Can I claim asylum after I land in New Zealand with visit visa? I'm having the following situation: My home country has been in civil unrest for about 7 years, you may guess the name.. And because of my age I am under the risk of being immediately take into forced military service upon my return. I am also known to the community around me of having my own opinions and thoughts about the authorities, some of my family members were killed/taken away because of that. Everyone who speak has a mark on his name to be 'dealt with' later (when I return to my home). Not to mention I lost my home there and have no assets or anything. The country I'm living in currently does not grant citizenship or permanent residency. I have to keep working to keep my residency visa through the sponsor. The sponsor will not keep you under his sponsorship for free or for not working for him. Currently the economy is failing badly and non-citizens are getting life harder. And if I leave my current job I'll not get another one, means sponsor will force me to leave him which cannot happen without another work, so it will end up for me to be deported by the request of the sponsor since I cannot work for him anymore or cannot find another sponsor because I was unable to find a new job... TLDR: no social/economic security or future in the current country I'm in right now... For the future of my family I have to leave and I am looking at New Zealand. I need a visa to be able to travel there... So my question is if I get a visit visa for me and my family and once we land in the airport we claim asylum, is my case going to be accepted? or I'll be deported back to the country I came from (to either my home or the second country)...? Thanks
New Zealand has ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You must submit a request in writing and the Refugee Status Branch processes the claim. While yopur claim is being processed, you will not be deported. A refugee and protection officer will attempt to resolve your claim within 140 days. Refugee is defined as one who is outside of her home country or country of habitual residence, faces a real chance of harm if returned ot that country, the harm faced is an ongoing breach of a fundamental human right or is based upon who she is or what she believes (race, religionm, nationality, political views, etc.), and needs and deserves protection in New Zealand. The process is roughly as follows: file your original claim (forms available on the website of the Ministry of Justice). One for each family member. Once referred to the Refugee Status Branch, you will need to submit a written statement explaining the experiences and circumstances that form the basis of your refugee status claim. About 4 weeks later, youll be invited to an interview with the Refugee and Protection Officer. You need correct documents as to your identity and under New Zealands Section 135 of its Refugee Act, you must provie all information and form your case as to why you deserve and need asylum. Examples of useful documents to bring include: passport, ID cards, birth certficates, marriage certificates, school and military ID cards. If documents are in another language, you will need certified translations of them. Within 3 weeks of this interview, youll be issued the Interview Report, written by the officer, and you will have three weeks to comment on that and submit more documentation, if necessary. The officer assesses whether your statemtents are truthful and credible and whether your claim meets the criteria contained in Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention or if you are eligible for protected person status (see below). If accepted, you will be able to apply for permanent resident status and remain in New Zealand. If you are unsuccessful, you are required to leave. Please visit https://www.immigration.govt.nz/audiences/supporting-refugees-and-asylum-seekers/asylum-seekers for more comprehensive information and requirements. Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention merely restates the definition of a refugee, roughly stating that if, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., are outside the country of your nationality and are unable to or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to avail yourself of the protection of that country. It does note that one will not be considered “lacking protection of the country of nationality if, without any valid reason based on well0founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.” Finally, should your circumstances not be fit for asylum, you may consider seeking protection uner the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-apply-convention-against-torture-protection.html). The requirements to meet are higher than for asylum and the relief is more limited, but if you qualify, the country must admit you and certain things that would bar you from being granted asylum, wont bar you from being granted protected status. One example of a bar to refugee status is being “firmly resettled” in another country, for example. To quality for CAT protection, you have to show that it is “more likely than not” that you would be subjected to torture if returned to the country you are fleeing. The CAT defines torture as any “intentionanal unlawful infliction of severe (physical or mental) suffering or pain, with consent of a public official, for purposes such as punishment, obtaining a confession, intimidation, or discrimination.” Torture must be done by your government, or at the request of your government, or with permission of your government. Relevant items to show to prove your case under CAT are specific types of torture you fear you will suffer if forced to return, what types you have already suffered if you have, what types your family or friends have suffered if they have, and how the government has tortured other people similar to you, if they have. Keep in mind, while past torture may be a deciding factor for asylum, it is not for CAT. The CAT is forward-looking, therefore, you must demonstrate what you fear will happen to you if sent back, not what has already happened.
If the Attorney General has officially determined that you renounced US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation, you have a lifetime ban under INA 212(a)(10)(E), and there is no immigrant waiver for this ban. See 9 FAM 302.12-6. I am not sure if the Attorney General has ever made such a determination about anyone. Otherwise, I don't see anything that would prevent you from immigrating to the US like any other foreigner.
