9 years as a derivative asylum applicant.
I’m deeply grateful to this country for the protection it granted the principal applicant in our family — a protection that allowed us to stay together.
💔 But as a derivative, I live with a heartbreaking reality:
I can’t leave the U.S. — not even to visit my daughter’s grave or see my critically ill father — without risking my legal status and being permanently separated from my family.
🚫 There are no clear rules to protect people like us.
Even a short humanitarian trip can be interpreted by USCIS as “abandonment of asylum” or “re-availment of national protection.”
If that happens, I could be denied reentry — even with a valid visa — and separated from my child in the U.S. for years.
👧 My younger daughter was raised here.
This is her only home. She studies here, dreams here, and builds her future here.
The thought of not being able to return to her is unbearable.
🕊️ That’s why I started the campaign “I Want to Hug My Family Again.”
How Can You Help?
Please fill out this short form — it won’t take more than a minute
How Can You Help?
Please fill out this short form — it won’t take more than a minute
The Problem
Thousands of derivative asylees — spouses and children of individuals who have applied for asylum (Form I-589) or have already received refugee status — are effectively deprived of the ability to safely leave the territory of the United States.
Any international trip without pre-approved authorization (Advance Parole, Refugee Travel Document, or other documentation) may be considered by USCIS as a presumed abandonment of status or re-availment of protection in another country.
Travel to the country of persecution of the principal applicant is especially scrutinized and may be treated as a threat to the entire case, including the revocation of status for both the principal applicant and their family members.
Even short-term trips to third, safe countries for humanitarian, family, or educational purposes may arouse suspicion and be interpreted by USCIS as an attempt to re-avail oneself of the protection of the country of origin — especially if the derivative asylee has to obtain or renew a national passport.
This leads to unjustified family separation, legal instability, and humanitarian hardship.
Derivative asylees did not file separate asylum applications and are not required to prove individual fear of persecution.
Their status is based solely on their family relationship with the principal applicant.
However, it is they who face the risk of losing this status simply for trying to maintain contact with their loved ones outside the United States.
Our Proposal
We urge USCIS, DHS, and other authorized agencies to:
Legal Justification
Conclusion
Derivative asylees are lawful residents of the United States.
They do not violate immigration laws and deserve clear, humane, and reasonable rules that allow them to maintain family connections without risking their immigration status.
We speak on behalf of thousands of families living in legal uncertainty and urgently call for action to protect their rights and dignity.
Please support our petition — help keep families together.
Thousands of derivative asylees — spouses and children of individuals who have applied for asylum (Form I-589) or have already received refugee status — are effectively deprived of the ability to safely leave the territory of the United States.
Any international trip without pre-approved authorization (Advance Parole, Refugee Travel Document, or other documentation) may be considered by USCIS as a presumed abandonment of status or re-availment of protection in another country.
Travel to the country of persecution of the principal applicant is especially scrutinized and may be treated as a threat to the entire case, including the revocation of status for both the principal applicant and their family members.
Even short-term trips to third, safe countries for humanitarian, family, or educational purposes may arouse suspicion and be interpreted by USCIS as an attempt to re-avail oneself of the protection of the country of origin — especially if the derivative asylee has to obtain or renew a national passport.
This leads to unjustified family separation, legal instability, and humanitarian hardship.
Derivative asylees did not file separate asylum applications and are not required to prove individual fear of persecution.
Their status is based solely on their family relationship with the principal applicant.
However, it is they who face the risk of losing this status simply for trying to maintain contact with their loved ones outside the United States.
Our Proposal
We urge USCIS, DHS, and other authorized agencies to:
- Establish that international travel by derivative asylum applicants — including travel to the country of persecution of the principal applicant — should not be automatically interpreted as abandonment of asylum or re-availment. These individuals were not required to prove personal fear of persecution, and their status was granted solely on the basis of family relationship.
- Travel for the purpose of visiting relatives or handling documents must not be interpreted as a reestablishment of protection from the country from which the principal applicant fled.
- Affirm the right of derivative asylees to travel to third countries without the risk of automatic loss of status, including the ability to apply for a national passport at consulates if the Refugee Travel Document is not accepted by the destination country.
- Derivative applicants should not be required to justify such trips, since they did not request individual protection and were not required to demonstrate personal fear of persecution.
- Ensure expedited and automatic issuance and renewal of travel documents (Refugee Travel Document, Form I-131), aligning their validity with the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or green card.
- Consider the creation of a special travel document for derivative asylees — the Dependent Asylee Travel Permit (DATP) — and emphasize that such changes may be implemented through internal USCIS administrative guidance, without requiring changes to federal law.
Legal Justification
- Derivative asylees, according to INA §208(b)(3)(A), obtain status solely based on family relationship, without submitting individual applications or proving personal fear.
- The use of a national passport is not prohibited by law, but USCIS may interpret obtaining one as a sign of renewed trust in the protection of the country of origin.
- Such interpretation should remain discretionary and should not automatically result in status termination.
- Travel documents: Article 28 of the 1951 Refugee Convention obliges states to provide travel documents to refugees.
- The United States complies with this obligation through Form I-571, but this document has a limited validity and is not always accepted by foreign countries, forcing derivative asylees to use their national passports and face legal risk.
- Comparison between Forms I-589 and I-730: Both categories of derivative applicants have the same legal status, but Form I-730 derivatives frequently use passports and visas in countries of persecution without negative consequences.
- This inconsistency must be corrected.
- Constitutional principles: In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to international travel is part of personal liberty.
- Although the case concerned U.S. citizens, this principle must be considered when regulating the travel rights of derivative asylees.
- Arbitrary restrictions may violate the guarantees of equal protection under the law and due process (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
Conclusion
Derivative asylees are lawful residents of the United States.
They do not violate immigration laws and deserve clear, humane, and reasonable rules that allow them to maintain family connections without risking their immigration status.
We speak on behalf of thousands of families living in legal uncertainty and urgently call for action to protect their rights and dignity.
Please support our petition — help keep families together.