When you breach a contract, you can get sued in local court, and if you don't show up to defend yourself, default judgment will be entered against you. Then the aggrieved party will have to collect, but the court in Washington (to invent a jurisdiction) can't enforce an order against a person in Norway (to invent another jurisdiction). So the aggrieved party would need to take enforcement of the judgment to the Norwegian courts. In the actual case of Norway, this is fairly simple, you just call an attorney in Norway to do the paperwork. It might be harder if the other jurisdiction is Belarus. If you return to the US, even if there is a money judgment against you for the rent owed, you will not be arrested for that debt. Depending on the state (about half of the states), you might be arrested for failing to comply with a court order to pay the debt. The difference lies in refusing to comply with a court order, versus simply having a debt. The State Department conveniently lists the reasons for denying a visa. Owing money or having an uncollected judgment against you is not one of the possible reasons, in fact even having been ordered by a court to pay, ignoring the order, and the court issuing an arrest warrant does not make you inadmissible.
Will UKVI allow a concession for this specific situation? Only your wife's UKVI caseworker can definitely answer this with any certainty, but as you say CR2.3 (b) does seem quite compelling but (c) less so - unless the medical records support her condition was &quot;life-threatening&quot; ...any period spent outside the UK will not count towards the 180-day limit if the absence was for any of the following reasons: [...] (b) travel disruption due to natural disaster, military conflict or pandemic; or (c) compelling and compassionate personal circumstances, such as the life-threatening illness of the applicant, or life-threatening illness or death of a close family member; [...]
No. Both your country of origin and your new home country will only care of your name as in the documents issued by each of them respectively. Mind though that absence of obligation to synchronize your names does not mean that you can freely use both identities within one country. For example, opening a bank account in the US using your original passport/name when you are already officially using another name there would be a very grey area bordering with identify fraud as it would effectively enable you to operate two different identities to gain any benefits not otherwise available.
Any country is free to decide what actions are considered to be crimes, and what crimes are prosecuted depending on whether you perform the action in the country, outside the country, and depending on whether you are a citizen, a resident, both, or neither. They can also decide what are accepted defences in court and which are not. Any other country is free to decide under which circumstances they will ever extradite someone to that first country. Now you have to check the laws of the individual countries.
[C]an this decision really be used as legal precedent for birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants? Yes. If the case did not depend on the fact that they were lawfully resident in the US, then it would apply to those who are not lawfully present in the US. For the case to apply to some people but not others, there must be a distinguishing difference that is relevant to the analysis of the case. The question then is whether lawful residence is a distinguishing difference here, and it seems that no court has ruled on the question. Referring to current events, it would be possible for the executive branch to assert that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to one born in the US of parents who were not lawfully present. This would end up in court. For example, such a person could sue to compel the government to issue a passport, or, if the government sought to deport such a person, the person could assert US citizenship in deportation proceedings. At that point, the court would have to rule on the question, whereupon it would almost certainly rule that the 14th amendment does grant such citizenship. See, for example, Plyler v. Doe, in which the court ruled that illegal immigrants in a state are within its jurisdiction for the purpose of the equal protection clause. It would be odd indeed for the court to rule that the same word means something different in the previous sentence. Furthermore, in a footnote, the court writes [W]e have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that &quot;[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .&quot; ... [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment &quot;jurisdiction&quot; can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. You ask: [H]ow is it that foreign diplomats' children born in United States do not have birthright to US citizenship because they are not &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; and children of tourists and illegal immigrants do have the birthright to US citizenship? Consider what happens when an illegal immigrant commits a crime in the territory of a US state: the person is subject to trial and punishment in the state's criminal justice system. A foreign diplomat who commits a crime, on the other hand, or indeed the child or other family member of a foreign diplomat, is immune from prosecution. That is what distinguishes diplomats from illegal aliens such that the first sentence of the 14th amendment applies to the latter, but not the former.
The territorial scope of the GDPR is defined in Article 3. It covers "personal data of data subjects who are in the Union", whether they are EU citizens or not. So to answer your questions: 1) are EU users, but moved to USA a few years ago, and signed-up on my website? They are not in the EU, so are not covered. You don't need to know if someone is an EU citizen, just if they are currently in the EU. 2) went for holidays in USA, signed-up on my website, and then came back to EU? (note - potentially skipped any Consent questions at sign-up, because IP was from USA) If someone moves into the EU while using your service then they fall under the GDPR for the time they are in the EU. If their home address is in the EU then that is covered, and monitoring of their behaviour while in the EU is also covered. Your other two questions are about VPNs. If a VPN is used to evade IP address geolocation and you have no other clue about where someone is then you can't be blamed for not knowing where they are (although I'm not aware of any actual case law on this topic). But if someone with a USA IP address gives a home address in the EU then you should probably treat them as being in the EU to be on the safe side. Basically, if you don’t know if they are in the EU or not, you should treat them as if they were.